Sociology 3301: Sociology of Religion
Overheads Lecture 1: Defining the Field
 How can religion be defined?
 Many people think they know what religion is, but some
definitions are too narrow, while others so broad that more
diverse social behaviors may be included.
 The way we define our subject matter sets boundaries. What
we see also excludes what we cannot consider.
 Definitions are not mirrors of reality, but rather tools that are
more or less useful to those who use them.
Substantive Definitions:
 One approach attempts to get at the substance, essence, or core
of religion
 Edward Tylor (1873) defined religion as “belief in spiritual
beings” (a term inclusive of a deity or deities, but also the
spirits of deceased ancestors worshipped by various peoples).
 Yet trying to define the essence of religion is hard, even more
so if the definition is to be used cross-culturally. In the West
we tend to emphasize belief. However, in some religions ritual
and emotion are primary, while belief is only secondary (e.g.
Native American religions, Orthodox Judaism).
 Anthropologists note this emphasis on belief is a Western bias
that causes researchers to miss the underlying thrust of nonwestern religions (e.g. Buddhism).
 Another substantive definition was articulated by Emile
Durkheim (1912). He argued that the division of life into
sacred and profane realms allows us to identify religion in any
culture. Encountering holy objects or engaging in communal
ritual is associated with a psychological shift not encountered
elsewhere in a given culture.
 Durkheim thus states: “A religion is a unified system of
beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say,
things set apart and forbidden – beliefs and practices which
1







unite into a single moral community called a Church, all those
who adhere to them.”
Yet those who have used Durkheim’s approach have often
implied, even asserted a dualistic worldview, one considering
that life has a religious dimension and a non-religious
dimension, one sacred, the other profane, that cannot exist in
the same time and space.
While true that that many people organize their life experience
into separate categories, not all do (e.g. the Shakers, the
Bruderhof).
Greeley (1972) thus argues that any being, social process or
value that gives meaning and purpose to life tends to become a
source of reverence or profound respect. A sacred attitude is
not totally unlike a secular outlook, but involves a matter of
intensified respect.
This does not exclude the study of nationalism, political
ideologies, or any other system of profound loyalty as a form
of religion).
Such broad views bring us back to one underlying question in
this whole debate: whether religion by definition has to
include only that which has an otherworldly or supernatural
dimension.
The major criticism of such substantive definitions is that they
tend to focus researcher’s attention solely on traditional forms
of religion.
Some feel that people in complex and changing societies like
ours are religious in new ways. Hence, the old, substantive
definitions are too narrow, too tradition bound, blinding us to
new forms of religiosity.
Functional Definitions:
 Milton Yinger (1970) changed the question from what a
religion is to what it does. He suggests that we define a social
phenomenon as religious if it fulfils the conscious and
intended functions of religion.
2
 He asserted that meaning in life is a basic human need. A
fundamental concern of human beings is to understand the
purpose of life and the meaning of death, suffering, evil, and
injustice.
 Thus, religion “can be defined as a system of beliefs and
practices by means of which a group of people struggles with
these ultimate problems of human life.”
 This definition considerably expands the range of phenomena
that we consider under the heading of religion (e.g.
nonthesistic, even non-supernatural systems of belief and
practice).
 Yinger argues that employing traditional, narrow definitions
of religion may result in misunderstanding and
misidentification of religion – particularly in societies
undergoing cultural change.
 Yinger assumes that, to some extent, all people are religious.
He writes: “To me, the evidence is decisive: human nature
abhors a vacuum in systems of faith. This is not, then, a period
of religious decline but is one of religious change.”
 A second well-known functional definition of religion comes
from Robert Bellah (1970). He defines it as “a set of symbolic
forms and acts that relate people to the ultimate conditions of
their existence.” Both Yinger and Bellah assert that any
system of belief and action that fails to address the
fundamental questions of meaning in life is not a religion.
 There are ongoing debates as to whether a supernatural
dimension to functional definitions of religion is necessary,
proponents arguing that this more clearly separates religion
from other social phenomena; opponents that it misses much
of importance in a changing society.
A Symbolic Definition:
 Clifford Geertz (1966) developed a symbolic definition of
religion that is somewhat more detailed in defining what
religion does.
3
 Symbols – objects, behaviors, or stories that represent or
remind one of something else – are powerful forces in human
behavior, and also central to religion.
 Given the abstract nature of the focal point of religion,
symbols serve as an indispensible medium.
 Various levels of meaning can be communicated through
symbols – and they are far more accessible to human
observation than a subjective experience of “ultimate
concern.”
 Religious symbols are distinct from non-religious ones in that
the former are macro symbols, those that help one interpret the
meaning of life itself and involve a cosmology or worldview
(e.g. a cross).
 In contrast, many non-religious symbols are micro symbols,
those that affect everyday interaction with other and enhance
daily communication and cooperation (e.g. a handshake).
 Geertz’s definition states that “Religion is:
(1) a system of symbols, which acts to
(2) establish powerful, persuasive, and long lasting moods
and motivations in people, by
(3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence,
and
(4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of
factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely
realistic.”
 There are 3 major challenges that seem to belie the
meaningfulness of life and it is these that a religious
worldview must resolve: (1) a sense of coherence and
reasonableness of events in life; (2) a sense of meaning in
suffering so that it becomes sufferable; and (3) a sense of
moral order in which evil will be overcome and that virtue,
goodness, and justice will somehow, someday prevail.

Geertz moved on to consider how a particular worldview or
set of concepts comes to be believed, asserting that symbols
4
“act to clothe those conceptions in such an aura of factuality
that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.”
 Geertz also pointed out that religion is able to provide
plausibility structures, a foundation for social values that has
authority outside of empirical observation and thus cannot –
for believers – be invalidated. Values and perspectives come
to be shrouded in sacredness and unquestioned certainty.
 Meanwhile, meaning is commonly stored or encapsulated in
symbols, that are powerful factors in people’s lives. These are
far more concrete and observable than an “ultimate concern.”
 Qualitative researchers find Geertz’s definition useful, for it
identifies the general properties of religion and what to
observe, yet does not specify the content of religious belief.
This also suits it to cross cultural work. Quantitative
sociologists, however, find his ideas so broad that his
identification of religion is not helpful in defining researchable
categories.
 Ultimately, Geertz’s analysis is much more than a definition.
It is an essay on how religion works to reinforce itself and on
what religion does in society. Hence, his symbolic definition
may be considered one type of functional definition.
The Concept of Religion to be Employed in this Class:
 The underlying interest in this course is to consider the ways
that people generate and sustain new systems of meaning in
the midst of social change.
 As well, we are interested in how people create their own
systems of meaning. Usually, meaning systems involve a
synthesis of official religious doctrine with other cultural
beliefs.
 Rather than distinguish religion from non-religion, we will
seek to explore anything that provides meaning and purpose in
5
the lives of people. We will ask how people are religious
rather than whether they are.
 Hence, what we will be dealing with throughout the course
will be most compatible with the functionalist definitions of
Yinger and Geertz, each of whom was interested in religion as
a cultural system.
 We will use the following as a working definition: religion is
an interdependent system by which a community of people are
bonded:
(1) by a shared meaning system (a faith or worldview);
(2) by a set of myths (beliefs), rituals and symbol systems that
sacralize the meaning system for the members;
(3) by a sense of belonging to a reference group;
(4) by a system of ethics or values that is directive in the lives of
the members; and
(5) by a set of routinized social expectations and patterns.
 Those phenomena in society that have most, but perhaps not
all, of these characteristics will be explored as possible
“invisible religions” or “quasi-religions” that can impact
traditional religion and that may well be emerging as new
religions in our society.
6