Comparative Assessment of Theories on Secularization with Reference to Max Webers Definition - Term Paper Example

Essay 2---Comparative assessment of theories on secularization w.r.t to Max Weber’s definition Broadly, secularization has been used in two meanings; the first is the gradual shift of thinking process from religious pivot to rational pivot and, the second is the surrender of Church’s property to the State Government. Many sociologists, including Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, Max Weber and Emile Durkheim, had detected or predicted the current deviation of society from religiosity to rationality. However, they differed essentially in their definition, scope and approach. Amongst all, Max Weber’s1 theory of secularization is considered the most accurate and applicable analysis to date. This essay is comparison between different secularization theories with reference to Max Weber’s definition. The structure of this essay includes a brief description of Weber’s theory which is followed by descriptions given by sociologists Karl Marx and Durkheim and, psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud in juxtaposition to Weber’s analysis. Weber’s two most important works Science as a vocation and The Protestant ethic and spirit of Capitalism are studied in detail. Most of the important thoughts from Karl Marx are taken from his work The Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of the right. The Elementary forms of religious life by Durkheim has been referred for his works. Sigmund Freud’s work Moses and Monotheism has been referred for his views on religion. Towards the end a comparative summary of similarities and differences in approach, scope and views has been produced. Max Weber introduced the term secularization and the concept was taken forward by his associate Ernst Troeltsch . Taking an objective course, Weber’s studies aimed at understanding and documenting the process of secularization (a phenomenon that had already happened). In both his works “The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism2” and “Science as a vocation3, Weber has used objective rather than a subjective approach. His focus was to understand the origin of growing influence of “rationalization of action” in modern society. Max Weber himself sparingly used the word secularization in his theories. His emphasis had rather been to study the “process of secularization”. According to Weber the process started with prophets of Judaism in association with Hellenistic scientific thinking4. He “wanted to put his finger on the exact moment of process of disenchantment began: its creators, harbingers, propagators, its first bearers” (Pierucci, n.d). Secularization, as explained by Weber, is a product of rationalization and disenchantment in social affairs.”The experience of the irrationality of the world has been the driving force of all religious revolutions” (“Politics as a vocation”, n.d)5. Two words ‘disenchantment’ and ‘secularism’ are often taken as synonyms by many sociologists. However, Weber distinguished their definition and scope. With disenchantment he meant de-mystification of religion and it was a stimulator along with rationalization in propagating secularism. The word disenchantment resembles poet Schiller’s expression de-deification of nature. Weber has used the “de- deified mechanism of the world” along with “disenchantment of the world”.(Pierucci,n.d) Karl Marx6 was the “the earliest of the three thinkers, actually wrote very little about religion. So while “sociology of religion” would be difficult to pull from his writings, we aren’t left with a complete absence of Marx’s opinions on the subject.” (Townsley, 2004). Most of his contributions to the subject have been taken from The Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of the right.7 His view differed from Weber essentially in his materialistic approach. He started with the basic notion that “the criticism of religion has been essentially completed, and the criticism of religion is the prerequisite of all criticism” (Marx, 1843). This implies that only when a man is freed from the ancient established beliefs, he can start acting on his own reasoning. “This state, this society, produces religion which is an inverted world consciousness, because they are an inverted world” (Marx, 1843). Marx implied the established systems in religion produced an inverted reality where they emphasized more on the illusionary world rather than the real one. This concept is similar to Weber’s theory of disenchantment that led to development of rational thinking. Marx considered economics as the pivot around which all social activities revolved. He “seemed to say that most rational thought was a mere cover for economic self-interest. Knowingly or unknowingly, men acted in accord with class interests over which they had no control” (Hitchcock, 1982). According to the false consciousness theory, the core processes in a capitalist society are hidden and misleading to the masses. They do not display the actual state of transactions between the high classes. The extended production and distribution system in capitalist economies separate consumer from producer and the real advantage is taken by the elite in between. This forms a false consciousness in all the three parties where each considers the reward as an outcome of natural law. Marx defined religion as a concept of alienation. He “proclaimed atheism as a necessity. All religious belief reflected unjust social structures. Belief in God would necessarily distract people from the struggle for social revolution” (Hitchcock, 1982). His infamous quote, “Religion is the opium of people8” defines this acceptance of status quo by masses as the manifestation of the natural law. “According to this metaphor, religion is a narcotic or palliative that treats the symptom but leaves the disease (alienation and exploitative relations of production) intact.”(Robertz, 2005). Like Marx and Weber, Emile Durkheim9 described religion as the priority in pre-industrialized world. Where Marx focused on the economic nature of societal changes, Durkheim studied the sociological aspects driving this change. To do so, he studied Australian tribal as described by anthropologists. He indicated Totemism10 as the origin of symbolism and used the simplest form of religion to study the complicated ones. Durkheim emphasized that main concept of Totems was to bind people with their clans in a powerful bond. Durkheim was in complete agreement with Marx that the religion in human society is its own reflection and not a supernatural reality. He defined religion as a system of unification of human society. “a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden—beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them”(“Elementary forms of human life11”, p 44). Further he stated that “religious representations are collective representations that express collective realities; rites are ways of acting that are born only in the midst of assembled groups and whose purpose is to evoke, maintain or recreate certain mental states of those groups. So if the categories are of religious origin, they ought to participate in this nature common to all religious facts; they should be social affairs and the product of collective thought. At least -- for in the actual condition of our knowledge of these matters, one should be careful to avoid all radical and exclusive statements -- it is allowable to suppose that they are rich in social elements” (“Elementary forms for religious life”, p.9). Where Marx used religion as a method of class division in the society, Durkheim explained it to be the unifying factor. The explanation given by Durkheim is in sync with Weber’s definition of “the religious ethic of brotherliness” (“Religious expressions of the world and their directions”, p. 327-330) where Weber also described religion as an important binding factor in society. Durkhiem proposed that all the initial systems of representation originated from religion. He used history of religions to depict the social structures in tribal systems. The group was initially divided into two tribes who further monitored other clans. He further explains that these divisions explain the tendency of human society to divide itself in categories. The explanation is slightly similar to the class structure description given by Marx. Durkheim further takes it forward by stating that the natural state of things and human beings is such that everything is dissimilar and discontinuous with other things around. In such circumstances religion is one way of connecting them. His explanation gives a base to Weber’s concept of scientific rationalization when Durkheim explains that “the realities to which religious speculation was applied then are the same ones that would later serve as objects of scientists’ reflection. Those realities are nature, man and society. … Both attempt to connect things to one another, establish internal relations between those things, classify them, and systematize them” (“Elementary forms of religious life”, p.431). According to Weber, modernization and evolution of science and technology aided in explanation of certain facts and phenomenon which were thought to be supernatural and other worldly. This “valid explanation of phenomenon” reinforced society’s confidence and willingness to explore reasons for occurrences. Important phenomenon such as rains were no more at the mercy of Gods but were result of atmospheric changes that could rather be explained with the help of satellite pictures and barometer. Weber’s explanation of science could have become possible only after Durkheim’s theory of categorization where human beings learned to correlate, classify and systemize the objects of study. Simultaneously, Durkhiem challenged the established belief by illustrating that society, in order to protect its functionality, rules under the name of God. “God is first of all a being that man conceives of as superior to himself in some respects and one on whom he believes he depends. … Society also fosters in us the sense of perpetual dependence. … Society requires us to make ourselves its servants, forgetful of our own interests” (“Elementary forms of religious life”, p 208-209). However Weber explained it to be a part of the process which had started with magical belief of people on a certain person who can help them with efficacy. This person had become the symbol of their community and had established systems of virtues and sins. Prophets came next after this magical person. They helped in establishing ethics in the society. These formed the basis of future patterns of society. In one form, Weber’s analysis was an extension of Durkheim’s approach where established this worldly laws replaced obscure Godly laws. But, functionality continued to be the focus of these laws. Weber considered the establishment of modern laws and administration as the most crucial step to current secularization. The newly established “impersonal and impartial” set of rules aided in establishment of order, justice and predictability which was away from traditional holding of personalized irregular form of justice based on kinship. Pierucci has explained in his study that “the most precious Weberian contribution to the thesis of secularization is the capacity to convincingly put on show the interface between religious rationalization and legal rationalization”(Pierucci, n.d). Like Weber and Durkheim, Marx predicted the fading role of religion in the society. But, Marx considered Communism to be the ultimate goal of human society rather than capitalism. Unlike Weber he indicated a striking resemblance between capitalism and previous systems in the sense that both created class differences in the society. Where Weber believed Capitalism to aid in the secularization process, Marx considered it to be another blockage. Marx continued his prediction by asserting that as primitive feudal system was replaced by Capitalism, Capitalism will be replaced by Communism. We see then: the means of production and of exchange, on whose foundation the bourgeoisie built itself up, were generated in feudal society. At a certain stage in the development of these means of production and of exchange, the conditions under which feudal society produced and exchanged...the feudal relations of property became no longer compatible with the already developed productive forces; they became so many fetters. They had to be burst asunder; they were burst asunder. Into their place stepped free competition, accompanied by a social and political constitution adapted in it, and the economic and political sway of the bourgeois class. A similar movement is going on before our own eyes.... The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring order into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property (Marx & Engles, 1848). An analysis of Weber’s theory of secularization suggests that he attributes the growth of modern society to its rational approach. Weber also considered this change as the essence of capitalism. He said capitalism to”be identical with the restraint, or at least a rational tempering, of this irrational impulse.  But capitalism is identical with the pursuit of profit, and forever renewed profit, by means of continuous, rational, capitalistic enterprise”(Protestant, p.17). Further Weber defined this spirit to be “more than the impulse to acquisition, because even this impulse exists among physicians, noblemen, soldiers, gamblers etc., (Protestant,p.17). He put forth that this impulse to grow gave rise to “the rational capitalistic organization of (formally) free labor” (Protestant, p.21). In “The Protestant Ethic and the spirit of Capitalism “ ,Weber primarily studied the influence of these ideas on capitalism. Where Marx used class depiction for his work, Weber was more interested in status groups that focused on internal cohesion and authority and both implied free labor but in different social structures. Sigmund Freud12 took religion to be “an expression of underlying psychological neuroses and distress” (Cherry, 2010). “Religion is an attempt to get control over the sensory world, in which we are placed, by means of the wish-world, which we have developed inside us as a result of biological and psychological necessities. [...] If one attempts to assign to religion its place in man's evolution, it seems not so much to be a lasting acquisition, as a parallel to the neurosis which the civilized individual must pass through on his way from childhood to maturity” (Freud, 1939). He saw religion as a childish response to wish fulfillment and an invented source for help and forgiveness. He also explained religion to be a response for repression of desires. This can be explained with a parable cited in his book, Totem and Taboo where he had depicted the origin of religion to be from homicides where the sons kill their father because of their desire for power and women. However, they do not succeed as much as their father and, so they introduced religion to deal with their guilt and this story continued in subconscious religions. Freud differed completely in his scope from Weber, Marx and Durkheim, as the focus of his study was at an individual level rather than societal level. However, at a certain level he was in agreement with Marx and Durkheim in stating that religion was a method to unite people and promote functionality in systems. Weber and Freud agreed upon the fact that sooner or later the world will see complete disenchantment of the world when “Freud reassured his disciples that this greatest of all neurotic illusions would die upon the therapist's couch” (Stark, 1999). Marx saw this disenchantment as the manifestation of complete communism in the world. Unlike Marx, Durkheim and Freud, Weber tried to justify the existence of religion at individual level by stating that in one way these age old religions aiming at salvation have lead to the “rational conception of the universe”. The quest of a meaningful universe has leaded society to form better systems. Gradually all developments took their own course and autonomy where they no more needed a demonstration of their rationality. “Religion lost authority over forms of rationalization that once provided key elements of its demonstration of the meaning of the cosmos, however, so that disciplines like history, biology, law, and political theory” (Walton, 2000). As other disciplines gained confidence, the scope of religion was constrained to “mystical experiences” (“The social psychology of the world religions”, p. 282) only. He further explained that with growing rationalization of other disciplines, religion was made the guardian of the irrational. The minimal rationalization of religions limits itself solely to inward “experiences”. In contrast to previous society that depended on “magical and religious forces, and the ethical ideas of duties based upon them” (Protestant, p.27), the modern civilization developed “the ability and disposition of men to adopt certain types of practical rational conduct”(Protestant, p.27). In conclusion, all four sociologists have predicted a free world in future which will be devoid of religion. Marx predicted it in the form of communism, Weber in the form of Capitalism, Durkheim in the form of evolution and Freud in the form of individual expression. Unlike Marx and Freud, Durkheim and Weber have considered primitive religions as an integrate part of the rationalization process. Today’s science, social structures and laws are an evolved from primitive ruling structures; a process that, according to Weber, started with Judaism. However, unlike Freud and Weber, Durkheim remained skeptical about the role of science in the entire process when he asserted that science should not be used to describe individuals and unless and until human societies can be classified, they should not be exposed to scientific description.13 Four sociologists differed in their approach and scope. Weber’s theory did not give any general concept instead it focused on the flux of religion and development. Marx emphasized class demolition, Durkheim stressed on realism14 and Freud on individual development. Realism considers the external social conditions to remain external in nature with no impact of individual perception. Marx saw the situation from the point of an economist, Durkheim essentially from the perspective of a historian, Freud as a psychologist and Weber as a sociologist. While Durkheim studied past or the origin of religion, Weber studied the existing conditions, Marx and Freud predicted the future. “In the field of religious studies, Weber and Durkheim have become privileged figures for defining the methods of analysis and the modes of interpretation with which scholars have approached religious phenomena. Although a figure of equal stature, Marx is rarely invoked in religious studies, but in cultural studies his work provides a virtually unrivaled orientating perspective”(Roberts, 2005). All four have denied the existence of a God and have expressed it to be a societal or human creation than a supernatural being. “Man, who has found in the fantastic reality of heaven, where he sought a supernatural being, only his own reflection, will no longer be tempted to find only the semblance of himself—a non-human being—where he seeks and must seek his true reality. … Religion is indeed man’s self-consciousness and self-awareness”. Here Marx falls in complete agreement with Weber and Durkheim’s speculation that “religion is a reflection of humanity and not of a god”(Townsley,2004). They all fall in consent at the point that the introduction of religion was a historically developed picture of human self-consciousness rather than some other worldly God. Where all three sociologists agree religion to be an irrational class-based system of rule, Weber justifies religion as the unifying factor. He also suggested that a God-less world will create a feeling of vacuum leading to dissatisfaction in human civilization. Karl Marx, Weber and Durkheim are considered three main architects of social science. Marx, Weber and Durkheim together comprise the historical core of the sociological tradition. While they each come from very different perspectives and offer profound contributions to the field, they each have tried to address problems associated with the advent of modernity ( Townsley, 2004). Durkhiem and Marx both consented on the point that the society was the origin of religion in contrast to the earlier beliefs of religion being the origin of the society. However, they both differ in their concept of God where Marx explains it to be an idealized human form and Durkheim finds it more or less a reflection of society itself. Like Marx, Weber finds material interests and not religious ideas as the driving force in the society. Where Weber has considered this change to be a rational “big bang” of secularization that happened in sixteenth century, Durkheim, Freud and Marx saw it as a continuous process. References Cherry, K 2010,’ Freud and Religion’, About.com, viewed online on 29th July 2010, http://psychology.about.com/od/sigmundfreud/p/freud_religion.htm Dunman, LJ 2003, ‘Religion’, viewed online on 30th July 2010 http://durkheim.itgo.com/religion.html Durkheim, E 1912, Elementary forms of religious life, translated by Carol Cosman. Freud, S.1939.”Moses and monotheism’, Allert De Lange. Hitchcock, J 1982,’The secularization of the west’, Catholic Education Resource center, viewed online on 28th July 2010, http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0038.html. Marx, K & Engels 1848,’Manifesto of the Communist Party’, viewed online on 29th July 2010, http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm. Marx, K 1843,’ A Contribution to the critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right’, Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, viewed online on 29th July 2010, http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm. Pierucci, AF (n.d), ‘Secularization in Max Weber. On current usefulness of reassessing that old meaning’, viewed online on 9th June 2010, http://www.scielo.br/pdf/rbcsoc/nspe1/a09nesp1.pdf Roberts, CJ 2005, ’On secularization, rationalization and other mystical things : The unfinished works of Marx’s religious criticism’, The University of Iowa, viewed online on 2nd Aug 2010 http://www.uiowa.edu/~ijcs/secular/roberts.htm. Schafersman, SD 1994,’ An introduction to science: Scientific thinking and scientific method’, viewed online on 13th June 2010, http://www.freeinquiry.com/intro-to-sci.html. Stark, R 1999,’Secularization R.I.P-Rest in peace’, Sociology of religion, viewed online on 27th July 2010, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0SOR/is_3_60/ai_57533381/?tag=content;col1. Townsley, J 2004,’ Max, Weber and Durkheim on religion’, viewed online on 28th July 2010, http://www.jeramyt.org/papers/sociology-of-religion.html. Walton, CL 2000,’ Is disenchantment the end of religion?’, Philocrites, viewed online on 9th June 2010, http://www.philocrites.com/essays/weber.html. Weber, M 1988,’The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism’, translated by Talcott Parsons Weber, M 1946, From Max Weber: Essays in sociology’ Science as a vocation’, Translated and edited by H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills. New York: Oxford University Press Weber, M 1946, From Max Weber: Essays in sociology ‘The social psychology of world religions’, Translated and edited by H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills. New York: Oxford University Press Weber, M 1946 From Max Weber: Essays in sociology ‘ Religious expressions of the world and their directions’, Translated and edited by H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills. New York: Oxford University Press Weber, M n.d, ’Politics as a Vocation’ English translation, viewed online 0n 12th June 2010, http://www.ne.jp/asahi/moriyuki/abukuma/weber/lecture/politics_vocation.html Read More