8 theories on Religion

Religion as Alienation: Karl Marx (May 1818-1883)

Ideas:

What is fundamentally real about the world can be found in material forces rather in mental concepts. It underlies that:

1.      Humans are motivated by material concerns. Food, clothes and shelter come first, then reproduction and sex (Malinowski Theory of needs: every culture must satisfy the biological system of needs, and that determines cultural responses). These have to be met by:

1.      “Mode of production” (the comforts of life must be produced by some form of organized, large-scale labor, as capitalism, feudalism), carried on by

2.      “Means of production” (our knowledge, material tools, capital, resources, "all those things with the aid of which man acts upon the subject of his labor, and transform it.").

3.      This will fall into the division of labor (different people have different functions), and create “relations of production” between the people.

4.      “Forces of production” are the means and relations of production combined (in some usages). It is commonly used to mean about the same thing as means of production – the things we need to produce something.

1.      Primitive communist society - simplest and most natural form of society where everybody shares everything, people experience variety by participating in a mix of activities. One belongs to a group but has a sense of self;

2.      Classic civilization - arose after the introduction of private property and relations of production change. People deal with each other in a base of exchange (which means that the most talented or fortunate get more and the rest gets less). Additionally, the mode of production changes from hunting-gathering to agriculture, therefore those who own land are in a position of advantage (own the products and means of production) and recognize everyone else as their dependants. These things separate classes by power and wealth, and with it comes social unrest.

3.      Modern stage of development - modern capitalism introduces a new mode and relations of production: commercial manufacturing and industrialization (profit motive at a large scale). The conflict between worker and owner becomes more intense as the “middle class” (rich) and “the proletarian” become more apart. The only hope is revolution, followed by an intermediate period called “dictatorship of the proletarian” (they are in power) and then to the final phase in history, communism, where class division and private property will no longer exist.

5.      Dialectic (resolving of disagreement, how society changes): Human history is the story of class struggle, perpetual conflict between rich and poor. This fight results in either revolution and re-constitution (happy future must rest its foundation on struggle) or common ruin of both classes.

6.      Source of unhappiness: Marx rejected Hegel’s idealism but didn’t reject the concept of alienation and history as a process of conflict: they are actually the center of his theory, but not rooted in ideas, they are rooted in basic material realities of life.

1.      Alienation is the separation of the material and the ideological, two things that should naturally belong together. Human beings are responsible for creating their alienation (capitalism is responsible for alienation): attributing to God/others things that properly belong to themselves, their accomplishments, and this is the source of human unhappiness. But why give all credit and power to God and Kings? Because humans suffer from self-alienation. Labor is the free activity of human beings as they support their social lives against the world of nature, and it should be the expression of the whole personality. In reality, it becomes something separated from us, something we can trade or buy. We also become alienated from the “species-life” of humanity, for there is nothing meaningfully human in the work or expression of talents. Finally we become alienated from one another, for our personality no longer engages another people.

2.      What is the source of this alienation, made worse by modern times?

1.      Labor theory of value: An object’s value is created by the amount of work put into it (main premise on Capital). In capitalism, profit is only made by the trade of things that are under-valued (more work for less money), creating surplus-value for the factory owner (The profit or surplus-value arises when workers do more labor than is necessary to pay the cost of hiring their labor-power); and by competition (cheap workers, less workers is desirable). Then comes the problem of overproduction, which also has economic negative impacts (depression). This cycle of economic misfortunes fire the social conflict and announce the end of capitalism.

2.      Base and Superstructure:

1.      Base: economic facts that generate (the foundation of social life) division of labor, struggle of classes and human alienation.

2.      Superstructure: spheres of invisible activity. Arise from the economic base and are shaped by it, by the emotions and energies of the class struggle, by “intellectual activity”. It consists on the institutions we associate with cultural life, as family, government, art, philosophy, ethics and religion. They exist to contain and provide controlled releases (either by force or persuasion) of the tensions that arise from the class struggle. Example: Government represents the wishes of the ruling classes and punishes those who will break the law imposed by them.

2.      He created not a theory of religion but a system of thought that resembles religion.

1.      Ruling philosophy of many governments, Marx’s writings about communism are Bible-like, for Communism presents a total vision upon human life, its place in the natural world, and explanation of past and future).

2.      View on religion: “it is pure illusion” with evil consequences. System which provides reasons for keeping things in society just the way oppressors want. The belief in god or gods is a product of unhappiness and class struggle. Good traits, beauty, love and truth are human traits and there is no need to project them in a God. Man makes religion. RELIGION EXISTS TO ADDRESS THE EMOTIONAL NEEDS OF ALIENATED HUMAN BEINGS, “it is the opium of the people”. Through it, the pain people suffer by economic inequalities ceases upon the belief of a supernatural world where all sorrows take no place. This can be destructive in a society where revolution is required. People don’t change if they are already content.

1.      Parallel between religion and socioeconomic activity marked by alienation: Religion robs us of our human merits and gives them to God, capitalist economy robs us of our labor (our true-self expression) and gives it to those who are able to buy it. The alienation we see in religion (superstructure) is based on the economic unhappiness (the real and underlying alienation, the base).

Background: German social philosopher. Jewish family from Prussia (German state), converted to Christianity due to persecution. Stubborn man, fierceful atheist, found his own mentor, Baron von Westphalen, who inspired in him the interest for classics. Studied philosophy and law at the university of Bonn and later Berlin. At that time, German Universities were under the influence of Friedrich von Hegel*, who became central to Marx ideas. To be taken seriously, Marx joined the circle of thinkers called Young Hegelians, who rejected the theory of their master - matter and physical are primary (mind is merely a reflection of the material world). In 1841 - doctoral dissertation on Greek materialists (Democritus and Epicurus). He turned to journalism because of his radical ideas (which prevented him to become a teacher), and then went to Paris, where he began to read French social and economic thinkers. There he defined his materialist view of human nature and destiny, society, politics, laws, morals, philosophy and religion. Friendship with Friedrich Engels (materialistic views inspired by the observation of English factory workers) and in 1845 they began to collaborate with each other. Marx was the philosopher, Engels was the communicator. In 1848 they both wrote the Communist Manifesto. Marx was expelled from Belgium when revolutions across Europe began to emerge, and then came back to Germany. In 1849 he moved permanently to London, where he struggled to support his family yet didn’t cease his studies. Published Capital in 1867, in which he shows how economic activity supported his materialist view of history and point the way to a revolutionary communist future (inspiration for the main communist revolutions (Lenine and Mao)).At the same time he tried to remain active on his class struggle, supporting socialist parties and organizing “The International” (represent the common interests of the workers). He died in 1881 largely unnoticed by the world.

Main inspiration: *Hegel - idealist, said  that mental things are always fundamental to the world and material things are secondary (as materialists explain the world as founded in pratical problems), for they are the physical expressions of an universal spirit, absolute idea (called God). This being strives to become more aware of itself by acquiring material forms. However, material never captures the ideal, is never as perfect, therefore it is “alien” to spirit. Events in the material world (“thesis”) are corrected by an opposed spiritual event (“antithesis”), and the tension is resolved by a third event which gets the best part of both (“synthesis”), just to create another thesis. This sequence is called “dialectic” (see ideas).

Important publications: On the Jewish Questions (1843), Toward the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right: Introduction (1843), Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts (1844), The Holy Family: Or a Critique of all Critiques (1845), Communist Manifesto (1848), Capital (1867)

Critique:

1.      Functionalist reductionism: Marx explains everything through economics.

2.      Marx focuses on Christianity on his approach to religion. His theory couldn’t, however, be applied to other primitive tribal religions or societies that already live accordingly to some form of communism.

3.      If religion lies on economics, then it should change as economics does. Yet that does not always happen.

4.      Political contradiction: Marx assumes that people will only have one goal and point of view, and that is a perfect classless community and the cause of the revolution. It also assumes that some elite will in fact be making decisions (can a democracy be totalitarian?).

5.      Economic contradiction: Marxist theory of value rests on the assumption that only human labor can create value, and more labor creates more value, which creates more surplus to be stolen. The reality is that it doesn’t matter who or what is doing the job, the owner will always get surplus and value is a matter of output.

Society as Sacred: Emile Durkheim (1858-1917)

Ideas:
Social Theory: Society gave birth and shaped every major enterprise of human life. Social facts more fundamental than individual ones, and are as real as physical objects. In order to comprehend what an individual is, they must be explained in and through society, and account for society in social terms.
Theory of religion: No matter where we look for the determining causes of religion, they all turn out to be social. Religion and society are inseparable and virtually indispensable to each other. Society is God because societies create God in their own image. Religion’s true purpose is social, is the carrier of social sentiments, and provides symbols and rituals that enable people to express deep emotions, anchoring them to their community. Preserves and protects the soul of society. Morality inseparable from religion, and religion and morals are inseparable from social framework.
Definition of religion: a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things that are set apart and forbidden.
Social facts: are the values, cultural norms, and social structures external to the individual and capable of exercising a constraint on him (sanctions). Descriptive elements of society which can be studied independently of disposition. Believed the primary objective of sociology was the description and observation of social facts. Religion is what keeps society together, the main source of solidarity.

Four trends/patterns Durkheim noticed following trends as a result of the economic and industrial revolution in France & W. Europe:

1. Money related interests replaced traditional social system of families, etc.

2. Newer ideals of reason over religious faith and desire for happiness now vs. hope of heaven.

3. Nature of social control changed at the emergence of democratic: masses at bottom, powerful central state at top.

4. Personal affairs gained new freedom and great risk b/c new freedoms released people from old frameworks.

Methodology: Only two ways to approach these social changes: Scientifically.

Works:
The Division of Labor (1893)
1. Nature of Society (Nature of society is the most suitable and promising for a systematic investigation done in certain point in history (synchronic, functionalism, how things fit together now)): society existed first to shape people from the moment they came into the world. All language, habits, beliefs, etc came from this framework from birth. Private property first possessions communal in character, sacred ground belonged to whole group.

Social solidarity has always been primary and differed in ancient and modern societies in WAYS people tried to achieve unity,

Mechanical solidarity: belief systems, rituals bring people together, good moral behavior secured by punishments/external enforcement. Homogeneous. Ancient societies have collective conscience.
Organic solidarity: needs everyone to function as a whole/division of labor, moral enforcement comes from need each person acquires for the work of others: internal enforcement. Limited to a vew commands & obligations rather than many. Modern societies have moral individualism and smaller collective conscience. Heterogeneous.

The Rules of Sociological Method (1895)
1. Scientific Study of Society was developed in this book. (Investigated using the most scientific methods attainable).Describes how society must be pursued as an objective, independent science. Believed Tylor’s The Golden Bough was not science, as it had very little substance.

1.      Believes we can determine what is normal and abnormal for any society as it is determined from within a group, not outside. Normal is what everyone does based on observation (is a statistical term). Function is important in explaining behavior. Cause and function are separate. (example, cause of an inner city religious revival is the spellbinding sermons of a preacher, but the revivals social function may go unnoticed by those who join it.) (His book Suicide, describes different categories of normal and abnormal behavior. Certain kinds of suicide are “egoistic” are more normal/typical for Protestant than Catholic countries. Tighter social ties = lower rate of suicide. “Anomic” - another kind of suicide- suggests a feeling of dislocation and aimlessness. Tends to occur in great economic & social instability).

2.      Politics/Education/Morals: Durkheim believed his sociological perspective offered special insight into the nature of political systems, education, morals and religion.
Durkheim’s criticism of Naturism, Animism and how these theories differ from Durkheim’s social functionalism:
Durkheim argues that
1. Tylor relies on grand guesses about how people in the past thought about religion; instead, we need to be scientific.
2. Tylor explains religion as it appears, taking at face value beliefs people hold, THEN asks how those beliefs explain lives and beliefs. Instead, Durkheim sees religion as inseparable from society.
3. Tylor believed gods/totemism developed out of the idea of the soul: animism, while Durkheim argued that religion is simply a natural instinct of the human race.
3 Tylor had an intellectualist approach to religion and religious life, rituals are secondary and follow from the beliefs and depend upon them. Durkheim believed just the opposite; rituals have priority, are basic and create beliefs.

Elementary Forms of the Religious Life  (1912) Last and most important book - presents the heart of Durkheim’s theory of religion: Religious beliefs and rituals are, in the last analysis, symbolic expressions of social realities. Basic elements from which all religion is formed:
Sacred & Profane Unlike Tylor, Frazer and Freud who believed religion is a belief in supernatural beings like God or Gods, Durkheim believed primitive people see all events whether miraculous or ordinary as the same. Instead, people who are religious divide things of the world into sacred and profane. Sacred and profane exist independent of each other and can be either good or evil. The line of separation of morals runs THROUGH the sacred and profane.

1.      Sacred: always set apart as superior, forbidden to normal contact, deserving of respect of the group. Shared. Unite into one moral community called church. What makes you acceptable within a group and provides solidarity within a group

2.      Profane: Ordinary, uneventful, practical, only involves us, not shared but individual, day to day matters, smaller private endeavors of immediate family and personal life. Can be good or evil but NEVER sacred. Religion is the differences from sacred/profane.

3.      Totemism: (reviewed work of Spencer and Gillen who observed Australian aboriginal tribes) Original, elementary form of religion. Hidden. Impersonal, powerful force. As opposed to Tylor’s theory that belief in gods developed out of the idea of the soul, and came to this idea by trying to describe the great events of nature (like sun, sky, storms) Tylor believed totemism arose out of animism (belief in supernatural). Durkheim believed totemism displays all of the truly “elementary forms” of religious life: 1. separation between sacred and profane, 2. ideas of souls and spirits, 3. beginnings of mythical beings and 4. great gods and rituals, including those of prohibition (taboo) celebration, imitation, remembrance, and sorrow) .

1.      Totem: Symbol of both God and the clan, because God and clan are the same. Fundamental to clan, everything of importance shaped by totems. Represents the group, God, is whatever society decides.

2.      Implications of Totem: Worship of totem is worship of society itself. Role of Totemism is to convey to the clan that the clan is a real thing and that society is fixed and permanent like the totem. Shows how all other religious beliefs developed.

3.      Totemism and Ritual -  Ritual are most important part of totemism, promote consciousness of clan, make people feel part of it, and keep it separate from profane. In totem practice, cult breaks into to main form negative & positive and Piacular.

1.      Negative cult - rituals have one main task, to keep sacred from the profane. Consist of prohibitions or taboo. Role of these is to press upon everyone the need to deny the self. This is why most all religions hold high certain people “ascetics” (or people who make a point of extreme denial such as monks).

2.      Positive rituals are the earliest form of sacrifice, sacred exchange, renewal of life of the clan.

3.      Piacular ritual is clan’s rite of atonement/mourning & takes place after death or tragic event in order for the clan to regroup, revive and reaffirm itself. Shows the double sided power of the sacred.

Background: French agnostic, Born in Epinal, near Strasbourg NE France. Influenced by Jewish rabbi father and Roman Catholic schoolteacher, and may have contributed to his interest in religion. Brilliant HS student, admitted to Ecole Normale Superiere, one of Frances finest centers of learning, studying history and philosophy. Had such appreciation for social order and structure that in spite of the rigid learning environment there, he finished the program. Began teaching in Paris, studied a year in Germany with Wundt. 1887, married Louise Drefus, who was devoted to him. Professor of Univ of Bordeaux: which created a new chair of social science and ed specifically for his sociological research. Professor of Univ of Paris at age 44. Spoke out fiercely for the cause of France against Germany. Died at age 59 following the death of his son and a stroke.  

Main Inspiration: Influenced by French thinkers & his work was seen as a development of theirs: Saint-Simon: believed all private property should be tuned over to state:Comte: proposed a grand evolutionary pattern of civilization like Tylor and Frazier, Renan: a celebrated biblical critic, and de Coulanges who did a social analysis of Greek/Roman city states. French life, namely economic and industrial revolutions of France and Europe contributed to his theories. Pattern of life in W. civilization changed: ppl moving to factories & cities, redistribution of wealth and power.

Important Publications: The Divisions of Labor (1893), The Rules of Sociological Method (1895), Suicide (1897),  The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (1912) (his best known and most important book published two years b/f Europe was shaken by WW I),  L’ Annee Sociologique (academic journal published w/other scholars. Became world famous and promoted Sociology as much as his other books))

Analysis:
1. Society and Religion: Individuals make choices within a given social framework form birth, thus religion is eminently social.
2. Scientific Method: Center on a single society, examine it carefully, before going onto comparisons has become widely approved in social science.
3. Ritual and Belief: Rituals of religion have religious priority, are basic and create beliefs. Society always needs “rites” as they disclose the true meaning of religion, while beliefs are the speculative side of religion and change from religion to religion.
4. Functional Explanation: The answer to why people have rituals and why they survive is explained by understanding their function in society. Rituals create the need for symbolism. Society cannot exist without ceremony.

Critique:
Unlike Tylorian animism or Freudian personality theory, Durkheim’s social approach claims to show roots of religious behavior run deep and is a powerful shaping influence. Limitations: Durkheim’s assumptions about nature of religion, Australian evidence, and his reductionist conclusions.
1. Assumptions: Circularity in his thinking: Sacred is social, religious is sacred, therefore religious is social. Dismisses other definitions of religion, on the basis that primitive religious people have no concept of the supernatural. Modern scholars argue that primitive people do hold ideas about extraordinary kind of events.
2. Evidence: Weak evidence based on only one type of culture: Aborigine communities of Australia. Today most of Durkheim’s interpretations of totemism is widely rejected.
3. Reductionism: Durkheim’s theory of religion fits the mold of an aggressively reductionist functionalism, aiming to reduce religion to other than something it claims to be (just a product of society).

Animism and Magic: E. B. Tylor & J. G Frazer

Edward Tylor (1832-1917)

Primitive Culture: (Influenced Darwin’s Origin of Species) Tylor’s Primitive Culture sought to explain the origins of religion.  

1.      Tylor assumed that there are universal scientific laws related to and explaining culture, but what are they?

a.      Independent discovery of similar ideas across the globe led Tylor to believe that people are essentially the same.

b.      When differences between cultures were observed it was explained by Tylor’s, it is due to evolutionary progress: different cultures are advancing along a unilineal path, but at different rates from savagery, to barbarianism and on eventually to civilization. Etic view on culture.

                                           i.    Doctrine of Survivals: these constitute examples of “cultural ‘leftovers’.  For Tylor, religion is a survival and is inferior to science.

c.      Aspects of Human Culture: Aspects of culture can be explained by rational thinking. Magic originated by ‘rational’ associations, as tears on a field to bring rain.  

2.      Origins of Religion: Tylor defines religion as a belief in spiritual beings, or animism.  

a.      The question Tylor tried answering was: “How and why did the human race first come to believe that such things as spiritual beings exist?” Tylor’s attempted to explain this imagining early human observations and then imagining their possible explanations to account for the phenomena observed. The two phenomena that Tylor thought early man was responding to in inventing the notion of sprits are, focusing on the basic assumption that a spirit is what animates a person’s body (and then all must also have a spirit):

                                           i.    The difference between alive and dead people,

                                          ii.    People in dreams.  

b.      Belief that spirits animated rocks and trees was associated with savage or primitive society. Belief in the spirit was at the root of the earliest concepts of immortality, reincarnation and resurrection. From early animism emerged other religions and hierarchies of gods and polytheistic systems including dwelling places that they can inhabit and thus the introduction of temples. Ideas of Polytheistic Gods are concurrent with the barbaric age. The last stage of animism is when society adopts belief in a supreme god (e.g. Judaism and Christianity) and is concurrent with civilization. Religion: Belief in God.

3.      Tylor concluded that the sphere of animism must eventually give way to science as science sheds more and more light on what was previously inexplicable except by animsm.

Background: 1832, Quaker family, but shifted towards liberal, non-religious views. His travels and observations amongst the Mexicans fueled his interest in observing and trying to understand other cultures and subsequently led to a series of publications culminating with Primitive Culture in 1871.  Though he never attended a university, Tylor went on to become Oxford University’s first professor of anthropology.  


James Frazer (1854- 1941)

Golden Bough: convinced that a blend of classics and anthropology offered the prospect of a virtual revolution in understanding the ancient world.  

1.      The book gets its title from a roman legend in which a murdered king, brought back to life by the goddess Diana, became her protector and a priest-king of the nearby forest.  The benefits of this position included rule over the woods and sexual privileges with Diana. However, the priest-king could be defeated and position taken if a would-be assailant managed to get hold of a golden bough in the woods.

a.      “How is it that a center given over to the comforts of religion could be the stage of ritual murder?” The method Frazer offers to answer the question is not in digging deeper into Greek and Roman classical history, but in investigating their ancestors prehistoric past--in essence, Frazer is suggesting to research the prehistoric past in order to trace the vestigial survivals observed in this story.  Because there are no documents from the prehistoric period, Frazer’s modus operandi was to “reach out everywhere into the folklore, legends, and practices of the most primitive peoples we know to see if among them there can be found any old patterns or traditions into which the Roman legends may fit” (35).  The comparative method, then, became the framework for the rest of his work.  

b.      Magic and Religion: Magic and religion are the central themes of Golden.  Frazer essentially explained magic and religion as responding the need to survive.  Whenever natural circumstances did not accommodate the bare necessities, primitive people turned to magic as a way to manipulate the environment to bring about their needs. First signs of religion: when circumstances don’t accommodate needs.

                                           i.    There are two kinds of “Sympathetic magic” (magic) (when two things can be mentally associated (they appear “sympathetic”)):

1.      Imitative, e.g. Russian peasants passing water through a screen to produce rain, or “like affects like”;

2.      Contagious, e.g. a voodoo priest pushes a pin through a doll decorated with the hair of the victim, or “part affects part.”  

a.      Frazer points out the wide-spread assumption that nature is controlled by imitation and contact, and is as reliable as physical laws.

b.      Frazer then points out that at some point those who practice magic will realize that it is erroneous and as it declines it will gradually be replaced by religion.  

                                          ii.     Magic, Religion, and the Divinity of Kings:

1.      In societies invested in Magic, magicians tended to become the kings.

2.      In religion based societies kings tended to develop from priests.

a.      Priests tended to fill the leadership roles in both systems because both held positions of prestige and power because of their ostensible ability to have power over the uncontrollable.

                                          iii.    The Gods of Vegetation: magic and religion converge most often in dealings relating to agriculture. The scapegoat and totem related rituals demonstrate magical-religious patterns of thought. “By killing the totem, primitives protect against the decline of power in their animal god; by eating it, they take its divine energy into themselves.”

2.      Conclusion: In Frazer’s view, worship of gods, as Tylor first suggested, was first driven by the human desire to control the power of nature.  Magic was the first attempt, and it failed.  As it declined, belief in the gods arose.

a.      Magic put its hopes in cause-effect, “sympathetic” relationships between a priests actions and natures response;

b.      “religion put its hops in prayers and pleadings.”  

c.      According to Frazer, “just as magic was replaced by religion, so too the present era of belief in the gods [...] must yield to the [...] the age of science [...] Like magic, religion must be assigned to the category of Tylor’s survivals.”  
   

 Analysis:

1.      Tylor and Frazer both rejected “unscientific” explanations for religion.

2.      Tylor and Frazer were committed to explaining religion by gradual evolution. The evolution of thought advanced from magic, to religion, finally on to science.

3.      Both Frazer and Tylor thought of religions first a matter of beliefs--that is the intellectual side of it, and was not about “group needs, structures, or activities,” different from a functionalist approach. They both proposed that it originated in the minds of “savage philosopher” individuals and then adopted by the group--that is the individual aspect.  
   

Critique:

1.      Method: comparisons are way too loose, especially with Frazer.

2.      Evolutionism: Polytheistic religions appear in societies that are more “advanced”, not in primitive ones.

3.      Frazer’s proposals were “just so stories”--imaginative reconstructions of what might have happened, but nothing more.”  

4.      Benefits of Frazer and Tylor: they were the first to propose theories and explanations that were testable, even if many did not pan out. They provided a starting point, and for that deserve recognition.  

Background: Born on New Year’s Day in Glasgow Scottland in 1854, Frazer was raised in a Presbyterian, Bible-reading home though later he espoused agnosticism.  Frazer developed a passion early in life for classical Greek and Roman studies mastering both Greek and Latin.  Frazer taught at Cambridge University and continued research in classics until  reading Tylor’s Primitive Culture in 1883 altering the trajectory of his research forever.  Tylor’s theory of animism attracted Frazer as well as the “use of the comparative method,” the exhaustive use of which undoubtedly explains why Frazer’s Golden Bough multiplied into an enormous multi-volume work (Pal 32).  Shortly after his introduction to Primitive Culture, Frazer met William Smith, a biblical scholar using ethnological methods to observe people in the middle east to elucidate cultural points in the Bible. With Smith’s influence and encouragement, Frazer wrote articles in the Encyclopedia Britannica on totems and taboos.  This was the final push that “won him over permanently to the anthropological perspective” ( 33).  

A Source of Social Action: Max Weber (1864-1920)

Ideas:
Tools/Methodologies:

1.      Verstehen- (Sparked during the debate called “Methodenstreit” (the idea that why can’t the scientific laws of chemistry and physics also be framed to explain human affairs)). “Understanding”. Verstehen presumes that we cannot explain the actions of humans as we explain occurrences in nature.  Human behavior is guided not just by external forces (like gravity) but by internally held ideas such as the belief in freedom and inwardly experienced emotions (like love). Human ideas, beliefs, and motives deserve to be counted as real and independent causes of human action.  Conscious thoughts affect human action at least as much as unconscious urges or needs.  For him, meanings matter.

a.      Weber believes that we cannot re-create by imagination the complicated mixture of ideas and motives that may have played in the minds of anyone at any given moment.  All we can do is describe a historical circumstance or set of conditions, and based on that knowledge we envision a probably sequence of next events; looking at what actually did happen we try to isolate what it was that made one sequence occur when the others did not.  It is a systematic, rational method of explaining human actions by discerning the role of motives or meanings where they figure as causes (a science).

2.      Methodological Individualism- social values or beliefs acquire reality only insofar as they gain assent in the minds of individuals.  

3.      Ideal-Types- a general outline that allows us to create a conceptual framework into which all cases can be brought for analysis.

4.      Values- Everything is subjective and created by the individual

Works:
The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1904-1905)-most famous and widely debated book
Thesis: There is a close connection between religion, the rise of economic capitalism, and the birth of modern civilization in Western Europe.  

Argument: The most successful of enterprising Protestant businessmen have often also been the most intensely religious. This comes from their religious background.  

Evidence: Martin Luther “secularized” the idea of vocation, thereby giving as much importance to the everyday work of a peasant or tradesman as to the devotional exercises of the parish priest.  Then John Calvin sparked the idea of predestination (God has already decided who is saved and who isn’t- you have a “calling” to fulfill in this life). Prosperity amid simplicity could then be seen as a sign of election. It requires:

1.      “Inner-worldly asceticism”- self-denial within everyday society rather than apart from it.  It required disciplined mastery of the self within the arena of the everyday world.  True capitalism is earning money with the intent to save it, not to spend it.  The focus is making a profit as a duty of his calling and a mark of divine election.  Weber references the “spirit of capitalism”: rational bookkeeping, separation of the workplace from home, and corporate from personal property, free not slave labor, reliance on social structure, etc.

For Weber, it is the new religious ideas and behaviors of Protestantism that led them to acquire wealth.

Sociology of Religion/Economy and Society

1.      Religious Leaders

a.      Magician- someone who can achieve “ecstatic states” (puts people beyond the realm of everyday activity). They are permanently endowed with “charisma”.

b.      Priest- found where there is a permanent system of worship at fixed times and places associated with a definite religious community. Their charisma is derived from their office, and they can be seen as religious bureaucrats. They prize social and religious order, and can be seen as a key element in the development of most civilizations.

c.      Prophet- a purely individual bearer of charisma and powerful example. May appear at any time, and is sustained only by his mission: he has been specially called by God to proclaim a life-altering message.  He is not paid, and his authority anchors itself in the revolutionary power of his personality and his message.  In the Far East we see “exemplary prophets” like Gandhi, Confucius, etc. (powerful example) In the West we see “ethical prophets”, men who offer a universal ethic, reaching beyond self-interest and the ties of family or tribe, but are founded in monotheism. They are instruments chosen by an almighty God to proclaim his will.  After the disappearance of any prophet, their teachings must go through a “routinization”. This places their charisma into something permanent, something fixed in the bureaucracy of an institution.  Otherwise the prophet’s teachings won’t survive. They have too much energy.

2.      Social Classes and Groups

a.      The laity: Are those ordinary people who hold no offices but form the vast majority of participants in any religious community. Charisma does not exist unless there are lay people to recognize & reinforce it.  

Weber vs Marx: it’s not just a separation of rich and poor that determines everything else. Social groupings are formed by economic separation, location, vocation and social respect or honor/status.

b.      Rural Peasants- look to magic & miracles in the everyday. They reject a prophet, or mix his teachings with magic.

c.      Privileged Classes- resist prophetic religion because their sense of prestige is affronted by the demand they change their lives or ask forgiveness from social inferior.

d.      Warrior nobles and Knights- prophetic religion has been enlisted to give an ultimate meaning and purpose to warfare.

e.      Upper-middle class- shows little interest.

f.       Lower-middle classes- where prophetic religion has had its most powerful appeal. Christianity is known as the religion of the cities, not the countryside.

g.      Salvation Religions- a comprehensive program drawn by the hope of a future reward, righting life’s injustices either now or in the future life. A specific savior figure usually presents him/herself or is created by the lower masses. (“bodhisattva” a Buddhist concept that helps people find enlightenment, Jesus Christ, Rama and Krishna for Hindus, etc).

3.      Belief and Behavior: Whatever the beliefs of a group, they must deal with the idea of “evil” or “theodicy”- how any idea of ultimate goodness can fit together with a day-to-day world that is so deeply flawed and filled with suffering. This is divided in one of three ideal-types:

1)      Within this world at some future time when justice will at last triumph, or outside of this life in another realm when all will be made right.

2)      God or the universe is simply inexplicable and our moral reasoning can never fathom ultimate questions.

3)      There are two ultimate realities in the universe: either a good and an evil God, or a realm of spirit that is pure and eternal and a realm of material things that is subject to death and decay.

a.      Most religions tend to mix elements from each of these 3 ideal types, often by creating a comprehensive program of salvation, divided into two types:
            1. The need for some kind of human effort- ritualized action, various good works done over time.  Credits are tallied at the end of life and weighed in the cosmic balance, or seen as expressions of an ethical total personality.  “Virtuoso sanctification”: seek to live perfection.  There are two types of perfectionism here: “ascetic perfectionism” (as demonstrated mostly in Western society- ex: Catholic monks-exert strenuous ethical activity, God and his creatures cannot be merged.) and “mysticism” (as demonstrated mostly in Eastern society- ex: Buddhist monks- they are vessels that receive spirituality rather than as instruments that actively achieve it. Their job is to contemplate, to achieve a quiet state of profound peace. They live in isolation from the world; promises a pathway of spiritual ascent by which humanity can either merge with the divine or know the joy of perfect escape from the world).
            2.  Human effort is pointless and salvation must come from the outside, as a gift from some extraordinary hero, from a divine being who assumes human form to assist, or as an act of “institutional grace” (ex: absolution given to a sinner from a priest in confessional).

4.      Religion and Other Spheres of Life: this looks at the interaction of religion:

a.Economics- the common rule of kindness to neighbors appears almost universally as the doctrine of charity. Calvinism prohibited charitable giving to beggars- didn’t encourage them to work hard. Usury, then, does not exploit poverty; it creates opportunity.

b.Politics- when religions state a universal doctrine of salvation or love, this conflicts with the state, which always puts first the interests of a political entity

c.Sexuality- asceticism seeks to discipline the self, and mysticism seeks to lose the self- both are in conflict with this human drive most able to distract from goals/constraints. Religions distrust sexuality, women are assigned secondary status, and marriage is seen first as a legal contract rather than erotic or romantic.

d.Arts- when art ceases being a craft in service of a religious purpose and asserts aesthetic values independently, proposing that people can find ultimate meaning through created beauty.

5.      Additional information from this publication:

a.      Actions can be (4 types of rationality):

                                           i.    rational- seeking the means to achieve a goal

                                          ii.    value-rational- seeking a goal as good in itself

                                          iii.    affectual- driven purely by emotions

                                          iv.    traditional- done purely out of habit

b.      He singles out three main types of social authority:

                                           i.    Traditional: people acknowledge a pattern of power that seems to have always existed

                                          ii.    Legal/Rational: the most rationally ordered form of authority, though often suppresses creativity. It presumes consent among all to abide by a set of rules consistently applied by trained, specialized, paid officials who work in a graded hierarchy and with a sense of professional duty (bureaucracy).

                                          iii.    Charismatic Domination: most dynamic, holds special importance in religions.  It is the most compelling agent of change in society and history.  It is leadership acquired through the compelling personal magnetism of one or a few individuals.

The Economic Ethic of the World’s Religions - Wanted it to be in 8 volumes, he died before he could finish.  He wanted to explore all of the five religions. He wanted to return in much greater depth to the economic question: why did capitalism, the economic system that transformed the world, arise in Europe and North America and only there in the two centuries after the Reformation?
    1. The Religion of China (1916): Government revolved around emperor. Peasants all adhered to and adored magic. The introduction of Taoism didn’t even rock the boat, many of its teachings blended naturally with popular magic.  The civilization was shaped mainly by peasant traditionalism. The dominant posture of traditionalism and passivity weren’t incentive for people to seek profit in business or trade. If one’s life is seen as already a polished and perfected achievement, there is little point in striving to gain greater self-control or to prosper in the marketplace. Their ways remained traditional, stable, and unchanging.
    2. The Religion of India (1916-1917): Caste system ruled by the top two classes: the Brahmins- caste of priests, and Kashatryias- caste of warriors.  The most powerful support of the system was religious. They believe in the cosmic law of samsara, or rebirth, which governs both nature and society on the principle of karma, the cumulative weight of one’s spiritual (or unspiritual) deeds. Therefore, the social differences that seem unfair are not so; they are simply built into the framework of the world. Optimal for the upper classes. Arose two religions: Buddhism and Jainism, religions based on ascetic discipline, release, perfection.  Not optimal for the poor classes who could never hope to keep up.  Capitalist enterprise failed to take root because society and economy remained overwhelmingly rural and traditional.  Free, self-governing cities, which serve as nurseries of capitalism in the early modern West also failed to emerge. The cast system prevented the unification of different guilds and classes into a single community of citizens, all possessing equal rights under an impartial legal and moral system.    3. Ancient Judaism (1917-1919): They proclaimed the absolute sovereignty of God and demanded total obedience to his will.  Salvation is not won through contemplation that leads the soul out of the everyday physical world; it comes instead through faith and lifelong obedience that seek to achieve a divine purpose within that world. They affirmed opposition to magic: spells, rituals, etc.  Yahweh, the Lord of creation, is utterly beyond manipulation and personal devotion and ethical obedience are what pleases him. There is a problem with this study by Weber: some of his ideas were later seen as anti-Semitic (Nazism arose 10 years after his death).  He says the Jews adopted an “ethic of resentment”- treating other Jews better than they treated Gentiles. He also called it “pariah capitalism”.

Background: Germany, oldest of eight.  Dad was a linen manufacturer, switched to law, Mom was well educated (devout Calvinist). Shared his father’s interest in politics & government, but had his mother’s reflective demeanor and humanitarian idealism. Reading was as routine. 1882- entered Heidelberg University, studying legal and economic history, philosophy, and theology.  Served in the military in Strasbourg.  Formed a friendship with his uncle Hermann Baumgarten, an historian.  1889- Doctorate with his dissertation on medieval Italian trading companies. 1892- earned his Habilitation, or license as a university lecturer to teach agriculture and law in ancient Rome. Married Marianne Schnitger (a distant cousin) in 1893. Joined the Union for Social Policy, and conducted a study of immigration and farm labor in eastern Germany for them.  1895- Became full professor of political economy in Freiburg, then moved to similar post at University of Heidelburg one year later.  Then his life took a turn for the worse.  His marriage was a kind of failure, with no intimacy.  Both spouses were asexual.  As an adult Weber had to side with his mother against his controlling father, then his father suddenly died of a heart attack before they could reconcile their differences.  Weber suffered emotional collapse, and had fits of paralyzing anxiety for the rest of his life.  He resigned from his job, and never accepted another academic post till 1918 (at the University of Vienna).  Less than 2 years later his caught pneumonia and died at the age of 56.  In 1904 he became the editor of the Archive for Social Sciences and Social Policy, an important scholarly journal.  He published much of his works, including his research on religion in this journal.  

 Influenced by- Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche

Critique:

1.  Consistency: the whole spectrum of his work pits himself against himself. He insists that religious ideas must be accorded an independent, causative place in the process of understanding human history and society.  But then in other discussions he appears to depart from his precept.
Social Science & Religion: His ideal-types offer a useful set of tools to classify and compare, but their applicability to specific historical events is limited.  Weber’s sociology, as he applies it, wears the look of good history rather than genuine social science. It is not general, or generally applicable.

Additional Information: Dependent and independent variables (consequence is dependent on the independent cause).

COMPARISONS (General)

	S. Freud	E Durkheim	K Marx	M Weber
Cause	Neurosis	Society	Economy	Religion
Effect	Religion	Religion	Religion	Economy

Marx: Along with Freud and Durkheim, Marx offers a functionalist approach for religion - role beliefs play in the society, not their nature. Why do people hold to it, what is its social function? Like Tylor and Frazer, religion is absurd. Marx’s theory is closer to Durkheim than to Freud (this last one is more concerned about the individual), On the other hand, it is closer to Freud when it says that society can thrive without religion (Durkheim doesn’t believe that), and goes beyond him by affirming that people cannot be better off until religion has disappeared (Freud accepts that people will still look for religion). For Marx, religion is always an effect or expression of material problems (reductionism). The cause for religion is therefore class struggle and alienation, for Freud id neurotic psychology need and for Durkheim is the society itself.

Tylor: Tylor differed with Müller in theory. Müller contended that religion came about through the transformation of words from simple names for commonplace things to eventually associating them with deities.  Tylor argued for a more holistic approach emphasizing ethnography instead of Müller’s etymological approach focusing on words alone. Freud contrasts with Tylor and Frazer, who saw religion as a rational and conscious, though primitive and mistaken, attempt to explain the natural world.

Weber and Frazer: Weber does not separate magic from religion like Frazer.  He believes magic is an essential part of religion because it offers things people need or want in everyday life.

Weber and Durkheim- similarity of interest, difference in method. Durkheim started with a single case of religion then proceeded to show how all of religion have evolved from those forms. Weber (starts with a cultural problem: How did a new and revolutionary form of economic behavior arise to transform Western civilization in the early centuries of the modern era? This leads him to look at religious change.) He looks at the widest range of possible cultures, instances, practices and beliefs.  He also does not privilege primitive religion as containing the seed from which all later institutions have grown. Also, Durkheim was inclined to think in evolutionary terms- religious institutions evolving over time along a line of progress, simple to complex.  Weber disagrees - expressions of those types may appear in one epoch, fade in the next, and return again thereafter, depending on each new cultural or historical circumstance. Then Weber departs from Durkheim’s functionalist reductionalism- religious beliefs and practices are not mere reflections of a controlling and more fundamental social reality.

Weber and Marx- both are historically oriented building arguments from close analyses of complex social and historical relationships.  Search out causes and effects.  Marx however focuses on Western civilization- finds that fantasies of religion arise from economic exploitation.  Weber looks at religious activities worldwide, and tries not to look at only one form of explanation: class struggle born of economic oppression. He believes that explanatory theorems are not singular, but diverse and complex. (Freud, Durkheim, and) Marx assumes that religious actions and beliefs always trace to non-religious causes, but Weber sticks to Verstehen- Human ideas, beliefs, and motives deserve to be counted as real and independent causes of human action. Marx views religion as a product of economics, while Weber believes economics is a product of a specific belief. For Marx, religion is merely a human projection of self-alienation and hope in another better life, caused by the economic deprivations on this one. For Weber, religious beliefs define the material ambition one has, as for Protestants, who believe that the wealthy are the chosen ones (for they are blessed). Weber worries about the content, the form (opposing to Durkheim and Marx, who cared about the function)