This paper discusses a variety of social theories with religious themes. The paper is divided into six sections; one for each of the theorists presented in the text. Included is the identification of connecting themes from these six theorists, and commentary is offered on their social theories regarding the evolution of religious thought in society.

Introduction

The following encapsulations represent the main themes covered in this paper:

·       Durkheim believes that religious ideals are the foundations of social systems, and society finds stability by sharing commonly accepted moral beliefs.

·       James posits that there is an external and an internal “Self”. He argues that the “social self” has an external relationship with the Godhead, while the “spiritual Self” has an internal spark of divine power.

·       Gandhi focuses on developing the inner self and the practice of ahimsa (non-violence).

·       King develops the concept of the inner self by explaining that a metaphorical interpretation of The New Testament is possible. He states that each person is a potential Jesus.

·       Baudrillard criticizes American public’s need for Disneyland-like imagery. He contends that the commercialism of the 1960’s created an American appetite for simulations. This trend has continued, and organized religions are simulating the Godhead. He suggests that nihilism (in the Zen-Buddhist sense) offers an accurate description of a true reality without simulations.

·       Morrison explains the benefits of living in the “now moment” and says there is no need to wait for going to paradise. She also points out the abuses suffered by people of color when male religious leaders take advantage of their female congregants.

This paper presents the positions of these six social theorists and summarizes their contributions to the evolution of religious thought in American society.                                   

Emile Durkheim (1858-1917)

Emile Durkheim believes that “fundamental categories” of human thought in a society originate from religion (Lemert, 1999, p. 89). In his article, “The Cultural Logic of Collective Representations” (1912/1999), he theorizes that great social institutions find their stability in the moral, ethical, and legal rules of religion (1999, p. 89). Durkheim claims that a society is a collective unit of human beings who develop a group sense of morality from their religious doctrines. He contends that, “Religious forces are therefore human forces, moral forces” (1999, p. 89).

Although Durkheim believes that the collective life of society is an expression of its religious morality, Pinker (2002, p. 156) is critical of Durkheim’s emphasis on the value of collective ideals and says that Durkheim’s greatest failing is his “insistence that individual human minds are not worthy of attention.” Additionally, Cosmides, Tooby, and Barkow (1992, p. 33) criticize Durkheim’s lack of understanding of societal evolution, which they believe progresses through the developmental processes of individuals:

[Durkheim] is ultimately responsible for an incoherent theoretical stance that is unable to appreciate the role that the evolutionary process plays in organizing relationships between our species-universal genetic endowment, our evolved developmental process, and the recurring features of developmental environments.    

However, Durkheim argues that religion provides purpose and meaning for a social group, and religion teaches moral principles to individuals within the society. He views religion as an essential part of any social system and believes that common religious ideals are responsible for keeping the society together. According to Bellah (1973, p. 191),

Durkheim argued that religion acted as a source of solidarity and identification for the individuals within a society, especially as a part of mechanical solidarity systems, and to a lesser, but still important extent, in the context of organic solidarity. Religion provides control, cohesion, and purpose for people, as well as another means of communication and gathering for individuals to interact and reaffirm social norms.

Bellah supports Durkheim’s notion that a collective religious morality is one of society’s greatest strengths. He agrees with Durkheim’s contention that religious principles act as a form of cohesion among the members of society. Bellah also defends Durkheim’s primary assertion that the shared understanding of familiar religious ideals (e.g. The Ten Commandments) will ultimately create a strong collective societal unit.

In summary, Durkheim’s contribution to understanding the role of religious thought in society is his thesis that religious morality creates stability among the masses. 

William James (1842-1910)

In his article, “The Self and Its Selves” (1890/1999), William James theorizes that a human being has many “Selves” (Lemert, 1999, p. 157). The two Selves spoken of by James are the “social Self” and the “spiritual Self.” These two Selves find common ground when an individual is attempting to have a personal or social relationship with divine beings. According to Christian (2005, pp. 16-17),

When the eternal is thus conceived, it is reasonable to expect that, on analogy with human interpersonal relations, an overture on our part is a necessary condition for divine reciprocation. The resemblance between the religious case, at least on this interpretation, and the examples James draws from human social life is in this much evident: If the result we desire is friendship with the gods, initiating action on our part may very well be required.       

James believes there is an innate need for human beings to have a social relationship with a personal god. However, such a god does not come knocking on one’s door, but rather, the individual must make the effort to “socialize” with the gods. Especially for those who pray, or talk to a god, there is a belief that certain social skills are required to achieve a successful divine-human relationship. To help the individual find the right words to impress the divine, organized religions have created respectful prayers for individuals. Thus, the role of religion plays an important part in connecting the “spiritual and social Selves” with the gods.

James believes that religious beliefs shape the “real world” social reality of the individual (Christian, 2005, p. 17). As people move their religious beliefs into action, they are creating social situations that are in alignment with their personal truths. Christian (2005, p. 17) comments on James’ position,

What is immediately striking about this stage of James’ reasoning is the extent to which it points in the direction of the religious experience…[James says] evidence confirming religious belief is thought to become available only, perhaps, to those who have such a belief and act on it…and belief “can help to create the fact,” such as those pertaining to social relations or personal goals.  

James is saying that the spiritual and social Selves are interconnected. The “social Self” employs religious social skills when praying to the divine. However, the “spiritual Self” is an internal belief system that reflects its unique social vision onto the outside world.

In summary, James’ contribution to understanding the role of religious thought in society is his theory that the individual has two Selves: a “social Self” that maintains a good external relationship with the Godhead, and a “spiritual Self” which is an internal belief system that creates the individual’s social reality.

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1869-1948)

In Gandhi’s article, “Nonviolent Force: A Spiritual Dilemma” (1927/1999), he speaks about his “profession”, which is practicing the comprehensive principle of “ahimsa.” This concept of ahimsa (The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 2007) is defined as,

ahimsa (əhĭm`sä) [Sanskrit,=noninjury], ethical principle of noninjury to both men and animals, common to Buddhism, Jainism, and Hinduism. Ahimsa became influential in India after 600 B.C., contributing to the spread of vegetarianism. In modern times, the implications of ahimsa were developed in the nonviolence movement of Mohandas Gandhi.

Gandhi offers additional defining characteristics of ahimsa:

A votary of ahimsa remains true to his faith if the spring of all his actions is compassion, if he shuns to the best of his ability the destruction of the tiniest creature, tries to save it, and thus incessantly strives to be free from the deadly coil of himsa…Underlying ahimsa is the unity of all life, the error of one cannot but affect all, and hence man cannot be wholly free from himsa. So long as he continues to be a social being, he cannot but participate in the himsa that the very existence of society involves. (Lemert, 1999, p. 262)

As a core spiritual belief, ahimsa connotes honoring all life, appreciating the oneness of all things, and practicing non-violence. Conversely, the notion of “himsa” connotes violence, divisiveness, and destruction. With an understanding of these two principles, Gandhi recognizes that people are social beings who are constantly struggling between these two forces. His social theory emphasizes that individuals engaging in actions that emanate from himsa need to rise above it and practice ahimsa.

Since the principle of ahimsa condemns war, Gandhi acknowledges his own inner struggles when his country was at war. He expresses the difficulty of not supporting a war when your own country is involved:

….the very same line of argument that persuaded me to take part in the Boer War had weighed on me…It was quite clear to me that participation in war could never be consistent with ahimsa. But, it is not always given to one to be equally clear about one’s duty. (1999, p. 262) 

Gandhi felt a duty to his country when he participated in the Boer War and did not apologize for his actions. However, in later years, he understood the intuitive wrongness of war and became opposed to killing for any reason.

Gandhi’s social philosophy evolved from his Hindu beliefs, which he viewed as utilitarian principles. According to Mandelbaum (1973),

As a youth Gandhi was duty bound to his father in word and deed. He followed this pattern faithfully and seems to have taken it even more seriously than most others did. He was deeply shaken by his lapses from a son’s dutiful conduct. He wrote that when his father forgave him upon his confession of theft, he took it then as an expression of his father’s love, “but today I know that it was pure Ahimsa.” His own confession showed the power of truth; his father’s response showed the power of ahimsa, non-violence. 

Gandhi’s guiding spiritual principles formed the foundations of his religious, social, and political experience. These principles formed the basis of his social philosophy and shaped his attitudes as a son, husband, friend, political leader, and spiritual leader.

In summary, Gandhi’s contribution to understanding the role of religious thought in society was his ability to move his religious beliefs into social action and to inspire others to practice ahimsa.  

Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968)

In King’s article, “The Power of Non-Violent Action” (1958/1999), he speaks about Gandhi’s influence on the formation of his social philosophy. He also speaks of Dr. Mordecai Johnson, whose sermons introduced him to Gandhi’s concept of Satyagraha (force of truth and love) (1999, p. 343). King compares Gandhi’s use of Satyagraha to the love ethic of Jesus, which was as a social force to influence religious, cultural, and political change. Interestingly, in King’s God, The Unknown Faith of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (2009, p. 53), Scofield says,  

King interprets the kingdom of God not as some cataclysmic end time or a theocratic kingdom that triumphs over “satanically inspired regimes.” Rather he associates the kingdom of God with the eternal love of God on earth, writing, “When we see social relationships controlled everywhere by the principles which Jesus illustrated in life – trust, love, mercy, and altruism – then we shall know that the kingdom of God is here.” 

Scofield (2009, p. 54) claims that King rejected a literal interpretation of the Bible. He says King believed that the ancient mystery religions had a profound influence on shaping Christian theology. In his article “The Influence of Mystery Religions on Christianity” (1950), King posits that Christianity assimilated the best social ideas from religions that preceded it. He viewed Christianity as an evolutionary step forward in the social development of humanity:  

To discuss Christianity without mentioning other religions would be like discussing the greatness of the Atlantic Ocean without the slightest mention of the many tributaries that keep it flowing. Christianity, however, survived because it appeared to be the result of a trend in the social order or in the historical cycle of the human race. Forces have been known to delay trends but very few have stopped them. The staggering question that now arises is, what will be the next stage of man's religious progress? Is Christianity the crowning achievement in the development of religious thought or will there be another religion more advanced?

King’s thoughts on unified religious ideals demonstrate his forward-thinking ability and intellectual prowess. He understands the contributions of other religious teachings and views the social progression of humanity as the by-product of an evolving theology. He also takes a huge risk (especially as a minister) by asking if a future religion might succeed Christianity, and if such a religion might include a more advanced theology. In the future, he is envisioning a more compassionate humanity with greater religious and racial tolerance.

By blending the various social concepts of Gandhi, Jesus, Hobbes, Rousseau, Nietzsche, and other progressive thinkers, King devised a social strategy that successfully advanced the cause of African-Americans during the 1960’s. He absorbed the wisdom of great philosophers and adopted a social theory of non-violence. By espousing this position, he took the moral high ground in his quest to achieve equal rights for African Americans:

I came to feel that this was the only morally and practically sound method open to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom…The principle of non-violent resistance seeks to reconcile the truths of two opposites – acquiescence and violence – while avoiding the extremes and immoralities of both. (Lemert, 1999. p. 344)

During the 1960’s, King denounced violence, and adopted moral religious teachings as the centerpiece of his social theory. By doing so, he proved that Jesus’ directive to “turn the other cheek” was a pragmatic teaching, and Gandhi’s experiment in non-violence was a universal lesson in social philosophy.

King had an ability to see beyond the literal interpretation of the scriptures and understood its metaphorical teachings. He envisioned a natural progression of religious thought and had the patience to seek change through the hearts and minds of people. In his paper, “The Humanity and Divinity of Jesus” (1948), King said that a spark of the divine lies within each person, and every human being has the potential to become a “son of man”:

So that the orthodox view of the divinity of Christ is in my mind quite readily denied. The significance of the divinity of Christ lies in the fact that his achievement is prophetic and promissory for every other true son of man who is willing to submit his will to the will and spirit of God. Christ was to be only the prototype of one of many brothers. (Scofield, 2009, p. 52)

King is emphasizing the significance of the “Christ within” principle and stating that each individual has divine potential.

In summary, King’s contribution to understanding the role of religious thought in society is his belief in non-violent social transformation, and in the idea that each person has the potential to become more “Christ-like.”         

Jean Baudrillard (1929-2007)

In his article, “Simulacra and Simulations: Disneyland” (1983/1999), Baudrillard contends that society, religion, and God have become simulations of a false “reality” (Lemert, 1999, p. 481). He suggests that that organizations, institutions, corporations, etc., have become artificial playgrounds like Disneyland. Baudrillard argues that an illusory “reality” is the prevailing reality within American culture. With images, icons, symbols, signs, computers, cell phones, and non-stop media, the American culture has undergone a transformation in which simulation has replaced the truth of an underlying naked reality. According to Baudrillard (1999, p. 483), there are endless numbers of visual and artificial distractions that simulate the natural elements of reality, and no longer is it possible to distinguish the true from the false.

Baudrillard’s social theory accuses American society of “bowing down” before false images. His indictment stems from the monotheistic message of the Second Commandment, “Thou shall not bow down before any graven images.” In his 1983 article, he paraphrases God (Ex. 20:4) and points out the nature of a natural (true) reality: “I forbade any simulacrum in the temples because the divinity that breathes life into nature cannot be represented” (1999, p. 483).

According to Baudrillard, Americans are not living in a natural reality, nor are they interacting with a pure concept of the Godhead:

But what becomes of the divinity when it reveals itself in icons, when it is multiplied in simulacra? Does it remain the supreme authority, simply incarnated in images as a visible theology? Or is it volatilized into simulacra which alone deploy their pomp and power of fascination – the visible machinery of icons being substituted for the pure and intelligible Idea of God? (1999, p. 483).

Baudrillard is saying that icons, visuals, and purported likenesses are simulating the Godhead. He is arguing that human beings are dependent on these simulations and unless they have a divine image to worship, an “overwhelming, destructive truth” (1999, p. 484) will emerge to reveal the horror that no personal God exists.

Baudrillard (1999, p. 485) is saying that Americans have created a society filled with religious simulations to avoid confronting nihilism, or the non-existence of a Godhead. However, Root (1999, p. 188) quotes David Lyon (author of 6 books on social transformation and recipient of the 2001 Lifetime Achievement Award from the American Sociological Association) on the compatibility of nihilism and Christianity from Lyon’s book, Jesus in Disneyland: Religion in Postmodern Times (2000):

Lyon argues that our present cultural ethos exhibits nihilistic tendencies: “This means,” he states, “that reality is blurred and that established truth is not as straightforward as it once seemed. It does not…mean that people believe in nothing…” I will assert that a theology of the cross is the invitation not to hipper models of ministry or more intense assertions about the truth of our faith. Rather it is an invitation to face the nihilism of our time, and to find God in the nothingness of our existence.

Root (2009, p. 188) does find agreement with Baudrillard concerning the notion that a God-force exists within the emptiness of “the nothingness” within a natural reality. He refers to this combination of Christianity and nihilism as the “theology of the cross.”

Therefore, Baudrillard’s contribution to understanding the role of religious thought in society is his philosophical warning to Americans to stop relying on false images for simulating the true nature of reality and the Godhead. In contrast to the other theorists discussed in this paper, Baudrillard is highly critical of American social behavior and says that “real childishness is everywhere” (Lemert, 1999, p. 486).       

Toni Morrison (1931- )

In Morrison’s article “Reach Toward the Ineffable” (1993/1999), she refers to the biblical story of the Tower of Babel (Lemert, 1999, p. 663). She wonders what heaven would have looked like if God had not destroyed the Tower. Morrison says it is better to create a personal paradise during life than to hope for a blissful afterlife (1999, p. 663). Her philosophy is to live life in the present moment without waiting for a better day. She believes that experiencing life is the only true reality and within this feeling of aliveness, there is heavenly meaning.

Morrison comments on Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, marveling at his acknowledgment that “words” are unable to capture the sacredness of life that was lost on the battlefield (1999, p. 664). Her sentiment is that life is a divine thing, and language can never express life’s true, precious nature. In a mystical sense, Morrison uses the word “ineffable” to describe the force and felicity of life. This is the same word that is used by William James, Aldous Huxley, and many other scholars, theologians, and mystics who wrote about trying to explain the mystical experience. By choosing the word “ineffable” to describe the nature of the human experience, Morrison is conveying the belief that God and humanity are one.

In her novel, Bluest Eye (1970), Morrison incorporates her social and spiritual beliefs into the narrative. The story takes place in Lorain, Ohio after the Great Depression and follows one year in the life of a young black girl (Pecola). According to Hess (2009, p. 368),

Morrison narrates theodicy both implicitly and explicitly. Interestingly, however, she demurs from tidying up and cleaning up God….The self-styled religious man, called Soaphead Church…rebels against God’s passivity and ministers to Pecola through trickery and deceit.

Morrison is not interested in creating an image of a pristine Godhead. She is concerned with frequent incidents of sexual abuse inflicted by religious leaders within the African-American community. She is focusing on the social injustice of African American pastors taking advantage of young female congregants in their churches. By telling this story, she offers a social commentary on religious hypocrisy and the lack of godliness in certain religious leaders who claim to represent God on earth. Morrison believes that through immoral behavior, God’s image becomes tainted. Consequently, when “godly men” begin acting in a God-like manner, there is a restoration of God’s purity.   

In summary, Morrison’s contribution to understanding the role of religious thought in society is her message to people of color (and to everyone else) that they should live in the “now moment” and not trust others to lead them to an unknown paradise. 

This paper has reviewed and discussed the contributions of six social theorists who advanced religious thinking from the late 1800’s to 1993. From Durkheim’s emphasis on social stability provided by organized religion, to Morrison’s focus on the spiritual power of the individual, there has been an evolution of consciousness in the American religious experience. Over the last one hundred and twenty five years, a shift in consciousness has occurred that has changed the way many Americans view religion and spirituality. The emphasis on inner spiritual growth has been on an upward trend since Williams James wrote The Varieties of Religious Experience (1902).

The following concluding comments tell the story of a forward progression in religious consciousness that has caused many Americans to look within to find their spiritual power: 

·       Durkheim argues that religious morality allows for a fundamental understanding between minds in society to strengthen “the collective.” His religious-social theory is reminiscent of the Marxist ideal of solidarity among the masses. For Durkheim, individuals are cogs in a wheel, and religion is the lubricant that keeps the wheels turning.        

·       James takes a leap forward in consciousness by presenting the notion of a “spiritual Self.” In the late 1800’s, the concept of a spiritual, or inner self was not a generally accepted principle in Western religion. James brings this concept to the forefront of his religious philosophy. He argues that the notion of a “spiritual self” is a universal belief in world mysticism. Accordingly, each individual has the ability to merge with the Godhead.

·       Gandhi grows up in India as a Hindu, and his religious views focus on the inner self and its fundamental oneness with the Godhead. His social philosophy reflects his religious attitude, and he understands the effectiveness of calmness, patience, and forgiveness within the self. Gandhi applies these principles in the affairs of social issues, politics, and spiritual leadership and finds a pragmatic philosophy for overcoming hatred, prejudice, and adversity. His strong belief in “ahimsa” starts a non-violent revolution, which causes the British to leave India and allows the people of India to take back control of their country.

·       King studies Gandhi’s methods of non-violence and applies these principles to his civil rights strategy of the 1960’s. He is in agreement with Gandhi’s religious philosophy and believes that each person has the potential to become more god-like. Additionally, King’s theological understanding of the Bible gives him the foresight to interpret its literal stories in a metaphorical manner. Like Gandhi and James, King understands that each individual possesses a divine self with the power to transform the world. 

·       Baudrillard recognizes that people create illusions to distract themselves from a true reality. With a Zen-like philosophy, Baudrillard criticizes the childish needs of Americans who live in a Disneyland-like of society. He says it is time to accept a nihilistic view of life and eliminate the dependency on a personal god. Baudrillard wants people to stop simulating reality and return to a natural reality that is based on truth.

·       Morrison’s social theory represents the current stage of religious evolution in American society. She argues that certain individuals within organized religions have misled their congregants and abused their trust. Morrison says people have the power to create their own paradise in the present moment, and there is no need to wait for the miraculous to happen. She is particularly interested in motivating people of color to think independently of religious dogma.

As demonstrated by these writers, there appears to have been a steady evolution of religious thought in American society. A major shift has occurred in the way Americans have chosen to relate to the divine. It seems as though the current trend in religious evolution is continuing toward spiritual self-empowerment and the cultivation of spiritual beliefs to create a meaningful social reality.

Ahimsa. (2007). In The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia. Retrieved from Columbia University Press Online www.cc.columbia.edu/cu/cup/

Bellah, R. (1973). Emile Durkheim: On morality and society, selected writings. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Christian, R. A. (2005). Truth and consequences in James “The Will to Believe”. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion. 58(1). 1-26. doi: 10.1007/s11153-004-5509-3

Cosmides, L., Tooby, J., & Barkow, J. (1992). Introduction: Evolutionary psychology and conceptual integration. In J. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. New York: Oxford University Press.

Day, M. (2009). Constructing religion without the social: Durkheim, Latour, and extended cognition. Zygon. 44(3), 719-735. Retrieved from ProQuest database.

Hess, C.L. (2009). Come here Jesus…Wonder what God had in mind. Religious Education. 104(4). 354-376. doi: 10.1080/00344080903041348

James, W. (2008). The varieties of religious experience: A study in human nature. USA: Megalodon Entertainment, LLC.

Lemert, C. (Ed.). (1999). Social theory: The multicultural and classic readings. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Lyon, D. (2000). Jesus in Disneyland: Religion in postmodern times. Cambridge, UK: Polity Books.

Mandelbaum, D.G. (1973). The study of life history: Gandhi. Current Anthropology. 14(3). 181-195. Retrieved from California Digital Library database.

Pinker, S. (2002). The blank slate: The modern denial of human nature. New York: Penguin Books.

Root, A. (2009). A theology of the cross and ministry of our time: How do you call a thing what it is when you don’t know what the thing is? Dialog: A Journal of Theology. 48(2). 187-193. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

Scofield, R. J. (2009). Kings God: The unknown faith of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Tikkun. 24(6), 51-76. Retrieved from ProQuest database.

The humanity and divinity of Jesus. (1948). Retrieved from The Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Center website: http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/kingweb/publications/papers/vol1/500215-The_Humanity_and_Divinity_of_Jesus.htm  

The influence of the mystery religions on Christianity. (1950). Retrieved from The Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Center website: http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/kingpapers/article/volume_i_29_november_1949_to_15_february_1950g