Interactionism’s and Feminism’s view on Religion in relation to Secularization Thesis.

Religion is a vital part of human society. Sociology, being a study that is concerned with society, has attempted to define religion, as well as, to define it using the sociological concepts and theories. The feminists view religion from a patriarchal point of view, while the interactionists view religion through symbols. According to sociology, religion is very important as a social institution.

1965), religion is a system of society that is unified by rituals, beliefs and practices that define the evil things of the world in relation to the sacred things of society. Durkheim identified the functions of religion in society as social cohesion, social control and the provision of purposes and meaning to the members of the society. He showed that religion is a communal event where the members got an opportunity to interact with each other. In regard to social control, all the major religions in the world define the principles of behavior and distinguish between moral and immoral behavior. A definition of religion by the structural functionalists agrees with Durkheim (1965) definition of religion. The structural functionalists argue that religion focuses on shaping an individual into a moral being. Another definition of religion can be drawn from Karl Marx (1964). He argues that religion is a consolation of the poor. He shows that the wealthy members of the society use religion to teach the poor t accept their social status.

The idea of the secularization thesis was theorized in the 1960s. According to Swatos and Christiano (1999), secularization thesis is an argument that faith in a Supreme Being or religious faith will continue decreasing and fade at some point. The authors base this on the fact that secular society is rapidly emerging, and the people believing in a supreme being are decreasing daily. According to the proponents of the secularization thesis, the sectors of the society are moving from being inclined to religion, to becoming more secular. The proponents Peter Berger and Bryan Wilson (Swatos and Christiano 1999) cite an example of government, as one institution that has become more secular, and is leading people to leaving their religious strongholds.

Both interactionists and feminists have theorized about religion. A close look at their theories shows similarities and contradictions between the two sets of theorists. A look at these theories will help understand the similarities and differences between them.

Feminism is a conflict theory of religion. Feminists view religion from the female perspective. They posit that religion exists to oppress women. According to Woodhead (2008), religion is an instrument of patriarchy that exists to perpetuate male domination over the females. Through this belief, feminists hold that the role of religion n society is to promote female subordination. In many religions, even though the women outnumber the men (Woodhead 2008), the leadership and decision-making is dominated by the men. For example, in Judaism and Orthodox Catholicism, women are not permitted to be priests. Another example is Catholicism, which sees women as impure and unclean. This denies women the opportunities for leadership in the church. This justifies the view of feminists about male dominance and subordination of women by religion. Since the church is reluctant in permitting female priesthood, this is an indication of the reluctance of the church to emancipate women (Woodhead 2008). This is also an evidence of marginalization of women, justifying the view brought out by the feminists in regard to religion serving only the interests of men. In addition, the way of worship in the place of worship also shows the marginalization of women. For example, in many religions, men occupy the front seats, and women seat on the front. In the Muslim religion, for example, the menstruating women are not permitted to come in contact with the Quran.

On the other hand, interactionists view religion through the way symbols and meanings promote social interaction through religion (Furseth and Repstad 2006). They argue that religion is the interaction through symbols between individuals and small groups. Borrowing from Durkheim (1965) definition of religion, it is evident that the words sacred and profane are beyond the human world. They are a matter of faith. In relation to this, the interactionists theorists see religion as constructed symbols of interaction in society. They posit that rituals, beliefs and practices associated to religion only have meaning because the members of the community have attached some meaning to them. However, this connotation does not deny the divine reality of these beliefs, rituals and practices, only that the interactionists try to emphasize the social interpretation of religion. Interactionists argue that individuals believe that their belief and affiliation with a particular religion provides them with a sense of security.

A similarity between feminism and interactionists is on the impact of religion on the individual. For example, feminists argue that religion is used by a man to oppress a woman. Its impact on these individuals is to oppress a woman, while it advantages a man. Feminism also identifies with the capitalistic views of Marxism. Similarly, interactionists argue that religion impacts on an individual by assuring them security (Furseth and Repstad 2006). Also, interactionists agree that individuals influence society. Similarly, feminists argue that the action of men to use religion to oppress the women shapes behavior in society. Another similarity is seen in the fact that interactionists believe in the free will of an individual. The feminists are alsofighting for free will, meaning that they also believe in the free will. The other similarity between the two sets of theorists is seen in that some interactionists believe that society influences individuals. Similarly, feminists believe that society oppresses women. These views are based on the influence of the society on the individuals.

The contrasts between interactionists and feminists on their view about religion are many. For example, feminists major on the oppression of women in society, while interactionists argue that all individuals can hold the religious belief regardless of their gender. Secondly, feminism is a conflict theory that identifies with the capitalistic nature of Marxism (positivists), while interactionists are post-modernists. Thirdly, feminists see that women are discriminated by religions and denied the opportunity to serve. In contrast, interactionists argue that even the women have the opportunity to serve in the religious circles (Furseth and Repstad 2006). The interactionists have shown that women have access to more opportunities in religion and that the trend is increasing. However, the feminists are very pessimistic, and they emphasize that women are continuously being exploited in society. The other contrast is that the interactionists focus on the post-industrial era and agree that every member of the society has a chance to change. However, the feminists focus on the early times, and they don’t seem to agree that times have changed and that the woman has been liberated.

Both theories have some element of secularization thesis. In interactionism, Peter Berger (Furseth and Repstad 2006) argued that religious faith will decline after some time because of the advances that secularization is making in the world. However, after realizing the resilient and tenacious nature of religion, Berger later argued that religion will gain more significance in the future. On the other hand, feminists are vigilantly fighting for recognition of the place or plight of women in the society. Since this is happening, and the women are gaining opportunities in the church, secularization thesis may be proved true, if viewed with the perspective of the feminists.

In conclusion, both feminists and interactionists recognize the impact that religions have on an individual. However, interactionists see that opportunities are equal among gender, while feminists major on the oppression of religion on women. The two sets of theorists have some aspect of the secularization thesis, in that religious faith may decline and end at some point.

REFERENCES

Durkheim, E. 1965. The elementary forms of religious life. New York, NY: Free Press.

Furseth, I., & Repstad, P. 2006. An introduction to sociology of religion: Classical and contemporary perspectives. Farnham, UK: Ashgate Publishing.

Marx, K. 1964. Marx’s critique of Hegel’s philosophy of right. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Christiano, K. J. & Swatos H. J. 1999. “Secularization theory: The course of a concept”. Sociology of Religion, Vol 60, no. 3, pp: 209-228.

Woodhead, L. 2008. ‘Feminism and the sociology of religion: From gender blindness to gendered difference’. In K. F. Richard. 2008. The Blackwell companion to sociology of religion. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

CLICK BUTTON TO ORDER NOW