Sociology Functionalist Essay Example for Free

Sociology Functionalist Essay â€Å"Assess the Functionalist view that religion benefits both society as a whole and it’s individual members. † According to research carried out by sociologists, almost 90% of the world population follow a religion. There are numerous theories that attempt to explain the role of religion in our lives. The Functionalist outlook is a consensus perspective that sees religion performing positive functions for society as a whole and on an individual level. On the other hand, Marxism and Feminism offer conflicting perspectives that highlight the ideological function of religion. Marxists see religion as exploiting the proletariats and creating false consciousness. Feminists see religion as an instrument of patriarchy. This paper will attempt to assess the Functionalist claim that religion benefits both society and the individual. In any attempt to reach a considered view the arguments proposed by each theory will be reviewed. The approach will therefore remain analytical, critical and at all times engaged. Functionalists believe that society is a system of interrelated parts or social institutions, such as religion, the family and the economy. According to them society functions because of the existence of value consensus, that is, sets of norms and values by which society’s members live. Functionalists emphasise the social nature of religion and the positive functions it performs. For functionalists, religious institutions play a central part in creating and maintaining the value consensus, social order and solidarity. Emile Durkheim was the first functionalist to develop this idea. For Durkheim the key feature of religion was not a belief in God, spirits or the metaphysical, but he argues that religion provides a distinction between the sacred and the profane. Religion is more than just simply a set of beliefs; it involves rituals in relation to the sacred. These sacred things evoke such powerful feelings, which lead Durkheim to believe that something this powerful can only be society itself, which clearly suggests that religion is in fact less valuable than society. Durkheim believed that the essence of all religion could be found by studying its simplest form, in the simplest type of society. For this reason he used studies of an Australian Aboriginal tribe, with a clan system. For Durkheim when clan members worship their totemic animal, they are in fact worshipping society. He states that the totem inspires feelings of awe in the clan members precisely because it represents the power of the group on which the individual is dependent. Malinowski agrees with Durkheim that religion provides solidarity, however in his view it does so by performing psychological functions for the individuals. Malinowski identifies two situations in which religion performs its role. These are; when the outcome is important but is uncontrollable and therefore uncertain, and secondly at times of life crises. He uses his study of the Trobriand islanders to explain how religion performs its role. In his study he contrasts fishing in the lagoon and ocean fishing. Fishing in the lagoon involves no rituals because the method is easy and the outcome is predictable. However, ocean fishing is dangerous and the outcome is uncertain, this uncertainty promotes rituals, which are performed to ensure a safe a successful expedition. In this context, rituals provide the people with a sense of control which eases the psychological tensions and gives them confidence. Similarly, Talcott Parsons sees religion as a means to allow individuals to cope with unforeseen events and uncontrollable outcomes. However he puts forward two essential functions performed in modern society. This includes creating and legitimising society’s central values and making of the primary source of meaning. Quintessentially, for Parsons then, the function of religion is an instrument of law making. Karl Marx brings forth a differing perspective to the abovementioned. For Marx religion operates as an ideological weapon used by the bourgeoisie (that is the upper class in society) to legitimate the suffering of the poor as something inevitable and God-given. Religion misleads the poor into believing that their suffering is virtuous and that they will be favoured in the afterlife. Marxists believe that religion acts as an opiate to dull the pain of exploitation by masking its pain rather than treating its cause. Therefore, religion masks the underlying problem of exploitation that creates the need for it. However he ignores the positive functions of religion as functionalists suggest such as, psychological adjustment to misfortune. Unlike functionalists who see society as based on harmonious consensus, Marxists see all societies as divided into two classes. In modern capitalist societies, the upper classes that own the means of production exploit the proletariats. Whereas functionalists see religion as a unifying force that strengthens the value consensus. Marx predicts that the proletariats would become conscious of their exploitation and unite to overthrow capitalism. As such there will be no need for religion in a classless society and it will disappear. This view is a direct contrast with functionalists, as they believe that religion is a crucial part in society in terms of maintaining social solidarity and social integration. While, Marxists see religion as playing a crucial part in maintaining the status quo. On the other hand, Feminists take a totally different perspective on the function of religion in terms of benefiting both societies and individual members. For Feminists religion is patriarchal and an ideology that legitimises female subordination. Although the formal teachings of religion often stress the equality between sexes, there is still a considerable amount of patriarchy within many of them, such as women’s participation being restricted, for example not being allowed to preach or to read from sacred texts. In the same way, taboos that regard menstruation, pregnancy and childbirth as polluting may also prevent participation. Furthermore, religious laws and customs may give women fewer rights than men for example in access to divorce, how many spouses they can marry, decision making, dress codes et cetera. Religious influences on cultural norms can also lead to unequal treatment such as, genital mutilation or punishments for sexual transgressions. This contrasts with the functionalist definition that defines religion in terms of the contribution it makes to social integration. This definition proves problematic for feminists who argue the restrictions imposed on women’s participation in religious organisations, do not consent with such functionalist claims. In effect, divisions in society based on gender, for example regarding menstruation or pregnant women as taboos, break social integration. According to Durkheim the fact that sacred things evoke such powerful feelings in believers indicate to Durkheim that this is because they are symbols representing something of great power. However, feminists argue that sacred texts largely feature the doing of male prophets and are usually written and interpreted by men. This has the effect of dividing society by gender and causing conflict between the two. In conclusion, functionalism is a consensus perspective that sees religion performing positive functions for society and individuals, providing a moral framework for society, providing identity as well as providing individuals with buoyancy in times of uncertainty and misfortune. In contrast to functionalist theory, Marxism and feminism offer conflicting perspectives, which highlight the ideological functions of religion. Marxists see religion as exploiting the proletariat and creating false consciousness. Feminists see religion as an instrument of patriarchy. Each theory posits valuable arguments and insight into the role of religion.