'Marx and Weber within Religion\r'

'Marx and Durkheim jointly cover the nucleus of the sociological systemal thought on various issues. They encompass the major issues in spite of appearance the sociological tradition. create righteousness re chief(prenominal)ed their favorite sociological subject and their absorb speculated over the issue in the modern sociological context. Marxian reflection on the sociology of exampleity is very limited whereas Durkheim has contri plainlyed largely on the philosophic and sociological issues pertaining to theology.  Marx is ingested as an avant-garde sociologist on the thought of holiness.\r\nBeing influenced by Hegels philosophy, Marx considers holiness is a mirror image of â€Å"material concreteities and economic injustice”. Therefore, he labels problems in organized worship are eventu wholey ultimate favorable problems. Most of the Marxian thought on the sociological aspects of piety is reflected in the quite a few chapeauch stylus paragraphs of his â€Å" plowshare to the Critique of Hegel’s philosophical system of office: Introduction.” These are the same passages that include his widely quoted dictum on trust, that â€Å"it is the opium of the people.”\r\nNevertheless, this claim handst by Marx skunk non be taken as demonstration of Marxian spiritual visit. It is often misquoted devoid of its context. Marx’s starts his essay â€Å"Contri entirelyion to a Critique of Hegels Philosophy of Right” with much(prenominal) words; â€Å"For Ger objet darty the criticism of theology is in the main complete, and criticism of religious belief is the premise of solely criticism.” (Marx 1964B: 43) This raises the concerns wherefore Marx has pronounced apparitional criticism as the necessary divisor of all criticisms. The raw material factor that compelled Marx to hold in ghostlike criticism as the basic skeletal system was the magnitude of signifi regularise upce that relig ion holds in the lives of valets.\r\n standardized a shot the question arises why Marx has declared the criticism of religion as he basic of all criticisms. whoremonger Macmurrary considers that it was the acknowledgement of historical judgment on the parting of Marx. It was an illustration of his understanding on the tender engage of religion. He says in this realize;\r\nBy criticism, in this phrase, we essential be careful to understand what Marx mum by it, non the blank denial of religion, scarcely the historical understanding of its necessity and component in golf club, which leads to its dialectical negation when its function is completed. Marx meant that the understanding of religion was the draw to the understanding of brotherly history. (Macmurrary 1935: 219)\r\nMck protest reinforces the same understanding resembling Mcmurray that Marx deems religion as a useful cordial tool and this thinking developed as dim analysis of kind history pertaining to religi on. unless Mckown get ahead emphasizes that this statement has too much generalization. (Mckown, 1975. p.46)\r\nMarx further asserts that religion is the production of friendly evolution and its serves family and state in several ways.  He does non eulogise religion merely consider it of vital vastness for layman as it enriches their lives with backbone of worth. He says in this regards;\r\n worship is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has each not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the adult male. globe is the demesne of manâ€state, society. This state and this society set off religion, which is an anatropous consciousness of the homo, because they are an inverted gentlemans gentleman. faith is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point dhonneur, its en henceiasm, its moral sanction, its devou t complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic objectiveization of the humankind essence since the human essence has not acquired any true rattlingity. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. (Marx, 1964)\r\n judgment of religion is primary as religion nominates the inverted delusions that the religion world i.e animateness hereafter, deities etc. is existent and that the material world is a shadow of that real liveness. So in his criticism of â€Å"religion”, he hit any religion that capsizes the physical world from being the primary reality. As an acquittal from his unmistakable attack on, Marx lessens his negative perception by evaluating the foundational mathematical function of religion in this way;\r\nâ€Å" phantasmal torture is at the same time an reflexion of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. trust is the si gh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a hardhearted world, and the soul of soulless checks. It is the opium of the people.”\r\nMarx’s spiritual vantage point 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 of magnitude to provide solace to the distressed people. It was the mechanisation of the poor to create an illusory world for themselves to create an escape 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 indication and the remedy (simultaneously) of that malady i.e. religion is an expression and solution to a more fundamental happiness.\r\nSo Marxian affirmations about religion are not negative as they are often understood and interpreted. It manifests that Marx has a â€Å"partial validation of religion” until a able economic system does not remove the causes that created it.\r\nMarxian bringing close together of religion derives its strength from his idea of â€Å"alienation”. He think hat it was â€Å"alienation” [1] that dehumanize the individuals and religious opium comes as a minimum resistance by the ill-used people that provides illusory hope against the real exploitation. Another Marxian critic, Norman Birnbaum (1969), interpret this phenomenon in his way, to Marx, â€Å"religion is a spiritual response to a condition of alienation.” (p.126)\r\nIllustrating the ultimate and real purpose of religion (contrary to the view of the commom folk), he further exaplin Marxian view; â€Å"Religion was conceived to be a business leaderful conservative force that served to continue the domination of one societal class at the expense of others.” (Ibid 127).” So this a cause and resultant 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.\r\nRaines[2] sums up the Marxian sociology of religion in this way;\r\nâ€Å"Like the Hebrew prophets of old, Marx knew that to speak of social justice we must stupefy socially self-critical, and that means becoming critical of the sentiment powersâ€whether they be kings or priests or investment bankers…. For Marx, all ideas are relative to the social location and interests of their production. And like the prophets before him, the to the highest degree revealing perspective is not from the top down or the center outward, but the…point of view of the exploited and marginalized. Suffering can see through and unveil official explanations; it can cry out and protest against the arrogance of power.” (Raines)\r\nTo Durkheim, religion was a social phenomenon that simple eyeates di rectly from the social involve of a society but he considers it an all important(p) 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 Durkheim[3] 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 spell in his monumental work â€Å"Maters of Sociological thought”;\r\nDurkheims earlier concern with social regulation was in the main focused on the more immaterial forces of suss out, more particularly legal regulations that can be studied, so he argued, in the law books and without regard to individuals. Later he was led to consider forces of control that were internalized in individual consciousness. Being convinced that â€Å"society has to be present within the individual,” Durkheim, following the logic of his own theory, was le d to the study of religion, one of the forces that created within individuals a sense of moral obligation to draw together to societys demands. (Coser, 1977. p. 136)\r\nDurkheim main concern was trace down the social origin of religion. the sociological interpretaion of religion. Fot this purpose, he tried to collar 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 meditate a religious activity.\r\nFurther explaining the social origin of religion, Durkhein says that religion is an epitome 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 wrench that moulds our beliefs and attitudes while on the external horizon, it exerts and maintains pressures from the society to further conformity to the above-mentioned collective 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.\r\nSo it capaciates the people to get ready for a viscous 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 place must thus be executed by an external sanction superior to the individual i.e. by society. some(prenominal) these gambol of social facts explains clearly that society is an independent entity that whole kit and boodle 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 indi viduals act on that as an obligation. Durkheim consider religion as â€Å"society divinised” because religion only acts in the social domain.\r\nDurkheim observes paragon of divine manifestations of it as society itself. He takes idol in the functional perspective and attributes functional traits to graven image and further links these characteristics to social phenomenon. For example, he says that â€Å"deity is first of all a being that man conceives of as superior to himself in some abide by and one on whom he believes he depends. … auberge also fosters in us the sense of thoroughgoing(a) dependence. … Society requires us to make ourselves its servants, forgetful of our own interests”. (Elementary Forms for Religious Life, p. 208-209).\r\nDurkheim deems religion as â€Å"a co-ordinated system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart(predicate) and forbiddenâ€beliefs and practices which unite into o ne individual moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them” (Elementary Forms for Religious Life, p. 47).\r\nHe 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. routine work, daily life activities etc. This sector has an ultimate utilitarian approach. The sacred realm constitutes of no-mundane experiences that includes he recognition of a non-empirical authority and non-utilitarian activities.  He says in this regard;\r\nA 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 world, and by the fact that they fork over 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)\r\nSo a superior fusion of profane and sacred life makes the social cohesion that is necessary to put the civilisation 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; â€Å"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 collect to give it sacred significance in order to visualize it. (Coser, 1977. p. 136)\r\nDurkheim does not support Comte’s assertion that humans must endeavor to create a new â€Å"humanitarian cult” based on the shrewd principles. Durkheim like Marx does not suggest an garbled ending to religion but reinforces the Marxian that it should work until an inhibit alternative does not replace this vital sociological tool. He says in this regard, â€Å"We must discover the rational substitu tes 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)\r\nCoser sums up the religions ultimate function as draw by Durkhein, in this way;\r\nFinally, religion has a euphoric function in that it serves to counteract feelings of foiling and loss of faith and certitude by reestablishing 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)\r\nSo Both Marx and Durkheim consider religion important 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 both consider institution of religion as an imperative social necessity hitherto.\r\nReferences\r\nBellah, Robert. â€Å"Durkheim and History.” American Sociological Review 24 (1959): 447- 61.\r\nChiodi, P. Sartre and Marxism. Harvester Press Ltd. 1976.\r\nCoser, Lewis A. Masters of Sociological judgement: Ideas in Historical and societal Context,\r\n2nd Ed., gird Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc. 1977.\r\nEmile Durkheim, Moral Education. New York; The light Press.1961.\r\nEmile Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. New York; The Free Press, 1954.\r\nMacmurrary, John. The premature Development of Marx’s thought in Christianity and The\r\nSocial Revolution. Ed. John Lewis; Karl Polanyi; Donald K Kitchin. London,\r\nGollancz, 1935.\r\nMckown, Delos Banning. The classical Marxist critiques of religion: Marx, En gels,\r\nLenin, Kautsky. The Hague : Martinus Nijhoff, 1975.\r\nMarx. Karl. Introduction to a Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. 1844\r\nPickering, W. S. F. Durkheims Sociology of Religion: Themes and Theories. London: Routledge & K. Paul. 1984.\r\nRaines, John. Marx on Religion. Philadelphia : synagogue University Press, 2002.\r\n[1] Chiodi, the famous Marxian critic, Has defined Marx concept of alienation in these words; â€Å" 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. â€Å" (Chiodi, 1976. p.80) [2] John Raines is Professor of Religion at Temple University. [3] Most of the Durkheim’s critics regards his findings as theoretical and ahistorical contemplations but Bellah is of the view that â€Å" nearly 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 inverted and pretended reality.\r\n'