1 Early Sociological Theories of Religion1 Religion plays a major

Early Sociological Theories of Religion1
Religion plays a major role in shaping our society and the lives of most people that live in it. It has played
an important role in almost all societies past and present. It is no wonder then that religion was the
object of study for many early sociologists. Today I would like to talk about the ideas concerning religion
found in the writings of three founders of sociology—Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim and Max Weber.
Karl Marx
Let me begin with Karl Marx. Of the three, Marx had the least to say about religion. But before I discuss
Marx’s comments on religion, let me preface it by mentioning his understanding of the importance of
capitalism in shaping the rest of society, including religion. According to Marx, the economic system, or
the base, determines what all other parts of society (e.g., family, political system, education,
entertainment, sports, and so on) will look like. Let’s take a look at the examples of the family, the
political system, and entertainment. In the capitalist United States, the family is structured so that it
socializes children to be hard workers, the family creates a place where the living needs of workers are
met, and the nuclear family structure maximizes consumption. When we examine the political system in
the US, we see that it creates policies favorable to corporations, limits the influence of citizens without
wealth, and promotes an ideology that sustains capitalism. When we examine the entertainment
industry, including sports entertainment, we see that entertainment makes work life more bearable,
entertainment distracts workers from examining their exploited condition and thinking about revolution,
and entertainment is another area in which we are exploited as consumers.
1
Lecture notes are written as lecture notes and therefore are not cited as would be required for publication.
Please do not reference these notes outside of this class.
1
Similarly, religion is shaped by the needs of capitalism. You may now know enough about Marx to guess
that he was an atheist. He did not believe in any reality outside of material reality. There is no such thing
as the supernatural realm; religion is simply an illusion.
In the US, Protestant Christianity serves the interests of the ruling class as it requires the believer to act
in various ways. For example, Protestantism demands that its followers accept their lot in life (no matter
how miserable), perform dutifully and energetically for their employer, and follow the laws of the land.
Religion also serves the interests of the ruling class by providing illusory comfort with a promise of a
happy afterlife for the proletariat as they live their miserable lives on earth. Religion is like an opiate
that placates them with the hope of spiritual reward as a substitute for material rewards:
Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress in the protest against real
distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is
the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people.
Religion, then, is a key component of the false consciousness that deceives the proletariat.
Marx also notes that religion alienates the believer from himself, just as factory work alienates the
worker from himself. Marx (1844: 122) writes,
The worker is related to the product of his labor as to an alien object.... The more the worker expends
himself in work, the more powerful become the world of objects which he creates in face of himself, the
poorer he becomes in his inner life, and the less he belongs to himself. It's just the same as in religion. The
2
more of himself man attributes to God the less he has left in himself.
As you know, Marx did not simply have an academic interest in the structure of capitalism; he was also a
revolutionary. He wanted to change the world by inciting workers to throw off the chains of oppression
the bourgeoisie had bound them with. It was not enough to reveal that religion was an illusion; religion
must be renounced:
2
Karl Marx. 1844. “Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right.”
2
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for real happiness.
The demand to give up the illusions about its condition is the demand to give up a condition
which needs illusions.
For Marx, then, true happiness will be achieved by the proletariat when they realize that religion only
provides illusory happiness and that happiness here on earth, the only place where happiness can be
obtained, can be achieved only when their true circumstance is seen, and workers come together to
form a communist utopia on earth.
To conclude this section on Marx, let me make two more observations, one ironic, and one critical. First,
though Marx was highly critical of religion, it is ironic that he himself became a major prophet in the
quasi-religion of Marxism. His words were used throughout the 20th century in creating communist
empires. His writings were the sacred text, becoming an opiate for the people behind the Iron Curtain.
Still today, Marx’s writings are held as scared by many. Second, though Marx’s analysis of capitalism is
brilliant, his discussion of religion is highly simplistic. As you know, religion is much more than simply an
illusion and an opiate. Religion has played a significant positive role in many of our lives. Religion has
played an important role in shaping American society; it has motivated people to change the US and the
world for the better. Marx did not give religion the careful research attention that he gave to the
capitalist economic system, rather, he made uncritical comments of religion that conveniently fit into his
theory of historical materialism. The next writer we will examine, as we will see, saw religion not as an
illusion, but as a representation of something real.
What do you think about Marx’s analysis of religion? Agree or disagree? Post your comments to our
discussion board.
3
Durkheim
While Marx spent little effort in examining religion, for Durkheim, is was one of his main research
interests. Unlike Marx, he did not think that religion was simply an illusion. In The Elementary Forms of
Religious Life, Durkheim ([1915] 1965) attempts to discover the basic component parts found in all
religions. In attempting to find the component parts, he spends much time on the metaphysical aspects
of religion. In that sense, his work is more theological than sociological.
Durkheim begins by first arguing for the study of religion, rather than simply dismissing it as illusion.
Durkheim believed that religion must have some basis in reality, since it is found in all societies, and
anything that is based on illusion, he argued, could not last for any length of time. His goal was to
uncover that reality in religion. Second, Durkheim believed that it was unscientific to conclude without
investigation that religion is simply an illusion. Rather, given its ubiquitousness, religion seemed highly
appropriate for sociological investigation.
Durkheim believed that modern religions are too difficult to study since its basic forms are less easily
observable. The best place to examine the basic components of religion is in the most primitive societies,
where religion first emerged. The earliest religious forms provide the best place to investigate carefully
the causes that gave rise to it.
Before Durkheim begins his examination of primitive religions, he first defines what religion is. Durkheim
argues that definition is necessary so that we can know what we should be looking at and what things
we should not. Durkheim proposed that there were two components to all religions, rites and beliefs.
Rites are particular actions or behaviors and beliefs are the collective representations.
Durkheim also notes that in all religions, there is the distinction between the sacred and the profane.
Sacred things are those separate, or set apart, from the profane, or the ordinary and base. Religious
4
rites, then, are the rules about how one should behave in the presence of the sacred. That is, the duties
and rights associated with the sacred. Religious beliefs, then, are beliefs about the scared.
Durkheim then goes on to make a distinction between religion and magic. The main difference is that
religion is social; whereas magic is private. Religion benefits the group; whereas magic is used for
individual gain and sometimes in harmful ways. Unlike magic, religion binds together and unites the
community and is always used for the good of the community.
After completing his discussion on what religion is, Durkheim, presents his complete definition: “a
religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set
apart and forbidden—beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called the
church, all those who adhere to them.”
Durkheim then sets out to find the most primitive religion. For reasons I will not go into, Durkheim
rejects animism and naturism for the title of most primitive. His main criticism of both is that these
religions are based on illusion, not some reality. Durkheim concludes that totemism, which has some
basis in reality, as we will see, is the most primitive religion. Durkheim argues that all the great ideas and
the principal ritual attitudes which are aspects of even the most advanced religions are found in
totemism.
Totemism is the belief that a particular object (usually an animal, sometimes a plant, and rarely
something else) is sacred. Given the sacredness of the totemic animal or plant, it is forbidden to kill or
eat it. Also, this animal or plant is taken as the name of the group and is used as its emblem, carved and
designed upon objects belonging to the clan and even tattooed on the bodies of the clan members
themselves. These objects, then, when designed with the picture of the totem also become sacred. Also,
5
the members of the clan themselves are considered sacred, being seen as belonging to the totemic
species.
Durkheim then attempts to explain how totemism emerges. He first argues that totemic objects are
usually not awe inspiring. Totemic objects like the caterpillar and the frog hardly inspire awe. So, it is
not the characteristics of the totemic object that inspires religious fervor. Rather, totemic objects are
symbols or material expressions of something else. But what is that something else? Durkheim
concludes that the totem is the clan personified. The clan has all that is necessary to arouse the idea of
the divine. It’s physically and morally superior to individuals, and we fear the clan’s power and respect
its authority.
How then does a particular totem become associated with the power of society? Durkhiem notes that
especially during periods of collective enthusiasm, divine power is particularly perceptible. In these
gatherings of the clan, the individual is transported from their profane to a sacred existence. The
individual seeks to explain their altered state. The gathering itself is the real cause, but all around them
the individual sees engraved images of the totem. It seems to them that the physical power and moral
authority of society comes from the totem. There actually is a real moral power, society, from which the
worshiper derives its strength. Just as a soldier who dies for their flag, in fact, dies for their country, so
the clan member who worships their totem, in fact, worships their community.
Durkheim also notes that society cannot exist except in the individual conscience. Therefore, the faith
inside of us occasionally needs to be strengthened. As we worship our totem or gods, we are worshiping
society personified. This worship is seen as a reaffirmation of society, its legitimacy and worth. The soul,
then, is the symbol of society living inside of us. And even as we die, our soul lives on, symbolizing the
continuation of society after our death.
6
Let me make one more comment about Durkheim’s theory, unlike theologians who see religion as a
system of ideas, for the believer, religion provides the strength to live. From the gods we acquire a sense
of confidence and well-being. The believer is a person who is stronger. They feel within them more force,
either to endure the trials of existence or to conquer them. Durkheim writes, “for before all else, a faith
is warmth, life, enthusiasm, the exaltation of the whole mental life, the raising of the individual above
himself.”
From our discussion on Marx and Durkheim, you may have noticed why some have noted that Marx and
Durkheim try to explain away religion. Our next theorist, Max Weber, rather than explaining away
religion, sought to explain it. In the next section, we will look at two of Weber’s works. The first deals
with his understanding of religion as being in conflict with the other spheres in life. In the second part,
we will look at Weber’s discussion of the role of Protestantism in the emergence of capitalism in
Western Europe.
What do you think of Durkheim’s theory of religion? Agree or disagree? Post your comments to our
discussion board.
Religious Rejections of the World—Max Weber
Let’s now discuss Weber’s understanding of how the religious sphere is in tension with the other
spheres in the modern world. This tension emerges with the advent of world religions. Examples of
world religions include Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam. The earliest appear around
1000 BCE. Weber argues that as societies become more complex, various spheres of life come into
conflict and competition with each other. These “value spheres,” as Weber calls them, include the
kinship sphere, economic sphere, and political sphere. This increasing tension between the various
spheres, Weber calls the “war of the gods.”
7
In tribal societies, there was no differentiation between the various spheres. The religious sphere,
political sphere, economic sphere, and kinship sphere were all fully integrated. Kinship relations were
economic relations; the tribe worked as one economic unit. Religious activity was highly integrated into
economic activity, for example, asking the gods for rain. However, with the emergence of large-scale
civilizations, the various value spheres come to differentiate from each other, each with its own logic.
I want to now focus on the conflict and competition between religion and the other value spheres. For
Weber, the ethic of brotherliness, a component of the religious sphere, has no place in the highly
rationalized world we live in today. In particular, as the political sphere and the economic sphere
become rationalized and bureaucratic, the ethic of brotherly love becomes incompatible with those
spheres. Weber writes, “in the midst of a culture that is rationally organized for a vocational workaday
life, there is hardly any room for the cultivation of world-denying brotherliness under the technical and
social conditions of rational culture, an imitation of the life of Buddha, Jesus, or Francis seems
condemned to failure for purely external reasons.” We will turn to the tension between the religious
sphere and the economic sphere in just a minute. I would like to begin, however, by examining the
conflict between the religious sphere and the kinship sphere.
In tribal societies, the ethic of brotherliness was practiced within the kinship group. Those outside were
not given that consideration. There was a clear distinction between the ingroup and the outgroup, those
that were not kin, were not treated in a brotherly way. But in world religions such as Christianity, the
most important distinction is not between kin and non-kin, but between believers and non-believers.
Rather than only caring for one’s own distressed family members, in the world religions, all members
were charged with taking care of each other. Widows, orphans, and the poor were to be treated as
family. In fact, in the New Testament, Jesus required that those that wanted to be his followers had to
leave their families. In the gospel of Luke, Jesus says, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his
8
father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be
my disciple.” Furthermore, world religions in their most idealized form universalizes the ethic of
brotherly love. In Christianity, Jesus commands his followers not only to love one another, but
nonmembers as well, even our enemies.
I want to now talk about the conflict between the religious sphere and the economic sphere. The
tension between brotherly love and the world is most obvious in the economic sphere. In tribal societies,
religion emphasized the striving of wealth, long life, health, honor and progeny. However, in the world
religions, the believer is encouraged to give up pursuit of worldly desires, even his own life. For example,
in the gospel of Luke, when asked by a rich young ruler how he could inherit eternal life, Jesus
responded, “Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.” In the
gospel of Mark, Jesus, speaking to his disciples, says, “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of
the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you.
Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be
first must be slave of all.” These ideas are in strong contrast to the logic of the economic sphere. The
economic sphere encourages us to be economically successful, and striving for success is seen as
virtuous.
Another way in which the religious sphere comes in conflict with the economic sphere is that the
religious sphere demands brotherliness, however, the economic sphere demands impersonality. There
are no personal bonds in the economic sphere; it is all about money. Money is the most abstract and
impersonal element that exists in human life. Weber writes, “In the past it was possible to regulate
ethically the personal relations between master and slave precisely because they were personal
relations. But it is not possible to regulate—at least not in the same sense or with the same success—
the relations between the shifting holders of mortgages and the shifting debtors of the banks that issue
9
these mortgages; for in this case, no personal bonds of any sort exist.” Furthermore, the market
demands impersonality in order to effectively operate.
What do you think of Weber’s analysis? Agree or disagree? Post your comments to our discussion board.
The Protestant Ethic—Max Weber
Let’s end our discussion by looking at another writing of Weber. In The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of
Capitalism, Weber asks, why did capitalism (and industrialization) emerge in Western Europe rather
than Ancient China, Egypt or India? All had sufficient knowledge and resources. What made the
difference? According to Weber, the difference was the Protestant ethic. Weber contends that the
Puritan outlook favored the development of the capitalist system.
Weber begins his analysis by examining the spirit of capitalism, the idea of a duty of the individual
toward the increase of his capital. The spirit of capitalism is the attitude that seeks profit rationally and
systematically and is illustrated by Benjamin Franklin.
Remember, that time is money. He that earns ten shillings a day by his labour, and goes abroad,
or sits idle, one half of that day, though he spends by sixpence during his diversion or idleness,
ought not to reckon that the only expense; he has really spent, or rather thrown away, five
shillings besides. Remember, that money is of the prolific, generating nature. Money can beget
money, and its offspring can beget more, and so on. Five shillings turned is six, turned again it is
seven and threepence, and so on, till it becomes a hundred pounds. The more there is of it, the
more it produces every turning, so that the profits rise quicker and quicker. He that kills a
breeding-sow, destroys all her offspring to the thousandth generation.
Weber notes that this attitude is not simply a means of making one’s way in the world, but a particular
ethic, a system of moral standards. The infraction of its rules is treated not as foolishness but as
forgetfulness of duty.
10
This spirit of capitalism and the system of capitalism seems to be perfectly matched. Weber writes that
the spirit of capitalism “found its most suitable expression in the capitalistic enterprise, while on the
other hand the enterprise has derived its most suitable motive force from the spirit of capitalism.”
Weber then goes on to investigate the intellectual origins of the spirit of capitalism. He begins by
examining the origins of the word “calling,” where calling is defined as a life-task, a definite field in
which to work. Weber notes that the word calling is originally a religious concept. The meaning and idea
of the word calling can be traced back to the Reformation. According to Luther, the fulfillment of worldly
duties is the only way to live acceptably to God. Note that Luther’s conception of calling involves living in
the world, not separate from it. Weber writes:
The only way of living acceptably to God was not to surpass worldly morality in monastic
asceticism, but solely through the fulfillment of the obligations imposed upon the individual by
his position in the world. This was his calling.
According to Weber, this meaning of the word calling is unique to Protestants. It did not exist among
Catholics or in antiquity. Though positive valuation of routine activity may have existed in the Middle
Ages and late Hellenistic antiquity, “[b]ut at least one thing was unquestionably new: the valuation of
the fulfillment of duty in worldly affairs as the highest form which the moral activity of the individual
could assume.”
Coupled with the notion of calling was asceticism. Worldly Protestant asceticism acted powerfully
against the spontaneous enjoyment of possessions. This did not mean that the accumulation of wealth
was bad. The acquisition of wealth in performing one’s duty in a calling was not only morally permissible,
but actually enjoined. Weber writes:
He must, like the servant in the parable entrusted with the master’s money, give an account of
every penny entrusted to him, and it is at least hazardous to spend any of it for a purpose which
does not serve the glory of God but only one’s own enjoyment.
11
To have wealth was a sign of God’s blessing. Weber writes:
Restless, continuous, systematic work in a worldly calling was also the surest and most evident
proof of rebirth and genuine faith.
Limited consumption combined with acquisitive activity resulted in accumulation of capital. This capital
could then be reinvested.
So in the Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Weber argues that the emergence of capitalism in
the West is a result of a particular kind of ethic that existed among Protestants in the West. How then
does he explain capitalism today? Today, unlike the Puritans who wanted to work in a calling, whether
we want to or not, we are forced to work in a calling. Capitalism today is no longer dependent on
religious forces. The religious forces that once supported the capitalist system is no longer necessary.
Modern capitalism has become dominant and has become emancipated from its old religious supports.
Weber writes:
In Baxter’s [Richard Baxter, nonconformist (Puritan) scholar, 1615-1691)] view, the care for
external goods should only lie on the shoulders of the “saint like a light cloak, which can be
thrown aside at any moment.” But fate decreed that the cloak should become an iron cage.
And from this iron cage, “the spirit of religious asceticism has escaped.” In fact, individuals no longer
even attempt to justify the capitalist spirit at all, with the idea of duty in one’s calling “prowl[ing] about
in our lives like the ghost of dead religious beliefs.”
As an exercise, think about Weber’s claim that the Protestant ethic explains why capitalism emerges in
Europe. What do you think about this claim? Post your comments to our discussion board.
In this lecture, we examined the thoughts of Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, and Max Weber on religion.
Each provides a perspective on religion. For Marx, religion is an illusory instrument of oppression. For
Durkheim, religion fulfills the important social function of unifying society, at least for societies with only
12
one religion. For Weber, religion is incompatible with the modern world. Which theorist do you think
helps you to best understand religion. Post your comments to our discussion board.
13