"Religion" in a Sociological Context: Grounding the Separation
Milan Fujda
Department for the Study of Religions, Masaryk University Brno, Czech Republic
Abstract
Sociologists of religion widely concur that Sociology of Religion is a marginal discipline within
contemporary Sociology. Some of them hope for better future and connected this hope with
spreading doubts concerning the secularization theory. These doubts, on the other hand, mean
significant theoretical challenges and put under questions foundations of the discipline.
Following analysis shows that drawing boundary between religion and non-religion – as an act
of setting up the object and an independent agenda of the discipline – might have been a
premature act. In its view many contemporary troubles of the discipline might be solved by
revising this premature decision and by re-emphasising fundamental issues of Sociology (i.e.
dynamics of social ordering) with the Sociology of Religion .
Working with "Religion": Connections and Boundaries
This work was inspired by a lecture of Grace Davie accompanying Czech edition of her
book Europe - The Exceptional Case. Let's start by a set of pictures imitating the one she
used to illustrate growing significance of religion in contemporary society:
What connects these scenes together? Can you find anything apart
from amorphous expression "religion"? But what exactly has this
assemblage in common?
Pentecostal meeting
Muslim woman wearing hijab The Holly Week in Philipines
Related trouble: Sociologists endow such assemblage with explanatory power with
reference to another issues. Grace Davie presents good examples while exploring
reasons for the success of pentecostal movements in Latin America. One of lines of
argumentation reads as follows: Pentecostal churches are especially successful among
the poor of urban slams. Why? Towards the poor, without assurance, troubled with
alcoholism etc. the "chosen" pentecostal community mediates self-esteem, value of
responsibility and ascetism and clear ordering of life. Doing that it helps to stabilize
family relations by keeping husbands at home and away from drinking. As result family
budgets get stabilised and/or financial conditions of family and the feeling of safety
improve. Such a change proves to engaged people the salvation work of Christ and
supports trust in Christ and the community. So "religion" as a specific factor explains
the change in conditions of life. Ability to provide such change further explains, why
"religion" prospers in a particular society.
But where have "religion" been mentioned in the chain of the argument before it was
simply added in the end?
Being poor in a slum, alcoholism, community, self-esteem, salvation work of Christ,
staying home with wife and children instead of drinking outside, sparing money, feeling
safe, proving the work of Christ, trust in community of devoted. What added value
"religion" brings into this analysis? The chain of agencies which make difference is
complete without mentioning it.
But then, why is it there? Because church community or Christ appears in description?
But why should clearly identifiable agent in flash be substituted with the shadow
presence of "religion" in order to provide explanation?
Let's look once again at pictures. The set bellow have more in common that the
previous one. Yet, I'd say that it does not manifest anything like presence of "religion".
Seeking identity: The
Czech student of
sociology of the the
Kurdish origin turns to
wearing of hijab during
her university studies.
It is normal to do so:
Ethiopian Muslim students
at Indian university
wearing hijabs during the
convocation ceremony.
Seeking freedom: Iranian
student at Indian university
not wearing cador, otherwise
compulsory in Iran.
Woman in cador on
the bazaar of Iranian
city of Isfahan
In this case, all the women are Muslims relating themselves to head-covers. If these
photos represent religion, does the Iranian student stop being "religious" while getting
of the plain in Mumbai? Does the Czech student raised in Muslim family become
"religious" by starting to wear hijab? Does the surveillance of the police make Iranian
women "religious"? Does the common habit make Ethiopian students "religious"? Then
(1) what is the meaning of being "religious" and (2) how this chameleon-like concept
helps to analyse whatever?
So there is a tendency to connect and separate things, there is a tendency to attribute to
influence of "religion" numerous different things without clear connexions. In a word,
there is a tendency to mesh up disconnected things and separate the connected ones
simply because of the existence of the category, which is whatever else then
transparent. But how did these tendencies came into existence?
Justifying Boundaries: Getting in and out of Sociology
Sociology (of religion) has two immortal classics: Max Weber and Émile Durkheim. The
heritage of Max Weber is not so clear with reference to above mentioned issues. The
separation between religious and non-religious was not a crucial question for him. His
interest seems to be derived form an interest in the modern capitalism. He inspired,
nevertheless, the whole tradition of the secularization theory by his idea of progressive
rationalization of society and the disenchantment of the world. By that he supports the
notion of progressive secularization. But the root of the rational spirit of capitalism for
him lied in the Calvinist ethics. Secularization thus was a "religious" development. Even
more recent classic of secularization theory P. Berger (1967) supported this claim and
pushed the analysis of tendencies towards secularization down to the ancient Jewish
invention of the radical transcendence of God. But Berger expresses another relevant
tendency. To grasp the religion he used categories developed with Thomas Luckmann,
but turned towards substantial definition marks of religion elaborated in R. Otto's (1917)
Das Hailige. Why?
Like numerous others he needed to supplement Weber's work – in which religion in
itself was not a crucial concept – with a substantial definition of religion. Analogous
tendency is observable in a work of K. Dobbelaere (2002). He started with the definition
by Durkheim but supplied it with a notion of supernatural since Durkheim's definition
seemed to him all inclusive.
Which one of these beings is properly supernatural and so expresses
what religion is about?
Prince Rama of Ramayana, an avatar of Lord Vishnu. The masjit
proclaimed his birth place was demolished in 1992 by Hindu nationalists.
The Dog and the Cat (by Josef Čapek), heros of
the book and the evening TV series for children.
They know how to prepare a cake, but not very
well. So when (another dog) ate it, he got sick.
Due to this problematic skill they are featured in
political commentaries, in which politicians
cook as much troubled cakes as they did.
For Durkheim religion is defined through the concepts of (a) unified system of beliefs
and practices, (b) things sacred, ie. set apart and forbidden, and (c) moral community
called church. Refusal of the notion of supernatural is important part of it. Durkheim
understood the connection between "supernatural" and the modern notion of "natural
law". The belief in supernatural then could not be attributed to "primitive people" he
studied. T. Asad (2003) highlighted further the connection of "natural" to "profane" and
"supernatural" to "sacred" in modern scientific discourse, and emphasized that no
concepts resembling the "profane" and "sacred" can be found in medieval literature.
That's trouble since the categories are supposed to be emic. If secularization theorist
such as S. Bruce (2002) says that in modern society the belief in supernatural decreases,
the logical meaning of such statement turns to be: modern society differs from the
traditional by lower measure of belief in reality in which people in traditional could not
even believe in.
In Durkheim the separation of religious and non-religious might be achieved by the
concept of the sacred. However, if the sacred is equated with set apart and forbidden,
then all things forbidden, hence all social regulations are sacred. For Durkheim it works,
because the totem of his primitives represented the society in general. In that case
"social" and "religious" refers to the same thing. How then could sociology formulate
questions like "what is the role of religion in society"?
The operation behind is tricky. As Luckmann (1967) had shown sociologists of religion
narrowed their interest to churches (bureaucratic organisations and whatever they
seemed to represent). This practice equating "religion" and "church organizations",
instead with "society" as is indicated in the construction of Durkheim's definition) (a)
seemingly follows Durkheim's definition, but (b) significantly diverts from crucial
aspects of durkheimian sociology.
It (a) follows Durkheim seemingly because "church" for Durkheim did not mean
particular organization, but the moral collective. It (b) diverts from durkheimian
sociology, because it leads to the loss of interest in forming and working of social
institutions and formation and transformation of social order. The question of social
order survived partly only in the question of the role of churches in modern society. If
their dominance over people in society decreases, the "religion" decreases. The question
what, then, holds society together, gets beyond the reach of the Sociology of Religion.
Contemporary sociologists of religion would not study totemism in modern society – as
Durkheim did in "primitive" one – because they would not identify it as a church. If
they did, they would call it "individualized spirituality". They do not ask, through what
things society is assembled and maintained, they ask rather superficial question
concerning the role of a particular organization. The question seems even more
superficial if one reflects the uniqueness (or anomaly character) of this kind of
organization in cultural comparative perspective. So apart from relating modern
secularism with not believing in what traditionals could not even believe in, the
Sociology of Religion supposes one another paradox: that the West is more secular than
the rest of the world, because the type of organization, which does not have any
counterpart (or did not have until colonial era) in the rest of the world, loses its social
significance and the monopoly on interpreting shared symbols. The monopoly, one
needs to add, which according to medieval historians it in fact never had.
Implications
If all this is right, then Sociology of Religion supposes the existence of a separate social
domain to which it a priori limits its subject of study. The only thing which holds the
objects from this domain together, and which separates them from the other objects, is
a chameleon-like word "religion". If the concept of religion is properly defined so that
transparent operations can be done with it, than the boundaries of the domain simply
disappear in the overall sphere of the "social". If the boundary limitation is set through
the concept of supernatural or even the sacred/profane dichotomy, then the meaningful
separation is drawn between societies in which these concepts exist and those where
they do not. In that case the common sense knowledge of the Sociology of Religion
turns upside down; the modern West is the only place of religion. This implication is
logical, but is not practised by sociologists. Instead of that sociologists narrow the
meaning of religion to issues related to a particular type of organization called church.
With this move, however, it narrows also the meaning (subject) of sociology by
skipping the questions concerning dynamics of social order.
Conclusion
In this perspective theoretical insignificance of the
Sociology of Religion emerges from two sources: (a)
dis-functional and unjustifiable delimitation of its field,
(b) narrowing its subject in such a way, that it cannot
pose fundamental sociological questions.
But is there any alternative? Yes: to drop the concept of
religion and to bring sociology back into Sociology of
Religion. If fundamental question of social order is put
into the foreground and the ways it is being negotiated,
stabilized, maintained, transformed, undermined,
broken, rebuilt etc. are followed, then something
sociologically relevant may be discovered. Whatever
gods and other realities and practices come to the sight
while doing so, let them reveal what they are doing and
how and with what they are connected and whom they
connect. Why to cut off existing connections and to
join disconnected stuff just because they were ascribed
to the common domain in the political project of
modern politics?
Destruction of the Babri masjit
for the prince Rama (Ayodhya
1992).
Contemporary Czech premier
and financial minister cooking
like the Cat and Dog (Respekt
weekly).
References:
Asad, Talal. 2003. Formations of the Secular. Christianity, Islam,
Modernity. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Berger, Peter L. [1967] . The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a
Sociological Theory of Religion. York – London – Toronto –
Sydney – Auckland: Doubleday.
Bruce, Steve. 2002. God is Dead. Secularization in the West. Malden
– Oxford – Melbourne – Berlin: Blackwell Publishing.
Davie, Grace. 2002. Europe: the Exceptional Case. Parameters of
Faith in the Modern World. Darton: Longman & Todd.
Durkheim, Émile. 2002. Elementární formy náboženského života.
Systém totemismu v Austrálii. Praha: Oikúmené.
Dobbelaere, Karel. 2002. Secularization: An Analysis at Three Levels, Brussels: Peter Lang.
Luckmann, Thomas. 1967. The Invisible Religion. New York: Macmillan.