Religion and Social Problems

Titus Hjelm

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2011
• Print ISBN: 9780415849296
• eBook ISBN: 9781136854125
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Religion
• Index: Social Sciences

Although students and scholars of social problems have often acknowledged the role of religion, no thorough examinations of the relation between the two have emerged. This volume fills this gap by providing a definitive work on the role of religion in assessing, constructing, and solving social problems. Contributors chart the relation between religion and social problems, exploring such case studies as the impact of religion on drugs and alcohol use among Muslims, the rising importance that religion is given in social policy, the role of the Orthodox and Catholic churches in tackling social problems in post-communist East Europe, and the contested role of religion in the national and international politics of contemporary Japan. Religion and Social Problems is a broad and path-breaking contribution to the fields of sociology of religion, sociology of social problems, and religious studies.

1
Religion and Social Problems

Three Perspectives

Titus Hjelm

In our modern, media-saturated world we are confronted by a myriad of social problems every day. From local fear of neighborhood crime through national interest in poverty alleviation to global concerns over rapid climate change, social problems are omnipresent. In many ways—at least if we take media representations as our yardstick—our social reality is defined by the social problems we face in our particular social contexts.

A glance at the development of modern societies shows that religious communities have historically had a central place in defining and responding to social problems. In the western context, before the emergence of the welfare state in its different forms, care of the poor and the sick was mainly the function of local parishes. Later, organizations such as the Salvation Army were established on religious principles to combat social problems. It was only in the twentieth century that the state assumed many of the functions that religious communities have traditionally had. In the midst of the global economic crises of the early twenty-first century, it seems that religious communities are increasingly reclaiming some of the functions the struggling welfare state cannot adequately provide. It is safe to say, then, that religion’s role as a solution to social problems is firmly established in public consciousness.

The flipside of the coin is to see religion as the source of social problems. While it could be argued that this perspective has a long history as well, it is especially relevant in the post-9/11 world. Although religious communities have from time immemorial perceived other religious communities as heretical and deviant, and while sometimes secularist states have proclaimed all religion a menace, the awareness of religion’s destructive potential has reached new global heights after international terrorism has become synonymous with religious fanaticism. The “deviant beliefs” of religious people may or may not become a social problem; it is the actions putatively inspired by these beliefs that have created global social problems such as religious terrorism.

In light of this widespread awareness of religion as both a solution for and a source of social problems, it is somewhat surprising that the study of religion and social problems has not emerged as an independent sub-field of research either in the sociology of social problems or in the sociology of religion. Except for the “impact” tradition discussed below, both sub-disciplines have been mostly ignorant of theoretical developments in their respective fields (see Chapter 4). Of the few examples available, the use of contemporary social problems theory has been most evident in the study of new religious movements. The constructionist approach to social problems (see below; Spector and Kitsuse 2001) has proved to be an especially useful tool in analyzing the widespread public labeling of alternative religions as dangerous “cults” (e.g. Beckford 1985; Robbins 1985; 1988; Swanson 2002). Research on the Satanism scare that gripped the USA in the late 1980s and early 1990s (Richardson et al. 1991) has most explicitly anchored itself in contemporary social problems theory. Among the contributors to this work is Joel Best, one of the leading figures in the sociology of social problems (see Best 1991). Alongside some other examples—notably Hadden’s (1980) and Beckford’s (1990) important articles—sociology of religion has flirted with social problems theory but, as mentioned above, a systematic approach or anything comparable to a “school” is yet to emerge.

This is mostly the case with this collection as well. Although many of the authors draw explicitly from social problems theory, others highlight the intersection of religion and social problems through concepts such as social capital and theories of cultural practice. Instead of making an exclusive statement of how religion and social problems should be studied, the aim of this book is to display a variety of approaches, in hopes that something might emerge that is more than the sum of its parts, and yet characteristic of this sub-field in particular.

The chapters in this book are organized thematically. The first part discusses what I refer to as the “impact” tradition. This approach looks at the effects—the impact—of religion on a variety of social problems. It is also distinctive in its methodologically quantitative approach. The second part discusses religion as a solution to social problems and the final part examines how religion has been understood as a social problem in itself. Before a fuller discussion of the different parts, I will briefly outline the epistemological approaches underlying the three perspectives.

THREE PERSPECTIVES, TWO EPISTEMOLOGIES

The organization of the chapters in this book into three thematic parts nicely illustrates the different perspectives or “points of entry” into the study of religion and social problems. On a broader epistemological and theoretical level, however, the chapters can be divided between what social problems research has usually referred to as the objective and subjective approaches. A look at the development of social problems theory illuminates the differences between the two.

Contemporary social problems theory is largely an American affair.¹ Many later renowned sociologists and departments of sociology—the sociology department of the University of Chicago in particular—got the impetus for their research and theories from the rapid social changes of the early twentieth century and the problems that accompanied urbanization, mass immigration and ethnic and racial conflict. The early sociologists who studied the emerging urban society saw themselves as “impartial and trained observers” (Fuller and Myers 1941, 320) whose job was to observe the objective conditions in which social problems arose. This early period produced sociological classics such as The City (Park and Burgess 1984) and Street Corner Society (Whyte 1993).

Although the early sociology of social problems acknowledged that social problems also have a subjective element, that is, an “awareness of certain individuals that the condition is a threat to certain cherished values” (Fuller and Myers 1941, 320), this subjective side was largely left unexamined until the 1960s. At that point, a definitive break from earlier research occurred, with several important publications endorsing a completely revised approach that became known as “labeling theory.” Howard Becker, often quoted as one of the main representatives of the approach, wrote in his influential book Outsiders:

[S]ocial groups create deviance by making the rules whose infraction constitutes deviance, and by applying those rules to particular people and labeling them as outsiders. From this point of view, deviance is not a quality of the act the person commits, but rather a consequence of the application by others of rules and sanctions to an “offender”. (Becker 1991[1963], 9; emphasis in original)

The culmination of this development came with the publication of Spector and Kitsuse’s Constructing Social Problems (2001), which soon became the standard work in the field. Their definition of social problems radically subjectivized the study of social problems, by stating that “social problems [are] the activities of individuals or groups making assertions of grievances and claims with respect to some putative conditions” (Spector and Kitsuse 2001, 75; emphasis in original). In effect, Spector and Kitsuse took a completely disinterested stance towards any claims regarding the reality of the phenomenon in question. What matters are the public claims made regarding what is seen as a social problem, and this is what sociologists should study. Therefore, the process of making claims about problematic conditions becomes the focus of constructionist study of social problems.

The individual chapters in this book fall on different points of the objective-subjective continuum. By virtue of its methodology, the impact approach is by definition “objectivist” in the above sense. However, the discussions of religion as a solution to social problems and religion as a social problem approach the topic from both objective and subjective viewpoints. It is to these various discussions that I now turn.

THE IMPACT PERSPECTIVE

In an earlier article (Hjelm 2009) I referred to the impact perspective as the “traditional approach.” This is because it is, simply, the oldest and most significant perspective on religion and social problems—thus no evaluative meaning should be read into the term. The progenitor of this perspective was, of course, Emile Durkheim. In his Suicide (1897) Durkheim compared statistical data from different European countries in order to analyze the impact of social and cultural factors on the voluntary taking of one’s life. His famous conclusion was that Protestants were more prone to commit suicide than followers of other confessions in all of the countries he compared (Durkheim 1979[1897], 154). Although fiercely criticized by many (see especially Stark and Bainbridge 1996), Durkheim’s basic premise continues to inspire research. If not in other respects, the one feature this perspective has retained from Durkheim is the focus on statistical data. Thus, religion often appears in the form of a variable in quantitative assessments with titles examining “the impact of religion on X” and “the effects of religion on X” (e.g. Evans et al. 1995; Johnson et al. 2001; Shields et al. 2007).

Chapter 2, authored by Amy Adamczyk, is a prime example of the impact perspective. In her study, Adamczyk examines the reasons for the lower prevalence rate of HIV/AIDS in Muslim countries. HIV/AIDS is a globally recognized health problem that has had devastating consequences for the developing world, especially Africa. Using cross-national data Adamczyk shows how behavior related to Islamic beliefs and norms has an effect on the spread of HIV/AIDS. Factors such as proscriptions against extramarital sex, restrictions on alcohol use and circumcision all seem to have an impact on the prevalence of HIV/AIDS infections in the countries studied.

In Chapter 3 Peter Andersen and Peter Lüchau examine Max Weber’s famous theses about the work ethic in world religions and apply them to the case of Denmark, with a special reference to Muslim immigrants and their position in the labor market. The issue of unemployment in general and the apparent high levels of unemployment among immigrants in particular are one of the most pressing social problems in countries with a comprehensive welfare state system, such as Denmark. The question is whether religion—in this case Islam—has an effect in contributing to unemployment and sustaining a situation perceived as a social problem. Andersen and Lüchau conclude that “it is highly unlikely that the higher unemployment rate among non-Western immigrants in Denmark is the product of a particular Muslim work ethic.” Instead, current factors, such as education and gender are more likely to have an impact on the employment rate.

RELIGION AS A SOLUTION TO SOCIAL PROBLEMS

One of the few scholars that have previously discussed the intersection between religion and social problems is James Beckford, who here returns to the topic of his presidential address for the 1989 meeting of the Association for the Sociology of Religion, titled “The Sociology of Religion and Social Problems” (Beckford 1990). Beckford outlines the importance of mutual recognition for both sociology of religion and sociology of social problems and discusses the effects of increasing religious diversity on the perception of social problems. He acknowledges that religion has been mostly considered as a solution to social problems, but increasingly as a possible source of social problems. Drawing from both approaches, Beckford then focuses on what he calls ”religion as expedient,” that is, the ways in which governments—in this case the British government—have appropriated religion in both combating social problems and in ensuring that religions do not become deviant, but rather contribute to social cohesion. These formal policies of supporting and working with faith communities represent a “new—and not unproblematic—phase in the intertwining of re...

Table of contents

• Routledge Advances in Sociology
• Contents
• Tables
• Figures
• Preface and Acknowledgments
• 1 Religion and Social Problems
• Part I The Impact of Religion on Social Problems
• Part II Religion as a Solution to Social Problems
• Part III Religion as a Social Problem
• Contributors
• Index