Religion has been on my mind lately, because of this, this week I decided to read the 3rd edition of Religion In Sociological Perspective (don't judge a book by its boring title or textbook cover!). It is a pretty good textbook that defines various theoretical perspectives of definitions of religion, religion in larger society, and effects of religious practice; while providing arguments for and against these prespectives. What struck me most was the chapter devoted to "Religion in Larger Society." This chapter examined macro-perspectives for analyzing religion within society. The text describes two main paradigms for the macro-analysis of religion: Functional Theory and Conflict theory. I want to suggest that both these prespectives over-individualize people, and thus miss what I see to be the true nature/function of religion. Before doing this I will brefily go over the definitions of each.
-Functional Theory states that behaviors/beliefs satisfy human needs. This theory can be broken into two schools of thought. The first is Functionalism. Functionalism states that individual needs or drives must be satisfied in a way that does not produce chaos, and that norms and institutions work to meet these individual needs and desires.Therefore this theory sees religion as primarily satisfying individual psychological needs. Functionalism is direct result of Sigmund Freud's cultural impact on the early 20th century. The second school of thought is Structural-Functionalism. Structural-Functionalism is based in the work of Emile Durkheim, one of the founding fathers of sociology. Structural-Functionalism states that social behaviors/beliefs work to herd the multitude of individual desires into a collective will. Unlike Functionalism, it argues that this is not done through relieving individual anxiety, but through using anxiety to create a dependence of the individual on the collective, and thus promoting individuals to suppress their personal desires for the will of the community. Both of these perspectives ultimately suggest that religion (as well as other social institutions) work to create cohesiveness within society.
-Conflict Theory on the other hand states that values and beliefs are secondary to self-interests. Conflict theory sees society as a constant struggle between power groups. According to conflict theory, any stability that may arise is the result of a deadlock of power, or the dominance of one group over the others. From this perspective, religion is just another facet of identity that works not to unify society, but to divide special interests.
Both these theories are useful in some sense however I do not think either is useful for describing the purpose of religion. Both theories erroneously assume that the fundamental nature of humans is individualistic. Functional theory sees religion as satisfying individual needs or controlling individual desires; while Conflict theory sees religion as purely as another source of individualization to pursue self-interest. This notion of society as derived of a collective of individuals is part of Western society's underlying episteme of individualism. However, humans are social creatures!!! For anyone who talks with me about this type of stuff, probably thinks this line is my catchphrase. I say it over and over, but I really do not think it can be said enough. Humans are like ants or bees, or wolves if you will. We survive as a collective NOT as individuals. There has been much data in the social sciences over the last decade that proves individuals contain biological dispositions for empathy, and are dependent on social scaffolding to survive. I am not trying to completely remove the notion of individualism. To the contrary, I think that it is precisely because we are individualistic social creatures that we differ from bees or ants. We are highly advanced hybrids between the individual and the social. What I am trying to suggest is that theories like those listed above that are based on assumptions of human nature as driven by self-interest are not only wrong, they are dangerous to human survival. I also stand by this point for economic models that overly emphasize human individuality (i.e capitalism). We are individuals, but we are individuals whose happiness and survival is irrevocably connected to the collective. What then would I suggest the function of religion is?
I recently attended a highly provocative discussion of religious extremism. What I saw to be the purpose of the discussion was to combat the affects of religious extremism (hostility to different faith-systems) by working to define religion as a way to see the invisible ties of humanity. The speaker would present a instance where political/economic reasons weaponize a faith system for partisan gains, and then present passages from the faith-systems text to show how such actions were discouraged. The idea was to disassociate acts of terror/war from religious systems by defining religion as an institution that fundamentally strives for social harmony. Therefore, regardless of what is being interpreted, if a group or individuals actions does not work to create harmony between people, it should not be associated with religion. Not only do I personally agree with this definition, I agree with the speakers motives for asserting it. In our current society, religion is very much a facet of identity rather than a embodiment of humanism. However, I do not think this is because of of any natural role or function, but because because of the power of the liberal narrative in the Western world. Besides being empathetic and social, humans are also fundamentally symbolic creatures. We exist in stories. This is both incredibly powerful and dangerous. Because we cannot "turn off" our symbolic nature, the stories we tell ourselves become reality. If enough people believe they are first and foremost individuals they essentially are.
I will end this attempting to emulate the will of the speaker I met this weekend by asking this: Even if we can make ourselves individuals are we happy doing so?
No comments:
Post a Comment