When it comes to religion, I find the functionalist perspective particularly intriguing. This sociological approach offers a framework for understanding the roles of social institutions and their contribution to societal stability, viewing society as a complex, interconnected system, much like a biological organism. Each part, whether it's the family, the education system, or the economy, serves a specific function to ensure the smooth operation of the whole.
From this perspective, religion is an essential institution that creates social solidarity, provides moral guidance, imparts meaning and purpose, and enforces social control. Emile Durkheim, a key figure in functionalist theory, saw religious rituals as a way to strengthen the "collective conscience" — the shared beliefs and values that bind society together. Similarly, Bronislaw Malinowski, another influential functionalist, emphasized the psychological role of religion, noting how it offers comfort and alleviates anxiety during times of stress and uncertainty.
Like all theoretical frameworks, however, functionalism has its critics. They argue that functionalism can sometimes oversimplify religion, failing to account for its potential to incite conflict and societal division.
Applying a critical lens to functionalism allows us to understand the power dynamics at play. In the case of Madagascar, for instance, colonizers might have introduced Christianity as a means to “civilize” Malagasy people and foster “social stability” — a stability that primarily served the interests of the colonizers. Christian teachings could have been used to encourage obedience and acceptance of colonial authority.
From the perspective of conflict theory, religion is often seen as a means for the powerful to maintain social inequality. Dominant groups may use religious doctrines to justify their power and privilege, encouraging acceptance of the status quo, even when it disadvantages marginalized groups.
In Madagascar, conflict theory highlights how religion was used by colonizers as a mechanism to assert control over Malagasy people. Christianity, as introduced by colonizers, could have been a strategic attempt to destabilize traditional Malagasy social structures and belief systems. The imposition of a new religion can be seen as cultural imperialism, gradually eroding the unique cultural identity of Malagasy people.
Feminist theory adds another layer of critique, examining how religion often reinforces gender roles and inequalities. Many religious traditions are patriarchal in nature, assigning different roles and statuses to men and women. Women may find themselves excluded from religious leadership or authority, and religious teachings can often confine them to domestic roles.
Beyond social science perspectives, religion is also seen as a means of spiritual exploration.
There are many ways to approach religion, with interpretations I may not fully understand. However, when it comes to the question of which religious belief I subscribe to, the answer is none.
I’m, in fact, an atheist.
Contrary to common misconceptions, atheism is not a belief system. It is defined by the absence of belief in deities, gods, goddesses, or any supernatural entities. However, it’s important to clarify that atheism does not inherently claim these entities do not exist—it simply refrains from believing in them.
Atheism also does not prescribe a moral code. Atheists are fully capable of adhering to strong ethical standards, often grounded in reason, empathy, and humanistic values. The absence of religious belief does not equate to a lack of morality. In fact, it often motivates individuals to construct ethical frameworks based on human experience and rational thought.
For me, the absence of religious belief also means I don’t feel the need to connect with something greater than myself or to seek a transcendent purpose. I find comfort in understanding that the challenges I face are often the consequences of human choices—mine and others’. Above all, I like the idea that the responsibility for my happiness rests solely on my shoulders.
This perspective resonates with existentialism, a philosophy I deeply identify with. The famous phrase by Jean-Paul Sartre, “existence precedes essence,” captures this sentiment: humans are not born with a predetermined purpose. We exist first, then through our choices and actions, we define who we are and what our life means.
Existentialists argue that humans are fundamentally free. We are not bound by destiny, societal expectations, or divine plans. However, this freedom comes with immense responsibility. Since we define our own essence, we are fully responsible for the choices we make and the life we build.
I understand your writting as an intellectual posture which sets in the center the condition of a moral life, the guaranty of happiness, and an anticonformism against traditional value model i.e which doesn't depend on any social strict frame (if it is sayable) as an universal reference.
So, you take the exemple of religion which assemble many people to adhere to some kind of representations which serve as universal frame value.
I understand that your field is the social area, and I interprete what you said about the outcome of human choices as what are happening in the physical world are correlated to human choices or human acts (voluntary done or not). (Sorry if this sentence is not really clear…