Sociology of Religion

by Roberto Cipriani

Sociology of Religion represents a documented introduction to the history of sociological thought as applied to religious phenomena. It examines both the substantive and functional definitions of religion that are more open, pluralistic, and not inscribed in a single explanatory horizon or within a single confessional perspective. The contributors' concerns are carefully written to show all sides of the argument. Roberto Cipriani argues for the simple definition that the sociology of religion is an application of sociological theories and methods to religious phenomena. Historically, close ties between sociology and the sociology of religion exist. The slow and uneven development of theory and methods affects the sociology of religion's development, but the latter has also benefited from increasing precision and scientific validity. Other sociological writers agree and disagree about different approaches. Some assume it is a militantly confessional or anti-confessional; others remain neutral within their work.

Genres: Religion, Sociology

330 pages, Paperback

First published December 31, 2000

Reviews

[Erika RS]

This book was accidentally listed on the book list for a course I took as an undergrad, so I bought it and never read it. However, I am a book enthusiast, so I kept it with the intention of someday reading it. The book is, in fact, a full out sociology book. It summarizes views of important sociologists of religion over the last however many years.

For the most part, the content was beyond my understanding. However, there were some parts that I both understood and found interesting. One of the first issues discussed in the book was the distinction between substantive and functional definitions of religion. Substantive definitions tend to focus on religious practices, the role of the supernatural, etc. Functional definitions tend to focus on religion as an institution in society.

Also interesting was the distinction between religiosity and religion. I find it hard to define exactly what the sociologists mean by religiousity; the best way I can think to put it is that religiosity is the personal, fluid aspect of the blob called religious belief while religion is the shared, systematic part. The distinction is interesting because it helps me understand part of the communication problems that arise when I try to talk about religious beliefs to people who were raised religious. They, in some approximate sense, started with religion and acquired religiosity while I see religion as something that should be put off without my own religiosity.

Finally, a minor point that bugged me about the book. In general, sociologists were introduced as first-name last-name and then consistently referred to as last-name. However, female sociologists were sometimes referred to as first-name last-name after their introduction. A minor point, certainly, but one that has always bugged me since I first noticed that people (including myself before then) tended to refer to male authors by their last names but female authors by their full names, even when there was no ambiguity.