10 Religion and Society

What is religion? Pioneer sociologist Émile Durkheim said religion consists of “things that surpass the limits of our knowledge” (1964, p. 25). He went to explain that religion is “a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say set apart and forbidden, beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community, called a church, all those who adhere to them” (Durkheim, 1964, p. 47). Some people associate religion with places of worship (a gurdwara or church), others with a practice (prayer or meditation), and still others with a concept that guides their daily lives (like dharma). All these people can agree that religion is a system of beliefs, values, and practices concerning what a person holds sacred or considers to be spiritually significant.

The term “religion” comes from the Latin religio (respect for what is sacred) and religare (to bind, in the sense of an obligation). Across the world, people use religious narratives, symbols, and traditions to give meaning to life and understand the universe. Some form of religion is found in every known culture, and sociologists have recently begun paying attention to those who identify as having no religion at all (the so-called nones, after the common multiple-choice response on censuses to the question “What is your religion?”) (Müller, 2022).

The sociological approach to religion does not question whether a particular religion is true. As Durkheim said, “All [religions] are true in their own fashion; all answer, though in different ways, to the given conditions of human existence” (1964, p. 3). Sociologists are interested in the social aspects of religion–things we can see or hear–rather than the philosophical question of whether gods exist. For example, sociologists might study how a ceremony brings people together as a group, and all the ways gender, caste, or group identity may be expressed in a ritual context.

The History of Religion as a Sociological Concept

In the wake of nineteenth century Europe, three social theorists attempted to examine the relationship between religion and society: Émile Durkheim, Max Weber, and Karl Marx. They are among the founding thinkers of modern sociology.

Émile Durkheim on religion

French sociologist Émile Durkheim (1858–1917) believed religion is about community: It binds people together (social cohesion), promotes behaviour consistency (social control), and offers strength during life’s transitions and tragedies (meaning and purpose). By applying the methods of natural science to the study of society, Durkheim held that the source of religion is the collective mind-set of society and that the cohesive bonds of social order result from common values in a society.

Durkheim (1964) defined religion as a “unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things.” To him, sacred meant extraordinary—something that inspired wonder. He argued that religion happens when there is a distinction made between the profane (ordinary life) and the sacred. A rock, for example, isn’t sacred or profane as it exists. But if someone makes it into a headstone, or another person uses it for landscaping, it takes on different meanings—one sacred, one profane.

Durkheim examined the social functions of the division of the world into sacred and profane by studying a group of Indigenous Australians’ religious practice which he described “totemism.” A totem, such as an animal or plant, is a sacred symbol, a material expression of something else” such as a spirit or a god. In essence, totemism, like any religion, is a product of the members of a society projecting themselves and the real forces of society onto ‘sacred’ objects and powers.

In Durkheim’s terms, all religious belief and ritual function in the same way. They create a collective consciousness and a focus for collective effervescence in society. Collective consciousness is the shared set of values, thoughts, and ideas that come into existence when the combined knowledge of a society manifests itself through a shared religious framework. Collective effervescence, on the other hand, is the elevated feeling experienced by individuals when they come together to express beliefs and perform rituals together as a group: the experience of an intense and positive feeling of excitement (Shilling & Mellor, 1998). In a religious context, this feeling is interpreted as a connection with divine presence but is also the material force of society itself, which emerges whenever people come together and focus on a single object.

Max Weber on religion

Whereas Durkheim saw religion as a source of social stability, German sociologist Max Weber (1864–1920) believed it caused societies to change. He examined the effects of religion on economic activities and noticed that heavily Protestant societies—such as those in the Netherlands, England, Scotland, and Germany—were the most highly developed capitalist societies and that their most successful business leaders were Protestant. In his writing The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (originally published in German in 1905), he argued that the Protestant work ethic influenced the development of capitalism (Weber, 1930). Weber noted that certain kinds of Protestantism supported the pursuit of material gain by motivating believers to work hard, be successful, and not spend their profits on frivolous things.

Weber was interested in how religious ideas shapes society. For example, he considered whether one’s belief about the afterlife supports social inequality. His concept of theodicy was important in this regard. Theodicy is an attempt to explain or justify the existence of bad things or instances that occur in the world, such as death, disaster, sickness, and suffering. Weber describes three dominant forms of theodicy in world religions: dualism, predestination and karma. In dualistic religions like Zoroastrianism, the power of a god is limited by the powers of evil; and therefore, suffering is explained as a consequence of the struggle between gods and demons, in which evil occasionally wins out (Weber, 1958).  The doctrine of predestination, which became very important in Weber’s the Protestant Ethic, explains suffering as the outcome of a destiny that a god has pre-assigned to individuals. Finally, the belief in karma, central to religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism, explains suffering as a product of acts one committed in former lives. Individuals must struggle in this life to rectify the evils accumulated from previous lives. In addition to explaining personal sufferings, theodicies can legitimate social inequality; if the poor suffer now, but are good, then they can be rich in the next life; while a rich person, who is acting poorly, may be doomed to hell.

Karl Marx on religion

German philosopher, journalist, and revolutionary socialist Karl Marx (1818–1883) also studied the social impact of religion, though didn’t spend too much time writing on the subject. Marx believed religion reflects the social stratification of society and that it maintains inequality and perpetuates the status quo. For him, religion was just an extension of working-class (proletariat) economic suffering. He famously argued that religion “is the opium of the people” (Marx, 1970). While many take this as evidence that Marx was against religion (he was an atheist), they forget the words he wrote just before: “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions.” Hardly a blanket condemnation, and even a bit poetic, don’t you think? Prior to the modern age, almost every revolution in Europe took on a religious tone, and the situation was similar the world over. So while a Marxist reading of religion often focuses on how religion can support class inequality, it is also important to recognize how religion can also challenge existing power structures.

Theoretical Paradigms

Modern-day sociologists often apply one of three major theoretical perspectives: functionalism, symbolic interactionism, and conflict theory. Let’s explore how scholars applying these paradigms understand religion.

Functionalism

Functionalists contend that religion serves several functions in society. Religion, in fact, depends on society for its existence, and vice versa. From this perspective, religion serves several purposes, like providing answers to spiritual questions, helps regulate society, and provides us with direction on what to do when there is nothing much we can do (as in the case of funerals).

One of the most important functions of religion, from a functionalist perspective, is the opportunities it creates for social interaction and the formation of groups. It provides social support and social networking and offers a place to meet others who hold similar values and a place to seek help (spiritual and material) in times of need. Sikh gurdwaras, for example, the world over spring into action to assist communities’ materially in times of need whenever a tragedy befalls the community. Moreover, religion can foster group cohesion and integration. It constructs for us a sense of who “we” are; we are the ones who come together to worship, meditate, and pray.

Rational Choice Theory: Can Economic Theory Be Applied to Religion?

How do people decide which religion to follow, if any? How does one pick a church or decide which denomination “fits” best? Rational choice theory is one-way sociologists have attempted to explain these behaviors. The theory proposes that people are self-interested, though not necessarily selfish, and that people make rational choices—choices that can reasonably be expected to maximize positive outcomes while minimizing negative outcomes. Rodney Stark and Roger Finke (2000) first considered the use of rational choice theory to explain some aspects of religious behavior, with the assumption that there is a basic human need for religion in terms of providing belief in a supernatural being, a sense of meaning in life, and belief in life after death. Religious explanations of these concepts are presumed to be more satisfactory than scientific explanations, which may help to account for the continuation of strong religious connectedness in countries such as the United States, despite predictions of some competing theories for a great decline in religious affiliation due to modernization and religious pluralism.

Another assumption of rational choice theory is that religious organizations can be viewed in terms of “costs” and “rewards.” Costs are not only monetary requirements, but are also the time, effort, and commitment demand of any religious organization. Rewards are the intangible benefits in terms of belief and satisfactory explanations about life, death, and the supernatural, as well as social rewards from membership. While this approach can be useful, critics maintain that it relies too heavily on economic reasoning, and that deciding what constitutes a “reward” or “cost” is highly subjective and difficult to operationalize.

Conflict Theory

Conflict theorists view religion as an institution that helps maintain patterns of social inequality or, alternatively, challenges them. We saw already how theodicy can help support social inequalities by providing a spiritual explanation for social hierarchies, as in the case of India’s caste system. Yet religion can also serve as the means to organize protests and push those in power to respond to the will of the people, as in the case of the 2020-21 Indian farmers protest, which mobilized thousands of Punjabi Sikh farmers to protest in the streets of Delhi (Jodhka, 2021)

The feminist perspective is a conflict theory view that focuses specifically on gender inequality. In terms of religion, feminist theorists assert that, although women are typically the ones to socialize children into a religion, they have traditionally held very few positions of power within religions. A few religions and religious denominations are more gender equal, but male dominance remains the norm of most.

Feminist theories of religion analyze and critique the ways in which sacred texts and religious practices portray and subordinate—or empower—women, femininity, and female sexuality (Zwissler, 2012). Theorists within this area of study look at religion’s contribution to the oppression or empowerment of women within society, as well as provide analyses of the challenges that women face within different religious practices. The crucial insight into religion that forms the basis for feminist research is the gendered nature of religion (Erikson, 1992). Women’s place and experience within religious traditions differ significantly from men. Feminists therefore argue that questions about gender are essential for a meaningful analysis and explanation of religion.

Symbolic Interactionism

Rising from the concept that our world is socially constructed, symbolic interactionism studies the symbols and interactions of everyday life. To interactionists, beliefs and experiences are not sacred unless individuals in a society regard them as sacred. Because interactionists study one-on-one, everyday interactions between individuals, a scholar using this approach might ask questions focused on this dynamic. The interaction between religious leaders and practitioners, the role of religion in the ordinary components of everyday life, and the ways people express religious values in social interactions—all might be topics of study to an interactionist.

Peter Berger’s The Sacred Canopy (1967) is a modern sociological attempt to create a comprehensive explanation of religion. Berger’s approach to religion is based on the phenomenological perspective in sociology.  Phenomenology seeks to describe the way in which all phenomena, including religion, arise as perceptions within the immediate sensorial experience and awareness of individual subjects.

For Berger, religion is a particular type of culture (Berger 1967). Like culture, it is a human creation that develops in response to the fundamental human condition: humans lack in-borne biological programming to help them cope with the problems of physical survival. For humans to survive, the world must be culturally prepared as a world in which things and people have stable meanings.

Cultural meanings tend to be fixed and rigid through time, whereas the underlying reality they describe is not. Events occur that are not explainable. Religion comes into existence as a solution to this problem. Religion can resolve the threat of instability and terror of anomie by postulating a supernatural agency or cosmological view of the world, which are unaffected by everyday inconstancy and uncertainty.  In a religious cosmology the order described by culture is the natural order, that is, it is the way the gods have decided things must be. Things that occur that cannot be explained in human terms are explained as the products of divine will.

For Berger, religion therefore provides an “ultimate shield” for humanity—a sacred canopy–because it protects the meaningful world of the cultural order and fixes it in place by reference to a divinity that exists outside of the fragile human order. Religion is therefore a source of ultimate legitimation because it provides the social order with an unquestionable foundation of legitimacy.

In The Sacred Canopy, Berger argued that the processes of secularization will eventually erode the plausibility of religious belief. For religion to function as a sacred canopy and ultimate legitimation, it must provide the foundation for a shared belief system. In modern societies however, other types of knowledge and expert systems like science assume greater authority to describe the nature of the world and our role within it. Berger also noted the tendency for religion to become “privatized” in modern society.  With the separation of church and state in the modern state system, religion has been increasingly seen as a matter of private, individual choice or a matter of private, family belief rather than the center of  collective or public life. However, Berger (1999) later felt obliged to revise his prediction about the demise of religion in the face of the contemporary religious revivals, such as among Evangelical Christians in America and Hindu fundamentalism in India.

New Religious Movements

While religions do operate to create social consensus, they also mark distinctions within a society. One area off particular interest to sociologists (and everyone else) are groups that are commonly described as “cults.” Sociologists don’t generally use the word “cult” as it carries a negative meaning (a “cult” is always someone else’s religion, never our own). A more neutral term is New Religious Movements.

New Religious Movements that are labelled “cults” have been subject to contemporary moral panics about brainwashing, sexual deviance, and strange esoteric beliefs. However, research challenges these popular beliefs, including the ideas that they brainwash people into joining them and that their members are mentally ill. In a study of the Unification Church (Moonies), Eileen Barker (1984) found no more signs of mental illness among people who joined the Moonies than in those who did not. She also found no evidence that people who joined the Moonies had been brainwashed into doing so.

New Religious Movements often begin with a charismatic leader who professes a new vision of society. Max Weber referred to charisma as a special property of a person; the word itself comes from the Greek word for ‘gift’ (Collins, 2020). While charismatic leaders often do possess magnetic qualities, the hopes and expectations people have for a religious leader are also an important part of the dynamic, which is why some charismatic leaders sometimes don’t seem very attractive to outsiders (Ashley, 2012). Sometimes a groups faith in their charismatic leaders can lead to death and violence. In 1995, for example, the Aum Shinrikyo group in Japan killed 10 people and injured thousands more when it released bombs of deadly nerve gas in several Tokyo subway lines (Lifton, 1999). A few New Religious Movements have also committed mass suicide. More than three dozen members of the Heaven’s Gate group killed themselves in California, in March 1997, in an effort to communicate with aliens from outer space.

It is important to note that new religious movements are very diverse. They offer spiritual options for people seeking purpose in the modern context of state secularism and religious pluralism. Being intense about one’s religious views often breaks the social norms of largely secular societies, leading to misunderstandings and suspicions. Members of new religions run the risk of being stigmatized and even prosecuted (Dawson, 2007). Modern societies highly value freedom and individual choice, but not when exercised in a manner that defies expectations of what is normal.

Conclusion

In this chapter we learned how sociology thinks about religion, from the early days of founding figures like Durkheim and Weber, to more contemporary thinkers who opened up new avenues for exploring this important dimension of social life. Religion is a complex topic and can be approached from a number of different angles. Functionalism, conflict theory, and symbolic interactionism all provide us with distinct lenses through which we might think about what religion does for society, how it shapes our social relations and structures the norms and expectations of people the world over. One of the things missing here is the question of whether religion is good or bad for society. Like every topic we’ve looked at so far (family, work, deviance, etc.) the answer depends on the context and questions we ask. The best sociological studies of religion don’t try to prove or disprove whether something is real or bad, but rather take the social reality of religion itself as the object of study. As Durkheim noted, all religions are true, though their truth pertains to their social existence, at least as far as sociology is concerned.

Study Questions

1. What are some sacred items that you’re familiar with? Are there some objects, such as cups, candles, or clothing, that would be considered profane in normal settings but are considered sacred in special circumstances or when used in specific ways?
2. Consider a religion that you are familiar with, and discuss some of its beliefs, behaviours, and norms. Discuss how these meet social needs. Then, research a religion that you don’t know much about. Explain how its beliefs, behaviours, and norms are like/unlike the other religion.
3. Why are some societies embracing religious while others seem to be becoming more secular? What social forces are driving these dynamics? How do the sociological theories help explain this phenomenon?

References

Ashley, S. (2012). Charisma in the margins of the state: Dara’ang Buddhism and the khruba holy men of Northern Thailand. Anthropologica 54, 1: 71-82.

Barker, E. (1984). The making of a Moonie: Choice or brainwashing? Blackwell Publishing.

Barrett, L. (1997). The Rastafarians. Beacon Press.

Berger, P. (1967). The sacred canopy: Elements of a theory of religion. Doubleday.

Berger, P. (1999). The desecularization of the world: A global overview.  In The desecularization of the world: Resurgent religion and world politics, edited by Peter Berger (pp. 1-18). Eerdmans.

Collins, R. (2020). Charisma: Micro-sociology of power and influence. Routledge.

Dawson, L. (2007). The meaning and significance of new religious movements. In Teaching new religious movements, edited by David G. Bromley. Oxford University Press.

Deer, K. (2022, June 30). Pope says genocide took place at Canada’s residential schools. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/pope-francis-residential-schools-genocide-1.6537203

Durkheim, É. (1964). The elementary forms of religious life. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/41360/41360-h/41360-h.htm (original work published 1915)

Erikson, V. L. (1992). Back to the basics: Feminist social theory, Durkheim, and religion. Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion, 8, 1: 35-46.

Jodhka, S. (2021) Why are the farmers of Punjab protesting? The Journal of Peasant Studies, 48, 7: 1356-1370. DOI: 10.1080/03066150.2021.1990047

Lifton, R. (1999). Destroying the world to save it: Aum Shinrikyo, apocalyptic violence, and the new global terrorism. Metropolitan Books.

Marx, K. (1970). Critique of Hegel’s philosophy of right. Cambridge University Press. (Originally written in 1844).

Murrell, S., W. Spencer, A. McFarlane, & C. Chisholm (Eds.). (1998). Chanting down Babylon: The Rastafari reader. Temple University Press.

Neeganagwedgin, E. (2014). They can’t take our ancestors out of us: a brief historical account of Canada’s residential school system, incarcerations, institutionalized policies and legislations against indigenous peoples. Canadian Issues, (Spring): 31-36.

Ritzer, G. (1993). The McDonaldization of society. Pine Forge Press.

Shilling, C., & P. Mellor, P. (1998). Durkheim, Morality and Modernity: Collective Effervescence, Homo Duplex and the Sources of Moral Action. British Journal of Sociology, 49: 193-209.

https://doi.org/10.2307/591309

Stark, R. and R. Finke. (2000). Acts of faith: Explaining the human side of religion. University of California Press.

Walcott, R. (2021). On property. Policing, property, and the call for abolition. Biblioasis.

Weber, M. (1930). The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. ‎ Translated by Talcott Parsons. Metropolitan Books.

Weber, M. (1958). ‘The social psychology of the world religions’ and ‘Religious rejections of the world and their directions.’ In From Max Weber: Essays in sociology, edited by Hans Gerth. Oxford University Press.

Woods, E. (2013). A cultural approach to a Canadian tragedy: the Indian residential schools as sacred enterprise. International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 26, 2: 173-187.

Zwissler, L. (2012). Feminism and Religion: Intersections between Western Activism, Theology and Theory. Religious Compass, 6, 7: 354-368.