"Community, Society, and Religion"
Few can doubt the declining influence of religion in most western liberal democracies. Many theorists have believed that this decline leaves a gap in society, a gap which should be filled if society is to be healthy. In healthy societies, the religious glue which held together community needs to be replaced by something in order to retain that feel of community. One possibility would be to replace actual religion with "civil religion". This idea will be analyzed through the eyes of three thinkers: Ferdinand Tonnies, Emile Durkheim, and John Dewey. I will conclude that, although civil religion cannot replace religion as a community glue, it does serve a valuable purpose, especially in religiously tolerant societies.
In the first section I will discuss the role of religion in community. Included in this section will be an analysis of the working definition of religion, and what impact it has within community.
In the second section I will discuss to what extent religion can be carried over from community to society. This includes a discussion of whether it can be transferred and what is lost in the process.
In the third section there will be a discussion of civil religion as the possible filler of the gap caused by the loss of religion. Civil religion will be defined. Here I will most explicitly incorporate Tonnies, Durkheim, and Dewey, analyzing each position and critique the strengths and weaknesses in each. This will lead to the conclusion stated above.
PART I: RELIGION'S ROLE IN THE COMMUNITY
For the purposes of this paper, a belief system is a "religion" if it meets the following two criteria: 1) it is a belief in one or more extra-human agents which influence the welfare of human beings, and 2) it contains a system of symbolic representations or stories which sets up the framework by which an individual and group regulates thought and life. There is thus both a theological and psychosocial component. It is both a personal faith and a social system. Without both components, it is not a religion.
Given this definition, what it its role in society? Durkheim believes that religious ideas "correspond to a very central domain of the common consciousness". Durkheim's "common consciousness" is (very simply) that which binds together a community. We must, then, examine whether Durkheim is correct in his claim.
Before we can do that, though, we must briefly examine the meaning of "community" and whether such a thing is a legitimate conceptual construction. For purposes of this paper, we will keep the definition of community somewhat broad so as to incorporate the thought of Tonnies as well. Community might be considered the type of primitive social association prior to influence from capitalism, the industrial revolution, co-existence of diverse peoples, and such. It is that societal entity which existed prior to the onset of modernity. It may still exist in societies where modernity has not yet taken over and changed the very way of life. "Society", then, is the social association after the influence of capitalism, the industrial revolution, and such.
Now we can ask whether "community" is a legitimate construction. One can visit a strict Amish community and see that there is a significant difference between it and modern society (although even Amish communities are beginning to feel the influence of modernity, but they are fighting against it). While living in Western Pennsylvania, I had the opportunity to visit an Amish community as a guest of a merchant. While there I spoke extensively with the members of the community about their conceptions of modern society. If I were to explain this intellectual construction to one of the elders and ask if it was accurate, I have no doubt that he would agree with the broad premises. Further, when I asked the Amish about the importance of religion in their society, they unanimously and emphatically agreed that it was the very center of their community. It could be argued, though, that this is not a fair analysis since the Amish are a distinctly religious community.
This is a fair complaint, so we turn to anthropology to see if religion is a significant, binding force in community. Generally speaking, anthropologists say that it is at least a central force in community and the community which does not have religion at its center is quite unusual.
This does not, however, entail that religion is a binding force. In order to establish this, one may need to show that individuals removed from their community still feel a bond through religious ties to others who share the religious conviction. One piece of historical literature which provides some detail on this issue is the Hebrew Bible (a.k.a. the Old Testament).
The Bible records the nation of Israel divided into an Northern and Southern kingdom. It also records that both kingdoms were conquered by separate empires. This being the case, a brief comparative study of the two societies is beneficial.
The Northern Kingdom was reputed to be the less religious of the two communities. It integrated a number of religions into its worship of Yahweh/Baal. It could be said to be pluralistic for its day. When it was taken over by Assyria and the people sent into exile, the people generally adopted the religious identities of the peoples where they were sent. Soon most lost their identities as Jews. Those who were allowed to remain in Palestine maintained a syncretic religion which they maintained as part of their identity for centuries (the "Samaritans").
The Southern Kingdom was much more exclusivistic in its religious beliefs at the time of its Babylonian captivity. Throughout the captivity, the people of the Southern kingdom maintained their identity as Jews and worshipers of Yahweh. They identified themselves as Jews and generally maintained that identity even during times when it would have been expedient to blend in to the culture around them, as did the other conquered peoples. Religion served as the binding tie for the people of the Southern Kingdom, showing that it does serve in this role.
Ferdinand Tonnies agrees with this assessment:
The divinity thus evoked and worshiped by a common spirit is of major importance for maintaining the bond, since it alone or for the most part is what gives the bond a living, lasting form. Such a benevolent spirit is not located in any one place, but dwells in the conscience of its worshipers and accompanies their wanderings in foreign parts. Those who are truly comrades in the faith. . .will feel themselves to be united everywhere by a spiritual bond. (Pg. 29)
Do these examples of the Jews, the Amish, and anthropology in general prove Durkheim's view that religion is a binding force in community? No. Does it put the burden of proof on the other side to show that religion is not a binding force? Yes.
PART II: THE TRANSITION FROM COMMUNITY TO SOCIETY
The question now becomes whether, and to what extent, religion can be carried over from community to society. Based strictly on the definition of religion provided above, there is no reason to believe that religion could not be carried over to society. People and groups in society can believe in extra-human agents which influence human events through a system of beliefs connected by symbols or stories. Technically, this can and does exist in society. It is no longer, however, a central part of the lives of the people as a collective unit.
The reason for this is not that difficult to grasp. Part of the movement towards society includes a movement towards the integration of diverse peoples. Capitalism encourages this through trade with "outsiders". This necessarily increases communication among diverse communities, including the sharing of ideas. Eventually a merchant sub-class from various cultures moves into societies of different cultures and lives with them. Unless society is to have a sort of caste system (which may not even be compatible with real capitalism), there needs to be an equality of some sort for the outsiders who move in. For this to occur, there must be a system of tolerance for a variety of divergent belief systems and ways of life. This, of course, includes religion. Thus, to some extent or another, there develops religious heterogeneity within a given society. Now, if not everyone living in a society is of the same religion, religion cannot provide a binding force among the people in that society. The religious glue ceases to exist.
For those who live in community, religion is something that is held in common for all members. In society, this is not the case. One may belong to a religious community of sorts within society, but it is nearly impossible to associate only with members of that sub-community. It is almost necessary for the vast majority of people to interact with those outside their religious sect. Things other than religion are the modes of connection.
What is lost in this transition from community to society? Neither individual nor group faith is necessarily lost (unless it is a religion which is predicated on community-wide exclusionary practices). There are individuals and churches who adhere to the same religious beliefs and practices as were found in many of the former communities. The difference is that one cannot walk down the street and speak with those you encounter, knowing there is some religious bond which exists between you.
Durkheim seems to believe that this is a serious break. Speaking about the "religion of individuality", he says, "It cannot engender the same results as that multiplicity of extinct beliefs [religions]. There is no compensation." (Pg 122) Durkheim believes that once religion is lost, it cannot be completely replaced. Society has a hole left by the absence traditional religion and the community involved with it.
What is the nature of this "hole"? It is the lack of a sense of community in the strong sense. One may be on friendly terms with ones neighbors and co-workers, but a sense of connection is missing. I may be able to commiserate with my fellow graduate student about work load, but I feel no particular bond with them. There may be shared experience, but there is not so much a shared identity. To the extent there is a bond of shared identification and experience, it is a weak bond. It is much weaker than that provided by a religious community, even if the members of that community do not share many experiences outside the confines of the particular religious sub-culture. Nothing in society, especially nothing shared by all members of the society, provides a similar bond. Family may provide such a bond, but that cannot be shared by everyone together in society.
Is this strong bond necessary for the maintenance of society? Probably not, although this point could be argued. What it does provide is a special connection with those outside of ones family. With the relative collapse in the strength of the family, there becomes an increasingly large hole in the lives of many individuals. There is a lack of commonality with ones fellow human. Society can function without the strong bond, but it makes the lives of the individuals who compose that society less fulfilling.
Part III: Civil Religion
One partial solution posited to fill this gap is what is often called "civil religion". For our purposes, civil religion is defined, "Social and cultural beliefs, behaviors, and institutions which constitute a religious dimension concerned with civil order in the society." This is perhaps best understood through examples. The most evident example today is the religious dialogue from government officials in the wake of the September 11th calamity. There was no specific theological content, but the refrain "God bless America" was repeated extensively. God was mentioned frequently as a sort of unifying message for the people of the United States in the time of tragedy. On a more routine level, one can see civil religion in action through such activities as inaugurations, which look very similar to religious ceremonies. Civil religion can take the form of religious dialogue and the form of religious-like symbolism and ceremony.
Civil religion is not a religion in the sense spoken of to this point. Civil religion may have a unifying system of symbols, but it lacks the unified belief in extra-human intervention. There may be a large majority of people within a given society who believe in "God" in some way, but if you start asking about specifics, you find that the people do not agree as to the attributes of this vague "God". Thus, to the extent there is religious dialogue within civil religion, it is ambiguous.
Since civil religion is not religion per se, it cannot be expected to fill the void left by the vacancy of religion in the community form. It may, however, fill part of the void, providing perhaps some bond, though of a weaker sort. Certainly we see a "patriotic bond" front and center in the past several weeks in the United States. The people are rallying around the flag and being an American has, at least temporarily, become more important than the differences between individuals.
While Tonnies did not explicitly provide an analysis of civil religion, one can be easily extrapolated from his discussion of religion. Tonnies (pg 49) says, "Religious worship itself is an art-form", and continues to discuss it as a part of Gemeinschaft (community) as including not only visual art, but also artistic ceremony.
This can be plugged into civil religion quite easily. It generally comes under the category of pomp and circumstance. While aspects of the Tonnies religious sentiment discussed in the first sections cannot be carried over to society, as a uniform belief system for all persons, surely the artistic aspect of it can and is. And, since this aspect of religion is carried out in a symbolic/artistic rather than a theological basis, the bond it acquires may be carried on relatively unimpeded from community to society. The theological portion may not be carried over, but, as Tonnies says, it can be carried in travels and serve as a unifying force among those who share the belief system. This is not directly relevant, though, since we are discussing �political communities' with religious diversity within geographic boundaries.
John Dewey recognizes the phenomenon of civil religion, but rejects it as being harmful to the society searching for community. It should be briefly noted that Dewey does not examine the community/society analysis of Durkheim and Tonnies and believes that the goal is for society to develop into the "great community". He believes civil religion hampers this quest because it hampers free thought, subtly giving government the status of a religious belief. The government thus becomes largely uncriticizable in the minds of the masses.
Durkheim has two alternatives to civil religion which may satisfy Dewey's complaint. The first is what he believes is actually happening. Durkheim says that, "the individual becomes the object of a sort of religion." (122) He sees this as a type of common faith in that everyone is focusing on the individual in a religious way. The second is a transformation of religion to a sort of worship of society, or at least its rational aspects. The second Dewey would reject out of hand, it being worse than the civil religion alternative. The former deserves some discussion, though.
Durkheim himself admits that the religion of the individual is not an adequate replacement of traditional religions. He is also quite vague about the specifics, so let us look at two forms it could take.
In its first form, each person worships his or herself as an individual. In this form, it is not the worship of "individuality" but individuals. This could be more divisive than bonding. While it is true that everyone would be looking at the same category, they would not be looking at the same subject. Sharon would look at Sharon, Mike at Mike, etc. This individualism breeds conceit, which is not conducive to bonding individuals together.
In its second form, the focus of worship is "individuality" rather than individuals as such. My best guess is that this would look much like the "cult of the rugged individual" found in the United States, which, ironically, is probably part of its civil religion. This is one of the things Dewey objects to, and thus would reject.
Just because Dewey rejects it, though, does not mean that we need to do so. Would the "cult of the rugged individual" improve the bonds between individuals? In a way it might, but it certainly is not the strongest of bonds. It provides perhaps a common ideal, something towards which everyone can aspire. This does form a sort of bond as a stronger form of common interest. It does not, however, provide much of a sense of "we". It is an aggregate of individuals rather than a collective identity. As such, it is probably weaker than a civil religion.
There remains another possibility which deserves some mention, that is returning to political communities which have only a single religious tradition. There are at least attempts made to have these in certain modern societies such as Egypt. In Egypt they are attempting to become a modern state while retaining a dominant Islamic base. There are religious minorities, but they are treated as such with discrimination still rampant.
Egypt, however, has only been moderately successful in its effort. When it tries to become more religiously monolithic, it always seems to take a step back from its goal of modernity. Yet, when it improves religious toleration, those who believe most strongly in the sanctity of Egypt as an Islamic state respond violently. Up to this point, neither Egypt, nor any other political community of which I am aware, has been able to become both modern and religiously monolithic.
Due to the very nature of capitalism, though, it would seem that such a system is unfeasible. Unless foreign trading partners consisted solely of members of the same religion (and probably the same sect or denomination of that religion), one would have to open up to religious diversity. Merchants and traders are far less likely to cross into your borders if they expect to be treated as sub-human, especially if there are other options where they will be treated with dignity.
The mere existence of a variety of religious beliefs within one society points the way for the need of something like civil religion. There needs to be something which bonds all (or at least the vast majority) of people together. One need not imagine a situation where there is not some sort of binding force in place and yet a plurality of religions. Look, for example, at Northern Ireland. Admittedly, this is an extreme case, but it can provide a glimpse of the religious/community tensions that can arise if there is not something that can create a society-wide "we". While civil religion is clearly not as powerful of a binding force as traditional religions, it can certainly provide a "we". This sense of "we" not only helps prevent conflict within the society, but it can also provide an important sense of belonging for societies individual members.
return home