Sociology of Religion: Measurement and Social Constructs

The Sociological Perspective on Religion

The sociological perspective is an immensely important lens through which to view various occurrences, phenomena, conceptualizations, and ideas. Essentially, it is a way of analyzing these factors — and others — in regard to their effect upon society. The sociological perspective is concerned with assessing the social repercussions of something, as well as its origins, in terms of how it impacts the collective. This perspective can acknowledge other facets of whatever it happens to be focused upon (such as religion), yet it is predominantly concerned with the sociological roots of a particular concept and how it shapes society.

The sociological perspective affects the way religion is studied in that it focuses on religion's social dimensions. Specifically, it tends to concentrate on certain behavioral aspects of religion. Writers such as Émile Durkheim believe that religion encompasses elements beyond how it shapes the social order; however, Durkheim holds that its most significant facet is the way it reinforces — if not outright defines — the social order itself (Durkheim, 1915). This notion is perhaps the quintessential expression of the sociological perspective in relation to religion, seeking to identify what religion does to the social order, which is closely tied to the concept of submission to authority.

The sociological perspective is considerably distinct from non-social-scientific approaches to the study of religion, such as philosophical or theological approaches, largely because those approaches consider social aspects of religion from a secondary or tertiary viewpoint. Religion's social reverberations are always central to the sociological perspective. For example, theological perspectives stress the role of a creator or divinity far more than the sociological perspective does. The latter is aware of that role, yet subordinates it — along with most other considerations — to the question of how society is impacted by religion.

The sociological perspective also differs from other social-scientific approaches, such as psychology and anthropology, in that it is less focused on the individual and on individuality. The sociological lens is always rooted in collectivism — the collective causes and effects of whatever is being studied, including religion. This perspective considers religion (and most other phenomena) in terms of social institutions. Non-social-scientific perspectives, by contrast, are less focused on the collective social order and more on individuality.

Religion as a Man-Made Social Construct

At its most rudimentary level, religion is a social construct. This construct is largely comprised of codes, norms, rituals, and beliefs about how to function in accord with the predominant social values of a particular society. There is, however, a strong spiritual aspect of religion, which is usually invoked as a means of interpreting the desires of some higher power or divinity. It is a fairly common conception that religion stems from the desires of that divinity to express its will about how people should behave. Nevertheless, a number of salient Western thinkers — including Durkheim, Marx, and the Rational Choice theorists — propound the notion that religion is actually a man-made social construct, and therefore originates from human beings themselves.

Karl Marx is particularly explicit in his espousal of this doctrine. He addresses religion indirectly in A Critique of the German Ideology. The preface of this work contains a parable in which someone poses the notion that men are drowning because they are contemplating gravity, and that if "they were to knock this notion out of their heads, say by stating it to be a superstition, a religious concept" (Marx, 2000), they could rid themselves of the idea. This quotation is significant not because of the parable or the tenet of gravity, but because it reveals Marx's true thoughts about religion. In this passage, superstition is equated with a "religious concept." Marx thus makes it clear that religion is little more than superstition — a man-made notion about rituals and practices intended to bring about some desired result. By comparing religion to superstition, Marx indicates that religion is both created by men and constitutes a similar set of practices and rules for men to follow.

There is considerable merit in Durkheim's writings on this subject as well. Durkheim views religion almost exclusively within its social context, which he believes is essential to religion's core function, because "religion is something eminently social" (Durkheim, 1915). Although he acknowledges that some religious precepts relate to spirituality or the will of a higher power, Durkheim is predominantly concerned with the social ramifications of religion. The emphasis he places on its socializing capabilities — under which people regularly acknowledge and submit to some form of authority — explicates his views about what religion is and where it comes from. His central notion is that "religion does not necessarily imply symbols and rites… Essentially, it is nothing other than a body of collective beliefs and practices endowed with a certain authority" (Durkheim, 1915). This passage indicates that religion is essentially a series of behavioral guidelines for following authority — an authority that is manmade, implying that religion itself originates from human beings. Rational Choice theorists would further argue that religion was founded by those who would receive "utility payoffs" by having people submit to their authority (Danchev, 2016, p. 297).

Conclusion: The Most Accurate Measurement Approach

The most accurate method for measuring religiosity is the Centrality of Religiosity Scale. Because it draws from a variety of distinct dimensions that collectively inform what religiosity entails, it yields tangible, quantitatively empirical evidence — making it the most rigorous and comprehensive tool currently available to sociologists studying religious behavior.

References

Borstorff, P., & Arlington, K. (2010). The perils of religious accommodation: Employees' perceptions. Proceedings of the Academy of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues, 14(1), 1–6.

Danchev, S. (2016). Was Bentham a primitive rational choice theory predecessor? European Journal of History of Economic Thought, 23(2), 297–322.

Durkheim, E. (1915). The elementary forms of the religious life. Retrieved from http://www.gutenberg.org/files/41360/41360-h/41360-h.htm#Page_1

Huber, S., & Huber, O. (2012). The centrality of religiosity scale. Religions, 3, 710–724.

Marx, K. (2000). A critique of the German ideology. Retrieved from https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Marx_The_German_Ideology.pdf

Pearce, L. D., Hayward, G. M., & Pearlman, J. A. (2017). Measuring five dimensions of religiosity across adolescence. Review of Religious Research, 59(3), 367–393.

Strauss, J. P., & Sawyerr, O. O. (2009). Religiosity and attitudes towards diversity: A potential workplace conflict? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(11), 2626–2650.