Assessment 1 (Methods and Approach, ANDRE BETEILLE)

Assessment-1
Discuss the approaches and methods to studying religion as a subject for

sociology, as highlighted by Andre Beteille.
In Religion as a Subject for Sociology, Andre Beteille investigates the

sociological method for assessing religion. He contends that religious research
in sociology concentrates on approaches and procedures to investigating
humanity as its entirety. Religion sociology is an emerging field or a young
subfield within an established field. The variety of methodologies used to
investigate religion needs to be emphasized to show off the distinctive features
of the sociology perspective. He argues that even though we do not study
religion only because it develops, sociology would seem to be a good discipline
for researching it.
Sociologists examining religion have considered evolutionary scientists,
functionalists, is structuralism, and numerous additional points of view.
Theology is a particularly ancient branch of study, followed by philosophy of
religion, which combines psychology and theology. Theological studies have
also played a major part in Judaism and Islam's intellectual traditions.
According to Beteille, the divide between different techniques becomes so thin
that it is possible to turn across it while knowing. It is, nevertheless, as
necessary to make variances.
When he began the study of religion with sociological and anthropological
approaches, he differentiates between how a theologian works and how a
sociologist analyses. He describes sociology as an empirical study that is more
realistic and empathetic, whereas theology as a normative study that is based
on norms and hence judgmental. A theologian chooses truth from beliefs and
practices, but a sociologist's main goal is to observe, characterize, analyses,
and explain how religious ideas and practices work. The first studies link and
focuses on the institutional or outside expressions of religion, whereas the
second investigates links and focusses on the institutional or outside
expressions of religion.
The sociological approach stands out by its two primary characteristics: the
first is a broad application of comparisons, and the second is the examination
of religious beliefs, behaviours, and institutions with respect to other cultural
components. Both Emile Durkheim and Radcliffe Brown advocated for taking a
comparative method to evaluate their separate case studies of Australian
Aborigines and Andaman Islanders in order to discover general laws about
society and institutions such as religious institutions.
The natural sciences could be related to social anthropology and sociology.
Even if they were unable to find these universal rules, the comparative
technique is still extremely useful since it pushes a person to exercise a
discipline that could not naturally occur to them while analysing different
facets of social life. Regardless of our obligations it allows the person to
consider different communities in some ways. By putting all civilizations on an
equal basis with one another, the comparative technique eliminates privilege. It
promotes in the learning of facts. A comparative method is consistent with an
evolutionary approach. The idea is to comprehend how people exercise their
faith.
The second differentiating element of the sociological approach is that it
studies religious facts with respect to other social realities. According to
Beteille, the method used by sociologists does not favour one's religion over
other religions, but it also does not promote religion over other aspects of
social life. Because sociological study emphasises on the connections of many
institutional domains, it is hard to properly appreciate religion without also
examining other closely connected spheres of existence, such as familial,
economic, and political life.
Beteille shows the sociological approach using M.N. Srinivas' study of the
relationship between religion and society among the Coorgs in South India.
Srinivas is studying social structure by examining caste, village, and tribes.
Later, he distinguishes between the book view and the field view of society,
providing us with a field vision of Hinduism. Sociologists study and explain the
meanings that people place on their acts, as well as the behaviours themselves.
Nevertheless, each scholar views their work from a distinctive point of view. For
example, Durkheim argued that it was important to investigate social
interactions from the outside before tearing into their underlying significance.
Even though Durkheim was portrayed as a conservative who placed an undue
weight on religion, Richard and Evans Pritchard later questioned his sociology
of religion because they considered Durkheim had overreacted and made
unjustified conclusions.
To contrast with Durkheim, another sociologist, Max Weber, campaigned for
methods and processes in social inquiry and interpretive sociology that aid in
understanding and interpreting social interactions. Despite his vast work on
religion, he considered himself religiously unmusical because he valued notions
like as objectivity and value neutrality. To be called value-neutral, a person
should be able to understand and evaluate religious organisations, beliefs, and
practises from the perspective of an outsider without being unduly attached to
the ideas of their faith. This is not to argue that one should dismiss the
importance of values in social life.
For a while now, two schools of thought have been at odds: one that advocates
objectivity, detachment, and value neutrality, and the other that encourages
commitment, engagement, and partisanship. Indeed, objectivity in
comprehending or interpreting our beliefs and practises is not something that
comes either easily or effortlessly. However, this does not mean that one should
abandon attempts to disprove their claims.
Since a consequence, Beteille made two significant inferences from religion
sociology. The first is that obtaining value-neutrality is an exceedingly difficult
task thinking about how much it is sought, and what is achieved is never
completely sufficient. He went on to say that proponents of scientific sociology,
such as Durkheim, were opposed to Max Weber's interpretive sociology. The
former tends to minimise the problem and implies that anyone can fix it if the
correct solution is provided. Proponents of the latter theory, on the other hand,
believe that there is no quick remedy.
The second lesson from sociology of religion is that sociology cannot offer an
accurate representation of the world in terms of facts or values because it must
account for the wide range of opinions that exist in society. As a result, no one
can truly appreciate the significance of religious rites or beliefs without also
feeling concerned about the situation.
Beteille demonstrates the continual need of social research being impartial
and objective at the end. The distinctiveness of social inquiry derives from a
need for fairness, which aids in accounting for several points of view.

Assessment 1 (Methods and Approach, ANDRE BETEILLE)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assessment 1 (Methods and Approach, ANDRE BETEILLE)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assessment 1 (Methods and Approach, ANDRE BETEILLE)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assessment-1

Discuss the approaches and methods to studying religion as a subject for

In Religion as a Subject for Sociology, Andre Beteille investigates the

You might also like