Marx and Weber within Religion

Marx and Durkheim jointly cover the nucleus of the sociological systemal thought on various proceedss. They encompass the major issues within the sociological tradition. devotion remained their favorite sociological subject and their exact speculated over the issue in the modern sociological context. Marxian reflection on the sociology of pietism is trustworthy limited whereas Durkheim has contributed largely on the philosophical and sociological issues pertaining to religious belief. Marx is considered as an vanguard sociologist on the concept of pietism. cosmos influenced by Hegels philosophy, Marx considers righteousness is a reflectivity of material authenticities and economic injustice. Therefore, he labels problems in morality be eventuall(a)y ultimate tender problems. Most of the Marxian thought on the sociological aspects of idolliness is reflected in the quite a few opening paragraphs of his region to the Critique of Hegels Philosophy of in string(p) cos mos. These are the same passages that take his widely quoted pronouncement on worship, that it is the opium of the people.Nevertheless, this statement by Marx merchant ship not be taken as demonstration of Marxian religious emplacement. It is often misquoted free of its context. Marxs starts his essay Contribution to a Critique of Hegels Philosophy of Right with such speech communication For Germ either the chiding of devotion is in the main complete, and critique of devotion is the premise of all censure. (Marx 1964B 43) This raises the concerns why Marx has pronounced religious criticism as the essential fraction of all criticisms. The basal factor that compelled Marx to assert religious criticism as the basic form was the magnitude of implication that holiness holds in the lives of gentlemans gentlemans.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 quotation of his torical judgment on the part of Marx. It was an illustration of his instinct on the favorable lock of religion. He says in this touch onBy criticism, in this phrase, we must(prenominal) be careful to understand what Marx unders as well asd by it, not the blank denial of religion, but the historical understanding of its urgency and function in hostelry, 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 loving history. (Macmurrary 1935 219)Mckown reinforces the same understanding like Mcmurray that Marx deems religion as a useful social tool and this hypothecateing developed as gruelling analysis of social history pertaining to religion. But Mckown besides 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 eulo gize religion but consider it of vital importance for layman as it enriches their lives with good scent out of worth. He says in this believes worship is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has any not yet won through to himself, or has already deep in thought(p) himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting extracurricular the universe of discourse. Man is the dry land of manstate, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an alter consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its comprehensive compendium, its logic in popular form, its religious point dhonneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its drab complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human nubble since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle ag ainst that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. (Marx, 1964)Appraisal of religion is primary as religion bring outs the inverted delusions that the religion world i.e tone 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 amnesty from his explicit attack on, Marx lessens his nix perception by evaluating the foundational purpose of religion in this way sacred suffering is at the same period an expression of real suffering and a profess against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of insensitive 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 provide puff to the distressed people. It was the mechanization of the poor to create an illusory world for themselves to create an escape from harsh realities of life. So he means that abolition of religion is infallible 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 singularity and the remedy (simultaneously) of that malady i.e. religion is an expression and solution to a more than fundamental happiness.So Marxian self-assertions about religion are not negative as they are often understood and interpreted. It manifests that Marx has a partial governance of religion until a suitable economic system does not film 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 souls and religious opium comes as a minimal resistance by the exploited people that provides illusory hope against the real exploitation. Another 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 folk), he further exaplin Marxian view Religion was conceived to be a force outful conservative force that served to perpetuate the domination of one social class at the expense of others. (Ibid 127). So this a cause and ensnare phenomenon as this illusory hope of popular and exploited folk further distoirts the socio-economic condition and in this way self-alienation of various(prenominal) 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 direct of social justice we must become socially self-critical, and that means become critical of the ruling powerswhether they be kings or priests or investment bankers. Fo r Marx, all ideas are relative to the social location and interests of their production. And like the prophets before him, the most revealing perspective is not from the top win or the bear on outward, but thepoint of view of the exploited and marginalized. Suffering can consume 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 originates directly from the social needfully 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 study religion on a broader level, Lewis Coser write in his monumental work Maters of Sociological positionDurkheims earlier concern with social regulation was i n the main pore on the more external forces of control, more particularly legal regulations that can be studied, so he argued, in the law books and without regard to individuals. ulterior 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 rudimentary form of a religion. He considers that it was the basic social necessity of the social entity that compelled that group to get up a religious activity.Further explaining the soci al origin of religion, Durkhein says that religion is an look-alike of social cohesion. To Durkheim, 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 man 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 type sink 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 confined into limits. This regulatory case must thus be executed by an external theat rical outstanding to the individual i.e. by society. Both these feature of social facts explains distinctly that 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 domain.Durkheim observes god of divine manifestations of it as society itself. He takes god in the working(a) perspective and attributes functional traits to god and further links these characteristics to social phenomenon. For example, he says that god is first of all a being that man conceives of as superior to himself in some respects and one on whom he believes he depends. Society also fosters in us the sense of everlasting(a) dependence. Society requires us to make ourselves its se rvants, forgetful of our own interests. (Elementary Forms for Religious Life, p. 208-209).Durkheim deems religion 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 fraternity called a Church, all those who adhere to them (Elementary Forms for Religious Life, p. 47).He makes an important mark 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. routine work, effortless life activities etc. This sphere has an ultimate utilitarian approach. The sacred body politic constitutes of no-mundane experiences that includes he recognition 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 relations with the profane wor ld, and by the fact that they translate these common ideas to common practices, is what is called a Church. In all history, 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 needful 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 celebrate sacred things, they unwittingly celebrate the power of their society. This power so transcends their own existence that they have to leaping it sacred significance in order to visualize it. (Coser, 1977. p. 136)Durkheim does not support Comtes assertion that humans must endeavor to create a new human-centered cult based on the rational principles. Durkheim like Marx does not conjure an ab rupt ending to religion but reinforces the Marxian that it should work until an appropriate preference 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 euphoric function in that it serves to counteract feelings of frustration and exit of faith and certitude by reestablishing the believers sense of well-being, their sense of the essential subtlety 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 some(prenominal) the individual and the collective level, religion helps to reestablish the balance of private and earth confidence. (Coser, 1976. p.139)So Both Marx and Durkheim consider religion imp ortant social tools that give purpose and meaning to the human life.4 Both consider the values of world religions i.e. intrinsic value and dignity 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 some(prenominal) consider institution 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. Harvester Press Ltd. 1976.Coser, Lewis A. know of Sociological Thought Ideas in Historical and Social Context,2nd Ed., meet Worth 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 Development of Marxs thought in Christianity and TheSocial Revolution. Ed. John LewisKar l 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 synagogue University Press, 2002.1 Chiodi, the famous Marxian critic, Has defined Marx concept of alienation in these words It is the negative process by which a subject 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 textile (p.448). 4 Durkheim considers it the ultimate function whereas Marx labels it as inverted and pretended reality.