Religion and Society: Structures and Interrelations[1]
by
Richard A. Allbee
Introduction
This paper will present
various important relationships between religion and society. To do so adequately
it will be necessary in sections one and two to first briefly define and
describe the different but interrelated structures of: beliefs, belief systems,
religion, culture, and society. This hopefully, will not only help one better
understand these important structures and relationships in their own right, but
most importantly, for the purposes of this paper, will lay the groundwork
necessary to explain the various relationships between religion and society in
section three. Finally, section three will also present some foundational
relations between religion and society.
This should provide the
reader with a framework to better understand any particular set of religious
beliefs, and the many different religious institutions, and why some religions
might emphasize different social institutions than other religions. Also, it
will provide the reader with a framework for understanding various important
relations between religion and society, as well as some of the dynamics and
mutual influences that cause religious and cultural change.
Beliefs and Belief Systems
A belief, for the purposes of
this paper, may be generally defined as what one thinks to be true about things
or about the nature of things. It should
be clear from this definition that beliefs are not in their structure
discontinuous from knowledge, insight, or understanding. Also, contrary to
popular myth (post Kierkegaard, Freud, etc), religious beliefs are also not
ideas necessarily grounded in irrationality, [2]
although since beliefs are held by various individuals, some could be. Rather,
simply put, in as much as anyone believes to be the case what they understand,
provisionally or otherwise, to be the case, beliefs are clearly continuous with
rationality. Or, stated differently, no one disbelieves what they think to be
true. Religious beliefs, however, are slightly different from knowledge in so
far as the religious believer is typically more psychologically and emotionally
engaged than the mere knower.[3]
Also, any set of particular beliefs appropriated uncritically through culture
or tradition might be called “pre-rational” in as much as these may have been
accepted as true before they have been demonstrated to be true. Finally,
individual beliefs make up part of a belief system.
Belief system(s) are a set of
interconnected beliefs which make up a framework for understanding the world
and a framework of meaning for living in the world. They affect one’s
perception of the world and one’s action in the world. They are a “a vision of
life and a vision for life.”[4]
Also as a set of interconnected ideas (psycho-social mental
constructions),[5] they do
not all function at the same level.
Following Heibert,[6] this
paper will identify four different and distinct levels[7]
of beliefs as necessary for
understanding belief systems, and as a necessary prolegomena for understanding
sections two and three below.
The first and most
foundational level of beliefs which make up a belief system are world
views. These are a set of
presuppositions which one holds (explicitly or implicitly) about the basic
foundational nature of the world. Further, they are a mental model of the
world; a subjective representation of an external reality. These foundational
organizing ideas also function as ideas that
one thinks with.[8]
World views provide answers
to the following seven general foundational questions:[9]
1)
What is ultimate reality?
2)
What is the nature of the external world?
3)
What is the nature of Humanity?
4)
What is the nature of knowledge?
5) What
is the good--ethics?
6)
What is the nature of history?
7)
What is the nature of death?
Different world views can
give radically different answers to these questions. For example, on the nature
of the world Christianity, Judaism, and Islam believe it to be created,
structured, real, etc., whereas Advaita Vedanta Hinduism would say it is in
its essence merely an illusion (Maya), and Buddhism would say it is non substantial and
impermanent. Another example is that many Eastern religions believe
history to be cyclical (Daoism, Hinduism, etc) whereas the three major Western
religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) believe history to be linear.
The next level of knowledge are paradigms[10]
and traditions. These fit below the level of world views
but are higher than the theory/doctrinal level. Besides being part of the
interpretive matrix and thereby helping to provide meaning, one of the most
important functions of paradigms and more specific traditions to note, for the
purposes of this paper, is that they also determine the range and domain of
life which is considered relevant and important for further exploration,
participation, etc. Examples include: Orthodox Judaism’s emphasis on law,
Protestant’s emphasis on faith and truth, Catholicism’s emphasis on sacraments,
Theravada Buddhism’s emphasis on monasticism, etc.
The third level of a
belief-knowledge system is the theories and doctrinal level. With respects to
religion, the Christian tradition, for example, includes under the paradigm of
Protestantism two major representatives doctrinal levels of Lutheranism and
Calvinism.
Finally, the last level in a
belief system is the simple idea level.
Religion, Culture, and Society
In defining the complexity
that is religion one is well served by Catherine Albanese’s definition of
religion as: “a system of symbols (creed, code, cultus) by means of which a
people (community) orients themselves in the world with reference to
extraordinary and ordinary powers, meanings, and values.” Orientation means
taking notice of where the boundaries are and placing oneself in relation to
them.[11]
Also, Albanese makes a useful distinction between “ordinary
religion” and extraordinary religion.[12]
Ordinary “religion” is a set of boundary conditions and actions which does not include
any belief in the supernatural or supra mundane realm. Extraordinary religion,
on the other hand, includes all religions which believe in some supernatural or
supra mundane realm. Besides being commensurate with some other famous
definitions of religion, extraordinary religion has the advantage of not being
confused with culture and can be more clearly distinguished from it.
Religious creeds present the
content of different religious beliefs. They can include a religious
tradition’s beliefs about the origin and nature of the world (cosmologies),
origin and nature of human beings (cosmogonies), nature of God, etc. The
previous examples address issues at the level of world views, which is typical
of religious creeds because of their
concern with ultimate and foundational information and relationships. As such
they not only have a formative impact upon the religious community, but through
that community they can also have a foundational formative impact upon society.
They can range in form from developed theologies and doctrines to myths,[13]
sacred stories and oral traditions.
A religious code includes the
values and rules of a religious tradition. These values inform and legitimate
moral actions, define and dictate responses to evil, etc. They can range from
highly developed systems of morals and laws (e.g. Judaism) to particular local
customs. Also, they can be very closely
tied to the religious creed.[14]
A religious cultus includes
the various rituals, liturgies, rites, sacred symbols, worship practices, etc
of a particular religious tradition. It
also includes any “administrative” personal such as priests, rabbis, shamans,
gurus, et al.
Finally, a religious
community is any group of people sharing a religious tradition.
Of course this brief paper
cannot do justice to the rich concept of culture but rather must restrict
itself to only what is necessary to help one better understand section three
below.
Human beings as “animal symbolicum”[15]
create culture, and are revealed as themselves in the history, cultures,
and civilizations which they have developed. This is so because Humankind is
able to and does express himself/herself
variously in the irreducible symbolic forms of art, language,
literature, music, etc of which culture is constituted.[16]
While these various irreducible symbolic expressions are universal forms any
particular content of culture can be closely related to the various ideas,
goals, values, etc (religious or otherwise) which may have given rise to those
particular expressions. Finally, culture includes the creative spirit which
generates its various forms and expressions.[17]
Culture, then, is distinct from civilization--the outer framework of culture
and society.[18]
Society, on the other hand,
consists of various groups held together in dynamic equilibrium by common and
opposing efforts and interests.[19]
If society consists of group
life then social institutions become more explicit when these relations are
more or less formalized. It is rather now a well understood commonplace that
people live in and through social institutions. These institutions function to
satisfy basic human needs; provide stability; and establish roles, norms, and
relations which outlive single generations. Examples of different social institutions
include: family, government, law, religion, education, economies, professional
and trade organizations, etc. Also, these various social institutions are
intricately interrelated, inter-dependant, and inter-penetrative.[20]
Finally, different religions may emphasize some institutions over others, for
example, the family.
Interrelations of Religion and Society
Given the definitions and
descriptions in the preceding sections, it should be becoming clear that these
various fields of activity are capable of profound and complex interrelations
and mutual influences. This section will present a few examples of these
possible influences with respects to religion upon society, and continue on to
suggest five different foundational relationships between religion and society.
First of all, that there has
been substantial influence of different religions upon various cultures,
societies, and civilizations throughout history helps to demonstrate that these
complex interrelations between religion and society and their influences do in
fact exist. Western culture, society, and civilization has been greatly
influenced by the Judaeo/Christian heritage.[21]
Examples could be multiplied
in order to begin to show the details, complexity and dynamics of the various
influences and interrelations of religion, society, beliefs, etc. However, here
one example must suffice. The example is the Protestant Reformation which had
such a profound impact on
Finally, this paper will
conclude by suggesting five different foundational[27]
relationships that religion can and historically has had upon society and
culture by virtue of the particular religion’s view of the world and culture as
a whole, and its consequent stance towards it; predicated also by its
understanding and doctrines on the nature and scope of salvation or liberation.[28]
The first foundational
relationship that can exist between religion and society is religion against
society/culture. This relationship consist of a religious perspective that is
world renouncing, and which seeks to be separate. In one expression, early
Catholic monasticism, the material world is simply thought of as either not
good, or at least not ultimate. Jnana Marga Hinduism and Theravada
Buddhism share this “not ultimate” perspective.
The second relationship is
religion and society/culture in paradox. Here the religious perspective may be
characterized as dualistic where there are separate rules, etc for religion and
separate rules for society. A classic example of this is Martin Luther’s
The third relationship is one
of religion transforming society/culture. Here religion seeks to utilize its
vision for life to bring about incremental changes in society and culture. An
example of this in American history are the Nineteenth and early Twentieth
century Evangelical social reformers. A more recent example are some of those
engaged in contemporary American society’s “culture wars.”[29]
The fourth relationship is
one of religion revolutionizing society. This religious perspective seeks
“creative destruction” to re-institutionalize different values into society.
The clearest example of this is the Liberation Theologians work in Central and
Finally, the last
relationship is religion of society/culture. This perspective is radically
world affirming with a commensurate complete institutionalizing of religion in
culture. The attempts of the Puritans Massachusetts Bay Colony may serve as a useful
example to represent this last relationship.
Conclusion
In conclusion, by describing
and defining the separate but interrelated fields of belief systems, religion,
culture, and society this paper laid the groundwork necessary to understand the
possibilities of and types of interactions which can and do occur between
religion and society. It is because of these interrelationships that religion
and society can and do have such impacts upon one another, and why there occurs
both religious and cultural change. Finally, various relationships between
religion and society can occur at many different levels (foundational and
otherwise), and religion can be expressed in,[31]
as well as influenced by, the many different social institutions and cultural
expressions and activities.
Click
here to return to home page index.htm
Notes
[1] This paper originally appeared in Combine 1 (Spring 1998): 12-21.
[2] Since many scientific beliefs are theoretical
postulates seeking to explain unseen things (atoms, etc), when religious
beliefs postulate, for example, the existence of a creator God because of
scientific cosmological physical data which points to a contingent universe,
they are not that dissimilar from even scientific hypotheses. They also can be
held to be reasonable or believable and can be rationally adopted and acted
upon.
[3] However, this difference must be thought of as on a
continuum because the individual psychology of the knower and their emotions
are also involved and integrated even in the process of knowing. Knowing is not simply an isolated
rational activity but involves the whole person (not to mention the role which
society plays in knowledge construction-- on which see note # 5 below). On this
integration see especially: Barret, William. The Death of the Soul.
Anchor, 1986; Breytspraak, William. Toward a Post-Critical Sociology of
knowledge: A Study of Berger, Durkheim, Maneheim, and Polanyi. Ann Arbour:
University Microfilms International, 1982; Polanyi, Michael. Personal
Knowledge: Toward a Post-Critical Philosophy. 1962; and Warnock, Mary. Imagination.
[4] Olthuis, James H. “On World Views.” Christian Scholars
Review 14 no. 2 (1985): 153-164, p. 156. Olthuis is speaking of
world views rather than belief systems, but there is no contradiction in
adapting this phrase here (see note # 7 below).
[5] This brief paper cannot adequately addresses the
complex issue of whether society constructs ideas or ideas construct society.
However, a few remarks may be apropos.
The phrase “psycho-social mental constructions” emphasizes ideas role in
constructing society, which is appropriate for the purposes of this paper.
However, it is the belief of this author that both ideas and society are
involved, dialectically, in knowledge construction. One of the great insights
of the continental philosophers (Heidegger, Gadamer) is that language is
pre-given, and that life-world is pre-given (Dilthey), and finally, that
life-world is pre-given largely through language use (the latter Wittgenstein).
However, it is the position of this author that not only is language pre-given
for any particular community but “field”--the entirety of human and other
relationships in reality--is also partially pre-given (see especially, Pike,
Kenneth. Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human
Behavior.
[6] Heibert, Paul. “The Missiological Implications of an Epistemelogical
Shift.” TSF
Bulletin 8 no. 5 (1985): 12-18, p. 13.
[7] Although these levels of belief are distinct they are
also profoundly integrated. For example, they are hierarchical and interrelated
where worldviews generate and delimit the range and content of acceptable
paradigms, paradigms generate and delimit the range and content of acceptable
theories, and theories delimit the data selected and interpreted. All
constitute part of any particular interpretive or action matrix.
[8] Sire, James. The Universe Next Door. 2nd rev ed. 1987, p. 14.
[9] Sire, p. 14.
[10] Of course the now classic location for a discussions
of paradigms is Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
Two examples of paradigms from Kuhn would be Einstein’s relativity theories in
physics as opposed to
[11] Albanese, Catherine.
[12] Albanese, p. 6.
[13] The author is using myths here to refer to primal
mythical cosmologies, etc (see, for example, Sproul, Barbara. Primal Myths:
Creating the World. N.Y.: Harper and Row, 1979). Myth is of course used in
religious studies in this and in a broader sense. On myth in general see: “Myth
and history,” in The Encyclopedia of Religion, vol.10. Mircea Eliade, Ed.;
N.Y.: Simon & Schuster Macmillan, 1995; Barbour, Ian. Myth, Models, and
Paradigms: A Comparative Study in Science and Religion.
[14] There are many examples (Daoism, Christianity, etc)
where the ethics of a particular religious tradition follow quite logically
from their understanding of the world, man, God, etc; in short, from their
religious creeds--their understanding of the nature of things. Prior to
Immanuel Kant this would have seemed quite appropriate. It was Kant (and
remains part of his legacy) that fractured the relationship between one’s
understanding of nature and one’s ethics by virtue of fracturing the
relationship between fact (located in the phenomenal realm) and value (located
ultimately in the numenal realm). However, without addressing all the complex
issues involved, suffice it to say that Kant’s supposed dichotomy has come
under withering criticism, and that ethics not grounded in some reality could
easily become quite arbitrary.
[15] Cassirer, Ernst. An Essay on
[16] See especially Cassirer.
[17] Macquarie, John. 20th Century Religious Thought. 4th ed. 1988, p. 125.
[18]
[19] Moberg, David. The Church as a Social Institution. 2nd ed. 1984,
p. 267.
[20] Moberg, p. 20.
[21] On Christianity’s influence on Western art, for
example, see the relevant chapters in Fleming, William. Art and Ideas.
9th ed. Harcourt, 1995. Also, on the Judaic and Christian Bible’s influence on
Western literature see the article by Leland Ryken, “The Literary Influence of
the Bible,” pp. 473-488 in, Ryken, Leland and Tremper Logman III. Eds. A
Complete Literary Guide to the Bible. 1993. Finally, On Christianity’s
influence on Western civilization in general see Sorokin, Pitirim. Social
and Cultural Dynamics. 4 vols. 1957, et al.
[22] For example, the “Laws of Manu’s” partial structuring
of
[23] Daniel Overmyer goes so far as to say that, “The
study of Chinese religions is important not only in its own right, but as an
essential element in the study of Chinese culture as a whole. Vast areas of
that culture simply cannot be properly understood without the study of its
religions...,” p. 128 in “Chinese Religions-The State of the Field, Part I.” The
Journal of Asian Studies 54, no. 1 (February 1995): 124-160. On Buddhism,
Confucianism, and Taosim specifically, besides the general references cited in
Overmyer’s introduction to part I, see also “Chinese Religions: The State of
the Field, Part 2, Living Religious Traditions: Taoism, Confucianism, Buddhism,
Islam, and Popular Religions.” The Journal of Asian Studies, 54, no.2
(May 1995): 314-332.
[24] One obvious example of this is the Arabic calligraphy
that shows up in Middle Eastern textiles, architecture, paintings, etc. This is
partly a function of the geometric nature of the Arabic script and partly a
result of the influence of the Koran--the Islamic most sacred scripture-- with
respects to the importance it places on the word, and with respects to its
hatred of idolatry which tended to restrict representational paintings.
[25] For other factors see the studies by Wuthnow, Robert.
Communities of Discourse: Ideology and Social Structure in the Reformation,
Enlightenment, and European Socialism. Harvard, 1989; and the articles in
Chaunu, Pierre. Ed. The Reformation.
[26] See for example, McGrath, Alister. “Calvinism and the
shaping of Western Culture and Society,” pp. 247-262 in his A Life of John Calvin.
[27] “Foundational” is not being used here in the sense of
Foundationalism. This latter term denotes a particular epistemological
perspective, whereas the metaphor “foundational” suggests a level that other
more specific relationships would build from (Krausz, Michael. “Relativism and
Foundationalism: Some Distinctions and Strategies,” The Monist 67.3 (1984): 398).
[28] This paper is heavily indebted to Wainwright for what
follows, who is himself following H. Richard Niebuhr.
[29] See especially Hunter, James D. Culture Wars.
1991. The term “culture wars” is not meant to be provocative but depicts the
divergence of visions for life of the participants, and the intensity of the
rhetoric often involved.
[30] See especially Smith, Christian. The Emergence of
Liberation Theology. Radical Religion and Social Movement Theory.
[31] Incidentally, it is precisely because of these
various interrelationships that religion can not be solely relegated to some
private sphere. This is why those who call for a complete absence of religious
expression in public over extreme interpretations of the establishment clause
of the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution show little understanding of
the nature of religion or society. For the influence of religion on the U.S.
Constitution itself see: Berman, Harold J. “Law and Religion,” pp. 472-475 In The
Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol 8, Ed. by Mircea Eliade, et. al. N.Y.:
MacMillan, 1987; Diamond, Martin. “The Declaration and the Constitution: