Foucault Power Of Religion

Karl Marx’s view of society was based around the economy. All other social structures according to Marx, such as religion, family values, and politics stem from the base, the economy. Religion played no part at all in Marx’s sociological views. He is known as an atheist. He believed that religion was nothing more than a burden on society. “The

The bourgeoisies made sure that the only way of survival for the working class was through them. Marx even believed that the churches were oppressing the proletarians because the bourgeoisies were controlling the churches. Therefore, Marx thought that religion should be abolished. Another thing that Marx believed had no existence was the government because the bourgeoisie held all political power.3

When discussing the formation of the modern bourgeois and proletariat, Marx claims industrial capitalism has purposefully destroyed previous social paradigms. The current bourgeois is not a continuation of millennia of advancement, but a concentrated shift to “naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation” (222). The language used is remarkably violent: “the bourgeoisie…has pitilessly torn asunder…drowned in the icy water of egotistical calculation” (222). Capitalism is inherently predatory, as it must “constantly revolution[ize]…the whole relations of society” (222). The bourgeoisie can and consistently have destroyed civilizations. Therefore, communism should not be criticized as abnormal for attempting to bring about an end to this cycle of destruction. Marx uses religious language when describing professions, “stripped of [their] halo” (222) by “paid wage labour” (222): they were “hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe” (222). The idolization of these groups suggests capitalism has gone against the sanctity of labor by only making it worth market price. That communism hopes to return value to “every occupation” (222) means that it is helping restore their quasi-religious status. The following

He chose to view religion as a negative thing unlike Durkheim who viewed it in a positive way. Marx believed that “humanity makes religion; religion does not make humanity.” (Kessler. A, 2001). Karl Marx states that opium and religion can be an effect on human suffering by removing the incentive to do whatever is necessary to overcome it. Hamilton points out that “religion offers compensation for the hardship of this life in some future life, but it makes such compensation conditional upon acceptance of the injustices of this life.” Religion, to Marx, does not have the power to lead to social change. (Kessler. A, 2001). Max Webber attempted to demonstrate that religious beliefs were not mechanically connected to the economic structure of society, it shapes individuals behavior and actions in everyday life. Overall, it can be seen that the three main sociology writers differ greatly when it comes to ideas regarding religion.

So we can understand this we have to go back in history, we need to look for the eternal relationship between capitalism and religion. There are assumption that capitalist blossomed around the same time as enlightenment of the eighteenth century. In fact, the church of the middle ages was the main source for the first sign of capitalism. The church was the first to set the rule of law, a bureaucracy system and many more concepts that our modern society is following today. The church owned nearly a third of all land in Europe, so the church had to create a strong system to manage all of these holdings. These strong systems helped in achieving great result as the technological discoveries. Therefor, the growth of capitalism was a source of the improvement in our society today. But not a lot people like to be ruled by the church and because if something goes beyond the person mean it will just create chaos and interruption. Thus, all of this created segregation in classes, and definition of certain classes no longer fit. Therefor the first settlers ran away from all these rules and seek refuge in the new land. They were looking for a new meaning of life, beyond what church has instructed. Even after establishing a new society in the new land, the American still struggled and had conflict over class

Marxist believe that religion acts inevitably as a conservative force because religion is an ideological state apparatus which spreads capitalist ideas, thus maintains the social hierarchy, and in doing so maintains harmony and consensus in society. This is reinforced by Marx who claims religion is the opium of the people hence religion dulls the pain of oppression for them. Marx claims that religion is still a conservative force as through the use of ideology it justifies the oppression of the proletariat e.g. in the hymn ‘rich man at his castle the poor man at his gate, god made them high and ordered their estate’. This suggests god created inequality; as a result

Religion is the means by which it ensures that Capitalism continues to strive. "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature... it is the opiate of the masses". Some evidence to support Marx's view are for example; The Indian caste system which is fully justified in Hindu beliefs and in Medieval Europe Kings and Queens ruled by Divine right. However despite this evidence it can still be argued that Religion is much more than a set of beliefs and practices which develop in a Capitalist society.

Generally, Marx’s position on religion is drawn up in an entirely negative manner. In his writings, he expresses his belief that religion is a set of doctrines intended to stabilize, while at the same time bring into servitude the working class people. In addition to that, he argues that the society’s inclination towards religious excitement serves to represent a reaction to disaffection. Also, Marx contends that, since religion causes human beings to feel delusive happiness it makes an erroneous mental representation in as well as of itself. Indeed to him, it is an instrument utilized to sustain cultural systems together with ideologies that in most cases encourages oppression in the society (Parsons 38-46).

The two theorists i’ve decided to compare and contrast are Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim. Firstly i’ll compare them to one another. From all the readings I did and past education on these individuals I found they have a lot of the same views in regards to religion. Both Emlie Durkheim and Karl Marx believe that religion is a projection of mans hopes and desires. They both also agree that religion plays a powerful role in influencing the members of a society. While coming up with these theories they were both more concerned with the human rather than the religion. Both of them did not believe in a god or gods. It’s been said that Marx saw god as idealization of human nature while Durkheim believed the idea of a god was society itself. They were not religious people so it’s interesting that they did have some of the same views and theories regarding religion in the society.

Ideally, a communist government values the rights of the impoverished, workers and others. Both Catholic Socialist Teachings and communism, as envisioned by Marx and Engels, suggest a more collectivist approach to society by comparison to what is advocated for by capitalism, which placed less emphasis on society’s collective. One particular element of communist teachings/government is the disdain for religion within the ideology. Karl Marx himself was known to have a negative view of organized religion, and this is expressed within his writings. To Marx, religion was a means of suppressing the lower classes, and placating them so that they would hot be hostile towards the rulers of European governments and industrial tycoons of the time. Marx’s disdain for organized religion went on to affect cultures of societies with communist governments. For example, in Russia, the revolution and the following rise of the Soviets led to decreased influence of the Russian Orthodox Church, as the state was officially atheist. The attitude towards religion in communist thought has an obvious conflict with the principles of Catholicism, when this difference in religious belief (or lack thereof) is considered. Another area where Catholic Social Ethics differ

All that considered, I believe that Marx insists that the freedom of religion the liberal society certainly provides headway, or as Marx puts it: `a big step forward’ (Marx, 1978) towards freedom for Jewish believers and other non-Christian congregations. Similarly with other rights that liberalism considers to be of importance, ‘such as the rights to equality, property, security, and the legal institutions that embody them.’ (Sayers, 2003) Even though these are traits of the bourgeois society, they must also, along with religious freedom, be considered relatively and in a historical context. In the instance of the right to property, Marx displays that it assures to all people, or more accurately all white men at the time Marx wrote it, the

Following the Industrial Revolution in 19th century Europe, change was in full swing and religion began to have different meanings for different people. The upper-class citizens used Religion, namely Christianity, and the power that it possessed in an attempt to keep their high status in society, while the lower class turned to faith so that their lives could possibly improve. Instead of religion being the cornerstone of faith and worship amongst all people, it was being used for power and money by the upper class. Even worse, religious leaders were using the upper class people as well, gaining money and authority from their endorsement. A man by the name of Karl Marx saw

There is deep substance and many common themes that arose throughout Marx’s career as a philosopher and political thinker. A common expressed notion throughout his and Fredrick Engels work consists of contempt for the industrial capitalist society that was growing around him during the industrial revolution. Capitalism according to Marx is a “social system with inherent exploitation and injustice”. (Pappenheim, p. 81) It is a social system, which intrinsically hinders all of its participants and specifically debilitates the working class. Though some within the capitalist system may benefit with greater monetary gain and general acquisition of wealth, the structure of the system is bound to alienate all its

On the other hand, Marx talks about social order being forced unto the proletariats by the bourgeoisie. They, the bourgeoisie, conform the thinking of the proletariats to their capitalist way of thinking with ideologies. This is “a set of beliefs, values, and opinions that shapes the way a person or a group such as a social class thinks, acts, and understands the world”. This is also known as false consciousness (Engels), where the upper class forces their values onto the lower class. The control that the upper class exercises over the means of production includes not only the production of food or manufactured goods, it also includes the production of ideas as well. This explains why members of the subordinate class may hold ideas contrary to their own interests. This is seen in Marx’s explanation of religion where he views it as the opium of the masses. Religion controls the mind of the proletariats, which in turn makes them accept the morals and

According to Marx, religion can be seen as the opiate of the people (Engels, Marx 1955, p.41). Here, Marx is suggesting that just like opium, religion is trying to relieve people of the pain and suffering in their lives. Marx also puts forward the idea that religion is used by its oppressors in order to make people feel better about their lives. Thus, it can be seen that Marx chooses to adopt a negative view of religion. Max Weber can be seen as the only sociologist to place so much scope and emphasis on the subject of religion (Nisbet, p.250). Biographical and textual evidence suggests that biblical religion played a part in shaping and influencing Weber's life and the context of his sociology. Weber's main concern was to attempt to demonstrate that religious ideologies were not mechanically connected to the economic structure of society, however it does shape individuals behavior and actions in everyday life (Swingewood 1984, p.152). Weber also came to several conclusions regarding the remarkable relationship between capitalism and Protestant. According to Weber, the more capitalism had a free hand to alter social distribution, the larger the relationship between capitalism and protestant (1930, p.4). Overall, it can be seen that the three main sociology theorists differ greatly when it comes to ideas regarding to religion.