and oppression maintained through the unequal distribution of power justified by ideologies of a sexist, racist and classist bent.
Scientific status
A second focal point of disagreement among sociologists concerns its status as a science. Regarding itself as the ‘science of society’, sociology traditionally modelled itself after the natural sciences (biology, chemistry, physics). As a result, sociology adopted a range of assumptions in respect of the status of its analytical object (society), the manner in which this object can be known (epistemology) and the best ways of studying it (methodology). Most popularly known as ‘positivism’, sociology’s traditional approach regarded itself as being based, like the natural sciences, on the accumulation of objective facts about the world which could be gathered in a value-neutral manner and tested by replicable methods to the end of formulating general laws which applied to society as a whole. Over time, however, the dominance of positivism has been challenged by an understanding of the sociological endeavour which rejects the need for sociology to model itself on the natural sciences. While accepting the need of scientific rigour, growing numbers of sociologists argue that the particular nature of society – as both human construct and socially determinative – renders the analytical, epistemological and methodological presuppositions of the positivist paradigm both infeasible and undesirable (Craib and Benton, 2001).
The problematization of established positivistic assumptions has led to an increasing diversity of sociological perspectives in respect of, for example, how society should be analytically conceived, what methods are best suited to studying the social world and why sociologists do what they do. Although rather abstruse at points, theoretical issues such as these have direct consequences for the everyday practices of sociologists on the ground. For example, over recent decades – and no doubt also influenced by the resurgence of conflict theory – growing numbers of sociologists are rejecting traditional assumptions regarding disciplinary neutrality and researcher objectivity. While committed to established disciplinary norms of analytical rigour and critical reflection, certain sociologists hold their task to be not only understanding society as best they can but also helping to make society a better place. Known by a variety of terms and adopting a range of approaches (such as liberation sociology and action research), the sociological endeavour assumes a committed, if not emancipatory, tenor which dismisses value neutrality as both a theoretical myth and avoidance of moral responsibility. As Feagin and Vera remark, ‘the point of liberation sociology is not just to research the social world but to change it in the direction of democracy and social justice’ (2008, p. 1).
Applied methods
Not unrelated to these developments, the methods used by sociology to engage the social world have likewise diversified. Although the importance to sociology of understanding the motivations and intentions of individual social actors was emphasized by the German social thinker Max Weber (1864–1920), subsequent generations of sociologists failed to develop this insight. Reflecting both functionalist and Marxist preoccupations, many sociologists became overly concerned with analysing macro-structural processes (e.g. urbanization) and institutional dynamics (e.g. integration) to the detriment of engaging the micro-social encounters of individual agents. As a consequence, sociology became heavily reliant upon large-scale, quantitative methods by which the data it needed to understand macro-structural and institutional processes could be gathered. During this time, a minority of social scientists (such as symbolic interactionists and ethnomethodologists) continued to concern themselves with understanding the everyday micro-social interactions through which individuals pass and by which they both sustain their lives and render them meaningful. Given their micro-social focus, these sociologists championed a range of qualitative methods, which they used to engage both the processes of interpersonal encounter and the subjective interpretations thereof by the individuals involved in them.
Within sociology today, qualitative methods such as interviews and discourse analysis enjoy an established place alongside quantitative methods such as questionnaires and statistical analysis. Of course, different types of method lend themselves to acquiring and interpreting different kinds of data and are thereby more or less suited to engaging different sorts of social processes and dynamics. For this reason, many forms of sociological enquiry employ ‘mixed methods’ approaches which combine both quantitative and qualitative modes of capturing and analysing data. Irrespective of the methods employed, however, fruitful sociological enquiry relies upon an awareness of their respective strengths and weaknesses; not least as they pertain to what kinds of data are sought, where they are found and how they are captured (Bryman, 2004; Robson, 2002).
Conclusion
In combination, differences in the theorization of society, interpretations of its raison d’être and the methods employed in its practice make for a highly variegated sociological terrain. At the same time, the continual, rapid, large-scale and increasingly plural nature of social transformation demands of sociology an unstinting willingness to innovate in both its conceptual and practical engagement with modern society. As will be seen throughout what follows, because it addresses the same kinds of challenges, the sociology of religion exhibits the same theoretical fissures, ethical tensions and methodological debates as the overarching disciplinary paradigm in which it sits. No less varied or innovative than its disciplinary siblings, as we shall now see the sociology of religion is just as informative, stimulating and, at times, contentious.
Further reading
Berger, P., 1966, Invitation to Sociology, London: Pelican.
Bilton, T., Bonnett, K. and Jones, P., 2002, Introductory Sociology, 4th edn, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cohen, R. and Kennedy, P., 2007, Global Sociology, 2nd edn, New York: NYU Press.
Elias, N., 1978, What is Sociology?, London: Hutchinson.
Seidman, S., 2004, Contested Knowledge: Social Theory Today, 3rd edn, Oxford: Blackwell.
Note
1 Although used in a slightly different sense, the terms ‘structured structure’ and ‘structuring structure’ are borrowed from Pierre Bourdieu (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992, p. 139).
2
Religion in Sociological Perspective
Having sketched the central components of the sociological paradigm, it is now time to introduce how the disciplinary particularities of sociology are played out in respect of its theoretical and practical encounter with religion. The first part of this chapter deals with the seemingly perennial problem of defining religion. Next, issues relating to the contexts in which religion is found and how it is practically engaged are treated. As will become evident, questions relating to the where (context) and how (method) of the sociological study of religion are directly informed by what religion is understood to be (definition).
Defining religion
Like the fabled Trojan horse, definitions of religion carry in themselves more than is visible to the naked eye. Sociologically speaking, there is no such thing as an interest-free definition of religion; at least, not one with enough meat on the bone to be of any academic use (Droogers, 2008, pp. 263–79). As with most things sociological, when treating matters of definition Weber’s observation upon the inescapably perspectival nature of the sociological gaze is particularly
