An Introduction to the Sociology of Religion

Classical and Contemporary Perspectives

Inger Furseth, Pål Repstad

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781351958660
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religion

Is it true that religion is weakening in modern times, or are we facing religious resurgence? What is fundamentalism? How does it emerge and grow? What role does religion play in ethnic and national conflicts? Is religion a fundamental driving force or do political leaders use religion for their own purposes? Do all religions oppress women? These are some of the questions addressed in this book. An Introduction to the Sociology of Religion provides an overview of sociological theories of contemporary religious life. Some chapters are organized according to topic. Others offer brief presentations of classical and contemporary sociologists from Karl Marx to Zygmunt Bauman and their perspectives on social life, including religion. Throughout the book, illustrations and examples are taken from several religious traditions.

1

Sociological perspectives on religion

1.1 What is sociology?

It is hardly possible to state briefly and irrefutably what sociology is. We may say that sociology is the study of human social life, in groups and in communities, but such a statement does not offer an adequate distinction between sociology and other disciplines, for example, history. Our aim is not to make strict distinctions between different disciplines. Such distinctions do not descend from the sky: they are the result of an obscure mixture of specific differences, professional interests, academic and political power structures, and historical coincidences. Even so, highlighting some key characteristics that are commonly used to describe sociology as a discipline can be useful. This issue will be dealt with here and then we will continue by considering the differences between the sociology of religion and other fields of sociology – and between the sociology of religion and other disciplines that study religion. Along the way, a few themes and perspectives will be introduced, to which we will return throughout the book.

French philosopher Auguste Comte formulated the concept of sociology more than a hundred years ago. Since then, sociology has been taught at universities across the world, and as an academic discipline has witnessed an exceptional growth in the last fifty years or so. The word “sociology” is a combination of Greek and Latin and simply means civic studies. Of course, sociology is civic studies characterized by its own specific perspectives.

In describing sociology, we may say that this discipline has the explanation and the understanding of human action as its core interest. Why do human beings act the way they do? When using the expression “sociological explanation,” strict explanations of causality are not implied. The expression is used in a wider sense, meaning all contributions that provide new information regarding a specific phenomenon. In order to explain human actions, then, we will distinguish between explanations of personal quality, of social relations, and of social systems.

An explanation of personal quality states that an event takes place due to the qualities of the individual, which are viewed as relatively stable. This is an explanation “from within.” To illustrate, if a person commits a crime, the criminal act is explained by the defendant’s criminal character. Or when an individual demonstrates a deep religious involvement, an explanation of quality states that this individual has a religious personality. Explanations of personal quality tend to contain an element of moral praise or condemnation: “You cannot expect anything good from such a depraved person” or “she is kind through and through.” Explanations of personal quality usually point to characteristics of entire groups or categories. Such explanations have been prolific through the ages, not least regarding explanations based on gender or race: “Women are not cut out to be leaders” or “Black people are not fit for this kind of work.” Explanations of personal quality are frequently found in popular language, and they also appear in the sciences from time to time. For example, a psychologist may maintain that a given behavior can only be explained through a deep-seated character trait.

The social sciences offer several arguments against explanations of personal quality. One argument is that such explanations tend to be the result of tautologies: people are involved in religion because they are deeply religious. Sociologists will, however, take this issue further and ask why people become religious. In answering this question, they frequently rely on relational explanations: a fact or an event must be understood through the social relations in which people engage. Explanations of relations – also called social explanations – are by some found to be the best explanations in the social sciences (Wadel 1990). Such explanations provide information as to why we act the way we do by demonstrating how we are affected by our interpersonal relationships. We take other people into consideration when we act; we “respond” to other people’s actions. Taking other people’s actions into consideration does not necessarily mean that we subject ourselves to them. We may learn from others and adjust our behavior to them, but we may also find them irritating, object to them, try to deceive them, or consciously ignore them. In all of these situations – and thousands more – we constantly interact with other people.

The word “relations” may signal a certain modicum of permanence in personal relationships. Yet, even in casual meetings something social may be activated. If two men, unknown to each other, pass in the street, we may relatively safely assume that one will pull in his stomach and the other will stop picking his nose as they are passing. Social conventions appear even in such short-term relations. Furthermore, we act and think not only in direct social contact with others, but we also act based on memories of previous social relations. It is not even necessary to have experienced everything ourselves. We know that a burned child dreads the fire. Yet even a child who has never experienced what it is like to be burned has learned to handle matches with caution, having learned from parents’ warnings or from children’s programs on TV. Social relations are not always direct; they can be indirect or mediated: passed on through mass media, such as film or TV. This issue points to a contemporary debate within sociology. Some sociologists will maintain that mass media and the new technological forms of communication are to the forefront in ways not seen before, and this demonstrates that we live in a new era. Others will object by arguing that direct social relations constitute the major contributing factor in forming our social lives and understanding ourselves, even today.

The third type of explanation mentioned here is the system or structural explanation. This form of explanation can be found in everyday life, too, as for example when people speak of “development” or “society” as formative powers that affect our lives. Some sociologists speak of “social laws.” In all of these cases, there is an underlying notion that specific patterns or built-in regularities in society affect people whether they like it or not.

Several contemporary social scientists object to an extensive use of system explanations. Such explanations tend to conceal the fact that societal structures are, after all, human-made. Some have pointed out that system explanations tend to form a so-called self-fulfilling prophecy: if everybody thinks that a system is unchangeable, so it is. In the sociology of religion, some have used the notion of “secularization” – meaning a weakening of the importance of religion – as if it were an inexorable force of nature. Most sociologists today would disagree with the idea that society evolves through inevitable social laws that operate completely independently of human action. At the same time, several sociologists remain firm in their belief that it is useful to speak of social forces that affect individuals and social relations. However, there is disagreement as to whether these forces are stable, or strong, or whether they have the ability to control human action. Schematically speaking, a major trend in contemporary sociology will emphasize how social actors interpret the world and act accordingly. Some “structuralists” criticize the actororiented approach for underrating the importance of external factors that affect people’s lives, especially technological and economic factors. In other words, some sociologists stress society when explaining social life, whereas others focus on the human agent.

A major focus in sociology is the study of the interactions that take place between individuals and societal forms. The term “societal form” is here used in a wide sense. It includes “frozen” societal structures as well as more dynamic patterns found in social relations, which mutually affect one another. On the one hand, individuals are capable of changing societal forms, especially when they are acting within a goaloriented and coordinated organization. On the other hand, individuals are also born into a pre-existing society that affects them in various ways.

Societal forms are material and non-material. Once a bridge is built across a beautiful fjord, most people will prefer to use it rather than swim or cross by boat, even if they initially opposed its construction. In other words, once a technology has been introduced, it is difficult to imagine its non-existence. Material and social factors reinforce each other, as when a religious elite expresses its power and significance through spectacular buildings and splendid garments. These material artifacts do not have a meaning in and of themselves, but individuals interpret them and give them meaning. For example, the pyramids of Giza made people awestruck thousands of years ago. Yet, for today’s blasé tourist, the same pyramids only represent a “must,” a visit that is briefly mentioned in social conversation.

Although non-material societal forms are invisible, they still have an impact on individuals. In a religious context, for example, traditions that are perceived as morally true and right are often experienced as being as strong as a brick wall. Seen from a sociological perspective, traditions are created by individuals and they are objects of change, at least in principle. However, they are difficult to change in everyday life, especially if an individual stands alone.

This book presents several sociological theories of religion. Some theories complement each other and can be combined, whereas others are more or less mutually exclusive. Here, we will briefly introduce the most common schools found in contemporary sociology. We mentioned above that sociology tends primarily to be either actor-oriented or structure-oriented. Some sociologists emphasize the human actor’s ability to act and change social structures. These theorists focus on how individuals create society (sociology “from below”). Other theorists argue that society forms the individual (sociology “from above”). These two positions also appear in the sociology of religion. A current issue is, for example, how anchored or disembedded individuals are in relation to established religious traditions.

Furthermore, a common distinction is found between an idealistic and a materialistic perspective. This debate centers on the question as to which social conditions are fundamental and determinate for individuals and society. Two classical sociologists represent relatively opposite views on this issue: in danger of becoming too schematic, we may say that Karl Marx saw the development of religion largely as a reflection of economic conditions, whereas Max Weber attempted to demonstrate that religion in itself could determine the economic development in a given historical context (see Chapter 3). We must add, however, that both of them also included the mutual interdependence of material and ideal factors in their analyses.

Furthermore, a few sociological theories tend to be oriented towards a harmonic view of society, whereas other theories focus on social conflict. Several theories belong in the middle, as they attempt to combine the two perspectives. Karl Marx is often described as a theorist of social conflict, although he had an extensive interest in solidarity and community. Talcott Parsons (Section 3.7) is frequently characterized as a harmony-oriented classical sociologist. Indeed, Parsons argued that religion contributes to social integration. Yet he was far from blind to the possibility that religion also can represent a source of conflict. In spite of these modifications, the distinction between harmony- and conflict-oriented sociology continues to be meaningful, because sociologists tend to disagree on the fundamental nature of conflict in society. Conflict theorists will view order and harmony as superficial entities. They maintain that underneath a surface of apparent harmony, there is a form of balance of power or oppression of the weaker party. Whereas harmony theorists view conflict as undesirable, conflict theorists look at existing social conditions with suspicion.

Because sociologists are reluctant to embrace explanations of personal quality, there is a rivalry between, on the one hand, sociological explanations of human action and, on the other hand, biological and genetic explanations. Having to choose between hereditary and environmental factors, the sociologist will tend to choose the latter. In more ways than one, sociology has constituted a significant part of the trend in modern thought towards viewing social phenomena as human-made and socially determined, rather than ingrained qualities given by birth, nature, or God. A striking example is the transformation of the understanding of gender roles. Whereas women’s and men’s roles in society previously were interpreted as inherent traits based on the nature of women and men, they are now seen as a result of traditions and power relations (see Chapter 11). In other words, there has been a shift in sociology away from an essentialistic understanding of reality, where the phenomena in question are regarded as stable with fixed essential properties, to a constructivist understanding, where reality is seen as a human construction to which individuals give meaning. Sociologists like to add that reality is socially constructed in the sense that it is formed by individuals in interaction, individuals who “negotiate” with each other in order to create a shared perception of the world. Yet the idea that something is socially constructed does not exclude the fact that it is real in everyday life. for example, even if gender roles are socially constructed, they are experienced in a very real sense in the lives of women and men.

The idea that human phenomena are socially constructed and therefore in principle changeable constitutes a major trend in contemporary sociology. However, other trends are also present. In the media, there is a growing tendency to present popular research that attempts to prove that women’s and men’s behavior is determined by genetic and biological factors. One example, taken from the Norwegian newspaper Vårt Land (March 25, 2003), is a report from a scientist concluding from his research on twins that there is a moderate degree of genetic influence on people’s religiosity. We must mention, however, that another geneticist described this scientific hunt for a “faith gene” as sheer nonsense.

We cannot take for granted that social and environmental explanations will continue to have a high status in the future. If genetic and biological explanations achieve more prominence, this may in fact have moral implications. The sociological approach of interpreting human life and social conditions as human-made and changeable carries an inherent moral potential that can be used to criticize and change society. In contrast, explanations referring to a God-given or innate nature have throughout history been used to legitimate discrimination as well as injustice.

It is hardly possible to make a definite statement about the role of sociology in contemporary society. On the one hand, sociology tends to be critical towards society. On the other, the sociological understanding of the complexity of society represents a corrective to social engineering. When it comes to the role of religion in society, sociology has – along with other modern disciplines – contributed to a decreasing validity of religion. The reason is that sociology searches for human, and not religious, explanations. In other words, sociology has in itself a secularizing effect. This is an issue to which we will return in Chapter 12, which discusses the relationship between sociology and religious faith.

1.2 The sociology of religion and general sociology

It is important to know that the sociology of religion does not inherently differ from general sociology. Sociology of religion has as its subject the study of religion in its social context, but it applies the same theories and methods that are used to study economics, politics and other social phenomena.

Generally, sociologists of religion have an interest in religion’s effect on society and society’s influence on religious life. This book will attempt to demonstrate that there is interdependence between general sociology and the sociology of religion. The tendency for the sociology of religion to become relatively isolated from general sociology may in part be due to the fact that contemporary sociology, in contrast to its classical roots, has given little attention to religion. In academic circles, religion has largely been viewed as a phenomenon of diminishing importance. The British sociologist James A. Beckford (2000) points out that general sociology in its early phase demonstrated a high degree of interest in religion, Max Weber and Émile Durkheim being classical examples. Later, general sociology and the sociology of religion developed along separate paths. After the Second World War, several Western countries experienced a demand for a sociology that could contribute to rebuilding society through economic and political development, which led to a neglect of sociology of culture and religion. In contemporary society, Beckford argues, general sociology and the sociology of religion demonstrate a shared interest in several themes. Examples are gender, language, and meaning, but also the body, as for instance bodily expressions in rituals. Globalization is another common theme and this is, in fact, an area where sociologists of religion have made major contributions to general sociology. The debate on rational choice theory has proved to be significant in both fields of sociology. All of these themes are only mentioned briefly here without further explanation. However, they will be discussed in more detail later.

The gap between the sociology of religion and general sociology may also be due to the fact that sociologists of religion have tended to focus on internal church matters. The reason is that much sociology of religion has been conducted in close relationship with established churches. Thus, not only religion is affected by its social context, but also the sociology of religion. This book attempts to combine the sociology of religion with general sociology. Some chapters are organized according to theme, while others offer brief presentations of contemporary sociologists and their perspectives on social life, including religion. We have made an effort to include sociologists who do not necessarily deal with religion as a major theme. Our hope is that these sections will inspire the reader to consider how religion can be studied from a variety of sociological perspectives, including those that are more rarely found in the sociology of religion.

1.3 Sociology as science

The claim that sociology is an empirical science is based on the idea that there must be consistency between systematically collected and analysed data and the conclusions. This idea does not imply that sociology is objective in the sense that only one conclusion is possible and correct. This issue raises complicated questions debated by theorists of science, which we will not pursue in great detail here. However, our view is that sociology is largely a form of interpretation. We do not believe that sociologists will produce an unambiguous and definite sociological truth, even if they are given abundant resources to refine their instruments and conduct endless studies. The idea that sociology will produce one truth about society is frequently called positivistic. It implies an optimistic and ambitious view of sociology and its possibilities which is commonly found among the classical sociologists.

Positivism has been subjected to severe attacks during the past forty years, with the result that few believe in an objective sociology today. A common argument is that society is changing, and analytical tools that proved to be useful a few decades ago are of little help in trying to understand contemporary society. Also, individuals are able to set goals and act according to that which is meaningful to them. On this basis, several theorists of science will argue that human beings constitute a far more complicated object of study than mechanical systems. Furthermore, human consciousness and the ability to formulate aims imply that the humanities and the social sciences are qualitatively different than the natural sciences. To illustrate, the humanities and the social sciences are not capable of providing exact predictions about the future. It is possible to give an outline of a development that took place in the past and prolong it into the future, but there is always the possibility that something new may appear. For example, even with the knowledge of African and European musical traditions, jazz was not foreseen. Moreover, even if we know a lot about European religion, we are unable to predict whether the European Union will have one common religion in the year 2050 – or if the EU will continue to exist, for that matter.

Furthermore, scientists too are members of society and they have their own personal, religious and political sympathies and frameworks for interpretation...