Assess one sociological theory of religion

Assess iodine sociological conjecture of worship devote causas critic exclusively toldy assess iodine sociological theory of holinessIn most traditional societies, holiness is an of the essence(p) throw of genial togetherness. It augments a feeling of comm unit of measurementy and promotes a set of sh ard determine and public opinions in whatsoever spirt of theology. Religion also plays a central map in cultural feeling quite a little often synthesize unearthly symbols and rituals into the material and artistic culture of the corporation literature, storytelling, painting, music, and dance. It is the focus of the lineamenty that is of sideline to religious sociologists, in resolveicular proposition theories concerning the way religious behaviour differs amidst and within societies. Beckford nones that theories revolving around how patternly interaction benefits or watchs back societies, has do sociology a famous ara of field of study.In order to establish a fundamental starting shoot in this thesis, the foundations of sociology and the sociology of worship will be described in context. Furthermore, it will discuss, in some(prenominal) detail, the sociological supposed approach of running(a)ism by sociologists a critical analysis will pose to show the differences in their approaches to functionalism and will include supporting and critical statements from forward and subsequent sociological theorists. Sociologists gener bushellyy define devotion as a codified set of virtuous depressions concerning sacred things and rules governing the behaviour of believers who lick a spiritual community . Auguste Comte (1798 1857) describes sociology as the study of gentle societies. A comp allical view is that, it is a amicable science that, mathematical functions varied regularitys of observational investigation and critical analysis, and is often utilize to develop theory some human friendly activity. The sociology of religion t herefore takes into account the aforementioned and also includes the practices, historical backgrounds, developments, universal themes and roles of religion in c exclusivelyer. Jones (2003) describes Comte as the first to entitle the virtues of an empirically establish favorable science, a type of sociology that would retain colossal implications for someone resembling Comte, who had been born during the aftermath of the French Revolution. Bilton et al (1996) develop this furtherPositive genial knowledge could offer the sum for nonbelligerent reconstruction of hearty order by the elite of enlightened scientists and intellectuals social flip need non depend upon revolutionary violence and the manipulation of the bunchComte was able to rag use of the new science for the progression of nightspot and the re-establishment of order as well as organism able to apply the unequivocal method to societal theory . Comte and his fellow Frenchman Durkheim be ver balise to be the forerunners in creating the discipline of sociology. Thompson (1982) describes Comte as giving the subject its pass water and an ambitious prospectus, whilst Durkheim gave it, academic credibility and influence.Functionalist sociologists focus their attention on the personality of institutional relationships in society. To understand this further, one shadow use Talcott Parsons functionalist ideas as an example. Parsons, who supported functionalism in the United States used the functionalist position to group institutions in society into four related functional sub- dusts economic, political, kinship, and cultural. This theory stressed the grandness of interdependence among all behaviour patterns and institutions within a social system to its long-term survival. In a similar way Durkheim In severe to explain the value of social and cultural character, illuminated them in equipment casualty of their contribution to the operation of an overall system. Furthermor e, Malinowski, who promoted functionalism in England, endorsed the idea that cultural practices had psychological and physiological functions, much(prenominal) as the reduction of fear and anxiety, and the satisfaction of desires. other Englishman Radcliffe-Br ingest contended that, all instituted practices ultimately contribute to the maintenance, and hence the survival, of the entire social system, find the character of inter-group relations. It is Parsons sub-system of culture that encompasses religion that we now turn to.A functional definition of religion is fundamentally based on the social anatomical structure and drawing together of state, it pays particular attention to how religion guides and influences the lives of people who are actively involved, and through this promotes unity and social cohesiveness. Durkheim believed and argued that, religion was a socially constructed institution, serving the needs of society by socialising members into the same norms, values a nd beliefs, therefore reinforcing the collective conscience upon which the stability of society rests. He looked in depth at the origins, meaning, and function of religion in society. His belief was that religion was non so much closely paragon, but more just active the consolidation of society and the understanding of identity that this fashions within a particular society. He fully believed that idiosyncratics who accepted their role within their own society develop a form of social conscience as part of that role, which Durkheim labels as the Conscience collective, which in simpler terms could be labelled as, a common understanding.Published in 1921 and penned by Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of the spectral Life, is renowned as the best-known study on the sociology of religion. Using secondary data, Durkheim analyze native totemism in old Australian tribes, in effect the totem is a symbol that is an integral part of the group, and during ceremonies will be the magnet that draws everyone together to form a collective whole. Therefore, totemism in this instance is explained not in terms of what it is, what the content of its doctrines and beliefs are but what it does, that is, the function it performs for the social system. Durkheim claims that, the totem, the sacred object glass is a representation, by which society symbolises itself, which according to Fulcher and Scott, he believed to be the solid basis of social solidarity. From his observations Durkheim developed his theory of the sacred and profane, believing that all things in society bottom of the inning be separated into these distinct categories, as a fundamental dichotomy the sacred and profane are seen as two separate domains or worlds. For Durkheim the sacred meant the unity of the group embody in symbols, as in his example of totems, the profane was more nigh the mundane or the individual, and less(prenominal) concerned with the group. up to now the British anthropologist Eva ns-Pritchard (1937) observe that sacred things may be profane at certain clippings, an example he set aparts is the case of the Azande , who, when their shrines were not in ritual use, were used as props to rest their spears. This analysis of the sacred and the profane was extended to all religions by Durkheim and his followers, making a focus on what is similar about what they all(prenominal) do, and about the integrative functions all these religions perform on their social systems. He therefore viewed religion within the context of the entire society and acknowledged its place in influencing the thinking and behaviour of the members of society. Furthermore he believed that order flowed from consensus, from the existence of shared norms and values, for him the key cause of social tumult stems from anomie, the lack of regulating norms. Without norms constraining behaviour, explains Durkheim, humans develop insatiable appetites, limitless desires and general feelings of irrit ation and dissatisfaction.Radcliffe-Brown continued Durkheims sociological perspective of society he particularly focused on the institutions of kinship and descent and suggested that, at to the lowest degree in tribal societies, they determined the character of family organization, politics, economy, and inter-group relations. Thus, in structural-functionalist thought, individuals are not signifi cigarett in and of themselves but lonesome(prenominal) in terms of their social status their position in patterns of social relations. When regarding religious ceremonies Radcliffe-Brown contends that ceremonies, for example, in the form of communal dancing, promoted unity and harmony and functioned to enhance social solidarity and the survival of the society, in this he agreed with another renowned anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski.Malinowskis functionalism was higher(prenominal)ly influential in the 1920s and 1930s, a British anthropologist, he conducted one of the first study stud ies of religion from an ethnocentric perspective, on the people of the Trobriand Islands. The first anthropologist to undertake a long-term piece of field research, Malinowski lived among the Trobriand islanders for four years. In studying the functions of religion in a small scale, he agreed with Durkheim that religion strengthen social norms, values and promoted social solidarity. Malinowski also believed that religion could relieve social anxiety and could provide a sense of security especially when people are faced with situations in which they flip no control, an example Malinowski gives is based on his observation of the Trobriand islanders fishing in a calm lagoon, no religious practice was attached, however when faced with the perils of fishing in the fall in ocean, religious rituals were endlessly performed. In this way Malinowski believed humans could exert a perceived control over a world in which they held no signifi quartert, individual power. This individual, perce ived control mass be seen to be used by people facing a personal crisis. Often in a situation where they keep no control over the out have it off, people will turn to religion expression for guidance and sanctuary thereby giving them a sense of power.For Malinowski then, religion also sponsored to conciliate periods of feeling c sharpens and events such as death, marriage and birth, these rituals, known as rites of passage are marked by ceremonies, that by their very nature, are a form of social togetherness that help to create social order and contentment. These rites however can be seen to be controlled in that to a certain extent one is prepared for new deportment, death and marriage, these events form part the circle of life and therefore arrange with some prior knowledge. Ceremonies that relate to these life events could be seen as a predictable common bond that will help to reinforce social solidarity. Malinowski argues that religion minimizes the disruption, in particu lar, of death. He believes that the assertion of immortality gives rise to feelings of comfort for the bereaved, whilst the act of a funeral ceremony binds the survivors together. Coser (1977) explains furtherReligion can counter a sense of loss, which, as in the case of death, may be experienced on both the individual and the collective take therefore religion as a social institution serves to give meaning to mans existential predicaments by tying the individual to that supra-individual sphere of prodigious values which is ultimately rooted in his society.So far we have seen that collective or communal gatherings are generally aimed at promoting social solidarity and cohesion, this is backed by the empirical evidence offered by Malinowski in his study of the Trobriand Islands. Hamilton (1995) offers that these gatherings can also be interpreted as involving the recognition of divisions, engagement and disharmonies inherent in the society and rituals may be seen as a means of cop ing with and defusing them.Concerning Malinowskis empirical evidence, a contrasting point is noted by Casanova (1995) who questions functionalism on empirical grounds, he argues that religion does not provide consensus and unity, instead he says that most conflicts an example he gives is the Iran/Iraq war in society have religious foundations. Marxist sociologists also criticise functionalists on a theoretical level. Marx claims that religion does not create societal consensus, instead it creates conflict between those that have wealth in the popular opinion class and those that do not in the working class. Therefore according to Marx, the only norms and values that are conserved by religion are those of the ruling class. Functionalist theory could therefore be said to neglect the areas in which religion has been impaired for society, whereby religious divisions have caused disruption and conflict rather than promoting social order. History provides numerous examples of this incl uding the aforementioned Iran/Iraq dis edite, Northern Ireland and Bosnia.An Extreme functionalist assessment of religion, declares William Stevens, is put forward by American sociologist Robert Bellah. Bellah fuses Parsons agate line that America derives its values from Protestantism, with Durkheims belief that the worship of god is the disguised worship of society. From this Bellah develops a new kind of religious concept, that of a genteel religion. Therefore despite the individual belief systems of American citizens, it is the overarching faith in America that unites Americans. Wallis (198344) cited in Jones, explains that Bellah finds evidence of civil religion in Presidential inaugurations and ceremonials such as Thanksgiving day and Memorial Day are similarly held to integrate families into the civil religion, or to unify the community around its values. A further point to be made here is that generally civil religion does not hold to a belief in the supernatural. Bellah di sagrees and says examples of confirmation in the supernatural can be seen or heard on a daily basis, phrases such as God Bless America and the words In God we trust on the national currency, he believes are prime examples of this. However Stevens asserts that this is not the god of any particular creed, but a god of America. For Bellah then civil religion creates a social cohesiveness by gathering people together to collectively partake in some form of ceremonial event. Therefore flag waving at a sporting event or lining the street to celebrate a royal marriage or death can bring about a united outpouring of joy or grief that in itself generates order. A contemporary example is the un successionly death of Princess Diana. Her funeral witnessed a monumental combining of people, faiths and nations in a symbolic act of grief.Functionalist sociologists tend to strain what maintains society, not what miscellaneas it and are criticized for being unable to account for social substitute because it focuses so intently on social order and equilibrium in society. Functionalists have to take into account that change does happen in societies and that change is a good thing, and can represent progress. Jones says that the functionalist way around this is to use an organic analogy social progress occurs as it does with organisms as an evolutionary change. Bilton et al explain that this takes shape in the form of structural contrastiveiationdifferentiation is a type of splitting or separation of a previously exclusive unit, the new units differ in that they are more specialised in the functions they perform. Talcott Parsons, in his approach to social change, emphasises differentiation. According to Parsons, Institutions change, if the need of the system changes. An example of a system change stems from The Industrial Revolution, which was facilitated by capitalism, was increasingly demanding expert advances to increase profit. In order to make this realistic there wa s a need for more educated workforces. As a result the industrial economy needed a new form of family to perform these medical specialist functions. Thus, as one aspect of society changed the economy and production it require a comparable change in the educational system, bringing social life back into equilibrium.This new modernization of society, explains Marske, is associated with the increasing indifference of the individual from the traditional social bonds of an intimate network of diffuse social relationships. cod to a greater demand in the workforce people from all walks of life came together causing an increase in the cultural vicissitude within a particular society. As a result identicalness became a more prominent feature religion it seems was becoming less social and more personal. Durkheim would disagree with this statement as he believed it was possible to be an individual as well as social institution, he explains,In reality, the religion of the individual is a social institution like all known religions. It is society which assigns us this ideal as the sole common end which is today capable of providing a focus for mens wills.Dillon (2003) explains that social scientists and Western intellectuals have been promising the end of Religion for centuries,Comte announced that, as a result of modernization, human society was outgrowing the theological stage of social evolution and a new age was dawning which the science of sociology would switch religion as the basis or moral judgements.Durkheim predicted the gradual step-down in formal world religions in post-enlightenment society he matt-up that there would be a greater emphasis on the individual. This he believed would lead to a weakening of ties in the modern world. In do-gooder he envisaged that social solidarity and the collective conscience would be taken up by other institutions that would evolve into new forms of religious experience. Furthermore a maturing modernity would see scien tific thinking replace religious thinking. As a consequence, Durkheim considered the concept of God to be on the verge of extinction.In its place he envisioned society as promoting civil religion, in which, for example, civic celebrations, parades, and patriotism take the place of church services. If traditional religion were to continue, he believed it would do so only as a means to preserve social cohesion and order. Parsons disagrees with this synopsis, with modern life will come structural frameworks that are more competitive and specialised, however they would still suffer because religion is an adaptable structural framework for the explanation of inexplicable social phenomena.A criticism applied to the functionalists perspective stems from Durkheims analogy that societies and social institutions have personalities. To imagine that a society is a living, breathing organism is a difficult concept when in fact it is seen as an inorganic object. This creates what can said to be a philosophical problem and an ontological argument that society does not have needs as a human being does and even if society does have needs they need not be met. The view here is that society is alive in the sense that it is made up of living individuals. What is not taken into account is that each individual is a different entity, with their own wants and needs. As part of the unit they can function and integrate within the group as a viable member. However individual life choices may not always create a positive function for the society as a whole. Functionalists in general tend to have a too positive view by believing that everything that exists in society does so because it has some kind of functional purpose. Robert Merton believed that it was entirely plausible for society to have dysfunctional elements. Durkheim also recognised that some forms of social life could be seen in the same way, however he did not use the term dysfunctional. In his work on crime, he noted that cr ime was functional to society, this seems to be a contradiction in that he also said, too high a level of crime might not be functional, because it could create a state of confusion regarding what constitutes the norms that applied to peoples lives. As a society dysfunctional actions, in particular criminal actions are frowned upon, and as a society we can become mob-handed in the way people come together to condemn an act of crime. Durkheim has a point to make here in that, people combine together, forming a collective cohesion in defining themselves against what they are not. Picturing society like a vast machine, Merton argues that a society should best be considered as a mishandle between the cultural goals of a society-what it holds its members should strive for-and the means that are believed, de jure or morally, to be legitimate ways that individuals should attain these goals. In an ideally organized society, the means will be available to deliver all of its members to thei r goals.One must take into account when analysing such theories that at the time of writing the world was a very different place to the one we live in today. Social anthropology has come under criticism for looking into primitive societies as a representation of unchanged societies criticism in particular stems from the lack of historical records that could confirm or deny any findings. Radcliffe-Brown considered this type of work a mistakehis belief was that the religious and ritual systems had to be understood in the context of the existing society and their role in that society.One could linger on Durkheims prediction that religion would decrease with modernity, religion here being in reference to the act of attending a social gathering in the worship of some form, whether it be totemic or divine. However an important point to note is that at the time when the Sociology of Religion was in its infancy, religious practice was more of a tied(p) occurrence than one would perhaps fi nd in todays society. However individuals are still irrevocably influenced by the role of religion in their own lives. Their beliefs and values allow them to feel supported in their everyday life religion sets aside certain values and infuses them with special significance. Culture plays an important part here, as values, customs and beliefs combine to become a moral code by which societies adhere to and live by and pass on to future generations. Religion encourages collective worship be it in a church, mosque, temple, home or some other specified gathering place. finished the act of collective worship the individual is encouraged to feel part of a wider community.Today, societies are classed as more secular in their nature, all the same if one consider the earlier statement about religion being an important form of social togetherness it would be easy to make analogies with the different groups that make up the society we inhabit. For example schools hold assemblies, awards eveni ngs and performances all which can be seen as an example of community spirit and social cohesion. wad as individuals, have interests outside of their immediate social groupings, this does not make them an outcast or outsider, and instead it promotes a sense of identity, individualism and the self. The literature of sociologists such as Durkheim, Comte, Radcliffe-Brown and Parsons are still important today, especially in comparing the way society sees religion. However, in contemporary society sociologists have a different set of problems to contend with as belief in modern society and materialism for many becomes a more life-sustaining moral value than partaking in a religious practice.BIBLIOGRAPHYBeckford, James A. (2003) Social Theory and Religion, (Cambridge Cambridge University Press, 2003).Bilton et al, Introductory sociology 3rd Edn (Basingstoke Macmillan, 1998).Casanova, Jose, Public Religions in the Modern universe of discourse (Chicago University of Chicago Press, 1995)C hristiano, Kevin J., William Swatos Jr Peter Kivisto, Sociology of Religion Contemporary Developments Lanham, 2nd chance variable (MD Rowman Littlefield publishers, 2008).Comte, Auguste, A Dictionary of Sociology (3rd Ed), John Scott Gordon Marshall (eds), (Oxford OUP, 2005).Coser, Lewis A. Masters of sociological Thought Ideas in Historical and Social Context, 2nd Ed., (Fort price Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1977), pp. 136-139,Coser, Lewis A. Masters of Sociological Thought Ideas in Historical and Social Context, 2nd Ed., Fort Worth Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1977 136-139,Dewar, Greg, Religious studies, Philosophy and Ethics, (London Oxford University Press, 2002).Dillon, Michele, Handbook of the sociology of religion (Cambridge Cambridge University Press, 2003).Durkheim, Emile, The Division of labor party in Society. Translated by, George Simpson. (New York Free Press, 1893/1964).Durkheim, Emile, and Coser, Lewis A., The Division of Labor in Society. (Free Press, 1 997)Durkheim, Emile. The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life A Study in Religious Sociology. Translated by, Joseph Ward Swain. (New York Macmillan, 1915).E. E. Evans-Pritchard, Theories of primitive religion, (Oxford Clarendon press, 1965).Emile Durkheim, Sociology and philosophy (New York free press, 1974).Evans-Pritchard, E. E. Social Anthropology and Other Essays. ( London,1950).Contains a critique of Radcliffe-Browns functionalism from the perspective of historicism.Fulcher, J. Scott, J. Sociology, (Oxford Oxford University Press, 2003).Giddens, Anthony, Durkheim, (London Harper Collins, 1996).Goldschmidt Walter, Functionalism In Encyclopaedia of Cultural Anthropology, Vol 2. David Levinson and Melvin Ember, (eds) (New York Henry Holt and Company, 1996), p. 510.Hamilton, M, The sociology of religion, 2nd edition (Oxon Routledge, 2001).Hunt, S. Religion in Western Society, (Hampshire Palgrave, 2002).Jones, Pip, Introducing Social Theory, (Cambridge Polity Press, 2003).Jones, Robert Alun., Rules of the sociological method 1895, in Emile Durkheim An inlet to Four Major Works. (Beverly Hills, CA Sage Publications, 1986), pp. 60-81.Macionis, J. Plummer, K. Sociology A Global Introduction (Essex Pearson, 2005).Merton, Robert, Social Theory and Social Structure, (USA Macmillan, 1968), chapter 3.Orenstein, Ashley D. DM, Sociological theory Classical statements 6th edition (Boston Pearson Education, 2005), pp. 3-5 32-36.Sociology Quarter, Durkheim as a functionalist, vol 16 no 3 (Summer, 1975), pp 36 -379.Thompson, Kenneth, (1982) Emile Durkheim, (Sussex Ellis Horwood Limited, 1982).Winthrop, Robert H. 1991. Functionalism In Dictionary of Concepts in Cultural Anthropology (New York Greenwood Press, 1991), p. 130.WEBLIOGRAPHYFunctionalism, in Anthropology and Sociology The Columbia Electronic Encyclopaedia. 2000-2007 Pearson Education, publishing as Infoplease. http//www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0819881.html (Accessed 18.01.10).Functions OF religion learnin gat.ke7.org.uk/socialsciences/soc-sci/soc/a2/R. Accessed 14.1.10.CliffsNotes.com. Introduction to Religion. http//www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/topicArticleId-2695,articleId-26927.html. Accessed 10.1.10Chris Livesey, Functionalist perspectives on Durkheim, www.sociology.org.ukMarjolin, Robert French sociology-Comte and Durkheim, University of Chicago press American journal of sociology, vol. 42, no 5 (Mar., 1937), pp693 -704. http//www.jstor.org/stable/2767763 (Accessed 12.1.10.).Mark Glazer, Functionalism http//www.utpa.edu/faculty/mglazer/theory/functionalism.htm (Accessed 13.12.09).Marske, Charles E, (1987) Durkheims Cult of the individualistic and the Moral Reconstitution of Society, Sociological Theory, Vol. 5, No. 1, (American Sociological Association, 1987), pp. 1-14. http//www.jstor.org/stable/201987. Accessed 17.01.10.The Azande, http//lucy.ukc.ac.uk/EthnoAtlas/Hmar/Cult_dir/Culture.7829 (Accessed 15/1/10). William J. Stevens, Religion A Functionalist Assessment, http//w ww.helium.com/items841304-religion-a-functionalist-assessment. (Accessed 24.11.09).