the marxian theory

7/28/2019 The Marxian Theory

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-marxian-theory 1/12

Marxian Theory

Contents

5.1 lntroduction

5.2 Marxian Social Thought5.3 Marxian Notion of Religion

5.4 Religion - An Instrument of Oppression

5.5 The Dominant Ideology - Religion

5.6 Religion as Super Structure

5.7 Marx on 'Jewish Question'

5.8 Criticisms to Marxian Approach to the Study of Religion

5.9 Conclusion

5.10 Further Reading

Learning Objectives

After studying this unit you should be able to:

describe the Marxian notion of religion;

outline the dominant ideology - religion;

examine religion as a superstructure; and

give some criticisms to the Marxian approach to the study of religion.

5.1 Introduction

Although Karl Marx did not publish a specific monograph on religion, hisanalyses of religion are very significant. He can be said to be the f irstsociologist of religion. His interpretations of religion are mainly beingdrawn from Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right:Introduction (1844) and German Ideology (1845).

Marx was highly crit ical of religion. For him man makes religion, religiondoes not make man (Marx cf. Tucker 1978: 53). Marx considered religious

sentiments as al l other social institutions as a social product. He proposedthat religion reflects society; therefore, any criticism of religion mustipso facto be a criticism of society itself. It i s essentially a projection ofsocial relationships involved in the process of production. He proposesthat religion does not reflect man's true consciousness. Religion, as Marxsees it, is a false consciousness; religion is the product of men, the productof those in power - hose who control the productive process and peoplefail t o understand that religion is man made. Religion comes to divertpeople's attention from their miseries, which are the consequences ofexploitation. He states that religion is only the illusory sun, which revolvesround man as long as he does not revolve round himself (Pals, D.L. 1996).

And he argues in a truly socialijt communist society al l llusions and distortionsof reality disappear and need for any religion ceases.

The present unit will focus on the Marxian interpretation of religion. It

will discuss on how Marx conceptualizes religious beliefs and values, how i t



Classical Theories operates in the exist ing socia l system and a lso the ro le of re l ig iousconceptions i n e g it im is in he existing social system. The unit also includescrit icisms to Marxian interpretation of religious conceptions.

In order to understand Marx's perspective on religion i t is necessary toknow briefly his overall thesis about the working of the society. Marxianunderstanding of religion will be clearer when placed in his larger socialthought. So le t us have a brie f look at his theory o f economic determinism .

Marxian Social Thought

Marxian theory is exclusively based on the produ ction of m aterial objec tsi n th e society. For survival, human beings produce fopd and ma te ria lobjec ts and for doing so the individuals enter in to social relationship w itheach other making the process of production a social enterprise. Themode of production was the focus of social anarysis for Marx. Dependingon the mode of production he classifies t he hid or y in to dif ferent epochs;each epoch ide ntif ie d wi th a particula r mode of production. In each o f

these historical periods the groups of people who own the forces ofproduction rule the society and they e x ~ t o i t nd oppress the rest of thesociety. This is his basis of classifica tion of society in to ru ling and oppressedclass. The relatio nship be twee n these t w o classes are basically antagonisticand these antagonistic relationship lead to the conflict and finally to thechange of the historical periods.

Marx identif ies tw o components of the mode of production; the forces ofproduction and relat ions of production. Forces of production are thetechnical component of production, which involves the technology, rawmaterials, and scien tif ic knowledge employed in he process of production,

th e technical organisation of th e p rodu ction process and the labour powero f the labourers. The forces of producti'on i n each of the historical epochw il l correspond t o particula r relationships o f production. The relations o fproduction are the social relat ionships, which individuals enter in to i no rder t o p roduce goods ( fo r example, i n f euda l s ~ c i e t y e la tions o fprod uction involves the relationship betw een the lord and vassal and thesets of rights, duties and obligations which make up that relationship).Marx argues i n each of t he histor ical epochs the essential structure of t hesociety is shaped on the economy - the m ode of p roduction, which includesthe forces of production and the relations of produ ction and the ir re latio nt o diff er en t classes in the society. These together form the base structu re

or t he infrastructure of the society and the everything else i n the society- the m ajor institutions, value and belie f systems, which make in to thesuper structure of the society - are seen as shaped by the economicinfrastructure of the society.

In al l historica l societies th ere a re basic contradictions be tween the forcesand relations o f production and there are fundame ntal conflicts of interestsbetween the soc ia l g roups invo lved i n th e p roduct ion process. The

relationship between the major social groups is one of exploitation andoppression. Marx argues in a l l th e h isto ric al societies w it h a possibleexcept ion of prehistor ic society, there exists a basic contradict ion;

con tradictio n of the social groups of those who exp loit and those who areexploited. For example, i n feuda l society the contra diction betwe en lords- the exp loiter group and the serfs - th e explo ited group. He believed thecontradictions cannot survive i n the existing fo rm for long as it createsfundam ental co nflic t of interes t be tween social groups since one gains a tth e expense of others. This con flict of interests u lt im ate ly resolved bringing

about a m ajor social change to form the next historical period.



Reflection and Action 5.1

How wil l you place religion in the overall social theory of Karl Marx?

Box 5.1 : Functionalist Inte rpre tation of Religion

The functionalists explain any phenomena in terms of i t s role for thesurvival of the society as a whole. In terms of religion their analysis i s

primarily concerned with the contribution of religion makes to meet

the functional prerequisites or basic needs of the society. From thisperspective society needs a certain degree of social solidarity, value

consensus, and harmony and integration between t s parts. The functionof the religion i s the contribution i t makes to meet such functionalprerequisites, for example, i t contribution to social solidarity.

Source: Haralambos, M. 1981.

Marxian Theoryhe superstructure in all historical societies derives largely from theinfrastructure and therefore reproduces the relations of production, thusreflecting the interests of the dominant group in the relations of production.Marx refers the dominant ideas of each historical epoch as the ruling classideology. He argues that the ruling class ideology distorts the true natureof society and serves to legitimate and justify the status quo. However,the contradictions i n the infrastructure w il l eventually lead to adisintegration of the system and the creation of the new society. Theultimate society Marx talks about i s the socialist communist society whereal l wi ll be equal having same relationship to the forces of production andhence no contradiction.

After having seen Marxian theory very briefly, le t us turn to the Marxiannotion of religion.

5.3 Marxian Notion of Religion

According to Karl Marx, religion i s like any other social institutions in thatit s dependent upon the material and economic realities i n a given society.

So also religion can only be understood in relation to other social systemsand the economic structures of society since i t i s a creature of productiveforces. For him the religious world i s but the reflex of the real world. His

concerned with the social purpose of religion and not on the religiousdoctrine or the religious beliefs as such (Wilson 1982).

In Marx's opinion religion i s an illusion that provides reasons and excusesto keep society functioning just as it is . For him religion i s irrational,alienating and hypocritical. Religion i s irrational because i t i s a delusionand a worship of appearances that avoids recognizing underlying reality.It alienates people from their highest ideals and aspirations and projectsthem to an alien and unknowable being called God. I t negates all that i s

dignified i n a human being by rendering them servile and more amenableto accepting the status quo; he state of being oppressed. I t s hypocritical

i n the sense that though i t professes valuable principles, i t sides with theoppressors. Jesus advocated helping the poor, but the Christian churchmerged with the oppressive Roman state, taking part in the enslavement

of people for centuries. In the Middle Ages the Catholic Church preachedabout heaven, but acquired as much property and power as possible(Bottomorel 979).



Classical Theories

Marx believed the abolition of religion, as the illusory happiness of the

people i s required for their rea l happiness. And th e demand to give up thei l lusion about i t s condition i s the demand to give up a condition, whichneeds illusions. How relig ion acts as illusion and wha t i s the social conditionth at needs this i l lusion?

Marx says that religion is meant to create illusory fantasies for the poor.The poor are dominated and ruled by the ruling class, which owns theforces of production. The economic realities that keep them suppressed -preven t them from finding true happiness i n this l i fe . So religion givesthem the i l lusion that this is correct or true because they w i l l f ind tr uehappiness i n the next l i fe. In the existing social system the people are i n

distress and religion does provide solace. Thus Marx says religion masksthe actual social reality, provide them temporary relief, just as peoplewho are physically inju red receive relie f fro m opiate-based drugs. HereMarx compares religion t o opium - a seda tive substance (Pals, D.L. 1996).

A sedative only helps t o forget the pain for t he ti m e being, it fai ls t o f ix aphysical injury. The pain could be healed only i f one solves the underlyingcauses of th e pain. Similarly, religion does no t fix th e un derlying causes ofpeople's pain and suffering - nstead, it helps them forget why they aresuffering and causes them to look forward to an imaginary future andaccepts the social system i n t s existing form. I t thus prevents working to

change circumstances. The worse i s as Marx puts i t that the "opiatedrug" i.e., religion i s adm inistered by th e oppressors who are responsiblefor th e pain and suffering or th e ac tual oppression.

For Marx religion i s an expression of more fundamentql unhappiness andsymptom of more fundamental and oppressive economic realities. He

hopes humans wi l l create a society in which the economic condit ionscausing so much pain and suffering would be eradicated and, therefore,th e need for soothing drugs l ike religion w il l cease. To p ut i n other words,wha t Marx expects i s th at i n the ultim ate society o f socialist communismthe re w il l be on oppression of one group by other and hence there is noneed for an illusionary happiness and the re ceases the requ iremen t o f anyreligious dogmas.

Box 5.2: Marx's Comments on Religion

Marx' best-known comment on religion, comes from the "Con tributionto the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right: Introduction". I t i s asfollows:

Religion i s [the world's] general basis for consolation...The struggleagainst religion i s...a struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma

i s religion. Religious suffe ring i s at the same time an expression ofre al suffe ring and a pro test against re al suffering. Religious distressis at the same time the expression of real distress and the protestagainst real distress. Religion i s the sigh of the oppressed creature,the heart of a heartless world, just as i t i s the spirit of a spirit lesssituation. It i s the opium of th e people. The a bolition of religion as theillusory happiness of the people i s required for their real happiness.The demand to give up the i l lusion about i t s condition i s the demandto give up a condition, which needs illusions. (Source: Tucker 1978).

Reflection and Action 5 .2

Do you agree w ith th e Marxian view th at religion masks social re ality?Explain wit h the help of religious doctrines tha t you know best.



Marx believes that any religious beliefs survive in the society so long as

people are not aware of their interests. People are not aware that religion

serves the interests of the ruling classes. This is because people are socialised

into believing that what they know is the truth. Marx proposes that religion

internalises in people a set of beliefs that are contrary to their interest

but are in the interest of the ruling class. In the Communist Manifesto,

Marx suggests that religion, like morality and philosophy, must be eliminated

i f we are to achieve a new political and economic existence. "Communism, "

he and Engels write, "abolishes a ll religion, and al l morality, instead ofconstituting them on new basis" (1968). The reason for this i s the historical

evidence that regardless of previous changes in the productive systems,

religion has always supported the maintenance of the legitimacy of the

exploiter and exploited. Thus, to create a truly free society, religion as a

tie to the past must be eliminated.

So we have seen religion act as an illusion masks the social reali ty and

perpetuates social injustice. How does religion masks the social reality of

oppression and exploitation of one class by the other class? This is mainly

done through the internalisation of religious preaching. Let us see more

on this in the following section.

5.4 Religion- an Instrument of Oppression

Religion in Marx's opinion soothes the pains of oppression as well as act as

an instrument of oppression. It dulls the pain of oppression, for example,

in Christianity, by promising a paradise of eternal bliss in li fe after death.

The appeal of Christianity to the oppressed classes lies in its promise of

salvation from the bondage and misery in the after life. The Christian

vision of heaven can make life on earth more bearable by giving people

something to look forward. Religions also make a virtue of the sufferings

produced by oppression. They preach that those who bear the deprivationsof poverty with dignity and humility will be rewarded for their virtue in

afterl ife, in a way making poverty more bearable. Another way of religion

to appease oppression is the offer of supernatural intervention to solve

the problems on earth. Members of religious groups such as Jehovah's

Witness live i n anticipation of the day when the supernatural powers wil l

descend form on high and create heaven on earth (Haralombos 1981)

anticipation of this future can' make the present more acceptable. Thus

religion often justifies the social order as wel l as the oppressed state of

the people within i t . It perpetuates the inevitability of the social

arrangements and social stratification by pronouncing that the poverty

and misfortune are divinely ordained as punishment for sin.

Religion not only legitimizes oppression, according to Marx, but also acts

as an instrument of that oppression. It acts as a mechanism of social

control, maintaining the existing social system of exploitation on reinforcing

the class relationships. It also discourages people from attempting to

change their li fe by justifying their miseries in this worldly l ife. It offers

an illusion of hope in the hopeless situation and i t prevents the thoughts

of overthrowing the system. It distorts reality and produce false

consciousness, which blinds the members of the oppressed class to their

true situation and their real interests. In this way i t diverts attention

from the real source of their oppression and so helps to maintain ruling

class power (Ibid).

How religion operates as an instrument of oppression i n any society?

Religion operates in any given society both as a dominant ideo\o!3~ nd

s U p e r ~ t ~ u ~ t ~ r e .et us see these aspects in the following

Marxian Theory



5.5 The Dominant Ideology - Religion

In German Ideology Marx rega rded ideolog ies as systems of misleading oril lusionary ideas. He distinguishes between ideology, which is i l lusionaryand non-verif iable, from science, which is real and verif iable. For himideology is a process accomplished by an in div idu al consciously w ith a falseconsciousness. He considered ideology as a negative and re stric ted concept.It is negat ive because i t invo lves d is tor t ion, a misrepresentat ion bfcontradictions. I t s restr icted because i t does n ot cover a ll kinds of errorsand distortions. In his conception of religion as misrepresented ideas ofsocial reality Marx was highly influenced by the religious conceptions ofFeuerbach (Bottomore 1981 .

a ) In f luence of Feuerbach on Kar l Marx

Marx owes his philosophical awakening to Feuerbach. Two o f Feuerbach'sim po rtan t works on religion are The Essence of Ch ristia nity and Lectureson the Essence of Rel ig ion. T he ce nt ra l thou ght i n The Essence ofChrist iani ty i s that the superhuman deit ies of rel igion are actually theinvoluntary project ions of the essential attr ibutes of human nature. InFeuerbach's own words: "Man p roje cts his being in to object ivity, andthen again makes himself an object to this projected image of himselfthus converted into a subjec t". What the devout m ind worships as God is

Box 5.3: Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach

Lud wig Andreas F euerbac h was a Ge rman phi losoph er who wasinfluenc ed by Hegel and who himself influenc ed th e wo rk of Marx andEngels. He crit iqued rel igion and Christ ianity in his 1841 book Das

Weses des Ch ristentum s (T he Essence of C hr ist ian ity ). Feuerba chdef ined rel ig ion as a sort of "dream" and argued that "spir i tualdevelopment" was more about humans than about gods. Basically, hisargument was tha t be lief i n gods i s a product of anthropomorphismbecause humans project their own ideals and images upon nature.Feuerbach i s w el l known as th e autho r of The Essence of Ch ristianity,f irst published in German in 1841 and Lectures on the Essence ofReligion (1848). For him religion i s a symbolic representation of manand t ha t t o e l im ina t e human se l f - a l i ena t i on re l i g i on has t o bedem ystif ied and placed upon rat ional level.

Some key ph rases f r om Essence o f C h r i s t i a n i t y t h a t exp ressFeuerbach's thesis:

"God is man, man i s God".

"Atheism i s the secret of religion".

"Religion itself, not indeed on the surface, bu t fundamentally, no t i nintent ion or according to i t s own supposition, but in i t s heart , i n i tsessence, believes in nothing else than th e tr u th and divin ity of hum annature."

"Religion takes the apparent, the s upe rficial in Na ture and humanityfo r th e essential, and hence conceives the ir t ru e essence as a separate,special existence. ""Religion is the dream o f th e human m ind... n these days, illusio n onlyis sacred, t ru th profane."

Source: Harvey 1997.



self-understanding, revealing t o us our essential nature and wo rth.aken at face value, they a re alienating insofar as they b etray us in to

g our own possibilities outside of us as attrib ute s of God and not o f

wn essential nature. Theology, as Feuerbach sees it , only reinforcesion by taking the object if icat ions of rel igion for rea l

s, and the theologians end up wit h dogmas that a re self-contrad ictory1997) .

Th e Essence of Relig ion he locates the subjective source of religionn human dependence on nature. The forces of n ature on which our

rceiving the m as personal beings lik e ourselves. "Nature, i n reality,t a personal being; i t has no heart, it i s blind and deaf to th e desires

of man". In short, relig ion is superstition, and scienceit .

humans make religion i n the ir own image;

they cling t o religion so long as they fe el the continued need to pro jec tthemselves on to the universe, so long as they love th e illusion o f th eirdreams more than the reality of the waking world;

one of the signs of human maturity i s the self-conscious attempt toovercome human self-alienation, to be conscious of the projectiveimpulse that gives rise to religion, and then t o leave religion, as such,

i s that man makes religion and thata that God makes man i s an inversion. Marx agreed w it h Feuerbach

the social arrangements, which preve nt these aims and desires fr om

a ll the mo re strongly t o realise love, justice, goodnesssdom in the human world. For Marx too religious conceptions a re

ersions that conceal the reality.

x also pushes furth er than Feuerbach to give a precise analysis of ,

-alienation, of th e reasons why humans get involved i n clingingo an il lusory world of projections i n the firs t place. For him humans and

ufferings of the rea l world. For him th e state and the society producei s an inve rted consciousness of the wo rld because they are

(Cr itiq ue of Hegel's Philosophy of Righ t: Introd ucti on) .

gious inversion compensates i n the mind for a de ficient reality; i t

itutes in th e imagination a coherent solution, which i s beyond thed i n order t o make up for the contradictions of the real world.

Marxian Theory



Classical Theories Marx later calls these inverted ideas as ideology (in German Ideology),something that s tarts f rom consciousness instead of mater ial real i ty(Bottomore 1979). According to him the real problems of the humanityare no t mistaken ideas but r ea l social contradictions and tha t these mistakenideas or ideology are actually the consequences of the social contradictions.And Marx argues that due to the limited material mode of activity thehuman beings are unable t o solve the social contradictions in practice and

hence they tend to project them in ideological forms of consciousness,which i s to say, pu rely menta l or discursive solutions which ef fec tive lyconceal or misrepresent the ex is tence and charac ter is t ic o f thesecontradictions. Thus the religious ideology conceals the social contradictionsand contributes to their reproduction and serves the interests of theruling class. The ideolog ical distortions m anifested i n the religious ideascannot be overcome by crit ic ism; they can disappear only when thecontradictions, which give rise t o them, are pra ctically resolved.

Marx i s therefore a f ierce cr i t ic of rel ig ion, though he is aiming notprimarily at religion as a cause of the problem, but only as a symptom

that, once present, becomes pa rt of th e corru pt socio-p olit ical order andonly perpetuates the very problem i t professes to solve. He says "Theab olit ion of religion as the il lusory happiness o f th e p eople i s required forrea l happiness. 'The demand t o give up the illusions about i t s condition isth e demand to give up a cond ition tha t needs illusions... hus the c rit icismof heaven turns int o the crit ic ism of earth... he crit ic ism of theology in tothe crit icism of polit ics". (Giddens).

a) Th e Origin of Religious Ideology

In German ldeology crit ic izing Feurbach (for whom rel igion i s just anillusion) explains the social and po lit ica l origin of religious ideology. ForMarx humanity or man i s no t uniform a t a ll t imes o f societal development.

There are differe nt sorts of 'men' existed a t diffe re nt t imes and places.Men for him are social beings whose na ture changes w ith the sort o f l ifethey lead. The sort of l i fe they lead changes according t o the way i nwhich they get their l iving, according to the tools and organisations oflabour they employ to get food and shelter and to sat isfy their otherneeds. W ith th e developm ent of hum an society division of labour appearsamong men and between men and work. The division of labour leads t oclass divisions and at different t imes different classes have dominatedhuman societies in accordance with whatever was th e predom inant mode

Box 5.4: Shift in the Conception of Ideology in Marxism(from Negative to Positive connotation)

Soon afte r Marx' d eath the concept o f ideology began t o acquire newmeanings. The new meanings took two main forms: conception ofideology as the totality of forms of social consciousness, which cameto be expressed by the concept o f ideo logical superstructure; and theconception of ideology as the p olitic al ideas connected wi th th e interestsof class. These new meanings finally displaced the original negativeconnotation of the concept of ideology. The thinkers after Marx evencalled Marxism as an ideology. W ith Lenin the process of change in themeaning of ideology reaches i n its culmination. For him ideology i s thepo liti ca l consciousness linked t o th e in terests o f various classes and in

particular he focuses on the opposition between bourgeois and thesocialist ideology. Thus for him ideo logy i s no t a distortion wh ich conceals

contradict ions but becomes a ne utral concept referring to the po li t icalconsciousness of classes, including th e pro leta rian class.



of production. One class w il l dominate i n every society depending on th emode of p roduction and na ture o f division of labour. When division takesplace in th e dom inant class the re forms a sub class who specialise inproduct ion of ideas. Since these ideas are produced from within thedominant class, th ey w il l be imposed upon the w hole society. T hey wi ll i nfac t b e the expression o f th e needs and aspirations of th e dominant classalthough they w il l be seem t o those who fram e them and many others t o

be of universal significance. Religious ideas (also othe r ideas lik e legal,polit ical, art ist ic, philosophical etc .) are produced in the society i n suchway by specialists at th e behest of a given class or wit hin the frame workof a given histo rical epoch and these ideas repro duce a false consciousnessof things. Thus religion originates as a dom inant ideology i n any pa rticula rhistorical epoch gives th e disto rted views of t he world as reality. (Aron1965).

5.6 Religion as Super Structure

For Marx economy is the foundation of the whole socio-cultural system.

The economic system of product ion and distr ibut ion or the means andrelat ions of product ion in the Marxian sense const i tute the basic structureof society. The production of immediate material means of subsistenceand the consequent degree o f economic development fo rm the foundat ionupon which othe r insti tut ion s such as state, lega l conceptions, aesthe ticand religious ideas of the people concerned are developed. Hence fo rMarx l ike al l other factors i n the human experience, the found at ion ofreligion too is dependent upon th e economic factor.

Marx v iewed re l ig ion as one facet of that whole which he cal ls thesuperstructure and that is based on and affected by the infrastructure.

The shif t in th e historical epochs along wit h the change in th e economicinf rast ructure there occurs t ransformat ion of the superst ructure. Sodifferences i n religion occur wi th changes i n he infrastructu re. He proposedthat earl ier (pre-capital ist) rel igious bel iefs arose from primit ive man'shelplessness i n his struggle against na ture, wh ile i n the class society i t isroote d in his struggle against man. In man's quest and struggle againsth is exp lo i te rs , th e work ing masses exper ience a d i f fe r en t f o rm o fhelplessness- and this experience is what changed religion and introd uce dthe bel ief i n a bet te r l i fe i n a hereafter, the al leged reward for h is ear th lysuffering.

Marx adds a ll th e facets of supe rstructure such as religion, state, po litica l,legal philosophical and artis t ic rea ct upon one another as w e ll as upon th eeconomic base. Thus, i t is no t the economic situht ion is th e sole act ivecause. The reciprocity am ong and betw een the economic institutio ns actas cause of change, though econom ic n ecessity always asserts its el f. Forhim the human thought, huma n awareness and hum an consciousness we renot self-originating but are derivatives of economic principle. And it i s inthis arena tha t th e religions must b e con trolled and human consciousnessbrought under dominance. In tha t sense religion must be u nderstood i nterms of the condit ions that produced (and produce) it .

Marxian 'Ileory

5.7 Marx on 'Jewish Question'

Marx was a Jew by birth and later converted to Protestantism. He wascrit ica l of b oth Christianity and Judaism though his host i l i ty to Christ ianitywas m ild compared t o Judaism. Most of his religious interp reta tions we rebased on the religio n o f Christianity. He also di d study Judaism, wh ich



Classical Theories Christianity) in society. His hostile view of Jews and Judaism i s expressedi n 1843 under th e ti tl e "On the Jew ish Question" (Marx 1977). This essayi s Marx's c rit icism of Bruno Bauer's s tudy on the emanc ipation of Jews inGermany. This essay i s among Marx's "pre-Marxist" writ ings since hewrote it before becoming a communist. Bauer took the position that th eachievement of Jewish eman cipation i n Prussia could no t occur u n ti l Jewshaci renounced the ir id en tity as a separate people. And Bauer also argued

tha t it was n ot possible to grant em ancipation t o the Jews when Christiansthemselves were not free.

Marx criticised Bauer's stance, citing among other things the experienceof th e United States whose B i l l of Rights and many of i t s state constitutionshad established separation between church and state of state ne utralitybetween religious faiths. For Marx, religion i s a private matter and thestate had no r ight to in tervene other than on issues concern ing theindividual as cit izen. Marx argued that the polit ical emancipation of theJews i n Prussia would not re quire th at the Jews give up their ide nti ty as aseparate group or people. However, Marx then dre w a distinction be twee npolit ical emancipation and human emancipation. Polit ical emancipationfor M arx meant the achieving of p olit ica l rights under the bourgeois state.

Marx argued that this sort of emancipation was insufficient since thesesort of rights were linked to egoism and private property. The sort oflibe rty th at was possible under the bourgeois state was not to be equatedw it h a genuine human eman cipat ion which i n his v iew required thetranscendence of what he, at the time called commercial society. ForMarx whereas the achievement of polit ical emancipation required thatJews be granted equal civi l r ights with Genti les, human emancipat ionrequired the abolit ion of th e dis tinction betw een Jews and Gentiles as asocial distinction, which was rooted in comm ercial society (what he late rcalled cap italism).

Marx in "On th e Jewish Question" wen t t o provide such a social analysisfocusing on the material roots for the existence of a Jewish minorityw ithi n C hristian Europe. For Marx this m ater ial basis lied w ithi n the fa ctth at Jews were disproportionately conc entrated in trade and commerce,which gave them real economic and polit ical power out of proportion totheir actual numbers. This economic power made i t possible for the Jewsto press the demand for civi l equality and to inf i l t rate their social andcom me rcial values int o c iv il society. 'The state i n turn was dependent uponthe Jews for i t s own financial integrity and so i t required that the Jews

perform their functions within the world of commerce. Thus civil societyi n Marx's view provided the m ater ial basis for t he existence of the Jewsas a separate group or caste, which needed them as traders, huckster,and moneylenders. Therefore, the Jews would n ot disappear un ti l eithe r

they abandoned their roles as traders and hucksters or the state itselfliberated itself from the need for commercialism.

5.8 Crit icisms t o Marxian Approach to the Study of

Marxian theory of religion i s not without criticisms. Let us see some ofthem here.

Marx draws most of h is re l ig ious in ter pre tat i on s f rom t he study ofChristianity, the religicn he was most familiar with. He i s not taking in to

consideration the religions in general although his comments do hold forother religions w ith sim ilar doctrines of a pow erfu l god and happy afterlife;they do not apply to radically diffe ren t religions. It i s possible t o say t h at



in this ma tter he was influen ced by Hegel, who thought th at C hristianity Marxian rheory

was the highest form of rel igion and that whatever was said about thatalso automa tically app lied t o "lesser" religions - but that isn' t t rue.

Another f law of this theory i s th at he argues rel igion i s whol ly determinedby material and economic rea li t ies. N ot only i s nothing else fundam entalenough to influen ce rel igion, bu t also influence cannot run in the o therdirection, from rel igion to m ateria l and economic realit ies. This also proved

to be false because i f Marx were right, then capital ism w ould appear i ncountries prior to Protestantism because Protestantism i s the rel igioussystem created by cap ital ism - but we don't f ind this. The Reformationcomes to 16th century Germany, which i s s t i l l f euda l i n na tu re; r ea lcapitalism doesn 't appear u n ti l th e 19 th century. This caused Max Weberto theorize tha t rel igious insti tutions end up creating new economic reali ties.

Some argue with evidence that Marxian proposit ions about the role ofrelig ion in the society must be l im i ted t o the operat ion o f re lig ion a tcerta in times and i n certain places. So also one shall not re strict to theidea that rel igion i s only dependent upon economics and nothing else,such that the actu al doctrines of rel igions are almost irrelev an t. Instead,

we can recognise tha t there are a varie ty of social influences upon rel igion,including economic and ma teri al rea l i t ies of society. By the same token,rel igion can in turn have an influen ce upon society's economic system.

The contemporary period witnessed the breaking down of the communistsociety th at M arx talks about. It s also true th at rel igion never disappearedi n the Marx's comm unist utopia.

In spite of a number of problems with his ideology and personality, Marx'stheory of society and of religion, wh ile i n many ways controv ersial, hasnonetheless provided great insight in to th e fun ctioning o f society. Whateverone's f inal conclusion about the accuracy or val idity of Marx's ideas on

rel igion, we should recognise that he provided an invaluable service byforcing people to take a h ard look at th e social web in which rel igionalways occurs. Because of his work, i t has become impossible to studyrel igion wi thout also explor ing i t s t ies to various social and economicforces. Even for those who fin d i t di f f icul t to accept his pol i t ical views,

his social theory based on th e inte ractio n betwe en the social infras tructu reand superstructure has been and continues to be an important departingpo int for the sociological approach t o the study of society and rel igion.

5.9 Conclusion

The present uni t looks into the Marxian interpretat ion of rel igion. Hisconception on rel igion can not be seen in isolation, it has to be placed inthe context of his ent i re theory of histor ical mater ial ism and economicdeterminism. He viewed rel igion i n terms of i t s social purpose. For him

the p rimordia l factor of analysis of th e society i s economic. And al l otheraspects are generated from and the manifestations of the economic aspectsof th e society. R eligion i s also no diff ere nt; because for him i t s emanateddue to the economic necessity of al l forms of society. He believed therul ing class are the creators and perpetuators o f the rel igious notions andit manifest in the society as the do minant ideology, which i s inver tedreality. Religion s nversion of rea li ty since i t unctions towards maintain ing

social system of oppressors and oppressed by ju stify ing i t through rel igiousteachings. But he believed these notions would continue till people'sconsciousness continues t o be 'false consciousness'. He argued w henoppressed people (proletariat) real ise social real i ty, they work towardsthe change of the existing system and thereby historical epochs move



Classical Theories fro m one phase to other. The fina l stage i s th e socialist communist society,which will be a classless society according to Marx. Since there i s noquestion o f oppression i n a classless society, t he re i s no need of religiontoo.

The un i t p rov ides a b r ie f account o f Marx ' soc ia l theory so as toconceptual ise h is re l ig ious not ions. Then i t discusses his rel ig iousconceptualisations and his explanation on how religious notions operatesi n differ en t societies. Marx's ideas on Judaism also been brie fly discussedi n the u nit . The last section of the unit deals wi th the crit icisms o f Marxiantheory of religion.

5.10 FurtherReading

Marx, K. and F Engels, 1975. On Religion. Progress Publishers: Moscow.

Bo ttomore , T., 1979 led. ) Karl Marx. Basil Publishers: Oxford.

Giddens, Antony, 1992. Capita lism and Modern Social Theory: An Analysisof th e Writings of Ma rx , Durkheim and Max Weber. Cambridge

University Press Cambridge.

References

Aron, Raymond, 1965. Main Currents in Sociological Thought. Vol. 1.Penguin Books: London.

Abercombie, N. e t al. 1980. The Dominant ldeology Thesis.Allen 8 Unwin:London.

Feuer, L. S., 1969. Marx and the Intellectuals. Doubleday: Garden City,N.Y.

Mannheim, K. 1936. ldeology and dtopia. Ha rcou rt: New York.

Marx, K. 1977. "On the Jewish Que stion," i n D. McLellan ed. Karl Marx.

Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Marx, K. and F. Engels, 1968. "Manifesto o f the Comm unist Party" i nSelected Works Progress Publishers: Moscow.

Marx, K. an d F. Engels, 1976. The German Ideology, Progress Publishers:

Moscow.

Harvey, Van A. 1997, Feuerbach and the Inte rpr eta tion of Religion.

Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

And rew, Co l l i e r 2001 Christ iani ty and Marxism: A Phi losophical

Contribution to Their Reconciliation. Routledge: London.

Tucker, R. ed. 1978. The Marx-Engels Reader WW N orto n: New York.

Wilson Bryan 1982. Religion in Sociological Perspective. Oxford U niversityPress: Oxford.

Plas, D.L. 1996. Seven Theories of Religion. Oxford University Press:

Oxford

He rber t Aptheker ed. 1968. Marxian Christianity. Humanities Press: NewYork.

Bo ttom ore , T.B. 1963. Karl Marx, Early Writings. (translated) C.A. Watsand Co.: London

the marxian theory

Documents