Sociological Theories of Religion: Structural Functionalism

Functionalism is a theoretical framework used in sociology that attempts to explain the nature of social order, the relationship between the various parts (structures), and their contribution to the stability of the society. Functionalists examine the functionality of each structure to determine how it contributes to the stability of society as a whole. When applied to the sociological study of religion, this approach views religion as a functional entity within society because it creates social cohesion and integration by reaffirming the bonds that people have with each other. In the functionalist view, religious rituals express the spiritual convictions of the members of the religion and help increase the belongingness of the individuals to the group. Although functionalism may be useful for explaining how religious phenomena occur, it is less useful for explaining why they occur. Similarly, it fails to explain—or even adequately define —religion as a whole.

Keywords Belief System; Collective Consciousness; Functionalism; Postmodernism; Religion; Ritual; Worldview

Sociology of Religion > Sociological Theories of Religion: Structural Functionalism

Overview

To make sense of the world around them, people make and revise theories in order to develop models of real world phenomena and behavior that will help them better understand and interact with others. To the extent that these models work (i.e., adequately and accurately portray the real world and the interaction of the various parts), the models are retained. To the extent that they do not work, they are revised or discarded. In the social sciences, one of the phenomena that many scientists try to explain is what makes a society stable and why change in one part does not result in anarchy. Functionalism (also called structural functionalism) is a theoretical framework used in sociology that attempts to explain the nature of social order, the relationship between the various parts (structures), and their contribution to the stability of the society by examining the functionality of each part to determine how it contributes to the stability of society as a whole. Using this framework, structures are analyzed in terms of their functions or the role that each plays in maintaining or altering a society. Structural functionalism attempts to explain the highly cohesive nature of societies with unified by a belief system and the relatively less cohesive nature of those societies that are not (i.e., are more diffuse or have competing belief systems).

When applied to the sociological study of religion by such theorists as Émile Durkheim, structural functionalism views religion as a functional entity within society. Religion creates social cohesion and integration by reaffirming the bonds that people have with each other. In the functionalist view, religious rituals express the spiritual convictions of the members of the religion and help increase the belongingness of the individuals to the group. Examples of such religious rituals include Christians' pilgrimages to the holy land or Muslims' pilgrimages to Mecca. Religious rituals occur in smaller ways as well. For example, the daily prayers and cleansing rituals of Islam or the forms and rites of Sunday morning worship in Christian churches serve to unite those who enter into the forms and rituals and separate them from others who do not. According to Durkheim, these reminders of religious belongingness create, express, and reinforce the cohesion of a social group.

According to functionalism, individuals who perform a religious ritual or practice do so not only for spiritual reasons, but also to express their identification with the religion and its adherents as a whole. Further, religious rituals serve to remind individuals of the tenets of the religion. For example, in part, the daily Islamic prayers remind one of the transcendence of God while Christian participation in the Eucharist (Communion) reminds one of the price of salvation. Durkheim further believed that one of the roles of religion was to confer identity on an individual. He believed that religion allowed individuals to transcend their individual identities and, instead, identify as part of a larger group. The wearing of religious symbols in (e.g., the yarmulke of Judaism, the cross of Christianity, or the hijab of Islam), for example, declares to the world one's religious identity and connection with others of similar religious beliefs. According to the functionalist perspective, religion helps establish a collective consciousness (common beliefs of a group or society that give members a sense of belongingness) that helps bind individuals together.

According to the functionalist perspective, there is another component to religion: emotion. Religion allows both the expression and control of emotion which in turn enables the attachment of individuals to one another and thereby increases the cohesiveness of the group as well as reinforces the norms of the group. The expression of emotion can be seen in such examples as the emotional displays at revival meetings or in charismatic worship. However, religious controls on emotion and its display are enforced through definitions of proper versus improper behavior and standards for legitimate behavior within society. This sets social controls that help the society to function.

Applications

Shortcomings & Criticism

Structural Functionalism & Post Modern Society

Like the sociological frameworks provided by conflict analysis, structural functionalism is an approach to studying religion from a sociological perspective that is arguably of interest primarily from a historical view. However, many contemporary theorists no longer see these approaches to be very applicable from a practical point of view. Theorists have argued over why this is true. For example, one of the difficulties with the functionalist approach as applied to religion today is that the role of religion is different in the postmodern era than it was in the modern era in which societies were viewed as totalities (Denzin, 1986). In order for postmodern theories of religion to adequately and accurately reflect the reality of the religious experience and its impact and influence on society, theorists need to work within postmodern reality and leave behind the assumptions of the modern era (such as viewing societies as totalities). This does not necessarily mean that modern work (including Durkheim's) needs to be thrown out without further thought. However, it does mean that it needs to be reevaluated within the realities of postmodern societies. It is only in this way that such theories (or any theories at all) can truly model the postmodern experience.

Eliminating the Divine

In addition, all too often social theories— including functionalism—try to take the concept of the divine out of the equation and view religions not as faith systems but as social systems despite the fact that this was neither their intent nor the reason that they attract adherents. Even during the period of modernity, these theoretical frameworks fell short. As Stark (2003) rightly points out, to leave the concept of the divine or supernatural out of the sociological theory of religion is to doom the theory to failure from the start. Yet, this is what many such historical theories do. However, as Stark goes on to argue, most religious people find the concept of God or the gods to be integral to their definition of religion.

Stark examined Durkheim's structural functionalist approach to studying religion and concluded that the omission of the concept of the divine from Durkheim's theory was in error. Structural functionalism and other early sociological theories of religion emphasized how religion was used within society while deeming the concept of gods as unimportant. For example, structural functionalism viewed the rites and rituals— rather than their underlying meaning— as the important elements of religion. In fact, Durkheim advocated that sociology pay little or no attention to the differences in the ways that people conceptualize the divine or the mysterious. Rather, Durkheim and others advocated that religion be viewed as a purely sociological phenomenon. According to Durkheim, the purpose of religion was to strengthen the ties between religious adherents and their society, with the concept of God merely being a symbol for society. In this worldview, religion becomes nothing more than a series of rites and rituals in which individuals participate. Stark maintains that focusing on the trappings of rituals and rites is in essence focusing on peripheral matters rather than attempting to understand the heart of the religious experience itself. Social scientists that do not understand these underlying concepts (e.g., the divine, spirituality) force their own worldview upon religion, ignore what they do not understand, and attempt to make sense of the rest. Perhaps most importantly, omitting such a variable from research is not in keeping with the scientific method and is unlikely to result in a theory that will adequately and accurately explain religion.

Rodney Stark's Research & Findings

Based on his views, Stark conducted research to test two conclusions: the effects of religiosity on individual morality are contingent on images of gods as conscious, morally concerned beings; and participation in religious rites and rituals will have little or no independent effect on morality. Stark analyzed data from thirty-four nations including the United States. Of the twenty-seven nations where the primary religion was Christianity, he found that the greater the importance subjects placed on the concept of God, the less likely they were to participate in activities that they believed to be immoral (e.g., buying stolen goods, failing to report their involvement in an automobile accident, smoking marijuana). These findings were consistent across Protestant and Catholic nations whether or not church attendance was high. In fact, contrary to the theory underlying many studies of religiosity (which tend to show mixed or unreplicable results), attendance at weekly church services was only weakly linked with morality. In Stark's study, it was not the outward show of religiosity that determined individuals' moral values, but their deeply held religious beliefs. Similar results were found in the analysis of data from primarily Muslim nations. The importance placed on Allah was very strongly correlated with morality, whereas attendance at mosque services was not. On the other hand, in Japan where religion is polytheistic and people believe that the gods have little interest in the morality or immorality of humans, the link between the data showed no connection between religion and moral outlooks. Similar results were found in the analysis of data obtained from China, with the exception that the more an individual prayed, the more likely the individual was to participate in immoral behavior. Stark interprets this result to reflect the nature of the Chinese gods, to whom one prays for self-centered or self-serving reasons rather than to establish and maintain a relationship as in the monotheistic religions. In general, therefore, contrary to the predictions of the structural functionalist perspective, Stark's research showed that rites and rituals have little or no effect on the universally perceived major aspect of religion: moral order. Adherents' perceptions of God or gods as conscious, powerful, beings concerned about morality and who pay attention to the lives and action of humans, however, did.

Based on these findings, Stark concluded that contrary to the theory of Durkheim and structural functionalists, rituals and rites are not the essence of religion. Further, Stark concluded that the omission of the concept of the divine from sociological theories of religion is an error. Stark goes on to point out that although the theories of Durkheim and structural functionalism have had great impact on the way that sociologists view and research religion, this is an unfortunate influence as the data do not support the theory. Stark goes on to urge theorists and researchers to include the concept of gods in the work in order to better explain the effect of religion and understand its role in society.

Contreras-Véjar's Criticism

There are other criticisms of Durkheim's theory of religion as well. Contreras-Véjar (2006) points out that Durkheim and structural functionalism fail to capture what makes religion distinctive from other social structures. Further, Contreras-Véjar concludes that it is essential that social scientists define religion if they wish to scientifically study it. As discussed by Stark, to leave essential elements out of the definition (such as the blatant rejection of the concept of the divine in much sociological work on the subject) is to guarantee that any resultant theory will not adequately or accurately describe religious phenomena or advance the theory or religion. Further, religion is not a sociological phenomenon per se, although it does have sociological implications such as its ability to effect social change. Therefore, religion cannot be studied as a purely secular, sociological phenomenon as was done by Durkheim.

Durkheim argued that individuals are tabulae rasae (blank slates) on which society inscribes various categories. In this way, individuals are the expression and product of society and, in fact, that society can be viewed without taking into account individuals at all. This may be an interesting thought and one that allows the sociologist to look "objectively" at social phenomena. However, this "objectivity" comes at a price: not truly understanding the underlying causes and influences that go to making up reality. Ignoring the data that are not convenient to one's theory does not make the resultant project more objective; it makes it less realistic. For Durkheim, individuals had their roles defined by society. This approach, however, is unable to explain the problem of individuals who break with the mold, hold different opinions, or dissent within society in a way that creates social change within a religion (e.g., the Protestant Reformation) and within society itself.

An increasing number of social scientists, philosophers, and scholars of religion question the ability of functionalism to explain religion. In fact, it has been noted that functionalism does not explain religion so, therefore, does not aid in the study of religion. Burhenn (1980) notes, however, that this may be too all encompassing a denouncement of the functionalist approach. He furthers this discussion by arguing that functional explanations are best used in determining how religious phenomena occur rather than why they occur. Burhenn notes that functional explanations typically do not meet the standard for implementing the scientific method. However, he goes on to state that functional analyses can possibly answer other questions and further our level of understanding about religious and other phenomena.

Conclusion

As applied to the sociological study of religion, functionalism views religion as a functional entity within society because it creates social cohesion and integration by reaffirming the bonds that people have with each other. Structural functionalism as laid out by Durkheim helps one understand the highly cohesive nature of societies with a unified belief system and the less cohesive nature of those societies which do not (i.e., are more diffuse or have competing belief systems). In the functionalist view, religious rituals express the spiritual convictions of the members of the religion and help increase the belongingness of the individuals to the group. However, although functionalism explains some parts of religious phenomena, it fails to explain— or even adequately define—religion as a whole. This may be due to a number of reasons including the fact that it fails to take into consideration the concept of the divine and the spiritual aspect of the religious experience. In addition, it has been observed that the functional approach is a product of modernity and, therefore, may not adequately reflect and address the realities of the postmodern experience. However, when applied properly to questions about how religious phenomena occur rather than why they do so, functionalism still may have applicability today.

Terms & Concepts

Agnostic: An individual who does not deny (or confirm) the possibility that the God may exist, yet concomitantly does not believe that proof of the existence of God can exist.

Atheist: An individual who denies the existence of God or gods.

Belief System: One's ideology (a body of ideas and belief system that reflects the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture) and/or worldview (broad framework of ideas and beliefs used by an individual, class, or culture to interpret the data received from the world and determine the appropriate way of interacting with the world).

Collective Consciousness: Common beliefs of a group or society that give its members a sense of belongingness.

Functionalism: A theoretical framework used in sociology that attempts to explain the nature of social order and the relationship between the various parts (structures) in society. Also investigates the contribution of these structures to the stability of the society by examining the functionality of each. Also referred to as structural functionalism.

Model: A representation of a situation, system, or subsystem. Conceptual models are mental images that describe the situation or system. Mathematical or computer models are mathematical representations of the system or situation being studied.

Mysticism: A belief in the existence and experience of realities that cannot be perceptually or intellectually apprehended but that can be directly accessed through subjective experience. Because mystic realities are beyond both perception and intellect, mystics typically find it difficult or impossible to articulate their experience to others.

Norms: Standards or patterns of behavior that are accepted as normal within the culture.

Postmodernism: A worldview beginning in the latter half of the twentieth century that questions or rejects claims of absolute certainty and objective truth.

Religion: A personal or institutional system grounded in the belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers considered to have created and to govern the universe.

Religiosity: The quality of being religious; the intensity and consistency of one's practice of a religion. Religiosity is measured by asking about religious beliefs, measuring membership in religious organizations, and measuring attendance at religious services. The term religiosity can also be used to refer to an excessive devotion to religion.

Ritual: An act or series of symbolic or ceremonial activities.

Scientific Method: General procedures, guidelines, assumptions, and attitudes required for the organized and systematic collection, analysis, interpretation, and verification of data that can be verified and reproduced. The goal of the scientific method is to articulate or modify the laws and principles of a science. Steps in the scientific method include problem definition based on observation and review of the literature, formulation of a testable hypothesis, selection of a research design, data collection and analysis, extrapolation of conclusions, and development of ideas for further research in the area.

Social Change: The significant alteration of a society or culture over time. Social change involves social behavior patterns, interactions, institutions, and stratification systems as well as elements of culture including norms and values.

Worldview: Broad framework of ideas and beliefs used by an individual, class, or culture to interpret the data received from the world and determine the appropriate way of interacting with the world.

Bibliography

Andersen, M. L. & Taylor, H. F. (2002). Sociology: Understanding a diverse society. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Burhenn, H. (1980). Functionalism and the explanation of religion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 19, 350-360. Retrieved May 26, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=4899169&site=ehost-live

Contreras-Véjar, Y. (2006). What is religion? An analysis of some sociological attempts to conceptualize religion. Conference Papers — American Sociological Association, Montreal, 1-20. Retrieved May 26, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=26643976&site=ehost-live

Denzin, N. K. (1986). Postmodern social theory. Sociological Theory, 4, 194-204. Retrieved May 26, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=15372323&site=ehost-live

Marangudakis, M. (2012). Multiple modernities and the theory of indeterminacy—On the development and theoretical foundations of the historical sociology of Shmuel N. Eisenstadt. Protosociology: An International Journal Of Interdisciplinary Research, 2, 97-25. Retrieved October 31, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=85443963

Powell, J. L. (2012). A Short Introduction to Social Theory. Hauppauge, N.Y.: Nova Science Publishers. Retrieved October 31, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database eBook Academic Collection. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=601315&site=ehost-live

Stark, R. (2003). Why gods should matter in social science. Chronicle of Higher education, 49, B7-B9. Retrieved May 26, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=9982113&site=ehost-live

Tanaka, S. (2013). Nationalization, modernization and symbolic media—Towards a comparative historical sociology of the nation-state. Historical Social Research, 38, 252-267. Retrieved October 31, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=88102080

Suggested Reading

Appelrouth, S. A. & Edles, L. D. (2012). Classical and Contemporary Sociological Theory: Text and Readings. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.

Balée, W. L. (2012). Inside Cultures: A New Introduction to Cultural Anthropology. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

Fenn, R. (1981). Religion. International Social Science Journal, 33, 285-306. Retrieved May 26, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=5627399&site=ehost-live

Garrett, W. R. (1974). Troublesome transcendence: The supernatural in the scientific study of religion. Sociological Analysis, 35, 17-180. Retrieved May 26, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=19233045&site=ehost-live

Robertson, R. (1985). Beyond the sociology of religion? Sociological Analysis, 46, 355-360. Retrieved May 26, 200, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=17595070&site=ehost-live

Stark, R. (2001). Gods, rituals, and the moral order. Journal for the scientific Study of Religion, 40, 619-636. Retrieved May 26, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=5487205&site=ehost-live