Evaluate Marxist and Functionalist Views of Religion.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction
Evaluate 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 practices." (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.
Middle
It 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.
Conclusion
Marx 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 religion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Part of a series on

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

Part of a series on

Communism

Concepts[show]
Aspects[show]
Variants[show]
Internationals[show]
People[show]
By country[show]
Related topics[show]
Communism portal

The founder and primary theorist of Marxism, the nineteenth-century German thinker Karl Marx, had
an ambivalent and complex attitude to religion,[1] viewing it primarily as "the opium of the people" that
had been used by the ruling classes to give the working classes false 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 the MarxistLeninist interpretation of Marxist theory, developed primarily by Russian
revolutionary Vladimir Lenin, religion is seen as retarding human development, and socialist states
that follow a MarxistLeninist variant are inherently atheistic. Due to this, a number of Marxist
Leninist governments in the twentieth century, such as the Soviet Union and the People's Republic
of China, implemented rules introducing state atheism. However, several religious communist groups
exist, and Christian communism was important in the early development of communism.

Contents
[hide]

Marx on religion
See also: Opium of the people
Karl Marx's religious views have been the subject of much interpretation.
He famously stated in Critique 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 to Howard 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, theirpositivistic view of social science assumes
that study of the social world can be value-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 to Emile Durkheim (18581917), the great French sociologist whose writings form the basis for functionalist
theory (see Durkheim 1915, 1964); Durkheim was 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 a social system to 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
certain functions which 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
thehomeostatic nature 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 the socialization of
members of the society into the basic values andnorms of that society, so
that consensus is reached. Where socialization is insufficient for some reason to
create conformity to culturally appropriate roles and socially supported norms,
various social control mechanisms exist to restore conformity or to segregate the
nonconforming individuals from the rest of society. These social control mechanisms
range from sanctionsimposed 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 system of 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 of evolution, but
other changes occur when outside forces impinge upon the system. A thorough-going
functionalist, such as Talcott 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 (Parsons 1951). 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 the social structure and of the

norms and expectationsthey 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 (see Merton 1968). First, he distinguishes
betweenmanifest and latent functions: 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 are dysfunctional for 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 that structural alternatives may exist which can also
satisfy the same functional needs.
Functionalist theories have very often been criticized as teleological, 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 by Talcott Parsons has 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...
Introduction
Compare 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.
Middle
Religion 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.
Conclusion
They 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.