Sociology 3301: Sociology of Religion
Lecture 2: Further Definitional Considerations
Now that we have largely outlined how the subject matter of our investigations
may be defined, I want to do two more things before moving on: (1) to consider the
relationship between religion, on one hand, and magic and spirituality on the other; and
(2) to discuss more squarely what it is that the sociology of religion does.
Religion vs. Magic:
Beyond the substantive, functional, and symbolic definitions of religion outlined
last class, one issue that often comes up is the boundary between religion and related
social phenomena, like magic. It is important to clarify these distinctions, which, while
not always mutually exclusive, tend to have different emphases in practice.
For the sake of brevity, I am going to focus on the 7 factors that Tilley (1972) has
arranged as ideal typical differences between religion and magic. These are: (1) In
religion, there is a sense of a “group” of common believers, exemplified by a church,
temple, or mosque; in magic no faith community or “group consciousness” is involved;
(2) In religion a moral ethos, or system of ethics, guides adherents’ behavior; in magic
there is no moral ethos or systematic pattern of ethics present; (3) In religion, rites are
meaningful, reinforcing patterns of belief; in magic, rites are not necessarily meaningful:
they are used to cast a spell or to make something happen; (4) In religion, rites occur
calendrically on a regular basis each week, month, and/or year; in magic rites occur at
critical (crisis) times; (5) Religion functions for both the individual and the social
structure; magic functions only for individuals, not for social structure; (6) In religion,
participation is open, and a leader leads the entire group in performance of ritual; in
magic, the leader is the only one to know ritual and how to perform it: other present are
passive; and (7) In religion, the worship of a transcendent being or power as intrinsically
worthy of one’s attention occurs; in magic, manipulation of impersonal, transcendent
power occurs for utilitarian reasons.
Again, this is a neat, tidy separation for analytic purposes, but in specific cases
sometimes things are a little messier (e.g. there are many worship experiences where the
congregation may not find the experience meaningful and instances of magical practice
where participants do). There are individualistic, mystical practices rooted in religious
traditions. There are magical workings that are more communal than the individualistic
imagery above might suggest. Religion, not just magic, is invoked at times of crisis and
both for utilitarian reasons (e.g. faith healing). Nevertheless, if there is any hallmark of
the distinction between religion and magic it is in the orientation to the divine: religion
sees the object of worship as being of inherent, categorical worth in its own right, not
primarily because of favors to be returned for performance of the ritual. In magic, the
emphasis is more on concrete actions that may be taken to manipulate or control
supernatural forces, particularly in the face of adverse events. The question, when faced
1
with a concrete example, is to start with such considerations to help sort out which side of
the line the phenomena in question fits.
Some have argued that as science and technology grow in a given society, magic
declines. Yes, it is true that the amount of magic in a society tends to be inversely
correlated to the amount of science and technology – as the latter enables people to have
more control over their environments. That doesn’t mean that it is dead, however (I know
people right here in town deeply interested in renaissance magic and alchemy, I am
involved in an esoteric study group involving faculty, grad students, and others, and the
study of magic and esotericism is growing in academia, witnessed by a conference I
attended last August). Yet, even though countervailing trends like these remain small in
relation to magic, one must be careful not to suggest the same for religion - as it does
different things than simply manipulate the environment: it provides meaning and moral
guidance in ways that science cannot.
Spiritual But Not Religious?
Another issue that arises today is whether private systems of belief can be called
religion. Many individuals have patterns of belief that solve issues of ultimate meaning
for them but these are not necessarily shared with others. While many sociologists argue
that religion is by definition a social phenomenon, today it is common to hear “I’m
spiritual, not religious” (with the implicit suggestion that religion is a stifling, dogmatic
thing, but spirituality more “soulful,” more directly related to the divine).
But what is spirituality? Wuthnow (1998) argues that spirituality consists of all
the beliefs and activities by which people attempt to relate their lives to the divine or
some other conception of a transcendent reality. Nothing in this is necessarily antithetical
to religion, and spirituality has been historically connected to religion. Even though it is a
social phenomenon, individual forms of piety such as prayer, meditation, or other
devotions (often with a mystical component) have long been associated with major
religious traditions (e.g. Sufism in Islam, Kabbalah in Judaism, Benedictine, Franciscan,
and Dominican practices in Catholic Christianity). Thus, given these examples, perhaps
what we are talking about today is more what Hamberg (2009) called “unchurched
spirituality – religious beliefs and practices that exist outside of traditional religious
institutions.
But “unchurched” does not mean not social. Spirituality is not just the creation of
individuals, but is shaped by larger social circumstances as well as the beliefs and values
present in the wider culture. We construct our spirituality out of the social toolbox of
cultural resources available around us – and many of these are actually rooted in the
major religious traditions. Hence, individual spirituality is never far removed from
religion.
This is borne out in the U.S. where, while organized religion remains relatively
strong compared to other Western countries, surveys show a lot of overlap. In a study of
baby boomers by Wade Clark Roof (1999), 60% of respondents claimed to be both
2
spiritual and religious while only 15% claimed to be spiritual but not religious. More
recently, Newsweek and the Beliefnet website polled a random sample of Americans and
got similar results. A majority of older Americans, including baby boomers, continued to
see themselves as both religious and spiritual, but this fell to 48% among respondents
under 40. Indeed, 30% of those younger respondents claimed to be spiritual but not
religious. Yet, generational changes notwithstanding, these results show the difficulty of
trying to separate religion and spirituality. Indeed, while I suspect that the results in
Canada would show even more respondents claiming to be spiritual, not religious, again
it is hard to separate these things in practice, because the apple doesn’t fall far from the
tree.
The two boundary issues I have addressed above again bring us back to the
importance of definitions when we are dealing with religion. Beyond the substantive,
functional, and symbolic definitions, as well as the messy distinctions outlined today, we
must be aware that how we define a phenomena has a great deal to do with how we study
it. Thus, throughout the course it will be important to reflect on: (1) your own
assumptions regarding the definition of religion; (2) the defining criteria used by social
scientists; and (3) the working definition of religion that we outlined last class.
What Do Sociologists of Religion Do?
In the second half of today’s lecture, I move away from definition of the subject
matter to concentrate more on what, exactly, it is that sociologists of religion do. I outline
this by considering 10 points:
1. Sociologists study social groups: Religions are, if nothing else, social groups.
Whether established congregations, study groups, or a group of pagans who gather in the
woods at summer solstice, religious bodies are social collectivities. Whether investigating
the dynamics of group affiliation or the formation of religious movements, sociologists of
religion must direct their research efforts at the social groups involved.
2. Sociologists study social interaction: While religion may entail interaction
with the divine, it certainly involves social interaction among humans. Circumcisions,
pilgrimages, christenings, bar mitzvahs, confessions, peyote ceremonies, church picnics –
religion is dripping with social interaction. Ever since Durkheim’s (1915) The
Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, where he posited that social interaction was
actually the source, the very cause of religion, sociologists have paid careful attention to
the rich and dramatic varieties of social interaction that compose religious phenomena.
3. Sociologists study social institutions and social structures: Religion – by
definition – is a social institution. And in many parts of the world, religion is one of the
most powerful, all pervasive institutions out there. It thus makes sense that many of the
founding sociologists like Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, Georg Simmel, W.E.B. Du
Bois, and Friedrich Engels wrote and theorized extensively about religion. Sociologists of
religion are interested not only in analyzing religion as a social institution in its own
right, but also in understanding how religion influences, and is influenced by, other major
3
social institutions. For example, Max Weber’s seminal study The Protestant Ethic and
the Spirit of Capitalism (1904) explores the ways in which specific Protestant/Calvinist
religious beliefs played a key, even decisive role in the development of modern western
capitalism.
4. Sociologists study social patterns: Do women attend religious services more
often than men? Are African-Americans more likely to believe in the existence of Satan
than whites? Do Jews tend to vote more liberal than Christians? Do religious people
divorce less frequently than the nonreligious? Sociologists of religion have their work cut
out for them in exploring the plethora of patterns that emerge concerning religion in
society. The most hotly debated topic within the sociology of religion in recent decades
has, of course, revolved around the question of whether people are more or less religious
today than they were in the past: the secularization debate (which hinges, in part, on how
you define religion in the first place).
5. Sociologists understand that an individual can be truly understood only
within his or her socio-historical context: To put it simply, an individual can be a
member of a particular religion only if that religion exists when he or she does.
Furthermore, where a person exists is key. Someone born in Sri Lanka is much more
likely to be Buddhist than a person born in Honduras, who will likely be Catholic. A
growing number of people on national surveys are putting down “nothing” or “no
religion” in terms of religious identity – but they are not “nothing” in a socio-historical
vacuum. Today in the West, many people’s parents are also “nothing,” or at least nonpracticing. They don’t raise their kids with any particular religious education or
involvement. As well, many today grow up in largely secular enclaves, attending school
with few overtly religious kids or teachers. Such individuals live in a time in history and
within a culture in which traditional religiosity is not imperative, lack of religion isn’t
illegal or suspect, and being “nothing” is considered quite normal. In short, an
individual’s personal religious identity (or lack thereof) is greatly influenced by where,
when, and among whom that individual lives.
6. Sociologists are interested in the ways in which individuals are shaped and
influenced by their social environment: Of the many components of the social
environment that are important in shaping and influencing how individuals live their
lives, religion is certainly crucial. Religious values, religious norms – in short, religious
culture – greatly affect how people understand themselves and others. Sociologists are
fascinated by the effects of religion on things like people’s sex lives, political views,
national identities, economic activities, eating habits, career choices, marital relations,
and, conversely, how such things affect people’s religious identities.
7. Sociologists are fascinated by deviance, nonconformity, and the ways in
which people resist or change the social forces that surround them: The most
dramatic role that deviance plays in the realm of religion is the development of new
religious traditions. After all, every new religion was originally deviant in a given social
order. In that context, some individual or group of individuals decided to go against the
norm, to rebel against the established order, to defy the authorities, and even the law.
4
Christ, St. Paul, Muhammed, Siddhartha, Guru Nanak, Baha’Allah, Martin Luther,
Joseph Smith – all were religious deviants in their day who, rather than passively accept
and internalize the religious life around them, broke free and successfully acted against
the prevailing religious system to create something new.
8. Sociologists are fascinated by “the social construction of reality” : The
sociological perspective opens up the unavoidable possibility that religion may well be a
social construction. When studying the world sociologically, one must bracket the
question of whether religion is truly something received from Above. Countless
sociologists over the past two centuries have had their suspicions that religion is not
necessarily an outgrowth, reaction, or response to the divine/supernatural. Instead, they
focus on the alternative possibility that it is an outgrowth of human culture – a product of
human psychological, sociological, even neurological or physiological processes.
Yet considering that religion is a social construction is often unacceptable to the
deeply religious, seen as threatening to their very cosmology and sense of reality. Some
sociologists, like Randall Collins (1992), take a very hard position on this: “there are two
obvious positions that you can take about religion: either you believe it or you don’t.
Either you believe it or you don’t: in one case it is a supreme Reality that transcends
everything sociology is concerned with; in the other it is an irrational superstition about
things that don’t exist.” It is certainly the case that many, if not most, sociologists take
the latter position. Yet, there are religious sociologists, as well as religious sociologists of
religion. Even Peter Berger, one of the leading sociologists of religion, is a man of faith.
Indeed, many sociologists fall somewhere between convinced atheist and faithful
believer. That is why Collins’ mutually exclusive dichotomy above may, in fact, be too
extreme. Rather than a false either/or dichotomy, it is more fruitful to conceive of a
perspective that encompasses a continuum. Collins’ extremes can be at either end, while
in the middle there are those who believe that the heart or root of a given religion is of
divine origin, while various trappings, layers, or components are socially constructed.
Similarly, one can believe that the underlying impulse of religion is mystical, eternal, and
otherworldly in nature, but that what becomes of that impulse (how it is directed,
channeled, and understood) is largely a social and cultural phenomenon worthy of study
in its own right.
Of course, the “devout” in each camp will likely find such a middle ground
unacceptable, yet the atheistic sociologist and the devoutly religious may not actually be
so far apart from one another in their understanding of religion as one might think. After
all, the extreme sociologist sees 100% of all religions as social constructions, while the
religious fundamentalist sees 99% of religions as social constructions – all religions
except his or hers! That is, most deeply religious people can entertain the notion that all
other religions are of human origin, just not their own.
9. Sociologists debunk: Debunking within sociology expresses itself in 2 basic
directions: (1) debunking “commonsense” views and ideas about religion held throughout
the wider society; and (2) debunking various religious truth claims themselves.
5
The first, debunking “commonsense” views and ideas about religion held
throughout society, involves using the tools of sociological research to dispel taken for
granted truths about religion that aren’t actually true. For example, decades of
sociological research has convincingly shown that religious groups do not “brainwash”
their adherents. Many people who check out so-called “cults” don’t join them, people
who do often leave of their own volition, and people who claim they were brainwashed
tend to be ex-believers who need a way to justify/rationalize behavior and beliefs they no
longer approve of or subscribe to (Wessinger, 2000). Furthermore, there is no valid,
empirical proof of “mind control,” the alleged ability of small religious groups to alter the
brain functioning of members.
The second aspect of sociological debunking involves critically examining
religious truth claims themselves. This can be as mundane as challenging church
attendance statistics, showing that they are overinflated – perhaps counting everyone ever
baptized as a member despite the fact that many later have little religious involvement.
Or, debunking may be as dramatic as revealing that an image of the Virgin Mary that
appeared on a window pane could be explained by natural causes.
Sociologists simply do not take religious truth claims at face value, for example,
questioning the Mormon claim that Native Americans are the descendants of Middle
Eastern Jews who sailed from ancient Israel to North America (16,000 miles by boat).
They point out that this is highly implausible, and that both DNA analysis and all nonMormon archaeologists, anthropologists, and historians disagree with the claim.
To be sure, the job of the sociologist is not to argue these matters with faithful
believers, nor to try to de-convert people. Rather, we are curious intellectual
investigators, intensely seeking to understand how it is that people can believe that which
lacks reasonable evidence. We do not seek to undermine anyone’s faith, to prove
anyone’s religion “wrong.” We study religious systems because they and how their
adherents construct reality intrigue us.
Of course, it often boils down to this thing called faith. Some have it in some
respects, others accept other foundational principles for their reality. Ultimately, whether
any particular religion is true is a theological, not a sociological question. So long as
religions limit their assertions to matters pertaining to things like God, heaven, and the
spiritual/otherworldly, sociologists should just stay out of it. But insofar as they talk
about people, history, government, society, the here and now, such factual claims about
this world should be carefully examined, investigated, and, if they do not square with the
facts, challenged (e.g. faith healers who claim that they can cure cancer). That is, any
claim asserted as factual concerning what occurs in this world and this reality – be it
asserted by a steelworkers’ union, a corporate think tank, a communist party pamphlet, a
soccer mom, a senator, a member of the Lesbian and Gay Alliance, a cadre of
sociologists, or a religious group – is fair game for sociological inquiry and (as the case
may be) sociological debunking.
6
10. Sociology entails a critical approach to understanding the world:
Sociologists always take a questioning, skeptical view of all social phenomena – and that
applies to our study of religion as well. Hence, for sociologists of religion, nothing is
sacred, even when studying a realm of humanity based on the sacred. We do not shy
away from tackling difficult issues. We do not aim to expose or sensationalize these
things in our studies, but if we do find inconsistencies or improprieties, we certainly
would not sweep them under the rug (e.g. Manning’s 1999 study seeking to understand
women who join conservative or fundamentalist religious traditions tried to balance both
an empathetic understanding of these women’s lives, assertions, and experiences with an
ability to critically analyze and expose various contradictions and inconsistencies,
specifically in relation to patriarchal gender norms (e.g. despite what their tradition taught
them, and their claims that they rejected feminism, most to some extent embraced
feminist values and did not “submit” to their husbands in many areas of their lives). This
study wasn’t about debunking religion or exposing the inconsistencies or hypocrisy of her
subjects, but an attempt to consider how women struggle with gender issues, sometimes
successfully, sometimes not, in a religious milieu.
Yes, this critical sociological stance when studying religion can be problematic,
even more so considering that many sociologists are outsiders to the very phenomenon
they seek to understand and explain. (e.g. how could a deaf person study music?) There is
a debate over whether a non-religious sociologist, similarly, can really understand
religion at all (Stark and Finke, 2000). Yet, being outsiders to the very phenomena we
wish to study is what social science is all about. Yes, as outsiders, we simply cannot get
at all of the truth, but we can still offer significant and important insights. For example,
one need not be an ethnic minority or a committed racist to generate significant insights
about racism in society. One need not be a radical environmentalist or a corporate
polluter to generate significant insights about environmental issues. Parents are not the
only people capable of studying parenting. Doctors are not the only people capable of
studying the medical industry. Fascists are not the only people capable of studying
fascism. Artists are not the only people capable of studying art. Prostitutes are not the
only people capable of studying prostitution. Musicians are not the only people capable
of studying music – and so it goes with religion.
Yet, being an outsider to religion means that there are just some crucial matters
that we may never completely understand. But this rule also applies to the insider: the
profoundly religious are also hindered in their understanding of some very important
matters that can only be grasped from the outside. Neither the sociological (outsider)
perspective nor the religious (insider) perspective on religion has the monopoly on truth.
Both have their own particular insights. Both are important and essential.
7