is now to be found and, therefore, how it is best to be looked for. Holding that religion is progressively assuming an increasingly non-traditional profile, some argue in favour of non-standard means or indirect methods of researching religion (Day, 2009, pp. 86–104). Others, however, continue to argue trenchantly in favour of retaining traditional methods of quantitative research (Bruce, 2009, pp. 7–28). At the same time, disputes escalate in respect of the most appropriate concepts and theories by which contemporary transformations of the religious sphere might best be comprehended. For example, are the spread of religious fundamentalism and perdurance of alternative religiosity to be understood in terms of modernity’s re-enchantment or as symptoms of its secularization (Bruce, 2000; Heelas, 1996)? Whether disputing definition, contesting context, arguing over method or disagreeing about theory, by situating religion amidst the warp and woof of ever-changing social processes, the discipline of sociology makes an invaluable contribution to the academic study of religious belief and practice.
Further reading
Bruce, S., 2009, ‘The importance of social science in the study of religion’, Fieldwork in Religion 4.1, pp. 7–28.
Droogers, A., 2008, ‘Defining Religion: A Social Science Approach’, in P. B. Clarke (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Sociology of Religion, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 263–79.
Riis, O. P., 2008, ‘Methodology in the Sociology of Religion’, in P. B. Clarke (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Sociology of Religion, pp. 229–44.
Spickard, J. V., 2007, ‘Micro Qualitative Approaches to the Sociology of Religion: Phenomenologies, Interviews, Narratives, and Ethnographies’, in J. A. Beckford and N. J. Demereth III (eds), The Sage Handbook of the Sociology of Religion, London: Sage, pp. 121–43.
Voas, D., 2007, ‘Surveys of Behaviour, Beliefs and Affiliation: Micro-Quantitative’, in J. A. Beckford and N. J. Demereth III (eds), The Sage Handbook of the Sociology of Religion, London: Sage, pp. 144–66.
Notes
1 Functional definitions of religion should not be confused with functionalist theories of society (see Chapters 1 and 3).
2 Spiritism/Kardecism is a separate phenomenon from the English speaking movement known as Spiritualism, which traces its roots back to events that took place in Hydesville, USA, in 1848.
3 For alternative conceptualizations of the differing dimensions of religion, see Stark and Glock (1968, pp. 11–21), Smart (1996) and Sharpe (1983, pp. 91–107).
3
The Classical Legacy: Marx, Durkheim
and Weber
Introduction
Among the most formative thinkers of the sociological paradigm, Karl Marx, Émile Durkheim and Max Weber are fundamental reference points for the sociology of religion. Of course, the discipline of sociology calls upon far more than the foundational insights of these three men. In doing so, however, what is drawn upon and how it is employed is – to a greater or lesser extent – orchestrated by reference to vocabulary, themes, theories and methods bequeathed to sociology by these individuals. By no means the only features of the sociological landscape, the legacies of Marx, Durkheim and Weber nevertheless remain its most prominent points of reference (Craib, 1997; Giddens, 1971). Consequently, even when in vehement dispute with their respective approaches, social scientists continue to plot a course which takes account of their enduring significance to the sociological terrain.
Each in his own way, Marx, Durkheim and Weber regard religion as both exemplary of prevailing social conditions and an excellent barometer of unfolding societal transformations. As Edles notes:
The study of religion has been at the heart of sociology since it was first founded as an academic discipline in the late nineteenth century . . . Though they used different terms and definitions, Durkheim and Weber, as well as Marxist-inspired theorists . . . all considered religion a fundamental system of meaning. (2002, pp. 25–6)
Ironically, following leads given by these foundational thinkers in respect of the demise of traditional religion within modern society, subsequent generations of sociologists – with few notable (for example, Talcott Parsons) exceptions – relegated religion to the exotic fringe of sociological thought. It is unsurprising, then, that subsequent to the renaissance of the sociology of religion in the 1970s, Marx, Durkheim and Weber have come to enjoy considerable prominence in contemporary debates pertaining to the status, role and future of religion in modern society. Indeed, I think it fair to say that the prominence given to these thinkers by the sociology of religion far exceeds that afforded by other components of the sociological paradigm.
This chapter concentrates upon providing an appreciation of the respective theoretical frameworks within which Marx, Durkheim and Weber situate their treatments of religion. To best understand these respective treatments, some awareness is needed of their foundational presuppositions and core concepts. To this end, the approach to religion of each of these formative social thinkers is prefaced by a brief overview of their most relevant theoretical concerns. While Marx, Durkheim and Weber each prognosticate upon the likely future of religion within modern urban-industrial society, for the purposes of balance and continuity I reserve these observations for use as the introductory section of our next chapter. Suffice to say here that each of these social theorists foresees the decline – if not eventual disappearance – of religion as an important source of social order and collective meaning.
Karl Marx (1818–83)
Technically speaking, Marx was not a sociologist. His contribution to the sociological tradition, however, is beyond dispute. Marx wrote at a time when the first major reverberations of the industrial revolution were being felt across Europe and North America. For a variety of reasons, Marx’s writings were not widely published and became something of a niche concern among radical activists and left-leaning intellectuals. Despite the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, it was not until later in the twentieth century that Marx’s writings began to receive widespread interest. Although already gaining popularity among certain sections of the sociological community, it was the cultural revolutions of the 1960s which established Marx as de rigueur reading for all aspiring sociologists. Now an unquestioned part of the sociological canon, Marx’s work – or theoretical strands thereof – can be credited with informing many of the presuppositions which underwrite the emancipatory approaches (such as feminist theory and postcolonial studies) so popular today (see Chapter 6).
Born in Germany to middle-class Jewish parents in 1818, Marx received his doctorate in philosophy from the University of Berlin in 1841. Attempting to understand the macro-structural and institutional implications of the widespread and rapid urban-industrialization taking place, Marx employed and/or adapted a range of philosophical, political and economic theories which both articulated and informed his radical social values. Indeed, it was these radical values which resulted in his flight from state persecution in various European countries and his eventual settling in England, where he remained until his death in 1883 (McLellan, 1973).
Up
