What is Religion ?

What is religion?

 For most people, this is a simple question which hardly merits deep thought. Religions are commonly defined by a belief in God or gods and perhaps an after- life, but they also involve worship in religious buildings such as chapels, synagogues or mosques and doing 'religious things' such as praying and eating or not eating certain food- stuffs. However, for sociologists of religion trying to set limits to their field of study, reach- ing general agrcement on such a basic matter has proved extraordinarily difficult. Indeed, Aldridge (2007: 30) argues that 'Religion is a contested concept. We cannot expect to agree on a definition and then debate matters of substance, since matters of substance are built into any definition. There is not, and never will be, a universally agreed definition of religion. But why not? 

One reason is that sociology contains a plurality of general theoretical perspectives, and these differ in how they construe the nature of social reality. As a consequence, they also disagree about how that reality can and should be studied. For example, many macro-level studies adopt a realist view which sees religion as a fundamental social institution that transmits values, a oral code and norms of behaviour across generationis. Hence "religion' exists objectively and has real effecis on individuals. Alternatively, several other micro-level studies are rooted in a more social constructionist position, which focuses on the ways in which what constitutes 'religion' is continually reproduced and changed in everyday interaction processes. 

In general terms, competing sociological definitions of religion can be divided into three types: inclusive definitions, exclusive definitions and definitions in use. Inclusive definitions tend to be functionalist in orientation, viewing religion as central to human life as such and, in some ways, functionally neces- sary for society. An example is the following: 'religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life'. Others refer to religion as all those beliefs about the forces that shape human destiny. On this view, religion provides people with answers to enduring questions of existence, offers hope, and halp to behind people together in solidarity. 

The main problem with inclusive defini- tions is they tend to include too much. That is, they imply that everyone is implicitly religious, whether or not they acknowledge it. As all humans face the same 'ultimate problems' of dying, death and the search for meaning, then they should all 'be' religious in some way. Even apparently secular political ideologies and regimes such as communism or leisure pursuits such as supporting football have been interpreted as forms of 'religion', because they represent systems of belief and practice that help people to find meaning in the world. However, critics suggest this stretches the definition of religion to everyone and every- thing thereby removing kev questions such as whether religion is growing or secularization is advancing (Aldridge 2007).

Large crowds of football supporters-such as these Liverpool fans-exhibit some of the characteristics attributed to religions. Indeed. one of Liverpool FC's slogans is 'Support and Believe. But is this really an example of religion? How does football supporting differ from mainstream religions?

By contrast, exclusive definitions reject the functionalism of inclusive ones, instead looking to define religions by reference to the substance of their varied beliefs. In particular, exclusive definitions are rooted in the idea that all religions make a distinction between a worldly empirical reality and a 'super- empirical' or transcendent reality (Robertson 1970). Adopting this distinction means that many groups and institutions - such as football supporters or secular political ideologies - are effectively excluded on the grounds that they make no reference to a transcendent reality.

This has the benefit of limiting what counts as religion, allowing sociologists to address the extent of secularization through empirical research. However, the attempt to produce a single definition to encompass all known religions relies on a very broad concept of the "super-empirical', which is less applicable to new religious movements as well as to some Eastern religions. The distinction between empirical and super-empirical realities reflects its origins in Western social science.

 The third type of definition is one described as a 'definition in use' and is similar to what today we call social constructionism. For many sociologists a social constructionist approach to the study of religion offers a better starting point than the previous two types. Rather than assuming that there is a real phenomenon called religion and then exploring the varied ways in which it is manifest in society, constructionism sees it as more productive to investigate all of those situations in which people themselves make reference to 'religion' or 'religious mean- ing' and engage in self-defined 'religious' practices. This means that sociologists do not need to wrestle with the problem of devising their own universal definition; it is enough to investigate how religion has been and is used by a whole range of individuals, groups and organizations and how those uses have been challenged. Constructionist studies look at how the meaning of religion has changed over time, how people use the concept for their own purposes and whether that use is increasing or diminishing.

 However, one problem associated with all 'definitions in use' is that they do not set out a clear boundary between religious and non-religious phenomena, accepting that all of those things considered 'religious' by people themselves are legitimate subjects for research. Yet, for social constructionists, this lack of definitional clarity is not debilitating for empirical sociological research. On the contrary, Beckford (2008: 21) argues that

uncertainty about what religion really is does not pose a problem to social scientists: it merely challenges them to understand how so many human beings still manage to navigate life without achieving certainty about religion or religious issues.... Social scientists therefore search for clear and robust reasons for the strong religious convictions that they observe in some cases. Neither religious confusion nor religious certainty can be regarded as natural or given in the nature of things.

Over time, both inclusive and exclusive definitions have lost ground to more social constructionist approaches to the study of religion. As you read through the different theories outlined in the section that follows, consider which of the three types of definition are being used. You should also think about what the different perspectives have contributed to our overall understanding of religion and religions. 

Sociologists and religion

When sociologists study religion, they do so as professional sociologists, not as believers or unbelievers. This means that, as sociologists, they are not concerned with whether specific religious beliefs are true or false. For exam- ple, they may ask how a religion is organ- ized, what its principal beliefs and values are, how religious organizations are related to the larger society, and what explains their successes and failures in recruiting and retaining adherents. The issue of whether a particular belief is 'good' or 'true', however important that may be to those involved, is not something sociologists can address. Of course, as private individuals, they may well have strong views, but as sociologists they try to prevent these from influencing their research and its findings.

In practice, sociologists have been espe- cially concerned with religious organizations, which are some of the most important in society. Within Christianity and Judaism, religious practice often occurs in formal organizations - churches and synagogues though this is not necessarily true of Asian religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism, where religious practices are likely to occur in the home or other informal settings. In the developed societies today, many reli- gions have become established through bureaucratic organization. We will also see later that some sociologists view religions as essentially similar to business organiza- tions, competing for members and resources (Warner 1993).

 Sociologists have often seen religions as important sources of social solidarity. Reli- gious beliefs, rituals and collective worship help to create a 'moral community' in which all the members know how to behave towards one another. However, religion has also been a factor in destructive social conflicts, such as struggles between Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims in India, clashes between Muslims and Chris- tians in Bosnia, and 'hate crimes' against Jews, Muslims and other religious minorities in the United States and Europe. The question of whether religion per se produces harmony or conflict is, for contemporary sociologists, a historical and empirical one, and the classical founders were the first to tackle such questions in a sociological manner.

Collected from Anthony Giddens.