To What Extent Is Liberalism a Single Doctrine

...

Another functionalist, Malinowski agrees with Durkheim that religion helps to sustain social solidarity, but this only happens as a response to the psychological needs of individuals in situations of anxiety and stress that have the potential to disrupt social life. For example, in his study of the triband islanders he found that at times of life crises such as birth, death, etc. religion creates valuable mental attitudes towards the situation. For example, the death of a loved one can cause the grieving to give up on everything but religions forceful assertion of immortality consoles the bereaved, and the funeral ceremony allows individuals adjust to the situation, reaffirming social solidarity as the group outlives the passing of the individual and are all there to offer comfort to one another. Therefore religion benefits the needs of the individual by preventing anomie which might undermine social life and commitment to wider society and therefore social order. However, Malinowski exaggerates the importance of religious rituals in helping people to unite and deal with stress, giving little consideration to how religion also threatens social solidarity as readily as it contributes to it, one effect that religion sometimes has can’t be generalised to all religions as a function.

Parson agrees with Malinowski that religion helps individuals to cope with unexpected events and uncontrollable outcomes. He identifies two other essential functions that religion performs in modern society; religion creates and legitimates society’s central values by making them sacred for example, In the USA, Protestantism has sacralised the core American values of individualism, meritocracy and self-discipline, serving to promote consensus and social stability. Religion is also seen to provide a source of meaning, answering eternal questions about humanity e.g., why do the good suffer and the villains prosper? Such injustices undermine our sense of justice possibly making individuals despair, and this may undermine their commitment to society’s values. Religion provides answers to such questions, e.g. by explaining suffering as a test of faith. Therefore, religion makes sense of the meaningless and helps people to adjust to their situation. However, arguably yet again, Parsons Places a lot of emphasis on the positive functions religion performs diverting focus away from how perhaps such functions also justify the oppression of certain groups in society such as the poor, woman, etc. e.g. it’s okay to be poor in this life because in the afterlife they’ll be rewarded for their suffering In this world.

Contrariwise, Marxists and Feminists are critical of the functionalist overly rosy stand point on religion. Marxists argue religion is the product of a class divided society where religion is used as an ideological weapon by ruling class to legitimate the suffering of the poor as something inevitable and God-given. Religion creates a false consciousness, by misleading the poor into believing that suffering is virtuous and that they will be favoured in the afterlife for example, ‘It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter heaven.’ Implicating that the rich man will not be allowed into to heaven but the poor will be so it is justified to be poor in this life. Whilst Feminists argue religion is just another patriarchal institution in a patriarchal society that functions to maintain and legitimise woman’s subordinate position with in society. For example, simply based on the fact that woman menstruate and are able to give birth they are considered as a threat to polluting religious rituals as such should be excluded from religious organisational hierarchies, and instead should devote themselves to the domestic duty.

Clearly, the functionalist understanding of religion in terms of its functions for society and members are relevant and useful in understanding how perhaps religion does contribute positively to society and for the individual. Although, with its emphasis on harmony, integration and solidarity it ignores where religion can be divisive and ignores the internal divisions amongst religions which may actually be dysfunctional to society and its members.

[pic 5]

---------------------------------------------------------------

Marxism and religion- An introduction

Marx, like Durkheim argues religion was a conservative force in society for example, by being an ideological weapon, it manages to keep intact the status quo. However, unlike functionalists Marxists don’t believe this force was positive for society.

Rather Marx argues that primary function of religion is to reproduce, maintain and justify class inequality. The w/c are oppressed and alienated under system of capitalism. Religion is an ideological state apparatus serving to reflect the ruling class capitalist ideas and interests.

For Marx, ideology is a belief system that distorts people’s perception of reality in ways that serve the interests of the r/c. because of this marx see’s religion as a product of people’s alienation.

Alienation refers to becoming separated or losing control over the production process in a capitalist economy as here, the worker doesn’t own what they produce they simply repeat the same tasks which lack in any meaning, skills or creativity. In these dehumanising conditions, the exploited turn to religion as compensation which becomes the opium of masses. Thus religion arises out of suffering, acting as consolation for it but fails to deal with its causes.

Therfore, in marx’s view, marx’s main analogy was to compare religion to an opiate- a pacifying drug- it doesn’t solve the problem people have, just dulls the pain. Religion becomes a sedative that the w/c turn to to dull their pain of their experience and understanding of the situation. Taking the drug of religion to cure the pain of oppression gives the drug taker temporary belief. Although real in the short term it is an illusionary relief in the long term. – it only distracts them from the real cause of their exploitation, helping to make life more bearable, inhibiting real demand for change.

Acts as a false consciousness keeping people in this mid-state of treating the illness and not the symptom. It prevents the w/c from becoming aware of the true nature of their exploitation and doing anything about it. Instead, they’re led to believe its gods will and passively accept their situation. Thus marx argued, most religious movement originate in the oppressed classes. E.g. engles points out Christianity was originally a religion of slaves, of poor deprived of all rights.