On religion and spirituality: A sociological perspective

Woryaomi Kharay *

While religion is generally understood to boost social cohesion, integrity, peace, happiness and well being of the individual and society at large, it is not uncommon to find religion as the major cause of social disintegration, division and war around the world. Based on the above information, this article attempts to explore the sociological understanding of the interface, roles and meanings of 'religiousness' and 'spirituality'.

For centuries humanities have struggled to come out with definitive explanation of certain terms such as 'religion' and 'spirituality' despite the fact that such concepts and practices are as old as the history of human race. Although there is a conspicuous absence of unanimously agreed-upon single definition of such terms, there are multitudes of literature already produced regarding the same (Wulff, 1996). For want of space, it would be untenable here to attempt an exhaustive discussion of the topic I have chosen. Rather a cursory shot is being made to draw some light on the current sociological understanding of 'religion or religiousness'1 and 'spirituality.

1 The words religion and religiousness are used synonymously in the article, unless otherwise indicated.

The term "religion" is derived from the Latin word religio suggesting a unique bond between human and some supernatural power. Religion, indeed, indicates humanity's belief in and worship of a supernatural God. However, such simple definition of the term limits our own understanding of the subject matter; it is much more than that. Some of the classic definitions of religion are those of Clifford Geertz and Emile Durkheim inter alia. For Geertz, an eminent American anthropologist, religion is a man-made 'symbol system' that is modeled from the social reality only to become a model for the social reality.

In other words, religion as a representation of certain abstract ideas, thoughts and meanings is shaped by the social mores, values and beliefs system of a society one lives in. He further asserts that this symbol "pervades human moods and motivations and becomes one of the ways by which human beings find meaning in times of crises, such as when confronted by their own mortality or intellectual or moral bafflement. Human beings then clothe this "symbol system" with an aura of intimacy to give it legitimacy" (cited in Clothey, 2006: 11).

Durkheim, a renowned sociologist, sees religion as "a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden—beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them" (1915: 47). Durkheim was most importantly concerned about social cohesion throughout his academic career. Recognizing the social origin of religion, he argues that religion has a functional role that reinforces social cohesion. Religion acts as a catalyst to pull people together mentally and physically, and in so doing, the collective morals and social norms are reaffirmed within a society. Thus religion does not end in securing a place for one's soul in the hereafter life, but also ensures societal stability, cohesion, peace and communal cooperation in the profane realm, too.

Just as is the case with the etymology of religion, the word "spirituality" is derived from the Latin origin spiritus meaning breath or life, with the Latin spiritulis denoting a person "of the spirit". Perceptions and views on the term "spirituality" differ from individual to individual and/or organization to organization that sticking to a single set of definition is often proven to be a futile exercise. However for the purpose of getting a general glimpse of the term, we may consider some of the commonly proposed/recommended approaches to define "spirituality".

One particular way to define spirituality was recommended by Hill et al. (2000) wherein the term is understood to be grounded in a 'sacred core', signifying a search for meaning with the term 'sacred' - to realize the meaning of life – the ultimate truth. In a similar vein, LaPierre (1994) stresses spirituality as an experience with transcendence, a search for the ultimate truth or the highest value. For King and Koenig (2009), spirituality is nothing but a belief in the existence of a domain other than the material world, and includes all manner of religious or other beliefs not materialistic in nature.

Religion and spirituality are two distinct concepts: while religion is concerned with the corporal institution, its hoary tenets, principles, rules and rituals of the religious side, spirituality deals with the hereafter life.

In spirituality the individual strives to merge himself/herself with godhead and realize the meaning of the ultimate truth through meditation, fasting, study of sacred texts, eremitic monastic practices etc. However, these two concepts are intermeshed, and overlap each other. For example, in the Hebraic Old Testament (ruach) and the Greek New Testament (pneuma), mentions were made of spirituality in the context of religion. As a matter of fact, spirituality cannot exist without religion. Spirituality, on the other hand, can provide kernel to a new religion.

Lately, emphasis on spirituality seems to have taken precedence over religion or religiousness (Ivtzan et al. 2009; Bender, 2007; Hill et al. 2000). So also its definition has undergone a process of alteration overtime. Not all current conceptions are linked to religion in that some definitions are broad enough to embrace secular elements. As a reaction against the institutional religions the conception of spirituality began to embrace those who are secular, for whom spirituality is not related to any concept of Devine or Supernatural. Studies have found that most people are inclined to identify themselves as "spiritual but not religious" indicating the speakers' rejection of the mainstream and organized religions (Roof, 2001, cited in Casey, 2009). More and more people are no longer obsessively concerned with the "happily lived ever after" experience as promised by the major world religions; rather they are increasingly yearning for peace, love and happiness in their everyday life.

Beginning from 1960s and born to the post-war parents, the baby boomers who actively engaged themselves in social revolution progressively began to view 'religiousness' in negative light. This emerging trend is corollary to the continuous and increasing reification of religion in contemporary society in that very often religion, through the process of 'contrast and compare', has been transformed from somewhat ideational process to a fixed objective body in a tangible way (e.g. denominations, theological traditions, major world religion etc.). Bellah (1985) has noted that the emphasis on 'spiritual but not religious' provided ways for individuals who were dissatisfied with religion to follow their "own little voice". The emergence of a number of New Age religion/Revivalism (e.g. Baha'is, ISKON, etc. to name a few) that emphasizes on individual member spiritual experience and other social services is an indication of the followers discontentment towards major world religions' tendency to differentiate and reject those whose thoughts, tastes and beliefs are dissimilar with theirs.

Gartner (1996), while recognizing the positive derivative social functions of religion and spirituality, warned that the overall positive "moral net" of religion and spirituality, particularly religious moral net could also trap one "who is progressing in a healthy autonomous way along a path outside the boundaries of what is normally accepted" (203). Some identified pathological (less healthy) characteristics of religion and spirituality are: authoritarian religion or spirituality, superficial literal religion or spirituality, strictly utilitarian and self-beneficial extrinsic religion or spirituality, and conflict-ridden, fragmented religion or spirituality.

It is true that religion is a universal phenomenon, that is to say we are all born into some religious family. Very few people change their religious allegiance in their lifetime. And still fewer number of people chose themselves to become what is called 'atheist'. Be that as it may. The fact remains that we are surrounded by scores of religions adorning the social mosaic of the world around us. What is common to all religions is that members are encouraged to pursue a virtues life where one has to 'love your neighbor as yourself', 'be kind, tenderhearted and forgiving one another', 'encourage one another and build each other up', 'live peaceably with all', and 'turn the other when slapped on the right cheek'. And yet, by the same token, we find ourselves being torn and ripped apart by the dogmas, rules, boxes and boundaries that different religions draw between them.

Dan Brown had a point to make when he said: "The world is getting smaller everyday and now, more than ever, there is enormous danger in believing that we are infallible. That our version of the truth is absolute and that everyone who does not think like we do is wrong and therefore our enemy."

It will be pertinent to add a point here. Just as many of the social mores and norms of any culture are rooted in religious perspectives, one's religious thoughts and beliefs system are, in turn, deeply influenced and molded by the culture in which one is brought up. It is this socio-religious fact/reality through which one has to look at the diverse religious traditions that dotted our world, each of which aims to realize the ultimate truth of life according to the ways and paths that suit their own tastes and flavor. To claim that one particular pathway to heaven is superior to others is to miss the whole point of religion itself.