Evaluate Marxist and Functionalist Views of Religion.Extracts from this document...IntroductionEvaluate Marxist and Functionalist Views of Religion Definitions of religion tend to be either substantive or functional. Substantive definitions try to uncover the essence of religion, in other words what religion is. Functional approaches place more emphasis on the effect of a religion, which means what a religion does. Religion is one of the major social institutions in society. Many sociologists believe that religion has three typical characteristics these are, "1) An organised collectively of individuals, with 2) a shared system of beliefs and 3) a set of approved activities and prac- tices." (Taylor, P (1995)) Religious groups can have significant affects on the socialisation process. In Christian societies the Ten Commandments show how social norms can be integrated by religious beliefs. Functionalists believe that belief in Gods and Spirits originate in ancestral spirits of dead relatives. They beliefs are that souls represent presence of social values. Therefore worshipping souls shows that they are again worshipping a social group or a society. Functionalists also believe that religion helps us when we are in a crisis. Worshipping sacred things also brings social solidarity and social unity....read more.MiddleIt also ignores frequent examples of internal divisions within a community. Through the discussion of religion the topic of measuring religiosity has been brought up. People have thought they are indicators that may be possible to measure degrees of religiousness. Particular indicators may apply more to one individual, group, or religion than others at any particular time. The measuring of religiousness is explained through five dimensions of religiosity. The five dimensions are Belief, Practice, Experience, Knowledge, and Consequence. The Belief dimension refers to the core beliefs of a religion. Practice is the acts of worship carried out by people. The Experience dimension refers to the expectation that religiosity involves subjective feelings and perceptions. The Knowledge dimension refers to the extent of understanding the basic tenets of a religion, and the Consequence dimension extends the idea of religious commitment beyond the first four criteria and focuses on their effects of everyday life. There are two essential elements in the Marxist perspective on religion. The first is descriptive, and the second perspective is evaluative. Marx described religion as a dependant variable....read more.ConclusionMarx argues that religion not only has a drug-like effect on the masses but also functions for the dominant class in sustaining the status quo. Religion justifies for them their social and political status as well as maintaining their position by diverting the revolutionary potential of the oppressed. There are similarities with Durkheim in the sense that Marx seems to be explaining away religion by regarding it as purely of social origin. There are many current dilemmas with the sociology of religion. Sociologists study the edges of religion but never seem to explore the details in the middle. Many sociologists have assumed that the picture in the middle is blurred because it is fading away. A hundred years ago, sociologists predicted the gradual decline and even the disappearance of religion. Religion can contribute both to social integration and to conflict. Functionalist's approaches have tendered to emphasize integrative effects. Marxist analyses of religion traditionally present it as a powerful ideology that expresses and reinforces class division and oppression. However some Neo-Marxists have recognised the revolutionary potential of religion as an agent of social change. Despite predictions of the decline and eventual disappearance of religion it still remains a powerful political and cultural force on a global scale

_____________________

Marxism and religionFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaPart ofa serieson

Marxism

Theoretical works[show]

Concepts[show]

Economics[show]

Sociology[show]

History[show]

Philosophy[show]

Variants[show]

Movements[show]

People[show]

Socialism portal Communism portal Philosophy portal

v t e

Part ofa serieson

Communism

Concepts[show]

Aspects[show]

Variants[show]

Internationals[show]

People[show]

By country[show]

Related topics[show]

Communism portal

v t e

The founder and primary theorist ofMarxism, the nineteenth-century German thinkerKarl Marx, had an ambivalent and complex attitude toreligion,[1]viewing it primarily as "theopium of the people" that had been used by the ruling classes to give theworking classesfalse hope for millennia, while at the same time recognizing it as a form of protest by the working classes against their poor economic conditions.[2]In theMarxistLeninistinterpretation of Marxist theory, developed primarily by Russian revolutionaryVladimir Lenin, religion is seen as retarding human development, andsocialiststates that follow a MarxistLeninist variant are inherentlyatheistic. Due to this, a number of MarxistLeninist governments in the twentieth century, such as theSoviet Unionand thePeople's Republic of China, implemented rules introducingstate atheism. However, severalreligious communistgroups exist, andChristian communismwas important in the early development of communism.Contents[hide]Marx on religionSee also:Opium of the peopleKarl Marx's religious views have been the subject of much interpretation. He famously stated inCritique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right"Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself."[3]According toHoward Zinn, "He [Marx] saw religion, not just negatively as 'the opium of the people,' but positively as the 'sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, the soul of soulless conditions.' This helps us understand the mass appeal of the religious charlatans of the television screen, as well as the work of Liberation Theology in joining the soulfulness of religion to the energy of revolutionary movements in miserably poor countries.".[4]Some recent scholarship has suggested that 'opium of the people' is itself a dialectical metaphor, a 'protest' and an 'expression' of suffering[5][6]

Functionalism is the oldest, and still the dominant, theoretical perspective in sociology and many other social sciences. This perspective is built upon twin emphases: application of the scientific method to the objective social world and use of an analogy between the individual organism and society.The emphasis on scientific method leads to the assertion that one can study the social world in the same ways as one studies the physical world. Thus, Functionalists see the social world as "objectively real," as observable with such techniques as social surveys and interviews. Furthermore, theirpositivisticview of social science assumes that study of the social world can bevalue-free, in that the investigator's values will not necessarily interfere with the disinterested search for social laws governing the behavior of social systems. Many of these ideas go back toEmile Durkheim(1858-1917), the great French sociologist whose writings form the basis for functionalist theory (seeDurkheim 1915, 1964);Durkheimwas himself one of the first sociologists to make use of scientific and statistical techniques in sociological research (1951).The second emphasis, on the organic unity of society, leads functionalists to speculate about needs which must be met for asocial systemto exist, as well as the ways in which social institutions satisfy those needs. A functionalist might argue, for instance, that every society will have a religion, because religious institutions have certainfunctionswhich contribute to the survival of the social system as a whole, just as the organs of the body have functions which are necessary for the body's survival.This analogy between society and an organism focuses attention on thehomeostaticnature of social systems: social systems work to maintain equilibrium and to return to it after external shocks disturb the balance among social institutions. Such social equilibrium is achieved, most importantly, through thesocializationof members of the society into the basicvaluesandnormsof that society, so thatconsensusis reached. Where socialization is insufficient for some reason to create conformity to culturally appropriate roles and socially supported norms, varioussocial control mechanismsexist to restore conformity or to segregate the nonconforming individuals from the rest of society. These social control mechanisms range fromsanctionsimposed informally--sneering and gossip, for example--to the activities of certain formal organizations, like schools, prisons, and mental institutions.You might notice some similarities between the language used by functionalists and the jargon of "systems theorists" in computer science or biology. Society is viewed as a systemof interrelated parts, a change in any part affecting all the others. Within the boundaries of the system,feedbackloops and exchanges among the parts ordinarily lead to homeostasis. Most changes are the result of natural growth or ofevolution, but other changes occur when outside forces impinge upon the system. A thorough-going functionalist, such asTalcott Parsons, the best-known American sociologist of the 1950s and 60s, conceptualizes society as a collection of systems within systems: the personality system within the small-group system within the community system within society (Parsons1951).Parsons(1971) even viewed the whole world as a system of societies.Functionalist analyses often focus on the individual, usually with the intent to show how individual behavior is molded by broader social forces. Functionalists tend to talk about individual actors as decision-makers, although some critics have suggested that functionalist theorists are, in effect, treating individuals either as puppets, whose decisions are a predictable result of their location in thesocial structureand of the norms andexpectationsthey have internalized, or sometimes as virtual prisoners of the explicit social control techniques society imposes. In any case, functionalists have tended to be less concerned with the ways in which individuals can control their own destiny than with the ways in which the limits imposed by society make individual behavior scientifically predictable.Robert Merton, another prominent functionalist, has proposed a number of important distinctions to avoid potential weaknesses and clarify ambiguities in the basic perspective (seeMerton1968). First, he distinguishes betweenmanifestandlatentfunctions: respectively, those which are recognized and intended by actors in the social system and hence may represent motives for their actions, and those which are unrecognized and, thus, unintended by the actors. Second, he distinguishes between consequences which are positively functional for a society, those which aredysfunctionalfor the society, and those which are neither. Third, he distinguishes between levels of society, that is, the specific social units for which regularized patterns of behavior are functional or dysfunctional. Finally, he concedes that the particular social structures which satisfy functional needs of society are not indispensable, but thatstructural alternativesmay exist which can also satisfy the same functional needs.Functionalist theories have very often been criticized asteleological, that is, reversing the usual order of cause and effect by explaining things in terms of what happens afterward, not what went before. A strict functionalist might explain certain religious practices, for instance, as being functional by contributing to a society's survival; however, such religious traditions will usually have been firmly established long before the question is finally settled of whether the society as a whole will actually survive. Bowing to this kind of criticism of the basic logic of functionalist theory, most current sociologists have stopped using any explicitly functionalistic explanations of social phenomena, and the extreme version of functionalism expounded byTalcott Parsonshas gone out of fashion. Nevertheless, many sociologists continue to expect that by careful, objective scrutiny of social phenomena they will eventually be able to discover the general laws of social behavior, and this hope still serves as the motivation for a great deal of sociological thinking and research.Compare and contrast Marxist and functionalist views of religion.Extracts from this document...IntroductionCompare and contrast Marxist and functionalist views of religion. The functionalist perspective of religion shows a positive view. It examines religion in terms of societies needs. Emile Durkheim was a functionalist and he argued that all societies divide the world into two categories, the sacred and the profane. Religion is based on this division. It is a unified system of beliefs and practices related to sacred things. Durkheim studied a group with a religion called totemism. This group had a scared symbol which represents their clan but also which is their religious sacred symbol and so he argued that if they were worshipping this symbol then they too would be worshipping society. Durkheim also believed that social life is impossible without the shared beliefs and values of the collective conscience. Without them there would be no social order or social control, there would be no society at all. According to Durkheim religion reinforces the collective conscience. Durkheim, emphasized the importance of collective worship. The social group comes together in religious rituals full of drama and reverence. Together its members express their faith in common values and beliefs. Parsons, another functionalist, argued that human action is directed and controlled by norms provided by the social systems. Religious beliefs are largely integrated into society. For example in a Christian society many laws are based on the ten commandments. Parsons sees religion as being address to particular problems that occur in all societies....read more.MiddleReligion also acts as a means of social control. From a Marxist viewpoint religion does not just cushion the effects of oppression. It acts as a means of social control by maintaining the existing system of exploitation and reinforcing class relationship. By making hard lives bearable, religion tends to discourage people from attempting to change their situation. By offering an illusion of hope in a hopeless situation it prevents thoughts of overthrowing the system. It also helps to produce a false consciousness that blinds members of the subject class to their true situation and their real interests. In this way it diverts people's attention from the real source of their oppression and so helps to maintain ruling-class power. The Marxist and functionalist ideas are comparable but are more contrasting against one another. They have some basic principles which are quite similar to one another, both look at religion, and see it affecting the whole of society. They both see religion as a force of social control, the minority controlling the minority. The Marxists as well as the feminists believe that religion is structural, and see it as a conservative force, which prevents change, and keeps traditional and set values alive. They both have the same criticisms too, when it comes to methodological weaknesses. Neither has investigated the impact of secularisation on the role of religion. Media now plays a demanding role in society, and both perspectives ignore these facts, and therefore are not as up to date with the changes that are happening in society as they should be....read more.ConclusionThey do this by legitimising the existing social order, as they state it is God given e.g. the Caste System. Functionalists believe that religion is a positive force on society and individuals within society; however Marxists argue that this is not the case and religion acts on behalf of Capitalism, and the dominant ruling class and plays a negative role in enabling them to exploit the working class. Stating that this is the correct way to act, this can be shown in many religions, for example the Muslims and the caste system, and in Christianity. Marxists argue that religion is a tool of social control, and legitimates the Capitalism system, again promoting false conciseness. On the other side Functionalist will argue the case that religion keeps society stable. For example Durkheim states that religion has value consensus which helps to integrates everyone tint societies, making them feel as if they belong, and therefore leading to social solidarity. Both Marxists and Functionalists (Durkhiem) believed and acknowledged that religion would decline in its importance in relation to society. However as the Functionalists believed nothing could take the pace that religion had in society, and the influence that it could impact, the Marxists saw this in a different light and believed that the media would take religions place in society, having a greater impact on society than one single religion ever had done in the past. The Functionalist and Marxist perspectives on religion contrast greatly, and are not really comparable. They do have similar view points in some instance but normally these take different stances. Their main comparisons lie in their methodological weaknesses....read more.