The History of Religion as a Sociological Concept

In the wake of nineteenth century European industrialization and secularization, three social theorists attempted to examine the relationship between religion and society: Karl Marx, Émile Durkheim, and Max Weber.

German philosopher, journalist, and revolutionary socialist Karl Marx (1818–1883) studied the social impact of religion. He believed religion reflects the social stratification of society and that it maintains inequality and perpetuates an unjust status quo. For him, religion was just an extension of and false remedy for working-class (proletarian) economic suffering. He famously argued that religion “is the opium of the people” (1844).

French sociologist Émile Durkheim (1858–1917) defined religion as a “unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things” (1915). To him, sacred meant extraordinary—something that inspired wonder and that seemed connected to the concept of “the divine.” Durkheim argued that “religion happens” in society when there is a separation between the profane (ordinary life) and the sacred (1915). 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 is generally considered the first sociologist who analyzed religion in terms of its societal impact. Above all, he believed religion is about community: It binds people together (social cohesion), promotes behavior 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 and morality is the collective mind-set of society and that the cohesive bonds of social order result from common values in a society. He contended that these values need to be maintained to preserve social stability.

But what would happen if religion were to decline? This question led Durkheim to posit that religion is not just a social creation but something that demonstrates the cohesive power of societal bonds: when people celebrate sacred things, they celebrate the stabilizing power of their society. By this reasoning, even if traditional religion disappeared, society wouldn’t necessarily dissolve.

Whereas Durkheim saw religion as a source of social stability, German sociologist and political economist Max Weber (1864–1920) believed it was a precipitator of social 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 Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1905), he contends that the Protestant work ethic influenced and accelerated the development of capitalism. 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 money on frivolous things. (The modern use of “work ethic” comes directly from Weber’s Protestant ethic, although it has now lost its religious connotations.)

The Protestant Work Ethic in the Information Age

Max Weber (1904) posited that, in Europe in his time, Protestants were more likely than Catholics to value capitalist ideology, and believed in hard work and careful saving. He showed that Protestant values directly influenced the rise of capitalism and helped create the modern world order. Weber thought the emphasis on community in Catholicism versus the emphasis on individual achievement in Protestantism made a difference.

Watch this brief video to review Weber’s ideas:

Weber’s century-old claim that the Protestant work ethic led to the development of capitalism has been one of the most important and controversial topics in the sociology of religion. Despite its influence, some scholars have found little merit to his contention when applied to modern society (Greeley, 1989).

What does the concept of work ethic mean today? The work ethic in the information age has been affected by tremendous cultural and social change, just as labor practices and relations were shaped by the Industrial Revolution. In that period, factory jobs tended to be simple, and required very little thinking or decision making on the part of the worker. Today, the work ethic of the modern workforce has been transformed, as more thinking and decision making is required. Contemporary workers also seek autonomy and fulfillment in their jobs, not just wages. Higher levels of education have become necessary, as have interpersonal management skills and access to the most recent information on any given topic. The information age has increased the rapid pace of production expected in many sectors of the economy.

On the other hand, the “McDonaldization” of the United States (Hightower, 1975; Ritzer, 1993), in which many “service” industries, such as the fast-food and retail industries, have established routinized roles and tasks, has resulted in a “discouragement” of the work ethic. In jobs where roles and tasks are highly prescribed, workers have no opportunity to make decisions. They are considered replaceable commodities as opposed to valued employees. During times of recession, these service jobs may be the only employment available to younger individuals or those with low-level skills and credentials. The pay, working conditions, and robotic nature of the tasks dehumanizes the workers and strips them of incentives for doing quality work.

Working hard also doesn’t seem to have any relationship with Catholic or Protestant religious beliefs anymore, or those of other religions; information age workers expect talent and hard work to be rewarded by material gain and career advancement. In fact, some people now argue that work has replaced religion. Read this article, “Workism Is Making Americans Miserable,” by Derek Thompson to learn more.

For Durkheim, Weber, and Marx, who were reacting to the great social and economic upheaval of the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century in Europe, religion was an integral part of society. For Durkheim, religion was a cohesive force that helped bind the members of society together, while Weber believed religion could be understood as something important to, but separate from, society. Marx considered religion inseparable from the economy and the worker’s position within it. Religion could not be understood apart from the capitalist society that perpetuated inequality. Despite their different views, these social theorists all believed in the importance of religion to society.

Functionalism

Functionalists contend that religion serves several functions in society. Religion, in fact, depends on society for its existence, value, and significance, and vice versa. From this perspective, religion serves several purposes, like providing answers to spiritual mysteries, offering emotional comfort, and creating a place for social interaction and social control.

In providing answers, religion defines the spiritual world and spiritual forces, including divine beings. For example, it helps answer questions like, “How was the world created?” “Why do we suffer?” “Is there a plan for our lives?” and “Is there an afterlife?” As another function, religion provides emotional comfort in times of crisis. Religious rituals bring order, reassurance, and organization through shared familiar symbols and patterns of behavior.

One of the most important functions of religion, from a functionalist perspective, is the opportunities it creates for socializing and the formation of groups. It provides social support and offers a place to meet others who hold similar values, as well as a place to seek help (spiritual and material) in times of need. Moreover, it can foster group cohesion and integration. Because religion can be central to many people’s concept of themselves, sometimes there is an “in-group” versus “out-group” feeling toward other religions in our society or within a particular practice. Religion promotes social control: it reinforces social norms such as appropriate styles of dress, following the law, conforming to gender roles, and regulating sexual behavior.

On an extreme level, the dysfunctions of this type of in-group/ out-group mentality has resulted in violent episodes such as the Spanish Inquisition (1478-1834) and the Salem witch trials (1692-1693), as well as extremist acts by anti-Semitic groups, jihadists, Christian fundamentalists, and many more. Social control can be a function of religious groups but it can also be dysfunctional when prescriptive social norms produce inequality between men and women, between different castes or classes, and/or when they diminish individual agency and choice within a religious group.

Figure 3. Many religions, including the Catholic faith, have long prohibited women from becoming spiritual leaders. Feminist theorists focus on gender inequality and promote leadership roles for women in religion. (Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)

Conflict theorists view religion as an institution that helps maintain patterns of social inequality. For example, the Vatican has a tremendous amount of wealth, while the average income of Catholic parishioners is small. According to this perspective, religion has been used to support the “divine right” of oppressive hereditary monarchies and to justify unequal social structures, like India’s rigidly hierarchical caste system.

Conflict theorists are critical of the way many religions promote the idea that believers should be satisfied with existing circumstances because they are divinely ordained. This power dynamic has been used by Christian institutions for centuries to keep poor people poor and to teach them that they shouldn’t be concerned with what they lack because their “true” reward (from a religious perspective) will come after death. Conflict theorists also point out that those in power in a religion are often able to dictate practices, rituals, and beliefs through their interpretation of religious texts or via proclaimed direct communication with the divine, perhaps through “revelation” or a process of “divination.”

The feminist perspective is considered to be another 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. In addition to examining power relations within religious organizations, feminists also attend to the ways that religion justifies and sustains a belief in patriarchy, or the assumption that men should occupy positions of authority in society.

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. The Star of David in Judaism, the cross in Christianity, and the crescent and star in Islam are examples of sacred symbols. Interactionists are interested in the negotiated meanings that different societies and groups attribute to these symbols.

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.

Watch this video for a deeper look into each theoretical perspective on religion.