assumes a committed, if not emancipatory, tenor which dismisses value neutrality as both a theoretical myth and avoidance of moral responsibility. As Feagin and Vera remark, ‘the point of liberation sociology is not just to research the social world but to change it in the direction of democracy and social justice’ (2008, p. 1).
Applied methods
Not unrelated to these developments, the methods used by sociology to engage the social world have likewise diversified. Although the importance to sociology of understanding the motivations and intentions of individual social actors was emphasized by the German social thinker Max Weber (1864–1920), subsequent generations of sociologists failed to develop this insight. Reflecting both functionalist and Marxist preoccupations, many sociologists became overly concerned with analysing macro-structural processes (e.g. urbanization) and institutional dynamics (e.g. integration) to the detriment of engaging the micro-social encounters of individual agents. As a consequence, sociology became heavily reliant upon large-scale, quantitative methods by which the data it needed to understand macro-structural and institutional processes could be gathered. During this time, a minority of social scientists (such as symbolic interactionists and ethnomethodologists) continued to concern themselves with understanding the everyday micro-social interactions through which individuals pass and by which they both sustain their lives and render them meaningful. Given their micro-social focus, these sociologists championed a range of qualitative methods, which they used to engage both the processes of interpersonal encounter and the subjective interpretations thereof by the individuals involved in them.
Within sociology today, qualitative methods such as interviews and discourse analysis enjoy an established place alongside quantitative methods such as questionnaires and statistical analysis. Of course, different types of method lend themselves to acquiring and interpreting different kinds of data and are thereby more or less suited to engaging different sorts of social processes and dynamics. For this reason, many forms of sociological enquiry employ ‘mixed methods’ approaches which combine both quantitative and qualitative modes of capturing and analysing data. Irrespective of the methods employed, however, fruitful sociological enquiry relies upon an awareness of their respective strengths and weaknesses; not least as they pertain to what kinds of data are sought, where they are found and how they are captured (Bryman, 2004; Robson, 2002).
Conclusion
In combination, differences in the theorization of society, interpretations of its raison d’être and the methods employed in its practice make for a highly variegated sociological terrain. At the same time, the continual, rapid, large-scale and increasingly plural nature of social transformation demands of sociology an unstinting willingness to innovate in both its conceptual and practical engagement with modern society. As will be seen throughout what follows, because it addresses the same kinds of challenges, the sociology of religion exhibits the same theoretical fissures, ethical tensions and methodological debates as the overarching disciplinary paradigm in which it sits. No less varied or innovative than its disciplinary siblings, as we shall now see the sociology of religion is just as informative, stimulating and, at times, contentious.
Further reading
Berger, P., 1966, Invitation to Sociology, London: Pelican.
Bilton, T., Bonnett, K. and Jones, P., 2002, Introductory Sociology, 4th edn, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cohen, R. and Kennedy, P., 2007, Global Sociology, 2nd edn, New York: NYU Press.
Elias, N., 1978, What is Sociology?, London: Hutchinson.
Seidman, S., 2004, Contested Knowledge: Social Theory Today, 3rd edn, Oxford: Blackwell.
Note
1 Although used in a slightly different sense, the terms ‘structured structure’ and ‘structuring structure’ are borrowed from Pierre Bourdieu (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992, p. 139).
2
Religion in Sociological Perspective
Having sketched the central components of the sociological paradigm, it is now time to introduce how the disciplinary particularities of sociology are played out in respect of its theoretical and practical encounter with religion. The first part of this chapter deals with the seemingly perennial problem of defining religion. Next, issues relating to the contexts in which religion is found and how it is practically engaged are treated. As will become evident, questions relating to the where (context) and how (method) of the sociological study of religion are directly informed by what religion is understood to be (definition).
Defining religion
Like the fabled Trojan horse, definitions of religion carry in themselves more than is visible to the naked eye. Sociologically speaking, there is no such thing as an interest-free definition of religion; at least, not one with enough meat on the bone to be of any academic use (Droogers, 2008, pp. 263–79). As with most things sociological, when treating matters of definition Weber’s observation upon the inescapably perspectival nature of the sociological gaze is particularly pertinent (1949, p. 81). As with Marx before him, Weber was acutely aware that ideas and the definitions they comprise do not fall ready-made from the skies. Rather, they are forged with conceptual materials bequeathed by a particular socio-cultural heritage and manufactured in light of specific experiences of a given economic-political context. Definitions have a tendency, then, however implicitly and often despite the attempts of their creators, to reflect the particular worldviews from which they spring. Consequently, definitions carry within themselves a range of theoretical presuppositions, value judgements and practical biases which lead their users to view, interpret and act towards what is being defined in one way rather than another.
Substantive definitions
Writing in a period of progressive global exploration and increasing awareness of socio-cultural diversity, Edward Tylor (1832–1917) offered one of the earliest and, for a time, most influential academic definitions of religion. Understood as a ‘minimum definition of Religion’, Tylor held it to comprise ‘the belief in Spiritual Beings’ (1871: I, p. 424). Regarded by Tylor as an essential (necessary) attribute of religion, ‘belief in Spiritual Beings’ served as a theoretical filter eliminating from religious consideration every form of conceptual and practical disposition, which did not embody some kind of preoccupation with non-natural agencies. To be defined as religious, a collective ritual practice such as harvest thanksgiving or individual belief in life after death must, however tacitly, acknowledge the existence of supernatural beings. At face value, and in view of its alluring simplicity, Tylor’s definition is an attractive one.
Appearances, though, can be deceptive. For Tylor’s definition excludes from consideration as religious the many historical and contemporary practices and beliefs (such as Theravada Buddhism and modern nature religion), which engage supernatural forces and dynamics lacking subjective attributes of ‘being’ such as self-awareness and self-determination (Southwold, 1978, pp. 362–79; Shaw and Francis, 2008). Each in its own way, Theravada Buddhism and modern nature religion embodies a religious mode of belief and practice which is not orientated to or by the kinds of ‘Spiritual Beings’ central to Tylor’s definition. In spite of its minimal and purportedly inclusive intent, Tylor’s definition nevertheless excludes from consideration certain forms of belief and practice which the overwhelming majority of scholars today include within their definitions of religion. Despite his inclusive aspirations, Tylor’s attempt at a universally applicable definition fails by virtue of its unacknowledged Judeo-Christian perspective and limited historical gaze.
Tylor’s definition of religion is typically ‘substantive’ in the way that it goes about saying what religion is. Typically, substantive definitions of religion seek to capture the essential preoccupations