Marx and Weber within Religion

Marx and Durkheim jointly cover the nucleus of the sociological estimation on various issues. They encompass the major issues within the sociological tradition. faith remained their favorite sociological overthrow and their have speculated over the issue in the modern sociological context. Marxian reflection on the sociology of theology is truly limited whereas Durkheim has contributed largely on the philosophical and sociological issues pertaining to righteousness. Marx is tip overed as an avant-garde sociologist on the concept of holiness. creation influenced by Hegels philosophy, Marx considers holiness is a manifestation of material realities and economic injustice. Therefore, he labels problems in morality ar eventually last favorable problems. Most of the Marxian thought on the sociological aspects of religion is reflected in the quite a few opening paragraphs of his Contribution to the Critique of Hegels Philosophy of Right entering. These ar the same passages that include his widely quoted pronouncement on religion, that it is the opium of the people.Nevertheless, this mastery by Marx can non be taken as demonstration of Marxian apparitional view. It is often misquoted devoid of its context. Marxs starts his essay Contribution to a Critique of Hegels Philosophy of Right with such words For Germany the lit crit of religion is in the main complete, and criticism of religion is the premise of all criticism. (Marx 1964B 43) This raises the concerns why Marx has pronounced religious criticism as the essential division of all criticisms. The basic factor that compelled Marx to declargon religious criticism as the basic form was the piece of magnitude of significance that religion holds in the lives of homophiles.Now the question arises why Marx has declared the criticism of religion as he basic of all criticisms. John Macmurrary considers that it was the acknowledgement of historical judgment on the part of Marx. It was an congresswom an of his discretion on the social function of religion. He says in this regardBy criticism, in this phrase, we mustiness be careful to understand what Marx understood by it, not the blank denial of religion, but the historical understanding of its necessity and function in society, which leads to its dialectical negation when its function is completed. Marx meant that the understanding of religion was the key to the understanding of social history. (Macmurrary 1935 219)Mckown reinforces the same understanding like Mcmurray that Marx deems religion as a useful social ray of light and this thinking developed as profound analysis of social history pertaining to religion. But Mckown further emphasizes that this statement has too much generalization. (Mckown, 1975. p.46)Marx further asserts that religion is the production of social evolution and its serves society and state in several ways. He does not eulogize religion but consider it of vital importance for secular as it enriches their lives with horse sense of worth. He says in this regardsReligion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no pussyfoot creation squatting outside the world. Man is the world of manstate, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an invert consciousness of the world, because they are an alter world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in favorite form, its spiritual point dhonneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The clamber against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. (Marx, 1964)Appraisal of religion is primary as religion farms the inverted delusions that the religion world i.e life hereafter, deities etc. is factual and that the material world is a shadow of that real life. So in his criticism of religion, he hit any religion that capsizes the physical world from being the primary reality. As an acquittal from his explicit attack on, Marx lessens his negative perception by evaluating the foundational purpose of religion in this wayReligious pitiful is at the same time an expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the sense of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.Marxs religious viewpoint is not sympathetic toward religion and he does not consider it an extra-human phenomenon. But he is of the view hat religion is a product of society in order to appropriate solace to the distressed people. It was the mechanization of the poor to create an illusory world for themselves to create an flight from harsh realities of life. So he thinks that abolition of religion is necessary to eradicate the illusory world and create an environment for their real happiness. He says that religion is not a malady in itself but it is the index number and the remedy (simultaneously) of that malady i.e. religion is an expression and solution to a to a greater extent fundamental happiness.So Marxian assertions adjoiningly religion are not negative as they are often understood and interpreted. It manifests that Marx has a fond(p) validation of religion until a suitable economic ashes does not remove the causes that created it.Marxian idea of religion derives its strength from his idea of alienation. He think hat it was alienation 1 that dehumanize the individuals and religious opium comes as a minimum resistance by the exploited people that provides illusory hope against the real exploitation. some some other Marxian critic, Norman Birnbaum (1969), interpret this phenomenon in his way, to Marx, religion is a spiritual response to a condition of alienation. (p.126)Illustrating the ultimate and real purpose of religion (contrary to the view of the commom crime syndicate), he further exaplin Marxian view Religion was conceived to be a powerful conservative force that served to perpetuate the domination of unmatched social class at the set down of others. (Ibid 127). So this a cause and effect phenomenon as this illusory hope of common and exploited folk further distoirts the socio-economic condition and in this way self-alienation of individual oincreases with more reliance on religion.Raines2 sums up the Marxian sociology of religion in this wayLike the Hebrew prophets of old, Marx knew that to speak of social justice we must become socially self-critical, and that means becoming critical of the ruling powerswhether they be kings or priests or investment bankers. For Marx, all ideas are relative to the social location and interests of their production. And l ike the prophets before him, the most revealing perspective is not from the make down or the center outward, but thepoint of view of the exploited and marginalized. Suffering can count through and unveil official explanations it can cry out and protest against the arrogance of power. (Raines)To Durkheim, religion was a social phenomenon that logical argumentates directly from the social needs of a society but he considers it an essential regulating force that shapes and determines the consciousness of a society. But its most important purpose is social cohesion. A close analysis of history by Durkheim3 reflected that religion is a valid and vital force that binds the individuals and societies together. Describing Durkheim motives o ask religion on a broader level, Lewis Coser write in his monumental work Maters of Sociological ThoughtDurkheims preceding concern with social regulation was in the main focused on the more external forces of control, more particularly legal regulat ions that can be studied, so he argued, in the law books and without regard to individuals. by and by he was led to consider forces of control that were internalized in individual consciousness. Being convinced that society has to be present within the individual, Durkheim, following the logic of his own theory, was led to the study of religion, one of the forces that created within individuals a sense of moral obligation to adhere to societys demands. (Coser, 1977. p. 136)Durkheim main concern was trace down the social origin of religion. the sociological interpretaion of religion. Fot this purpose, he tried to comprehend the basic forms of social religions. He illustrated that Australian Toteism is the most central form of a religion. He considers that it was the basic social necessity of the social entity that compelled that group to devise a religious activity.Further explaining the social origin of religion, Durkhein says that religion is an epitome of social cohesion. To Dur kheim, society was not a mere collection of individual but is has other internal and external dimensions. Internally, it is the substantial device that moulds our beliefs and attitudes dapple on the external horizon, it exerts and maintains pressures from the society to facilitate conformity to the above-mentioned embodied beliefs and attitudes. For these two purposes, it devised the religious activity. He thought that the absolute purpose of religion is to enable people to show a willingness put their invidual interests and personal propensities and to put interests of society ahead of their own.So it capaciates the people to get ready for a cohesive social life. Ultimately, if individuals want to be happy, so they must regulate their individual needs and aspirations and their propensities must be curb into limits. This regulatory role must thus be executed by an external agency superlative to the individual i.e. by society. Both these feature of social facts explains clearly th at society is an independent entity that works for the collective benefits and dies not surrender to individual proclivities and requirements. Religion acts as social tool for this regulatory role of society. Religion internalizes that regulatory process and individuals act on that as an obligation. Durkheim consider religion as society divinised because religion only acts in the social orbit.Durkheim observes god of divine manifestations of it as society itself. He takes god in the functional perspective and attributes functional traits to god and further links these characteristics to social phenomenon. For example, he says that god is showtime of all a being that man conceives of as captain to himself in some respects and one on whom he believes he depends. golf club also fosters in us the sense of perpetual dependence. Society requires us to make ourselves its servants, forgetful of our own interests. (Elementary Forms for Religious Life, p. 208-209).Durkheim deems religio n as a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbiddenbeliefs and practices which unite into one single moral confederacy called a Church, all those who adhere to them (Elementary Forms for Religious Life, p. 47).He makes an important distinction in religious domain that is based on the separation of human experiences i.e. profane and the Sacred. Profane is the dominion of mundane life experiences i.e. office work, daily life activities etc. This sphere has an ultimate utilitarian approach. The sacred realm constitutes of no-mundane experiences that includes he credit rating of a non-empirical authority and non-utilitarian activities. He says in this regardA society whose members are united by the fact that they think in the same way in regard to the sacred world and its dealings with the profane world, and by the fact that they translate these common ideas to common practices, is what is called a Church. In all h istory, we do not find a single religion without a Church. (Elementary Forms for Religious Life, p. 44)So a superior fusion of profane and sacred life makes the social cohesion that is necessary to put the civilization on the path of progress and prosperity. He describes the social association as an incarnation of relation between individuals and divinity. Coser says in this regard Religion is eminently social it occurs in a social context, and, more importantly, when men preserve sacred things, they unwittingly celebrate the power of their society. This power so transcends their own existence that they have to ca-ca it sacred significance in order to visualize it. (Coser, 1977. p. 136)Durkheim does not support Comtes assertion that man must endeavor to create a new humanitarian cult based on the keen-sighted principles. Durkheim like Marx does not suggest an abrupt ending to religion but reinforces the Marxian that it should work until an appropriate secondary does not replace this vital sociological tool. He says in this regard, We must discover the rational substitutes for these religious notions that for a long time have served as the vehicle for the most essential moral ideas. (Moral Education, 1961. p.9)Coser sums up the religions ultimate function as described by Durkhein, in this wayFinally, religion has a happy function in that it serves to counteract feelings of frustration and loss of faith and certitude by fixing the believers sense of well-being, their sense of the essential rightness of the moral world of which they are a part. By countering the sense of loss, which, as in the case of death, may be experienced on both the individual and the collective level, religion helps to reestablish the balance of private and public confidence. (Coser, 1976. p.139)So Both Marx and Durkheim consider religion important social tools that flop purpose and meaning to the human life.4 Both consider the values of world religions i.e. intrinsic value and ar rogance of human perspective an important element but Marx views it as a toll of the oppressor to perpetuate its practices and to provide a fictitious idealism of human dignity to the common folk. However both consider organization of religion as an imperative social necessity hitherto.ReferencesBellah, Robert. Durkheim and History. American Sociological Review 24 (1959) 447- 61.Chiodi, P. Sartre and Marxism. reaper Press Ltd. 1976.Coser, Lewis A. Masters of Sociological Thought Ideas in Historical and Social Context,2nd Ed., Fort outlay Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc. 1977.Emile Durkheim, Moral Education. New York The Free Press.1961.Emile Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. New York The Free Press, 1954.Macmurrary, John. The Early cultivation of Marxs thought in Christianity and TheSocial Revolution. Ed. John LewisKarl PolanyiDonald K Kitchin. London,Gollancz, 1935.Mckown, Delos Banning. The classical Marxist critiques of religion Marx, Engels,Lenin, Kautsky. The Hague Martinus Nijhoff, 1975.Marx. Karl. Introduction to a Critique of Hegels Philosophy of Right. 1844Pickering, W. S. F. Durkheims Sociology of Religion Themes and Theories. London Routledge & K. Paul. 1984.Raines, John. Marx on Religion. Philadelphia Temple University Press, 2002.1 Chiodi, the famous Marxian critic, Has be Marx concept of alienation in these words It is the negative process by which a number makes himself other than himself by virtue of a constraint which is capable of being removed on the initiative of the subject himself. (Chiodi, 1976. p.80) 2 John Raines is Professor of Religion at Temple University. 3 Most of the Durkheims critics regards his findings as theoretical and ahistorical contemplations but Bellah is of the view that Almost all of Durkheims own researches draw heavily from historical and ethnological sources and are in fact organized in an historical framework (p.448). 4 Durkheim considers it the ultimate function whereas Marx labels it as i nverted and pretended reality.