1

By Human Hands
The Construction and Role of Religion within Society

Joshua M Buechler
Sociology Capstone
Saint Louis University
May 2014
 2

I. Introduction

Looking around the world, throughout history and in everyday life, one can get

the impression that wherever there has been society, there has been religion. The Pew

Research Center reports that 84%, of the world’s 2010 population- some 5.8 billion

people- identified with some form of religious affiliation, with the majority of

unaffiliated still reporting some form of religious belief (Pew Research Center 2012).

Religion is a phenomenon that cuts across practically all age groups, classes, and

nationalities. Distinct faith traditions number in the thousands worldwide. Religious

affiliation often operates as a group marker including some tribal and folk traditions

with only a few adherents to world religions with billions of members. Be they large or

small, new or old, all religions have at least one aspect in common: Their adherents

behave as if the beliefs are true. A single tradition may incorporate both prescriptions

for individual behavior as well as descriptions of the organization of the universe. From

African beliefs in the influence of voodoo, to Christian conceptions of “God’s Will,”

religions provide people with an understanding of what the world is, and of their

purpose within it. As Peter Berger (1968, p. 28) argues, “Religion implies that human

order is projected into the totality of being. Put differently, religion is the audacious

attempt to conceive of the entire universe as humanly significant.”

Religions provide their adherents with definitions for an ordered universe and yet

many would argue- myself included- that at their very root these traditions are based

around inherently irrational claims. Credible people hold frankly incredible beliefs.

Virtually all religions contain beliefs and stories of fantastic beings, forces, and events—
 3

such as virgin births, magical powers, mystical realms (e.g., heaven, hell, and purgatory)

—for which there is little or no evidence. For many, religion is present throughout their

entire lives and can be taken for granted. Their faith is seen as inevitable, with no

acceptable alternative, simply an aspect of ‘how things are.’ Many religions regard their

traditions as the natural progression of life or else divinely inspired and handed down

from on high, theirs the one true faith. In that that they are so often driven by belief in

their own immutability, religions do not often provide a useful framework for evaluating

their claims. Many religious people view a demand for verification of their traditions,

particularly through evidence, to be counter to the entire project of faith to begin with.

Even in the United States, a heavily industrialized society in which science and

technology enable the functioning of everyday activities, 96% of people reported a belief

in God as of with a third regarding the Bible as the literal truth (Zuckerman 2003, p.3).

How is it that millions of ordinary, reasonable people within the United States and

billions worldwide have come to base their lives upon extraordinary claims without

requiring extraordinary evidence? Answering this question is the primary aim of this

paper.

While religions themselves may hold religious belief to be divinely inspired, there

are other perspectives that seek to explain the root of religiosity, in particular several

fields of psychology. Psychologists often seek to explain religious behaviors by looking to

internal, individual psychophysiological processes. Stressing the role of neural circuitry

and structures of the brain is a common psychological strategy in explaining the central

cause of religious activities (Zuckerman 2003, p. 35). Others scholars have argued that

the benefits of religion may motivate people; spiritual beliefs and participation in a

religious community can yield benefits for one’s mental and physical health (Norton
 4

2011). While these psychological perspectives help us to understand humans as pattern

seeking animals, or understand the physiological effects of religious participation, they

cannot tell us much about the content of religious beliefs or actual religious identity

(Zuckerman, 2003, p.36). Psychological conceptions of religiosity have difficulty in

accounting for why 87% of people in Indonesia are Muslims, while 38% of Germans are

non-religious or why neighboring cantons in Switzerland are divided between

Protestantism and the Catholic Church. Neurological descriptions of religious behavior

cannot truly examine the teachings of religions themselves or the variety roles religions

plays in people’s lives.

How best then can we evaluate the source of religious affiliation and activity? In

contrast to divine and individual explanations, the sociological perspective considers

group behaviors. This perspective allows us to consider the possibility that our beliefs

and practices are “socially constructed”—products of social forces and human effort.

Society and its subsets and institutions are the product of human action that in

turn acts upon its producers. Society has no meaning outside of that given to it by

human action and consciousness (Peter Berger, 1967, p.4). Society itself must be

continually created and acted upon. However, as a group project, the social exists

outside of any one individual. Society exists before the individual and will continue

after. Individuals learn the meaning of personhood, construct their identities and live.

Essentially, social phenomena are created by people, become the reality in which people

encounter and are internalized by individuals as the accepted understandings of what

life is (Berger 1967, p. 4). To give a tangible example of this process one need only

consider family structures. Societies have existing standards for what acceptable

families look like. People are born into families and through the course of their lives
 5

learn these standards. It is people though that carries out society’s standards. By

choosing to organize themselves according to existing definitions for “family” the

institution of the family is made real and the definition reiterated. It is possible through

the collective choices of individuals that reality of “family” as it is acted upon may differ

from the earlier definition and overtime, and the definitions can change. The

understanding of this continual process of social construction is central to the

sociological perspective.

This paper will apply the sociological perspective to understanding religion. The

first portion will examine the ways in which religion is socially learned and the role of

historical and geographic contexts. Next, I will discuss the ways in which the events and

standards of social life affect religions and their teachings. Following, I will present

examples of ways that religions in turn affect social life. Lastly, I will examine if religion,

given its pervasiveness and influential role throughout many societies, is in fact

inevitable and necessary. I will discuss the realities and potential viability of secular

societies.

II. Religion as Socially Learned Behavior

Given the sheer diversity of religious traditions around the world and throughout

time, how does one come to have a given religious affiliation? What leads a person to be

a Muslim rather than a Sikh? Why are some parts of the world predominantly Christian

whereas another region is most Buddhist? Statistics show that religious affiliations are

not randomly distributed throughout the world rather that members of different

religious groups tend to be concentrated. Hindus, Christians, and Muslims

 6

predominantly live in countries where their groups constitute the majority (Pew

Research Center 2012). Religious minorities too tend to form and live in like-minded

communities. Individual biographies intersect with historical and geographic contexts.

An individual can only become a member of a religion if the religion exists in the same

time and place as themselves (Zuckerman 2003). As Phil Zuckerman argues, religious

identity is largely determined by and always dependent upon factors of time and place

(2003, p. 37) A child born today in the southeastern United States is far more likely to

be a Christian than they are to become a Buddhist or a Norse pagan. For most

Christians, and for most members of any religion, they are not members of their religion

due to personal choice but rather they were born into and live in a society that made

such a religious affiliation possible or imperative (Zuckerman 2003, pg. 51).

Of course religions have been known to grow in membership and move into new

areas (Zuckerman 2003, pg. 49). Conversions do occur and personal choice can play a

role in religious identity. However, even for converters, their options are still limited to

those religions that exist in the same time and place as themselves. In order to convert, a

person must have some kind of contact with the religion, or made aware that secularity

is a viable option.

Besides merely limiting religious options how do constraints of time and place act

as determining factor of religious affiliation? Biographical circumstances of people’s

lives contribute to the social environment into which they are born and live. It is within

this context that religious behavior is learned through socialization, essentially the

process of informally learning and unconsciously internalizing the norms, beliefs, and

values of our family, peer group, and society (Zuckerman 2003, 48). The ways the

people are socialized throughout their lives have a strong effect upon the ways they
 7

think, feel and identify themselves. We are each influenced by many potential agents of

socialization including our parents, teachers, schools, the media and politicians

(Zuckerman 2003). Just as we learn our language, manners and standards of living from

the other people in our lives, so do we learn religion. In the case of religion in particular,

it is often those most close to us that expose us to faith traditions and help to determine

our religious identities (Zuckerman 2003).

From birth for most people, their parents and family are their primary agents of

socialization. Previous research confirms that the religious beliefs of parents are among

the most important factors in the formation of one’s religious attitudes, believers having

believers for parents, non-believers with non-believer parent s (Zuckerman 2003, p. 49).

Statistics show that those born to religious families rarely deviate. “80% of Americans

born Catholic stay Catholic, more than 90% of Americans born Protestant stay

Protestant, and more than 90% of Americans born Jewish stay Jewish” and in the case

of Christians, even those who do not remain the same specific Christian denomination

as their parents still end up embracing some form of Christianity (Zuckerman 2003, p.

49). Studies indicate that less than 1% of Americans convert to a completely different

religion (Zuckerman 2003). When people do convert to a religion different from their

parents it is most often to bring their religious affiliation in line with their friends or

spouse or if not them then likely for other associates such as neighbors, co-workers or

community members (Zuckerman 2003). Essentially, people most often pursue

religious paths that tend to follow neatly along lines of social networks and familial

bonds (Zuckerman 2003, p. 51). In this way, specific affiliations appear to be quite

arbitrary, determined largely by the chance of birth and their social connections. The

Pope himself would likely be a Hindu if he were born to a family in India.

 8

These social factors are shown to hold true for the unaffiliated and non-religious

as well. Many atheists and agnostics have other non-believers in their families and social

networks and in order to identify as such, often have to live in societies where it

acceptable or safe to do so (Zuckerman 2003).

Even those who start new religions or denomination rather than convert to

existing ones often find that those in their immediate social circle are the first to join

them (Zuckerman 2003). As Zuckerman notes in the case of Muhammad’s founding

Islam and Joseph Smith’s creation of Mormonism, their first converts were their

families (2003). Additionally, the Westoboro Baptist Church, an independent church

infamous for their strict anti-gay beliefs and public protests, is essentially comprised of

Pastor Fred Phelps’s own family.

Even in the most extreme outlier cases a single individual seemingly converts to a

religion entirely independently, it still requires some form of contact with other people.

Even if it is not direct, in some way knowledge of the religion, its traditions, and beliefs

needed to be communicated in order for those individuals to learn about the faith and

convert (Zuckerman 2003).

Regardless if one is born into a tradition, converts or even attempts to start a new

religion, individual religious affiliation is the result of social forces contingent upon time

and place.

III. The Social Scripting of Religious Practices

Just as religious beliefs and affiliations are socially mediated, so too are the ways

people practice and experience their faith the product of social conventions. Many
 9

faiths have preferred methods of prayer, dress codes, and models for rituals and

services. In some cases- like traditional Judaism- these best practices are clearly

delineated in religious texts. More often than not though, the models for religious

practices are taken for granted simply as “the way things are.” A sociological

understanding of religion allows us to understand that traditions only persist as long as

people accept them and choose to carry them out. Nothing explicitly forbids a Lutheran

church service from incorporating drum circles rather than organs and pews. Religious

communities have agency in how they choose to worship and express their faiths.

Even among religions that place a premium upon preserving ancient traditions,

the agency of people to reconstruct their religions introduces variations in religious

practices. Individual communities may share a faith but diverge in their practices in

ways both subtle and extreme. American Christians share a God and a text but their

services vary greatly. Some Christians worship in large brick cathedrals while others

gather in portable tents. In one church a pastor may give his sermon while his flock

listens quietly, while down the street in another church a reverend may call out to her

congregation and receive enthusiastic shouts in response. One group of Christians may

sing along to Bach hymns while another group gathers on a college campus to play

gospel songs on acoustic guitars. Some congregations espouse rituals that are entirely

foreign to other Christians, such as a small number of Pentecostal groups who handle

venomous snakes to prove the power of salvation. Even within the Roman Catholic

Church-whose central authority attempts to dictate a uniform liturgy world wide-

changes come as prayers are re-translated and new church policies are adopted.

Religions have presence and power in human life through active practice. The

form and expression of any faith are not static. Religious traditions are only “the way
 10

things are” as long as people allow them to be.

IV. The Interpretation of Sacred Texts

There are those who would who would argue against the human basis for

religions I describe here by pointing out that while individual beliefs may be socially

learned, their traditions are derived from an unchanging source material, holy texts

passed down through the ages and possibly –as some faiths hold- divinely inspired.

The sociological perspective however allows us to understand that regardless of their

origins, religious texts and the themes they contain are subject to change through social

forces as scriptures are read and used.

The first way in which religious texts change through social means is translation.

Translating any text is often a difficult and complex matter as languages- particularly

those of disparate geographic and historical origins- often do not easily correspond.

Simply put, words in one language may lack clear equivalents in another. Changes in

vocabulary- over time or in moving between languages- complicate the reading of sacred

texts, necessitating interpretation on the part of believers.

An illustrative example of the difficulties of translation are the issues presented by

several Greek terms in the Christian New Testament. Included in the first book of Peter

(3:2) there is a passage that includes a list of prescriptions for the acceptable behavior

women and wives. There is a command for women to win over their unruly husbands to

a righteous life with the example of their own actions. However when describing this

idealized behavior, the original text makes use of the Greek term “en phobo” (Sylva

1983, p. 145) The exact English translation of en phobo is debatable as it can

 11

alternatively be taken to mean respectful, reverent or even fearful (Sylva 1983, p. 147) .

Each one of these possible translations would ultimately change the meaning of the

passage overall. Is the text advising that the women make an example of themselves

through their reverence and devotion to God? Are women being told to be respectful to

their husbands or is the Bible prescribing a fearful attitude towards men after

demanding elsewhere in the chapter that they submit to them? Biblical scholars and

translators have attempted to answer these questions through trying to understand how

en phobo was commonly used in the Greek language at the time and place the New

Testament was written and compiled whereas others have looked to other occasions

within the bible in which the term was used in search of further context (Sylva 1983. P.

147). Usually based on a number of contextual clues, most scholars now agree that

respect (as in “with respect towards your husband”) is the most proper translation. This

agreed upon translation is ultimately a simple matter of social convention that reflects

the subjectivity present within religious texts even at the level of individual words.

The second way in which sacred texts are subject to social changes is through the

interpretation of themes. The meanings people derive from religious scriptures are

subjective.

Within Evangelical Christianity, Biblical prescriptions about men and women’s

roles in marriage have come to be interpreted in a number of ways. Traditionally,

Evangelicals have primarily focused on passages that call for wifely submission. With

scripture as the basis, traditional Evangelicals have constructed a patriarchal family

structure. Men, as husbands and fathers are seen as the proper and primary decision

makers for the household. In this model, women inherently hold a lesser position of

authority within the family. Their thoughts on decisions can be heard, but they need not
 12

be heeded. Ultimately, women are charged with carrying out their husband’s decisions

even if they disagree with them (Bowtowski & Read 2003).

A growing number of Biblical feminists however reject this interpretation of

scripture and the family structure it has been used to justify. These interpreters draw

upon other passages that they believe indicate not the subjugation of wives but mutual

submission of husband and wife (Bowtowski & Read 2003). In their view spouses are

best viewed as co-equal members of a partnership, ordained by God to carry out His

work through the family.

A third way in which religious texts are socially subjective is through selectivity in

emphasis. Certain parts of sacred texts may be treated as more important than other

passages by believers. Certain sections and themes may be considered foundational to

the faith as whole, while other passages can be outright ignored. This kind of selectivity

can become active and intentional as people attempt to gain support for particular

interpretations of religious texts or to use the writings to support new ideas and social

movements.

Selectivity in emphasis is a driving force in controversies surrounding the Islamic

tradition of hijab- the religious conventions that call for Muslim women to cover

themselves. In Islam, different sections of the Quran have been used to construct

different arguments about the proper attire for Muslim women specifically the

significance of the veil traditionally required for women. The traditional all-male

Muslim clergy makes several scriptural and extra-textual arguments for why women

should be required to wear a veil or even full body coverings. The veil is seen as a

symbol of a woman’s commitment to Islamic principles, citing passages from the Quran

calling upon women to protect their modesty and not display their beauty so that they
 13

may be better known for their personal qualities and faith (Bowtowski & Read 2003).

In recent years, however there has been an increase in Muslim feminist voices

critical of the way the wearing of the veil has been used as a measure of religious

devotion. Instead they argue that hijab has really been a way to censure and marginalize

Muslim women. These Muslim feminists de-emphasize the passages traditionally used

to support hijab, arguing that they were context-specific, directions specifically for the

wives of the prophet Muhammad and not prescriptions for Muslim women in general

(Bowtowski & Read 2003). Instead they emphasize passages they believe indicate a call

for gender equality, with commands for men, as opposed to women alone, to preserve

their modesty (Bowtowski & Read 2003).

Whether people are translating text, interpreting themes, or choosing which

passages to emphasize, arguments over the interpretation of sacred texts are couched in

an insistence that the understanding presented is the best match for the original intent

of the text’s writers, be they human or divine. As Jacques Berlinerblau points out,

whatever argument is being made, the scholars tend to be believers and more often than

not they find textual support for their predisposed interpretations (2005, p. 114). Rarely

do these scholars admit that with the long passage of time, and the obfuscation of

culture, language and interpretation, the original intent of the writers may simply be

unknowable, if any intent ever existed at all. Ultimately, sacred texts are not objective

sourcebooks for religious beliefs but instead socially subjective raw materials from

which people create meaning and support ideas.

V. The Dialectical Relationship between Society and Religion

 14

As religions are one of the primary ways in which people understand the world,

faith traditions and religious institutions exert a powerful influence organizing social

life, prescribing ideal practices or in some cases even dictating civil law. In however,

changes in people’s needs and the landscape of social life can pressure religions to

change and re-adapt their stances on any number of issues.

Some of the areas in which this complex interchange between religious standards

and the needs of society has been prominent, are the shifting Christian attitudes towards

sex and contraception. Traditionally- and indeed for all of Christian history until the

start of the 20th century-the Catholic Church and all Protestant denominations were

unified in their stance prohibiting the use of artificial contraception as an act against

God (Campbell 1960, 131). For centuries, Christian philosophers and Catholic doctrine

defined contraception as a denial of natural law and as undermining the only acceptable

purpose of sex and the ultimate intention of marriage. Along with doctrine, the Church

pointed to scripture as the logic for their views, including the command to ‘Go forth and

multiply’ and the story of Onan, who was viewed as having purposefully interrupted

intercourse and was killed by God for his sins (Campbell 1960, 132). Only sex within

marriage with the express purpose of conceiving children was sanctioned by the church

and any other sexual practiced were declared terrible sins. Christian ideas of the natural

order and the purpose of marriage were codified and enforced as the standards of

Western societies. Indeed, any place where Christians formed the majority population,

contraceptive measures and the proliferation of knowledge therein were strictly

prohibited by law (Campbell 1960, 135).

Changes in social life called these standards into question. By the late 19 th

century, however, swelling population numbers, increasing urbanization, and lacks of

 15

resources made large families unnecessary and unsupportable. There was an increase in

interest among the public in somehow controlling their fertility (Campbell 1960, 134).

Over the first three decades of the twentieth century, changes in labor, greater

emancipation of women and the First World War contributed to greater public

recognition, discussion, and demand for contraceptive methods. Informational

materials on the subject quickly became more widespread, despite still being outlawed

in many places. At first religious positions on the matter did not budge, with the

Catholic Church and several Protestant denominations reiterating their prohibition.

Over the course of the first half of the 20th Century however, some Protestant

denominations, such as the Anglican and Non-Conformist Churches in England, began

to loosen their stance (Campbell 1960, 136). In the 1920s and 30s, the Anglican Church

issued mixed reports, still recommending against contraceptives, but leaving their use

within married relationships for “moral purposes” up to individual conscience

(Campbell 1960, 136). It is here that many of the Protestant branches diverged from the

Catholic Church on the matter. Whereas by the 1950s many Protestant Churches had

accepted contraception as a valid family planning method within marriages, the Catholic

Church continued their hard-lined stance against their use, even in cases of poverty,

overcrowding or health risk.

While the Catholic Church was un-swayed by increasing public support and

widespread use of contraceptives, they too were forced to adapt to changes in society,

having to consider new advances in scientific knowledge and issue new policies.

The early 20th century saw an increase in understandings of gynecology. While it

had long been theorized that women may have a “safe period” within their reproductive

cycle in which they were functionally infertile, very little was known about the exact
 16

processes or the relative life spans of ovum and sperm cells (Campbell 1960, 139). Once

this knowledge was confirmed, a “rhythm method” in times of decreased chances of

pregnancy could be calculated was developed. Seeing the Rhythm Method as exploiting

a natural process given by God, the Catholic Church deemed it an acceptable method for

family planning within a marriage (Campbell 1960, 139). Later, as oral contraceptives

and other hormonal solutions began to be developed, the Catholic Church deemed them

unnatural and therefor sinful.

Religious opposition to contraception persists today, among the Catholic Church

and other religious groups. Though contraception is widely legalized in the United

States and Western Europe, religious opposition continues have widespread effects on

consumer access as religious groups perform prominent roles in politics. In the United

States, there have been moves to make contraceptives more widely and cheaply

available. Such efforts have included support both market solutions and government

subsidies, as seen in many other industrialized countries. Most recently, reproductive

health coverage has been included as part of mandatory health insurance policies. Such

legislation has met with fierce opposition from people and groups citing religious

grounds, business owners reject requirements that they provide their employees with

insurance including contraceptive coverage.

The ongoing debates and court cases have contributed to a reevaluation of the

role of religion in politics and questions of religious freedoms. As major employers the

Catholic Church and other religious groups would be subject to the same laws as secular

businesses. On the hand, there are Supreme Court cases wherein corporations are

declaring religious affiliations. Economic, social and religious forces are interconnecting

and driving a re-evaluation of society and religion’s place in it.

 17

VI. Viability of Secular Societies

Just as religions are changed by social forces over time, so do their roles within

societies change. One of the ways in which believers often take their faiths for granted is

an assumption that religions are a necessarily beneficial or even a required component

of society. In many societies, religion does indeed play a primary role in constructing

order and meaning. However the relative importance of religion varies within different

societies. In some cultures, the role of religion in organizing society is in fact minimal.

Despite assumptions otherwise, secular societies are not only a viable option but can in

fact thrive in the absence of religion.

In the United States negative views of non-believers are pervasive. A 2002 survey

found that more than half of Americans (54%) hold a negative view towards atheists

with 28% reporting negative views towards the non-religious (Zuckerman 2009). In

conservative Christian media circles “secular” is used practically as a curse. Political

agendas or trends interpreted as affronts to conceptions of traditional Christian values

are treated as severe risks to national prosperity. Assumptions are made that an

irreligious society would result in chaos, that without a belief in God, that people are

“beyond morality” and inconsiderate of human dignity (Zuckerman 2008). However,

societies with low religiosity are a reality, not just a hypothetical, and the media’s

gloomy forecasts do not pan out.

Despite assumptions to the contrary, the secular democracies of the world often

rank among the highest on indexes of happiness and prosperity. “A perusal of any recent

United Nations World Development Report reveals that when it comes to such things as
 18

life expectancy, infant mortality, economic equality, economic competitiveness, health

care, standard of living, and education, it is the most secular democracies on earth that

fare the best, doing much better than the most religious nations in the world”

(Zuckerman 2009). Many will try to combat the presentation of secular nations as

successful by pointing out the collapse and continued failure of former Eastern Bloc,

which in their soviet years featured despotic enforced atheism. How can secularity

support a free society when the atheistic Communist countries of the 20 th century were

so restrictive of human rights?

There are multiple rejoinders I would make to such an argument. First, what

truly defined Communist countries such as the Soviet Union was not that they were

secular but that they were dictatorships. Secularism was enforced upon the people of

those countries and in some places never truly replaced underlying drive of their

traditional religious cultures, which often persisted underground during communist

rule. The history of world is filled with examples of religious regimes, such as Chile

under Pinochet, Haiti under Duvalier, and Taliban rule in Afghanistan, that similarly

failed to protect the rights and wellbeing of their citizens (Zuckerman 2009, p.959).

Secondly, among the democracies of the world, there is evidence that it is secular

societies that are leading the world in human rights and political enfranchisement.

Secularism does not hinder human or civil liberties and in fact allow both to

thrive. Democracies that report very low levels of religiosity -such as Sweden, Norway,

and Finland- score higher than most religious countries in several key measures of

human freedom. First, consider women’s equality and women’s rights. “Women fare

much better in more secular countries when compared with women in more religious

countries and that women’s equality is strongest in the world’s most secular
 19

democracies (Zuckerman, 2009, pg. 959). Reports show that the democracies with the

lowest measures of corruption, as well as the lowest rates of racial or ethnic prejudices

are simultaneously the most secular (Zuckerman, 2009, 960). Finally, the European

secular democracies rank among the most economically prosperous nations in the

world. The success of these nations economically and politically cannot necessarily be

attributed to their secularity. What is clear however is that secularism does not itself

hinder prosperity. Just as people can take their own religious affiliations for granted, so

too do many assume that religion must play a role in society. The success of non-

religious democracies indicates that secularism is a viable option and that choice is

possible at all.

VII. Conclusion

The things religions say, the ways people use them, and that religions exists at all

cannot be taken be taken for granted. Regardless of their origins, religions exist within

historical and social contexts. They are learned, interpreted and reproduced through the

interactions between people. Whether we realize it or not, they are constructed and fade

away entangled in mutual influence with historical forces. While for many believers

admitting to the human social construction of religions would certainly have theological

implications, this paper was not intended to “disprove” any particular tradition. Rather,

my intent was simply to apply the sociological perspective in order to clarify the often

overlooked social nature of powerful institutions that touch nearly all societies and all

human lives. It is my conviction that even for the faithful a sociological understanding of

religion is valuable as it allows for the understanding of these traditions not as relics
 20

under glass or the dry pages of a book but as living and continuing social projects in

which people themselves play part.

Social Construction is a succinct term for a complex idea that has permeated

nearly all of my studies at Saint Louis University. It is the idea that I believe to be the

most important that I have learned in my college education as it underlies essentially

everything else that I have learned, in sociology and ultimately in all other subjects. That

may read like laughably lofty rhetoric but I hold it to be true.

Social constructionist theories hold that our understandings of reality are learned

and created through interactions with other people. Our languages, ideas and behaviors

are learned. Through actions and interactions, our ideas are made real. Repeated and

reinforced patterns of behaviors and assumptions form the institutions through which

we define ourselves. They exist outside of anyone person, and yet through our actions

we contribute to them. Our identities, behaviors, and ideas are continually refined,

reinforced and constructed through social interaction.

I chose to focus upon religions for this project because they are among the most

reluctantly challenged social constructions with which we all interact. Though religions

are complex and far reaching, they are far from the only constructs that influences our

lives. Nor are religions the only kind of institution to be taken for granted. As a white,

middle-class, American, heterosexual, male, brother, son, grandson, student, employee

and roommate every part of my personal identity in some way indicates my relationship

to other people. Along with each of those relationships are the ideas and assumptions I

and others hold about my role and status relative to everyone else. There are

assumptions about the meanings and significance of those relationships. These

assumptions I hold about myself and others are almost wholly learned. The sociological
 21

perspective, the understanding of social construction and the placement of myself in a

social context gives me a tools with which I can think critically about the assumptions

and about the institutions with which I interact. Growing up my role subordinate to my

parents was essentially natural, or at least entirely assumed, but how best am I to relate

to them as an adult? How have my personal actions contributed to continuing patterns

of interactions between whites and racial minorities? What is my role as a consumer?

What will my responsibilities in a marriage be? The culture within which I am

embedded provides pre-established answers to some of these questions but ultimately I

have some amount of choice in whether I wish to accept those assumptions and act upon

them. There will be differing consequences whether I do or not which may influence the

exact decisions I do make. These are the kinds of decisions that everyone makes. The

sociological perspective allows one to be actively aware that a choice is in fact being

made, even if options are socially limited.

I focused upon religion to illustrate the processes of social construction rather

than gender or class or ethnicity not only because the topic is so multifaceted, but

because religious affiliation has long stood as a looming question mark over my

understandings of self.

I come from a family of Christians, my father’s side Lutheran, my mother’s

Catholic. My parent’s never agreed upon a church for my family to attend and so they

intended to leave the decision open to my siblings and myself to choose from whatever

denomination we wished when we were older. Growing up, I learned the moral lessons

of life outside of a specifically religious context. Ideas of God had no real bearing upon

the sense of right and wrong that I was taught and developed. Meanwhile, through

school and the media, I learned thoroughly secular criteria for evaluating claims and
 22

experiences. Science and science fiction informed my ideals and thoughts. As I

encountered religion and specifically Christianity more as I got older, the more I

discovered that I could not personally connect with its content. I found many of the

tenets emphasized by established denominations to be offensive and the seemingly

inconsistent reliance upon an ancient book to be both frustrating and bizarre. I am often

asked at what point I became an atheist and I suppose it was when I realized a great

many of my personal values were opposed by the majority of the people around me.

I chose to focus upon religion for this project because I have spent so much time

now being defined in opposition to it, both as a member of society at a large and for the

last four years as a non-believer at a Jesuit university. As an atheist, my identity is

defined by opposition. I have never felt comfortable with the term with because I never

set out to actively reject anything and I do not care to be defined by the things that I do

not believe in. I use the term because it is the common parlance and takes the least

explanation when representing myself. I find that the word is both loaded with

meaningful baggage and yet remains meaninglessly vague. Many people have a view of

atheists as anti-social, spiteful and actively anti-theistic. Truly though the term does not

indicate anything about what someone is, but rather what they are not. All that can be

said for certain about atheists as a group is that they are not theists. In that way the

term is frustratingly non-specific. Rarely would one attempt to describe religious people

in terms of what they are not (as in Non-Hindus or a-Norse-ists) and expect the

designation to really mean anything and yet that is precisely how “atheist” is used to

describe non-believers.

By training my focus upon religion, I have used this project to incorporate my

academic efforts into my ongoing personal development attending Saint Louis

 23

University. During my time here I have sought a greater understanding of religions in

general. My aim has been to develop an identity defined by the things I believe in rather

than the things I do not. Through attempts to start a secular student group and

interactions secular communities in St. Louis and from around the country, I have

learned that it is possible to construct an identity as well as communities based in a

secular identity inspired by compassion and guided by reason. Just as many forms of

Secular Humanism place value upon the scientific method, I hope to emphasize the role

of the sociological perspective in thinking critically about oneself and the world.

Whatever traditions, organizations and faith groups continue on into the future I hope

they can gain understanding by remembering that they are participating in social

constructs that were built by human hands.

 24

Works Cited

Berger, Phillip L. 1967 The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of

Religion. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor

Berlinerblau, Jacques. 2005. The Secular Bible. Cambridge. Cambridge University

Press.

Bowtowski, John P., Jen’nan Ghazal Read. 2003 “Veiled Submission: Gender, Power,

and Identity Among Evangelical and Muslim Women in the United States.” Qualitative

Sociology. 26:1:71-88

Campbell, Flann. “Birth Control and the Christian Chruches”. Population Studies.

14:2: 131-137.

Mochon, Daniel, Michael Norton, I. Michael, Dan Ariely 2011. “Who Benefits

from Religion” Social Indicators Research. 101:1:1-15.

Sylva, Dennis. 1983. “Translating and Interpreting 1 Peter 3:2.” Bible Translator.

34:1:144-147.

Zuckerman, Phil. 2001. Invitation to the Sociology of Religion. New York, NY:

Routledge.

Zuckerman, Phil. 2008. Society Without God. New York, NY: New York

University Press

Zuckerman, Phil. 2009. “Atheism, Secularity and Well-Being: How the Findings

of Social Science Counter Negative Stereotypes and Assumptions”.

Sociology Compass. 3:6:949-971