Modernity And Religion

Like all broad notions that seek to explain the social world, Modernity has its critics, yet these prisms offer us insight about the past and can help us make sense of the present. Those who interpret society through Modernity view it as a metanarrative or grand explanation and as such they are accused by people like Giddens of being too deterministic. For example, by slavishly supporting an evolutionary view of history they are said to ignore those things which fail to conform to their neat typology. Classical sociologists of the mid and late nineteenth century were all fond of this evolutionary view of history. Comte saw knowledge as developing in an evolutionary way and Marx is often criticised for being an economic determinist, explaining history through reference to class, ownership and non-ownership of property. Unfortunately, it is not always easy to make sense of what sociologists mean by Modernity for a number of reasons. Some refer to Modernity as a way to explain the past whilst others use the term to refer to our current technologically advanced state. Furthermore, late or high Modernity is used to refer to the here and now, whilst Modernist and Modernity are also said to be different. The term Modernist is associated with the characteristics of advanced societies in the West. Yet the more expansive term Modernity is viewed as deterministic thinking for Giddens. Despite this criticism Modernity as a concept, an interpretation of history or a metanarrative is still useful in understanding society and religion. This view is justified because there are far more historical processes that support Modernity as a systematic idea than those at odds with it. So as long as one strives to differentiate between that which is in keeping with Modernity and those things which appear inconsistent, we can still seek out valid knowledge without being dogmatic in our use of the term. One might argue that this is exactly what Giddens is seeking to do in his writing. Yet he appears particularly wary of generalisations because we fail to see the idiosyncratic explanations for development and behaviour because of this prism we call Modernity.

Modernity as a specific stage of European development is associated with the 18th century enlightenment when empirical thinking, rationalism and scientific observation displaced belief in spirits, ghosts and superstition. In keeping with the view of Anthony Giddens, Modernity might be introduced as a place and a time. At last man could explain nature and by dominating it we were destined to become more prosperous through scientific achievement. For Foucault, such a belief system might be termed a 'truth regime.' So during Modernity, something that lasted up until the 1950's, there was a clear belief that truth existed, we were governed by structures, progress was inevitable and that science was the panacea for all social and economic problems. Condorcet argued that the constant laws that direct nature were synonymous with mans inevitable progress. As Modernity matured with industrialisation and urbanisation, we saw the development of mass production and mass consumption of standardised products and services. Manufacturing, manual labour and the factory were all part of everyday life for the majority who now lived an urban existence. Although war occurred too often, there was a high degree of predictability about ones' personal journey through life. For example, social class membership was strong and these classes were homogenous and manifest to all. We knew what was expected of us in terms of social roles like provider, homemaker or employee and these roles limited our degree of agency or freedom. Despite industrial unrest at times, we were more deferential than today and often accepted the legitimacy or validity of what we were told by those in authority. Such a view might be supported by making reference to the work of Max Weber so saw the rise of bureaucracy as a threat to our individuality and freedom. In short, we knew our place in the hierarchy and the grand scheme of things. Although Durkheim described the industrial era as a time when norms and values were less clear and as such there was a greater tendency towards anomie, in many ways it was also a time of absolute values. There was a clearer sense of right and wrong, good and bad and through science we could also differentiate truth from fiction. However, totalitarianism, imperialism, expansionist nation states and the unmitigated exploitation of the environment was also part of the modern era. Grand explanations or Metanarratives such Liberalism, Socialism, Marxism, Science and Religion are all present as alternative truth formulae. Supporters of each have a common belief in the infallibility of their metanarrative, the confidence that their worldly or divine explanation is true. One might argue that the concept of Modernity is utilitarian because it has certain enduring characteristics which help us make sense of the past, yet critics such as Giddens are less certain about this evolutionary model and stress some of the discontinuities of the era that were also present. Having said that, Giddens appears to be treading a centre ground whereby history is not comprised of single unique explanations but nor can it be explained by shorthand concepts such as Modernity which seek to fit history into a neat series of generalisations. As such, it would be opportune to test the usefulness of Modernity as we seek to apply it to our understanding of Religion.

Modernity and Religion The substantive definition of religion concerns the belief in a God, an all powerful creator and the rituals and practices associated with the worship of that God. Perhaps the most significant effect of modernity on religion is that of secularisation. For Bryan Wilson this refers to 'that process where religious institutions, actions and consciousness lose their social significance. As science, rationality and logic are in the ascendency religion is said to be in terminal decline. Rudolph Bultmann argues that "It is impossible to use electric devices and take advantage of modern medical discoveries, and at the same time believe in the New Testament world of spirits and miracles." Perhaps the most widely known direct scientific challenge to the authority of religion was Charles Darwin's Origin of Species (1859) where he concluded that life had evolved through a process of natural selection and not therefore by intelligent design. As people influenced by Modernity none of the founding fathers of sociology believed religion was anything more than an illusion and as such they focused on the role of religion in society not theology or religious doctrine. Comte argued that societies go through three stages in their knowledge development. The first stage is the theological where we believe in spirits or God. The second stage was the metaphysical where man philosophises and the final stage was the positive or scientific. However, what became clear under Modernity was that science and religion were not mutually exclusive. For example, many believers in God simply argued that God had created science and thus faith and empiricism could be reconciled. Believing in God and science would appear to be just the very contradiction critics of Modernity find to troubling. Furthermore, it would appear that the evidence does not support the thesis that Modernity and scientific advances led to secularisation with any great speed because the height of Church attendance in Britain was actually 1880. Countries where Catholicism acts as the natural spiritual home have been most resistant to decline and perhaps these 'discontinuities' are exactly what Giddens is referring to in his critique of the evolutionary model of history.

As Modernity was synonymous with structure, religion tended to be monotheistic and monopolistic. There was one God in which we believed and the Church monopolised religious knowledge and authority. So we did not have a great deal of choice over religious or spiritual affairs. Believers were largely deferential to religious authority. In fact, our religious affiliation was mostly the product of our socialisation. We were born into a particular faith and we learnt to accept it as true through our primary and secondary socialisation. Agency and self determination were limited and this helped to give power to the large religious organisations like the Catholic Church or the Church of England. Furthermore, by conforming to the principles and practices of our particular faith, we were to be afforded a place in heaven. So religion was very much about a type of faith that was external in nature, not about spiritual or personal development. In short, Modernity was synonymous was an ontological view that saw man as passive and society and its institutions as strong. Whilst there were religious minorities which the State persecuted or denied religious toleration there was much less diversity than today and this clearly fits many of the general characteristics of Modernity referred to. Absolutist notions of truth, bureaucracy, hierarchical religious institutions, mass production and consumption all conspire to limit religious pluralism and personal choice. Lynn White argued that religion also lent support for the exploitation of the environment through the book of Genesis which said 'subdue the earth' 'be fruitful and multiply.' Such doctrine was very convenient for those seeking to extract as much profit from the earth's resources in the shortest time. Furthermore, the 'white man's burden' of ruling so called 'inferior races' in Africa, India and other parts of the Empire was also bolstered by Anglican Christianity which displaced or replaced indigenous religion. For these subjugated peoples to become 'civilised' they had to become Christian. Again, religion fits neatly into the historical paradigm of Modernity. Institutionalised Christianity remained as a metanarrative and in the case of the Church of England its theological dominance was secured through its intimate links with the State. Whilst membership of all churches grew from 1850-1900 the nature of theology changed in that there was less preaching about eternal damnation and hell-fire. Hell itself became viewed more as a metaphor used to help prevent immorality than a real place. Thus religion became more philosophical and less literal. One might argue that theologians were attempting to come to an accommodation with science as its status became manifestly superior to religion.

In conclusion, Modernity tells us a great deal about how to make sense of a part of history in West European societies. A passive ontological view where deference and structure were more powerful than agency and self determination seems clear. A belief in the inevitable progress of man through science, technology and rationality was also inextricably linked to Modernity. Yet science was not the only truth regime to operate during Modernity. Ideology and religion were also powerful belief systems of the period and collective worship appeared to be increasing with scientific development right up to the turn of the twentieth century. However, those who attack Modernity because its association with the secularisation thesis fail to appreciate the Victorian civic nature of church attendance. Social pressure, seeking respectability or business reasons would have been instrumental in motivating people to attend religious services at the time. Such pressure actually supports Modernity because it is based on a macro structural view of society where social institutions are powerful and social actors relatively weak. Just as inclusivity, tolerance and gender equality has changed the nature of religious institutions today, so science changed religion under Modernity. Sermons which threatened worshippers with eternal damnation if they sinned fell out of favour and contrary to the views of Bultmann, people could believe in science and religion. Science and the progress it created inhabited the world of the profane and religion inhabited the world of the sacred. However, what we can be sure about was that Modernity ushered in a new era where religion was to be the junior partner to science. Whereas the effect of science could be seen and felt all around every day, religious practice became more infrequent as the twentieth century progressed.

Books/Journals

Argyle M (1958) Religious Behaviour, Routledge, Kegan Paul

Durkheim E (1893) The Division of Labour in Society

Giddens A (1990) The Consequences of Modernity, Polity Press

Simkins R (2008) Religion and the Environment, Journal of Religion and Society (3)

Weir L (2008) The Concept of Truth Regime, Canadian Journal of Sociology 33 (2)

Wilson B (1982) Religion Today, Tradition, Modernity and Change

Websites

humanreligions.info/forces.html#Modernism 27.12.12.

mbogartministries.hubpages.com/hub/ModernityvsReligion 26.12.12.

pennilesspress.co.uk/prose/condorcet 25.12.12