Does society actually need religion? Although the truth present in various religions is debatable, the sociological impact of religion can be monitored and examined thoroughly. This paper will argue with Marx’s view on religion in society. Marx, in his essay entitled “Religion as the Opium of the People,” argues that religion serves only to force the lower class to become content with their position in society. Marx believes that the population of any society could only be happy if religion was completely abolished. An even more compelling argument can be delivered that religion serves a beneficial role in society through sociological and psychological means.
In Marx’s essay, he writes that “[r]eligion is the sigh of the oppressed creature […] it is the opium of the people.” In other words religion is how the oppressed people of a society deal with their societal position (Marx 8). The Living Religions book gives a good synopsis of Marx’s metaphorical essay by explaining that other religions use their doctrine to pacify the lower class into being content with their place in society. For example, Marx believes that Christianity convinces the oppressed people that their position in society is due to punishment from God, and in Eastern religions he believes that the lower class is blamed for their own misfortune because of their misdeeds in previous lives (Fisher 18-19).
Marx presents a formidable argument, and even provides quality evidence that at least forces the reader to reconsider the effects of religion on the lower class. Unfortunately, he continues to push his argument into a realm that he does not support with evidence or further explanation. “The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness” presents the idea that society is not only better off without religion, but the entire population of a society as a whole is better off without religion (Marx 8). There is an extremely strong argument that supports religion in society for many different reasons that Marx neglects to consider. Even if religion serves as a sedative for society, religion still plays an important sociological role that benefits the entire community, even the lower class.
Although most sociologists argue about the true nature of religion’s effect on society, many agree that it delivers an important, positive effect on society. According to Emile Durkheim, a French sociologist, religion serves as a social adhesive that pulls societal structures together and maintains social order. Durkheim’s hypothesis is a direct result of his observations of Australian tribal religions. He deduces from his research that religion is made of “beliefs and practices that unite into one single moral community” (Fisher 19). Using Durkheim’s deductive reasoning of what religion is, a community can benefit solely from the social aspects of religion, not just the spiritual aspects. Marx fails to consider that even the lower class benefits socially from religion because it brings social classes and communities together in a positive, supportive way.
Societies are often built on laws, but in general the morals and values of a society are not. Keith Roberts, the author of Religion in Sociological Perspective, points out that the social stability of a society is enhanced by making the “norms and values of the society” sacred. Although Roberts’ viewpoint is a hypothesis, he supports his argument by examining cultures that do not have prisons or a formal judicial system. In the societies without formal punishment systems, religious taboos serve as the people’s personal law. Roberts gives two examples of religious taboos that control society’s values. “Persons may hesitate to engage in deviant acts if they believe that someone may retaliate with witchcraft.” Because members of the society in the example are knowledgeable about witchcraft, they know the deadly effects of a voodoo spell on them. In a sense a society like this is controlled through the fear of societal retaliation because of religious beliefs, not one’s own morals (Roberts 56). Marx might argue that this society is being sedated into accepting values through religion, but in reality societies work best when controlled by some sort of law or moral system. Anarchical governments do not provide a sense of order that is required to produce a prosperous society. In another example by Roberts, he examines a classic Eskimo society that believes in the goddess of the sea, Sedna. Because Sedna decides how successful an Eskimo will be at hunting seals, an Eskimo is not likely to offend her by killing more than he needs. In this example, societal values and norms are enforced through the fear of retribution from a goddess that determines the community’s well being. Interestingly enough, the Eskimo’s sense of values also maintains the community’s well being by not depleting their food supply (Roberts 56). Although it is difficult to have a complex society’s laws completely built off religious taboos, it is an effective means to control the population through a moral facet, which indirectly affects how the society responds to the written laws in the community. Again, Marx would argue against any type of control on society from religion, but a control like Sedna’s actually benefits the society without oppressing any specific group, which is why Marx is so opposed to religion in his essay.
The two previous examples were given on the basis that a society does not have a written form of law. Even for societies that have written laws, often times the laws are actually “religious values translated into political behavior,” essentially saying that whether a community decides to write down their laws or not is irrelevant because laws are often reproductions of unwritten social values (Hargrove 201). For that reason, even societies with written laws probably possess religiously-based values that Marx frowns upon so much in his essay, but as already discussed they are beneficial to society and do not discriminate their societal limitations to any one social group.
The amount of truth in the significance of religion on a society is very dependent on the society in question, especially when the psychological effects of religion on a society are examined. Roberts again brings up important ideas about the role of religion in various societies. For example, in a community experiencing suffering, religion may be able to lessen their psychological suffering, or at least make it bearable. Marx might argue that religion is allowing the suffering community to accept their position in life; however, Marx’s viewpoint only covers a society in which a specific group of people is being oppressed, but that is not always the case. For instance, if a drought occurs and damages the crops of a tribe, the members of that society may turn to religion for psychological aid. In doing so the tribe is not accepting their position as oppressed people, but instead they are trying to “make the suffering bearable” (Roberts 51). In this example, the entire tribe is suffering, not just a specific sociological group; therefore, religion is not being used to oppress any group of people, which is what Marx proposes as the purpose of religion.
Roberts gives several other examples in which religion plays an important role in society, even to people who are not oppressed. According to him, religion “may provide a feeling of security and assurance” to a society experiencing extreme social change because many turn to religion for maintaining values and morals in society (Roberts 51). Because societies may turn to religion for psychological reasons in order to deal with adversities other than oppression, Marx’s viewpoint is not complete and therefore does not consider all aspects of his argument.
Marx’s viewpoint has several flaws simply because he does not completely consider religion’s complete sociological and psychological impact on society. The only criticism Marx presents in his essay of religion is that religion keeps the oppressed content with their position in society. In reality, religion is responsible for producing many positive effects to both the oppressed lower class and to society as a whole. The oppressed people of society would not be better off without religion, as Marx proposes, because religion has numerous beneficial effects that were overlooked by Marx in his essay.
No comments:
Post a Comment