The two authors are (respectively) a volunteer priest and one volunteer vicar in their local parishes, and this voluntarism ticks the postmodernism box straight away – no doubt being a volunteer enables them to ‘dip into’ their religions and be involved without any of the more unpleasant commitments associated with going ‘full clergy’.
To be honest I haven’t read it, but I caught a review of it by two people who had on Radio four on Sunday morning. (FINALY I get some payback for all the religious content I’m not normally interested in on a Sunday morning!).
I’ve a had a quick browse of it and it basically provides tips on how to ‘lead a good, happy life’ and reflections on some of life’s ‘deeper questions’ and ‘moral issues’ – and the advice comes from people of many faiths, and no faith, which is kind of blurring the boundaries between the sacred and the profane.
You might describe the book as well suited for our pick and mix approach to religion today, and it certainly seem to be ‘anti institutional’ yet ‘pro-spirituality’, at least judging by the brief extract below…
Anyway, just a quick update….. seems like a relevant piece of contemporary evidence for aspects of the beliefs in society course!
Karen Armstrong argues that there is no inherent incompatibility between the Western and Islamic world, but sees economic and political factors as the main reasons for increasing tensions in recent decades.
Armstrong’s arguments can be used to criticise Huntington’s ‘Clash of Civlizations’ thesis, which sees increasing conflict between different cultures/ religions as an inevitable outcome of globalisation brining ‘incompatible’ civilizations into closer contact with each other.
Islam and the failure of modernisation
Armstrong points out that in the late 19th and early 20th century, most Muslim intellectuals looked up to the process of modernisation occurring in the West at that time, and wanted Islamic countries to become more like Britain and France.
Some Islamic scholars even claimed that Britain and France were more Islamic than Islamic countries: Islam advocates the sharing of resources, and there was a trend towards this in so countries in early 20th Europe.
Armstrong characterises modernisation as consisting of:
Technological evolution moving countries beyond being agricultural, and making people less dependent on nature.
Increasing productivity and innovation.
Higher levels of education for the general populace.
Greater inclusion of people from diverse religious backgrounds
The development of the ‘modern spirit’ which involves more people engaging in politics, science and intellectual pursuits more generally.
Western imperialism and human rights
Western countries occupied most Muslim countries, including Egypt, Sudan, Libya and Algeria. There were attempts to introduce democracy in many countries, the historical record of Western occupation of Muslim countries has not exactly been conducive to ‘positive modernisation’ –
in many countries, the West backed autocratic leaders when it suited them (in return for access to oil supplies for example) and these leaders tended to deprive people of their human rights, suppressing freedom of speech for example.
In Iran for example, the Shah Muhammad Reza Pahlavi was installed in power in 1953 in a coup supported by the American and British. He was a particularly ruthless leader who ordered a massacre in Tudeh Square in 1978 in which nearly 900 people were killed. He was overthrown the year after in the famous Islamic Revolution of 1979.
A further effect of Western occupation was to increase divisions and inequalities: money derived from British oil companies for example tended to go to the minority of autocrats, and very little trickled down to the ordinary people. In fact there is something of a history of exploitation of poor workers by wealthy corporations operating in Islamic countries.
In Iran for example, the British and then the Americans backed the Pahlavi shahs as dictatorial leaders. These turned out to be particular
The Causes of Fundamentalism
Armstrong argues that the rise of Islamic Fundamentalism is a reaction against the nationalist and secularist ideologies imposed on them by the West, which basically failed the average citizen in Muslim countries.
Fundamentalists believe they are fighting for their survival against a Western Imperialism that wants to wipe out Islam from existence.
Armstrong believes that there is no reason why Islam cannot co-exist with the West, because most Muslims are not Fundamentalists and there is plenty of room for interpreting Islam as ‘being all about peace’.
Samuel P. Huntington sees ‘civilizations’ as the most significant grouping in global society, rather than ‘nation states’, or ‘global religions’, although there are often close relationships between religions and Huntington’s concept of ‘civilizations’.
Globalization has resulted in the world becoming a smaller place, which means that there are increasing interactions between ‘civilizations’, which intensifies ‘civilization consciousness’.
According to Huntington, increasing contact between civilizations often has the effect of emphasising differences rather than similarities, which can cause an increasing amount of conflict in the world.
What are ‘Civilizations’?
For Huntington, civilizations are ‘cultural entities’ differentiated from each other by history, language, cultural traditions and, most importantly, religion.
Huntington distinguishes between the following different civilizations, as represented in the map above.
As Huntington sees is, sources of identity which are not based on religion have declined. Political identities matter less since the collapse of communism, and increasing international travel has weakened national identity, ‘civilizational identity’, based mainly on religion has stepped in to fill the gap.
Clashes between civilizations
To back up his argument, Huntington points to the fact that there are many conflicts on the borders between civilizations:
The former Yugoslavia between Orthodox Christian and Muslim civilizations.
In the Middle East between Judaism, Islam and Western Christianity.
In India the clash between Muslims and Hindus.
Huntington believes that there will increasingly be clashes between civilizations, because these identities are based mainly on ethnicity and religion, and thus foster an ‘us and them’ type of identity.
Increasingly, political leaders will draw on ‘civilization identity’ in order to try and mobilize support, as with The Islamic State claiming Muslims should unite against ‘Western civilizations’.
Religion as a more significant cause of conflict…
Huntington is one of the few academics of religion who argue against the secularisation thesis. He believes that civilizations, based mostly on religious identity, will become an increasingly important source of conflict in the future.
At the moment, Western civilization is dominant, however, as the ‘Islamic’ and ‘Hindu’ civilisations develop more potent nuclear capabilities (Pakistan, India) and as the world shrinks further, this dominance is likely to decrease, which opens the possibility for more serious conflicts.
Huntington further argues that there is no chance of a world culture developing because civilization identity is so strong.
I’m not convinced there is any real empirical basis for Huntington’s ‘fault-lines’.
Even if there is some empirical basis for his civilizations, I’m convinced that religion is going to remain that important as a source of identity within each of them: the global trend, as in the West, is still towards secularisation.
Haralambos and Holborn: Sociology Themes and Perspectives, edition eight.
Steve Bruce argues that the main causes of Fundamentalism are modernisation and secularisation, but we also need to consider the nature of the religions themselves and a range of ‘external factors’ to fully explain the growth of fundamentalist movements.
Modernisation has undermined religion in at least three ways:
Social life has become separated from religious life (linked to the process of differentiation)
Rationalisation means that people are more likely to seek scientific explanations for behaviour rather than religious explanations
Bruce argues that in certain societies ‘religious traditionalist’ feel as if their way of life is under threat, and so they take steps to defend their traditions against the erosive influence of modernisation.
However, Bruce also argues that the existence of a group of traditionalists who feel threatened is not sufficient to explain the rise of Fundamentalism, a number of other factors are also important:
Other factors which explain the rise of religious fundamentalism:
Bruce argues that the following factors make it more likely that Fundamentalism will emerge:
Where there is ‘ideological cohesion’ – around a single God and/ or sacred text for example. Fundamentalism seems to be stronger in Christianity and Islam, not so strong in Hinduism and Buddhism.
When there is a common enemy to unite against – Bruce notes that Islamic Fundamentalism is often united against the USA.
Lack of centralised control (ironically) – It might be that Catholicism has not developed fundamentalist strains because the Pope and the Vatican tightly control dissenters. However in Protestant Christianity and Islam, there is more freedom for individuals on the fringes to claim to have found a ‘more authentic’ and fundamentalist interpretation of those religions.
The existence of marginalised individuals facing oppression – Fundamentalism needs recruits, and if a Fundamentalist group emerges with claims that it can provide a better life for people if they just adhere to the faith, it is more likely to grow
Bruce further argues that the nature of Fundamentalism is shaped by how the political institutions deal with Fundamentalist movements: where they are blocked access to political representation, movements are more likely to turn to violence.
Bruce argues that both the external factors above and religious beliefs themselves are important in explaining the rise of Fundamentalism.
He also points out that the specific histories of Christianity and Islam have affected the way the see politics. Christianity spent much of its early life as an obscure sect, on the political fringes, so is more concerned with ‘day to day’ (non-political) life, whereas Islam quickly came to dominate states in its early history – thus Islam is more concerned with politics than Christianity.
Bruce also argues that the nature of religion affects the way Fundamentalism is expressed – Christianity tends to emphasise the importance of belief, while Islam emphasises the importance of actions, thus Islam is more likely to develop violent forms of fundamentalism compared to Christianity.
Finally, Bruce argues that Fundamentalism has no chance of succeeding in the West, but it might in the less developed regions of the world.
Haralamabos and Holborn: Sociology Themes and Perspectives edition 8.
For the purposes of A-level sociology, ‘conservative’ usually has two meanings:
Preventing social change
Supporting traditional values.
We might also add a third: modest, reserved, austere, not showy.
On important analytical point is that some Fundamentalist groups want to reverse some social changes that have undermined the role of religion in society, taking society back to a more ‘traditional era’.
A second analytical point is to distinguish between the extent to which different religions promote conservative views and how successful they are in actually translating those views into actions.
Arguments and evidence for the view that religion acts as a conservative force
Various functionalist thinkers have argued that religion prevents rapid, radical social change and that it supports traditional values
Marx certainly argued that religion was a conservative force – through acting as the ‘opium of the masses’
Simone deBeauvoir argued that religion propped up Patriarchy by compensating women for their second class status.
Churches tend to have traditional values and be supported by more conservative elements in society. They also tend to support existing power structures (e.g. links to royalty and the House of Lords in the U.K.)
Islamic Fundamentalist movements, such as the Islamic State, aim to take society back to a more religious era
The New Christian Right in America support conservative values: traditional family structures, for example.
Arguments and evidence against the view that religion acts as a conservative force
Liberation Theology – a movement for the oppressed in Latin America stood against the powerful elites. However, it didn’t seem to have much success in changing anything.
The Baptist Church and the Civil Rights movement in the USA, much more successful.
The Nation of Islam promoted radical social change in the USA in the 1960s.
The New Age Movement promotes acceptance and diversity, so is not ‘conservative’ – in the sense that the New Right tend to support family values, for example.
Feminist forms of spirituality are not conservative.
More ambiguous arguments and evidence and analytical points
Max Weber’s ‘Protestant Ethic’ – Calvinism was a religion which was very ‘conservative’ and yet it unintentionally brought about Capitalism which ultimately undermined the role of religion in society.
As a general rule, churches and denominations tend to be more conservative.
If sociologists refer to something as being ‘ideological’, they typically mean that it supports powerful groups in society, effectively keeping the existing ruling class, or elites, in power.
Scientists generally claim that the process of conducting scientific research and constructing scientific knowledge is value-free, and thus ‘non-ideological’. In simple terms, they claim their research reveals ‘the truth’, or the underlying causal laws of nature and the universe.
However, this doesn’t necessarily mean that science is not also ‘ideological’. This part of the religion specification overlaps with the ‘is sociology a science’ part of Theory and Methods.
The argument that science is value free and thus non-ideological
The scientific method involves using controlled experiments to test a hypothesis bout how variables interact with each other
Because all of the steps of the experiments are carefully recorded, it allows anyone else to repeat the experiment and test the results, thus verifying the results are ‘true’.
It follows that scientists should strive to keep their own biases and values out of the research process, because they know anyone else can test their results.
This should mean the knowledge collected through scientific research is objective, value free, or non-ideological.
Three ways in which science might be said to be ‘ideological’
The research process itself may simply reflect the biases of influential scientists
Thomas Khun found that scientific research tends to be limited by dominant paradigms.
A paradigm is a set of assumptions about the way the world is, which frames scientific research.
Kuhn found that scientific findings which didn’t fit in with the existing, dominant paradigm, were ignored.
In this sense, groups of leading scientists who operate within the dominant paradigm ignored the work of younger scientists whose work may challenge their world view.
The wider field of scientific research is influenced by those who fund the research
Bruno Latour found that scientists would limit their research depending on where their funding came from.
For example, if a particular drug company was funding a lab, there would be reluctance to conduct research which found anything negative about that drug company’s products.
In this way, scientific research which harms powerful funding bodies is less likely to be carried out.
The dominance of the scientific world view may marginalise other non-scientific world views
The scientific world view is a quantitative, materialistic world view, it has worked well to bring about technological ‘progress’. Because of this it may have become oppressive to other forms of knowledge.
Feminists have suggested that it marginalises those who prefer to do research into the more subjective, feelingful aspects of social life.
Religious worldviews may also be taken less seriously because of the rise of ‘scientism’.
If sociologists refer to religion as being ‘ideological’, they typically mean the beliefs and practices of that religion support powerful groups in society, effectively keeping the existing ruling class, or elites, in power.
The idea that religion is ideological is usually associated with Marxist and Radical Feminist Perspectives.
This sub-topic overlaps with ‘religion as a conservative force’.
Marx argued that religion creates false consciousness – it teaches that social inequality is God’s will and thus mystifies the real cause of inequality and misery which is exploitation by the Bourgeoise
Religion is the opium of the masses – religion prevents change and keeps the elite in power by providing spiritual comfort for the poor – by making a virtue out of poverty, and promising a better life after death if people obey the rules now, for example.
There are direct links between the church and the bourgeoisie – the bourgeoise fund the church, and the church support (ideologically) the bourgeoisie
Neo Marxist Otto Maduro argued that the Catholic Church in Latin America was relatively autonomous from the state and the bourgeois – i.e. they were not directly controlled by them. Thus, there was some degree of freedom for some priests to interpret Christianity in a way that was pro-poor and anti-elite, and not ideological. As with the example of Liberation Theology.
Mary Daly argued that Christianity was as set of Patriarchal myths. She sees the Catholic Church as especially bad: it downplayed the role of women in the bible and legitimated sex role segregation for example.
Simone de Beauvoir argued that religion is used by men to compensate women for their second-class status – it provides them with spiritual rewards for accepting inferior social roles.
El Saadawi suggests that Islam itself has been hijacked by Patriarchy in many countries, but is not necessarily ideological: women can fight back.
Carol Christ’s work shows that religion does not have be ideological: her idea of ‘embodied spirituality and focus on women ‘finding their Goddess’ stands against monotheistic religions. It is empowering for women and challenges existing power structures.
Further examples and evidence for and against the view that ‘religion is ideological’
Religion is ideological
Religion is NOT ideological
· Marxists and Feminists generally point to established churches as the most likely institutions to support elites.
· The New Religions right in America tends to support white, male wealth – e.g. it supports the Republican Party.
· Max Weber… over hundreds of years Calvinist believes lead to social changes which undermined religion.
· Postmodernism – people are free to pick and choose which aspects of religion they like. Thus, it cannot be ideological.
· Some sects challenge the existing order – e.g. The Nation of Islam.
This is one possible example of a 10 mark ‘with item’ question which could come up in the AQA’s A level sociology paper 2: topics in sociology (section B: beliefs in society option).
Read the item, and then answer the question below.
Older people are more likely to both attend church and express religious beliefs than younger people.
Some sociologists have suggested that this is due to changes which occur during the life-course. Other sociologists believe this trend is more about social changes resulting in generational differences.
Applying material from the item, analyse two reasons why younger people are generally less religious than older people
The first reason why older people are more religious is that as they come to the end of their ‘life course’, they are simply biologically closer to death which means they start to think more about what happens after death. This is something which all religions deal with, and so it could simply be that older people become more religious because they find a suitable explanation to their questions about the afterlife in religion.
This could be especially the case today, as modern society is obsessed with ‘youth and life’ and so religion is one of the few places people close to death might find solace.
A related life course related factor is social isolation. As people enter retirement, they lose their work place connections, and are more likely to see their friends die. Attending church could be a way of making up for these lost connections.
The second possible reason is social changes – meaning that each successive generation is less religious than the previous generation.
The church has gradually become disengaged from society and so has less influence over social life: thus children today are much less likely to see religious authority being exercised in politics, and religion has also lost its influence in education: RE is now somewhat watered down compared to what it used to be: presenting religion as a choice rather than a necessity.
Also, now that society has become more postmodern, it emphasizes, fun, diversity and choice, all of which traditional religion at least doesn’t offer as much of: people would rather spend Sunday relaxing rather than in church, and this is very much normal today.
As a result of all the above, parents are much less likely to socialize their children into religious beliefs and practices, which explains the decline in religion across the generations and between younger and older people today.
Using material from the item answer the question below
Numerous surveys on religious belief and church attendance in the UK and around Europe suggest that people are becoming less religious year on year, leading many sociologists to theorise why secularisation is occurring.
However, other sociologists suggest that religion may be changing, rather than declining, especially when we broaden our perspective and look at religion more globally.
Evaluate the view that extent of secularisation has been exaggerated (20)
Make sure you deal with different theories of secularisation, addressing both behaviour and belief.
Be sure to address the idea of change rather than decline.
Make sure to address globalisation.
Secularisation usually measured by beliefs, behaviour and belonging
On all measurements, the UK certainly seems to be getting more secular
HOWEVER, there are limitations with the evidence, and possible counter trends, especially when we look at religion globally.
Statistical Evidence for secularisation
Beliefs – an increasing number of people in UK say they don’t believe in God, now up to >30%; younger people less likely to believe in God than older people; also Census belief figures.
Behaviour: <5% of the adult population attend church regularly, only 20% of marriages are church marriages and only 10% of children are baptised.
Belonging: 50% of adults now class themselves as having no religion, almost 75% of 18-24 year olds
There’s been about a 10% decline in active C of E membership in the last decade.
Nearly half of all funerals still have a religious ceremony
All other religions besides Christianity have increased in recent years.
There used to be a close tie between church and state (Divine Right of Kings etc.)
However, today politicians keep they’re religion out of politics
Civil Rights law bans discrimination on the basis of religion
The C of E is critical of the government, but the government ignores it.
Cassonva argues that looked at globally a process of ‘de-privatization’ of religion is occurring. Some events suggest religion is important significantly: The Arab Spring for example, and the influence of the conservative new right in U.S. politics.
Rationalization and Disenchantment
Max Weber argued development of science, technology and social bureaucracies undermined the role of religion in society.
Science meant knowledge claims could be assessed objectively and empirically, rather than religious truth claims which could not be tested (so it’s more open and democratic, thus more appealing)
Also the advances of science, when applied to technology and industry (the industrial revolution) improved society without the need for religion.
While rational organisation of society (schools/ hospitals/ political movements) led to further social improvements, again without religion.
All of this led to disenchantment, or the decrease of the role of mystery, magic and superstition in explaining social phenomena and in helping people determine what they should do.
Criticisms of the idea that rationalization undermines religion
Steve Bruce – although science and technology have challenged religious beliefs, people still turn to religion when technology fails.
The New Age Movement and continued influence of the Christian Right in the USA show that religion is still important to many.
Religious pluralism as evidence of secularization:
Bruce argues that the increasing diversity of religion results in secularization:
Because there is no one religion, religion no longer binds individuals to society like it used to.
Secondly, the state finds it more difficult to support religion.
This ties in with Durkheim’s functionalist theory that one religion acts as a collective conscience. However, when there is no longer one religion, it cannot perform this function!
Arguments against religious pluralism as evidence of secularization
Pluralism may be the only way religion can ‘work’ as part of a postmodern society.
Many non-Christian religions are growing. Maybe ‘de-Christianisation is a more accurate concept than secularisation?
There is evidence that people still selectively use religion at times of crises.
Evidence against secularisation: postmodernism/ believing without belonging
Postmodernists suggest that the nature of religion is changing, rather than disappearing completely.
It might be that religion now plays a more significant role in some aspects of life: religious leaders are like ‘morality experts’ who can give guidance in an uncertain, risk society.
People also still selectively use religion during life crises.
Davie also argues that many still believe, but just don’t attend church.
This way of practicing religion is maybe a better fit with postmodern society.
Evidence against secularisation: a global perspective
Secularisation certainly appears to be happening in Europe.
HOWEVER, globally, religion is still a powerful force: The Arab Spring, and Fundamentalist conflicts for example.
Thoughts on a Conclusion
Given the problems with defining and measuring religion, it’s difficult to say whether it’s ‘decline’ has been exaggerated, but on balance of the evidence it seems fair to conclude that religion has declined in Europe, but it is far from ‘dead and buried’,
However, looked at globally, religion appears to be more significant than in Europe, so maybe sociologists should be more careful not to fall into a Eurocentric perspective when evaluating the extent of secularisation.
Eight mind maps covering the sociological perspectives on beliefs in society. In colour!
52 Pages of revision notes covering the entire AQA ‘beliefs in society’ specification: from perspectives on religion, organisations, class, gender ethnicity and age and secularisation, globalisation and fundamentalism.
Three 10 mark ‘outline and explain’ practice exam questions and model answers
Three 10 mark ‘analyse using the item’ 10 practice exam questions and answers
Three 30 mark essay questions and extended essay plans.
The content focuses on the AQA A-level sociology specification. All at a bargain price of just £4.99!
I’ve taught A-level sociology for 16 years and have been an AQA examiner for 10 of those, so I know what I’m talking about, and if you purchase from me you’re avoiding all those horrible corporations that own the major A-level text books and supporting a fully fledged free-range human being, NOT a global corporate publishing company.
It seem ‘natural’ to assume that as people get older and closer to death, they become more interested in what happens after they die, which is something religions have answers to. It may be that people become more religious closer to death because they find the thought of an afterlife more comforting than the thought of themselves just turning to dust.
This kind of fits in with the postmodern view that people actively use religion people use religion to help them die, rather than to help them live.
Older people are more detached from society
Older people tend to be more socially isolated than younger or middle aged people. The older you get, the more likely you are to have witnessed your friends dying and you are more likely to have serious health issues which prevent you from interacting with friends and family.
This is especially the case with women who live longer than men, and thus are more likely to outlive their male partners. This could go some way to explaining the higher levels of religiosity among women compared to men.
Social changes mean each generation is less religious than the previous generation
In this theory, it is not so much that the religious beliefs of individuals change as they get older, rather that social changes mean that each generation is less religious than the previous generation.
Secularization has resulted in religion becoming disengaged from society, so it is much less part of day to day social life: religion doesn’t influence politics like it used to, the status of religious education in schools has declined, and church attendance has dropped.
Each successive generation is also less likely to socialize their children into religious beliefs and practices, thus resulting in a gradual decline in religiosity generation after generation.