Sociology in religion

Sociology in religion

As Putnam and Campbell search to uncover the relationship between sociological developments and religious institutions, a conclusion reached by the authors affirms that religion is major affected by cultural changed, and their interconnectivity creates a symbiotic correlation. To validate the conclusion, the recent rise of feminism and increasingly irrelevant gender roles in today’s society can be brought to investigation. How have religious institutions been effected by the feminist revolution, and has this affect derived from the encouragement of the movement, or resistance of it?

In a odder cultural setting of women rising to equivocal levels of men in almost every aspect of our society, did Putnam and Campbell account for the ongoing oppression of women in conservative religions when drawing their conclusion? A critical analysis of the text will examine the interconnectivity between the revolutionary bounds of social equality women have overcome within the past few decades, and the formation of religious institutions in response to this.

To preface, Putnam and Campbell make substantiated claims that religion is greatly correlated to two specific aspects of women’s sights: (1) the culture war of the sass’s, referred to as the “shock” and (2) women’s entry into the paid workforce, referred to as the “second-wave of feminism” (Putnam and Campbell). Beginning by highlighting the culture war, the sixties proved to be a time of revolutionary change due to the massive generational transformation stemmed from the liberalism of the Baby Boomers.

Due to this new era of drugs, war, and hippies, both conventional religion and morality was put into question and created turmoil of all sorts-?political, social, sexual, and religious. Younger generations articulating in this counter culture began to stray from their traditional upbringings, and religious following was at an all time low, and as a result: “survey after survey in the 1 9605 and 1 9705 reported steadily declining confidence in all institutions, including organized religion” (Putnam, 94).

With this decline in all religion in general, the institution that declined the least was evangelicalism and conservatives and is referred to by the authors as the aftershock. This rise is primarily a reaction to the spiritual and moral decay Of the sass: most educated evangelical young people stayed in their original that, thus swelling evangelical chi arches, while at the same time moving evangelicalism as a whole up the social scale. The loyalty of evangelical children rose simultaneously with the first aftershock (Roberto).

The question that is raised from this synopsis is: how did this affect the role of women in religion? It’s best explained in a summary accounted by John Roberto: A rise of secular generations occurred as a reaction to religiously conservative politics. The younger generations saw religion as mainly concerned about conservative politics and especially about traditional positions of sexual morality, like homosexuality. In effect, many of these Americans who might have been religious, but were liberal on moral issues, said, “if that’s what religion is all about, then it’s not fore me. The second aftershock during the sass and sass thrust a substantial number of Americans, especially young Americans, in a decidedly nonreligious direction. This rise created a more liberal state of mind in a large sum of Americans. A particularly noteworthy aspect of this is the loosen of sexual morality, relating to the argument because women became less socialized and the notion of women being the property of their husbands quickly lessen-?and this new state of mind estates into the realms of religion.

As society began to expand under this foundation, women became increasingly more respected and their presence was accepted into various social realms that previously were not inviting for women. On the list of newly acceptable places for women to thrive is the workplace, which is another affect of the rise of women in religion according to our authors. Putnam and Campbell claim that these are interrelated because it was a social change that happened simultaneously, but the authors continue by giving little example to what sort of revolutionary changes happened to omen inside of the churches.

This brings the validity of their conclusion regarding cultural development and religion to question: did the authors uncover correlation, or are they over generalizing causation for the sake Of the argument? Other experts have questioned the correlation as well, as Wealthiest journalist Wilfred McCall goes it say: “In matters of sexuality, they offer a surprisingly crude formulation that reflects the authors’ rather coercive brand of moderation: The popularization of the past five decades on sexual matters has come about because “libertines and prudes have successively provoked one another.

If only the sensible, nonexistent folks had been able to prevail, everything would have been much neater and nicer” (McCall). As McCall continues in his article, Putnam and Campbell miss a very crucial point as they fail to mention that the federal government had a large role in the makings of women’s rights, and certain freedoms that the authors mention in the text were not simply granted by an open-minded church, but rather it became mandated on a legal standpoint (McCall).

Putnam and Campbell continue to loose credibility in the aspects Of women in religion has they fall to present data showing religious institutions have adopted the women’s movement. Throughout the text as a whole, the core findings are conveyed in a comprehensive and efficient manner, but it seems to fall short in the chapter regarding feminism and the church.

To make a bold enough statement to say that “religion did not create or encourage the feminist revolution of the last half century, neither did religion do much to forestall it” (Putnam, 246), sufficient evidence needs to be displayed that shows that religion was not resistant to the change. Putnam and Campbell do not showcase this, as the only provided example of religious rights for women s that women and men are no longer segregated in the pews as they were in the past (Putnam).

In comparison to the rest of the world in regards to the women’s movement, religion institutions are far behind, and that constitutes as resistance. Regardless, Robert D. Putnam and David E. Campbell conducted an impressively factual and valid analysis of the current state of American religion that educates its reader into understand more about this social phenomenon. However, when it comes to the subject of the feminist revolution, the text itself is just another example showing how far religion has to go before reaching gender equality.

Please follow and like us:
Haven’t found the essay you want?