The story of Indonesia’s ongoing political reformation,
the “Reformasi” is a long one. Despite the success of independence struggles
from the Dutch between 1945 to 1949, President Sukarno gradually shifted from
democracy towards authoritarianism, dubbed “Guided Democracy.” An alleged
attempted coup by the communists in 1965 saw General Suharto take power from
President Sukarno and institute his own authoritarian “New Order”. For three
decades, backed by military support, inside and outside of parliament, Suharto
ruled Indonesia, and, supported by the US government, encouraged foreign direct
investment in Indonesia, which was a major factor in the subsequent period of
substantial economic growth. However, the "New Order" was widely
accused of corruption and suppression of political opposition, with over a
million thought to have been killed under the repressive regime, within
Indonesia as well as human rights abuses in Tanah (West Papua) and Timor-Leste.
The Asian Economic Crisis was the catalyst for a major
paradigm shift in Indonesian politics. Being the hardest hit by the crisis, this
led to popular protest against the New Order which led to Suharto's resignation
in May 1998 and handing over of power to the power over to the Vice President
B.J. Habibie. In 1999, East Timor voted in a UN-supervised popular referendum
to secede from Indonesia, after a twenty-five-year military occupation that was
marked by international condemnation of repression of the East Timorese. Since
1998, Indonesian political and governmental structures have undergone major
reforms. One of those who has played a key role in the reforms, which includes
the transition of power from the military to the state, from within the
Indonesian armed forces is Lt. General (Ret.) Agus Widjojo.
Agus (as he introduced himself on joining a lunch with
former Indonesian Foreign Affairs Minister, Dr. N. Hassan Wirajuda), is the former Vice Chairman (Deputy Speaker)
of the National Assembly of the Republic of Indonesia and Indonesian Armed
Forces (TNI) Chief of Territorial Affairs.
He is regarded as one of the TNI’s leading thinkers. During his
appointment as Commandant of the Armed Force’s staff college, the TNI think
tank, he was responsible for restructuring the political and security doctrine
of the TNI. He also serves as a member of the Indonesia-Timor Leste Joint Truth
and Friendship Commission and is a member of the advisory Board of the
Institute of Peace and Democracy, Udayana University as well as an advisor to
President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. He has also visited Fiji in the past to
speak on Indonesia’s transition.
Agus, whose father was one of the generals kidnapped and
killed in the first days of the coup in 1965, was one of the first intakes at
the joint Indonesian Armed Forces Military Academy (AKABRI) established by
Suharto in 1967. By the beginning of the Refomasi in 1999, a number of the
“Class of 1970”who were the first to graduate from AKABRI realised that conditions
had changed in Indonesia and that instead of maintaining the status quo, the
military had no option but to adapt to evolving social expectations and
demands. Agus was part of a smaller group in the military leadership who saw
the need for immediate and radical change. As a result, instead of
consolidating power in the vacuum left by Suharto’s resignation, the military
opted to reform itself from a political force to a professional military
focusing on the constitutional role and authority of national defence under
civilian supremacy in a democratic political system.
Since 1959, there had been military representation, not
elected but appointed, in the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR) – the
Indonesian Parliament. Under Suharto, the military and police representation
was 100 out of 500 seats. Following the 1999 elections, 38 seats were reserved
for the military/police faction. Agus became the “leading light”of the
evolutionary change group and, as head of the military and police faction in the
People’s Consultative Assembly, was instrumental in convincing the military
leadership to withdraw the last vestiges of its legislative representation in
2004, five years earlier than 2009 as previously scheduled. It was not an easy
process. It was hard to break old habits.
“The military was not prepared for this transition, it
was forced by the circumstances of the Asian Crisis,” said Agus, over coffee.
“How did we manage the transition? By trial and error. There was a fear of
leaving governance to civilians only, so it was a slow decrease of the
militarisation of government positions. We decided that is was better for the
military to leave the political arena with dignity than be forced by
politicians, so we gave up the assembly seats in 2002 instead of the expected
2009.”
According to Agus,
the yardstick of TNI’s role in the democratic and political changes was based
on the principle TNI would leave the democratic transition process to the
civilian politician, and that the less TNI involved itself in the democratic
and political transition the more TNI contributed to the democratic and
political transition.
“We gradually demilitarised the police and left law
enforcement and internal security to them under the regional government while
the military, under the central government is responsible for external security
and assisting in agriculture and infrastructure development.”
In an interview given in 2012, Agus said, “Although
Indonesia has now experienced 14 years of her transition to democracy, by all
means it is far from completion. We went through a period of having 4
presidents in 6 years. Indonesia is still in the process to progress from
democratic transition into democratic consolidation where ‘democracy is the
only game in town’. We still see the unavoidable characteristic of a democratic
transition such as the struggle to establish an effective government which is
able to deliver its promises and move from procedural democracy to a more
substantive democracy. In this transition Indonesia is still in the process to
establish an effective function of the rule of law.”
At the same time, the “Reformasi” has resulted in the
establishment of new institutions to allow better quality of checks and
balances and control, such as the Constitutional Court, the National Commission
of Human Rights, and the Commission for The Eradication of Corruption.
“True believers are needed from both the civil and
military leadership to ensure this transition takes place,” said Agus.
“People need to trust in the police to enforce laws
rather than the military. We need to ensure that our best and brightest don’t
just go into politics but realise that they are needed in civil society. And we
need to transform the culture of strong leadership, into a culture of collective
authority.”
The
key theories that are applicable to the religious situation in the Fiji context
are the disengagement or differentiation theory and what McGuire terms
competing sources of legitimacy. According to the theory of disengagement or
differentiation, society separates itself from the religious understanding
which has previously informed it in order to constitute itself an autonomous
reality and consequently to limit religion to the sphere of private life. This means that religion influences
these other areas through the personally held and applied values and attitudes
of people who are active in each sphere, rather than directly through
specifically religious institutions such as the church. Particularly important
in this interpretation is the loss of control over the definition of deviance
and the exercise of social control.
For the individual, the process of
differentiation involves conflicting development. On the one hand,
differentiation appears to go hand in hand with the discovery of the self – the
unique individual within society. On the other hand, differentiation results in
segregation of the individual’s various roles in society. Values such as moral
qualms or self-realisation are not necessarily negated; they are simply
relegated to another institutional sphere and considered irrelevant if they do
not contribute to achieving the goals of the organisation. The individual may
experience a conflict between the needs and goals of the self and the demands
of these social roles.
The theory of competing sources of
legitimacy in society holds that the differentiation process has resulted in
competition and conflict among the various sources of legitimacy of authority.
In contemporary society religious institution must actively compete with other
sources of legitimacy. Personal, social, and political authority are more
uncertain. One particular source of this uncertainty of legitimacy is
pluralism, referring to a societal situation in which no single world view hold
a monopoly. Pluralism is sometimes used in a narrower sense to describe the
political or societal tolerance of competing versions of the truth. Pluralism,
in both limited and broader senses, is a key factor in the secularisation
process. Where world views coexist and compete as plausible alternatives to
each other, the credibility of all is undermined. The pluralistic situation
relativises the competing world views and deprives them of their
taken-for-granted status.
As we learned in class, institutional
secularisation can be traced to the rise of the “secular” state and its gradual
assumption of the educational and welfare functions once performed by the
churches. This is certainly the case in Fiji. Christian mission in Fiji which
had focused on education, health and social assistance, have over the years
been taken over by the government. In recent years with the widening economic
gap in society meant that other institutions were needed to take up these
functions of education and welfare. However the churches have had to compete
with non-religious aid agencies and civil-society organisations to reclaim this
role. This is also the case with the issue of social legitimacy. In many cases
the church is relegated being one of many voices on social issues. The other
voices are provided by Non-Governmental Organisations and Civil-Society
Organisations who often specialise on issues and are thus recognised by
mainstream media as the legitimate authority on that particular issue which is
then accepted by society. The church’s loss of definition of deviance on issues
such as homosexuality, de facto relationships, domestic violence and racism has
also added to its increasing disengagement from these aspects of society as
other institutions such as law and human rights become recognised as legitimate
authoritative institutions for such definitions.
The issue of “secular” state has also
had an impact on the disengagement of society from religion. The rise in
religious fundamentalism and ethnocentrism within the dominant religious
institution, the predominantly indigenous Fijian Methodist Church in Fiji, as a
result of loss of social control and legitimacy in the face of pluralism
(brought about by an increase in the population of Indo-Fijians, the majority
of whom are Hindu) led to support for a “secular” state. The recent political
crisis in Fiji which saw the military regime, remove the Methodist Church’s
significant influence on politics has also been part of this disengagement.
At the same time the political and, by
consequence, economic instability has led to an increase religious activity as
a result of the anxiety caused by these situations and as a form of
compensation for the deprivation experienced. However as disengagement has led
to discovery of the self as unique individual within society and as an
individual’s desire for meaning and belonging must be pursued in the private
sphere, the individual is free to “shop around” to find the type of religious
meaning that suits him or her, rather than having to conform to the
institutional religious requirements in society.
The churches have recognised that their
relevance in society is decreasing as a result of this differentiation. In Fiji
and across the Pacific, due to low populations and traditional cultures that
are still entrenched, the church still holds some traditional authority. The
relative smallness of Pacific Island states also mean that the winds of change
are recognisable when they blow. This means that these changes have not gone
unnoticed and direct correlations have been drawn to globalisation and the
shift towards secularisation. The negative impact of the economic aspects of
globalisation, in which most other institutions seem to be contributing
towards, has given the churches an area to reclaim its legitimacy.
As churches find themselves confronted by the
consequences of the process of economic globalization, it has become apparent
to them negative aspects of economic globalization are incompatible with the
values they hold. As a result churches are able to argue that these so call
private values are in fact institutional and important to society. By engaging
with what it perceives as a competing vision competing, speaking out against
the negative effects economic globalization has becomes an expression of
defiance against the emerging global system of domination, of one ideology, one
political system, one international coalition of the wealthy and the powerful. Churches
and many individuals have come to recognize that this is a “kairos” - a time for resistance and a time for alternatives. By
articulating these alternatives in the language of traditional culture and of
religion, the churches have begun to reclaim their place as a legitimate source
of authority in society. This and engagement on issues such as climate change
and sustainable development is a counter process to intellectual secularisation
which has attempted to separate sciences and ethics from the context of a
particular version of the Christian world view.
While
it would seem that understanding the religious cultural characteristics of Fiji
is complicated by the different cultures that exist within Fiji the reality is
that by and large Fijians are culturally Dionysian. The culture of the heart -
emotional, passional and experiential describes the dominant cultural patterns
of Fijian culture across diverse ethnicities. However there is a complication
to this description when it comes to the traditional religious culture and the
arrival of new religious movements.
The
three main religions in Fiji are Christianity, Hinduism and Islam. These three
religions have taken on cultural characteristics that are Apollon – rational,
logical, analytical and intellectual. Christianity was not just introduced as a
religion in Fiji but as part of European (specifically British) expansion into
the Pacific (religious, followed by political). Christianity was introduced to
the native Fijians by missionaries but through their chiefs. When the chief
converted, the people converted. As a result the tradition of Christianity (predominantly
protestant – Methodist) that has embedded itself in Fijian culture was Apollon
based on the rational intellectualism of the Victorian age, even though the
indigenous archaic religion of Fiji was Dionysian. Similarly as organised
religion was reestablished among Indians brought to Fiji, under the British
neo-slavery of the indenture system of the late 19th and early 20th
century, the trend shifted. As Hindu and Muslim priests were sent from India to
regularize religious practice in Fiji there was a reform from Dionysian to
Apollon.
This
has resulted in what I term, religious-cultural schizophrenia. The Fijian
people are culturally Dionysian but religiously Apollon. Hinduism has over
time, through its rituals reverted to being Dionysian in culture. Islamic
tradition in Fiji remains firmly Apollon as was evidenced by the removal of a
number of clerics who were attempting to create a more emotional and extreme
form of Islam post-9/11. Christianity has struggled with this schizophrenia as
the traditional Christian denominations, especially Methodism have been used to
maintain social control of members. Emotional, passional and experiential
patterns of religion are not accepted within the boundary of the Christian
community, but celebrated outside in traditional life. This has also led to an
increase in frustration of members of these churches. As a result with the
influx of Pentecostal, charismatic and other new religious movements, many
Christians who can no longer cope with this cultural schizophrenia have joined
these churches which are culturally Dionysian. In the past two decades there
has also been a number of breakaways from the Methodist Church in Fiji (the
dominant religious group in the country) which have made the shift to Dionysian
type of religious culture, but wish to hold on to some aspects of the Methodist
tradition.
The
influx of new religious movements in Fiji has also had an impact on theodicy in
Fiji. Hinduism and Islam maintain their theodicy. In Hinduism takes the form of
karma-samsara, ones present life’s position and situation is the result of
their actions in a previous life and the actions in the present life will
determine the position and situation in the next life. However, while Weber
had, on the basis of the caste system, defined Hinduism as other-worldly
mysticism, the fact that as a result of the indenture system Indian culture in
Fiji has no traditional caste system has affected the method of seeking
salvation for Fijian Hindus to the extent that economic activity has become
important as a means for improving the quality of life, which is possible. This
would suggest that Hinduism in Fiji now has the characteristic of inner-worldly
asceticism.
Theodicy
in Islam can be seen to have a number of similarities to Christianity – there
is a reward in the next life for the suffering in this life, (other-worldly),
there is a conflict between God and Satan (dualism) and the “Messiah” will come
to destroy evil (millenarianism) – with the exception of soteriology. Salvation
in Islam is through ascetic training expressed through the five pillars of
confession of faith, worship, charity, fasting and pilgrimage. This gives it
the quality of inner-worldly asceticism.
In
terms of Christianity, mainline churches view evil as conditional and able to
be sanctified through God’s grace. They are soteriological in their theodicy,
based on the doctrine of the atonement. However the theodicy many of new
religious movements differ in their understanding of God’s justice and unjust
situations and thus place greater emphasis on different types of theodicy. There
is predominance among Pentecostal sects to focus on eschatology and hold a
millenarianism perspective in the belief that we are living in the end times
and that Jesus is coming very soon to destroy all evil powers and will reign
for a thousand years. A precondition given by a number of groups is that total
evangelism must occur for this to happen. Some smaller sects practice a type of
syncretism in which mysticism is practiced and traditional Fijian
religious-cultural rituals are used. God’s justice in this case is a mystery.
In
terms of the social location of religion, Fiji has been characterized by shifts
based on the socio-political situation. For many years we enjoyed a period in
which the culture was religiously inclusive and socially tolerant. However in
the twenty five years since the first political crisis there was a major swing
in the pendulum to religiously exclusive and socially intolerant. This was
reflective of the emergence of Christian fundamentalism and ethnocentrism among
the dominant ethnic group of indigenous Fijians. Recently we have settled for a
social location that is religiously exclusive and socially tolerant. However in
the current military led regime that is purporting to be working towards unity
in diversity, efforts are being made to shift towards being religiously
inclusive and socially tolerant once again.
Emile Durkheim believed that religion
had functionality in terms of integration, balance, stability, order, consensus
and solidarity. These were both psychological/personal and social functions.
Christianity performs these functions both positively and negatively. According
to the functional theory of religion, religion addresses: the limitation of
scarcity by providing compensation for deprivation of money, power and status
by providing a value in personal and social life; the uncertainty of future by
compensating for anxiety and insecurity; and the sense of impossibility and
powerlessness by empowering.
Psychological Functions of
Religion
The psychological functions of religion refer
to the role of religion in addressing the situation a person encounters in
life. Based on the above three limitations on a personal level, religion serves
in both a positive and negative way.
Positive
One
function of religion is to give meaning and purpose to
life. Many things in
life are difficult to understand. Even in today’s highly technological world,
much of life and death remains a mystery, and religious faith and belief help
many people make sense of the things science cannot tell us. Religion performs
this psychological function which leads togreater psychological and physical well-being.
Religious faith and practice can enhance psychological well-being by being a
source of comfort to people in times of distress and by enhancing their social
interaction with others in places of worship. Many studies find that people of
all ages, not just the elderly, are happier and more satisfied with their lives
if they are religious. Religiosity also apparently promotes better physical
health, and some studies even find that religious people tend to live longer
than those who are not religious. Christianity, from this perspective, through
the assurance of salvation in Jesus, God’s positive purpose for humankind and
the promise of eternal life and a future equitable kingdom,
Religion also functions to compensation
for deprivation. As people experience economic hardships, forced migration and
physical trauma, mental health issues and loss of morality, religions can help
to alleviate poverty, advocate cause of the least, provide shelter and provide counseling.
Certainly Christianity, as a missional religion, actively engages in this
manner. From providing education, food packages, healthcare, social advocacy
and developing low housing, as well as pastoral counseling, many churches work
hard to materially manifest the kingdom of God among the poor and
disadvantaged.
Religion
also functions to provide a sense of identity and belongingness. Within the
Christian context, adherents are part of community of faith within their
society, as well as part of the worldwide “Body of Christ” and also citizens of
the present and future kingdom of God.
Negative
One
of the negative psychological functions of religion is strengthening strains
and adding to the depravation of the individual. Christianity as an alternative
community within a pluralistic society or a minority religion can have negative
implications if members are persecuted or oppressed because of their choice of
religion. Some churches also place financial burdens on members in terms of
tithes or collections.
From
a Marxist perspective, religion can also function as an opiate of the poor and
oppressed, keeping them satisfied with present conditions. Christianity’s
emphasis on enduring suffering and the future kingdom can be manipulated to
maintain the status quo.
Religion
also functions to foster exaggerated self-consciousness or exclusiveness. An
understanding of being God’s chosen people can lead to a feeling of
superiority. As a result a “me/they” attitude can develop within members towards
non-Christians. When Christianity is a dominant religion this can also produce
a narrow world view and hostility, passivity, lack of responsibility towards
non-Christians. This has the potential for social conflict.
Sociological
Functions of Religion
Positive
Religionreinforces social unity and
stability. As discussed above, this was one of Durkheim’s most
important insights. Religion strengthens social stability in at least two ways.
First, it gives people a common set of beliefs and thus is an important agent
of social cohesion. Second, the communal practice of religion, as in houses of
worship, brings people together physically, facilitates their communication and
other social interaction, and thus strengthens their social bonds.Religionis an agent of social control
and thus strengthens social order. Religion teaches people moral
behavior and thus helps them learn how to be good members of society. In the
Judeo-Christian tradition, the Ten Commandments are perhaps the most famous set
of rules for moral behaviour, while Jesus’ “Sermon on the Mount,” can also be
understood as a “manifesto” for social cohesion and control.
Religion
can alsomotivate people to work for positive social change. Christianity
has played a central role in the development of the civil rights and social
justice movements, liberation theology and opposition to economic
globalisation.
Negative
Religion also serves to support
social dysfunctions. With an emphasis on social integration, a religion that
holds to conservative values can actually maintain the status quo and support a
problematic present situation. Not only did Roman Catholicism do this but also
Luther’s conservative views on social status highlights how a church (either
Catholic or Protestant) can resist social change or reform and be a barrier to
social change.
Religion can also support
aggressive attitudes and criminal behaviour. Forced conversion and persecution
of non-Christians, desecration of non-Christian places of worship are result of
a negative function of religion as social control.
Religion can also function to
foster social conflict. Whether in response to a radical secular ideology which
is perceived as a threat to the social cohesion and control or as a result
fundamentalist religious attitude, religion has contributed to some of the
world’s greatest atrocities and human rights abuses. Since Christianity became
a dominant religion there have been many instances of this, from the Crusades,
Reformation and Counter reformation
(including the Inquisition). Even within Christianity, differences over
doctrine have led to major social conflicts both in the pre-modern, modern and
postmodern eras.
Application
to the Fijian Context
Positive Psychological
and Social Functions
Apart from the positive message of
the Gospel, Christianity’s positive functions in Fijian life (individual and
personal) include the ending of the practice of cannibalism and to a large
extent tribal warfare in the early stages of missionary endeavour. Mission work
has lead to the establishment of schools and orphanages, provision of
healthcare, and other positive compensation to the deprivation of not only
Christians but non-Christians as well, especially the marginalized.
Christianity has maintained the
social cohesion of the indigenous Fijians as well as social control as
pastors/ministers hold a position of influence in the villages. This extends
into the urban areas where traditional social structures are maintained. In
most villages, the church hall is the focal point for social gatherings and
events. Outside Fiji, Christian Fijians regularly gather together for church
services which become opportunities to reconnect and maintain social unity.
Christian morality remains the foundation for moral and legal standards in
Fiji.
In terms of social change,
Christianity has played an important role in the abolition of the oppressive
indenture system through which the British brought bonded labourers from India.
Christian organizations such as the Young Women’s Christian Association,
Ecumenical Centre for Research, Education and Advocacy and the Fiji Council of
Churches have played a prophetic role in critiquing the status quo and leading
positive social change movements.
Negative Psychological and Social Functions
However, Christianity has also had a
dysfunctional role both for individuals and Fijian society. Excessive financial
demands by mainline churches and Pentecostal “gospel of prosperity” have been
highlighted as one of the key causes of poverty in Fiji. Denominationalism has
led to fracturing of family and social cohesion. As mentioned above,
Fundamentalist and ethnocentric elements within churches have actively persecuted
non-Christian minority groups and sought to entrench their control of society
through political means and criminal activities. Conservative attitudes of some
churches have also led to major social and political conflicts, some of which
have been violent. The resistance to social reform has by these churches has
also negatively affected the social development of Fiji. At the same time many
churches inability to address the issue of increasing functional equivalents is
leading to a growing schism within society.
In terms of population,
Christianity is the dominant religion in Fiji, with 65 percent of the
population classified as Christians in the last census. Approximately 95
percent of the indigenous population (the majority ethnic group), are
Christians. To understand Christianity as the dominant religious situation of
Fiji, a perspective from the classical theories of Marx, Durkheim and Webber is
helpful.[1]
Religious Theory of Karl Marx
Marx’s theory of religion was approached from
the point of materialism, in which matter is the source of existence and
determines everything. Marx’s materialism was critical of Hegel’s idealism in
that he argued that the infrastructure (matter) determined the superstructure
(ideas). He carried this view forward to the class structure which he described
as a class conflict of the oppression and exploitation by the ruling
bourgeoisie, who had the means of production; of the proletariat, who could
only contribute labour force. Marx’s theory of religion was shaped by this
inequality of economics.
Marx
viewed the function of religion negatively as used by the oppressive
bourgeoisie to provide the proletariat with a form of psychological
compensation for their social, economic and political deprivation by providing
comfort, encouragement and hope. Religion, according to Marx was an “opiate of
the people” which was used to manipulate them and maintain the status quo.
Marx’s alternative to this “oppressive social ideology” was the abolition of
religion as part of a social revolution.
Religious Theory of Emile Durkheim
Durkheim, unlike Marx, had a more positive
view of religion. He approached religion from a macro sociological perspective,
looking at society as a whole. In particular Durkheim focused on the role of
religion in providing solidarity, integration and a sense of community within
society. For Durkheim, the attributes of religion – the sacred, ritual and
belief played an important role in the collective consciousness of a community.
He examined the role of religion as a mechanism of social integration and
control.
Durkheim
understood this integrative function in terms of the universal and general
function of religion. From this perspective he saw religion as eternal and had
an expectation that a new God would be accepted in the future, in order for
religion to maintain its functionality. While Durkheim was initially criticized
for basing his theories on a primitive tribal society and thus not applicable
to a modern society, the work of Robert Bellah, particularly in his development
of the concept of “civil” or “civic religion” was an important reevaluation of
Durkheim’s social theory.
Religious Theory of Max Webber
Like Durkheim, Webber also differed from
Marx. Webber did agree with Marx that materialism can impact ideology and
religion. However, Webber looked to held that there was reciprocity between
matter and ideology. Thus, according to Webber, religion provided meaning to
existential questions and was an independent variable of social change – not
determining social action but significant in shaping perceptions and
interpretations of material interests.
He sought to make connection between religion and social life and
economic behavior, especially among different religious groups.
For Weber,
religion is best understood as it responds to the human need
for theodicy and soteriology. Human beings are troubled, he
says, with the question of theodicy – the question of how the extraordinary
power of a divine god may be reconciled with the imperfection of the
world that he has created and rules over. People need to know, for example, why
there is undeserved good fortune and suffering in the world. Religion offers
people soteriological answers, or answers that provide opportunities
for salvation – relief from suffering, and reassuring meaning. The
pursuit of salvation, like the pursuit of wealth, becomes a part of
human motivation.
Webber’s Protestant Ethic thesis argued
that the spirit of modern capitalism – economic rationalism, worldly asceticism
and vocation/calling – were protestant ethics emerging primarily from Calvinism,
but also Pietism, Lutheranism and Methodism. For Webber, this ethic based on ascetic
Protestantism that was compatible with modern rational capitalist business and
practices, meant that capitalism could be seen as carrying out God’s purpose in
life. For Webber this meant that religious affiliations could also be
associated with success in business and with ownership of capital resources.
For economic development in Europe, this was a positive thing. Webber also made
comparisons with China and India in which religion had negative functions for
social change or economic development.
Application to the Fijian Context
The
above theories of religion all share a perspective that originates within a
dominant religious situation. Thus one is able to draw both positives and
negative understanding from a dominant religion, in the case of Fiji,
Christianity. Protestant Christianity, in particular Methodism (54% of Christians are Methodist) is the
dominant religion and is understood to be one of the “legs” of the
“three-legged stool” of traditional Fijian society. The
three-legged stool refers to the balance of the church, government and indigenous
leadership, land and culture. The church is the first leg of the stool; the state
is the second leg; while the third leg refers to the traditional chiefly
leadership, land and indigenous culture. The three-legged stool has been
entwined over the years as dividing lines have been blurred. Some believe that
this structure is prevalent in the Fijian Methodist Church today
as we see the hierarchical way it sets up its structure within its leadership
right down to the congregation. While this image is an example of the dominance
of Christianity, in particular Methodism in Fijian traditional society, it has
carried over into modern Fijian society.
From Marx’s point of view,
Christianity has been used as a way of entrenching the status quo among
traditional Fijian society. Chiefs are understood to rule over their indigenous
subjects from a theology that supports divine right to rule. Their focus on
“noqu kalou, noqu vanua” which means “my God, my land,’ is both conservative
and ethnocentric, and has legitimized a
structure in which Fijian commoners, in spite of economic and political
developments, must still defer to the decision of their chiefs. Thus although
the indigenous Fijians have most of the available land in Fiji (83 percent of
land is communally owned by indigenous Fijians) decision-making lies in the
hands of the chiefs, supported, for the most, by the church. The church focuses
on the afterlife to compensate for the deprivation of the indigenous population.
While Durkheim’s contribution to the
concept of civil religion is important, his focus on social integration faces
difficulties when the context is pluralistic society where the Christianity is
used as a social control. There is an “us and them” mentality as the majority
of indigenous Fijians are Christians and the majority of Indo-Fijians are
Hindu. Religion here is integrative at a community level but divisive on the
wider social level. An understanding of the function of religion as social
control in this context may call into question the underlying motives of
evangelism, especially when a dominant culture is attached to a dominant
religion. However Durkheim’s expectation of a new God in the future may lead to
something else, such as national spirit – especially through sports. The sport
of rugby is often described as a religion in Fiji because of its popularity
among every group of society. Perhaps this has a larger role to play in social
integration than religion.
One
major criticism of the classical theories of religion of Marx, Durkheim and
Webber was they all only focused on a society with one major ethnic group and
one dominant religion. This, while providing important theories on the nature
and function of religion in society in general does not take into account
modern/post modern societies – not in terms of the need and demise/abolition of
religion – but more so in terms of the rise of globalization and the movement
of people, in that societies are becoming pluralistic. Durkheim’s theory as
revitalized by Bellah, may however, show how these theories can be adapted or
reevaluated to speak to new contexts.
[1]References used in this paper are notes, handouts and
presentation material from “Sociology of Religion” class.
Classical thinkers such as Hegel, Marx,
Saint-Simon, Durkheim, Comte and Weber developed theories of social change, all
of which involved interpretations of the changing significance of religion in
society. However the notion of secularisation is not a purely rational
construct that is open to proof or disproof. McGuire describes it as a
mythological account because it is empirically impossible to disconfirm.
According to Thomas Luckmann, the secularisation thesis is essentially an
attempt to “explain the emergence of the modern world,” since many thinkers
feel that modern society differs absolutely from what came before it. As a
result the secularisation debate is closely linked with theories of
modernisation.
Much of the debate over secularisation
hinges upon definitions of religion. In general, sociologists using substantive
definitions of religion (what religion is/the object of religious attention)
conclude that religion in modern society is declining in significance. By contrast,
sociologists using functional definitions (what religion does) tend to agree
that the location and manifestation of religion haves changed in contemporary
society but that this reflects a transformation, not a decline in religion.
·Secularisation as Religious Decline
The image behind this thesis is that
once people were highly religious and that religion informed all aspect of
society. Accordingly society is becoming less and less religious, and
individual lives a decreasingly influenced by religion. From this perspective,
religion will eventually disappear. This understanding of secularisation is
either condemned or welcomed. Representatives of religious organisations and
interests are understandably against the decline. Proponents of counter ideologies
such as positivism, Marxism and Freudianism typically welcome the decline.
The exact nature of the ‘decline; of
religion, however, is difficult to specify. There is no
Clear-cut empirical evidence to show that religion
is declining. Generally though, there are two areas of imputed decline: the
religiosity of individuals and the scope and power of religious institutions.
(Let’s
watch a short video to illustrate this.)
·Secularisation as Religious
Transformation
An alternative interpretation of secularisation
is that religion is not so much in a decline as it is in a transformation.
oReligious Evolution: Bellah
Bellah suggests that the change is one
of religious evolution and this it is not the religious person or the ultimate
religious situation that changes, rather it is religion as a symbol system[1]
that evolves. Bellah clarified that evolution is not inevitable, irreversible
or unidirectional; it does not imply that what results is necessarily “better”.
He characterises five stages of historical patterns of religion:
1.Primitive
religion – with a symbol system of a mythical world which serve as paradigms
for the detailed features of the actual physical and social world.
2.Archaic
religion – the development of religious cults with gods, priests, worship,
sacrifice and sometimes divine kingship. Mythical beings are more
objectifiedand are seen as actively influential and controlling the human and
natural world (they have become gods).
3.Historic
Religion – “world religions” such as Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism
and Islam. There is a development of cosmological dualism, referring to the
image of two realms: one is the human world and the other a higher realm of
universal reality. The empirical world of everyday human life is seen as
subordinate or less real. At this stage, the concept of the supernatural
develops. The transcendent deities of historic religions also contribute to the
universalism of these religions through the image of all humans being
responsible to the supernatural deity (or deities) rather than individually
relating to a particularistic cult. Religious action is characterised by the
pursuit of salvation by individuals orienting themselves to the high spiritual
reality.
4.Early
Modern Religion – based on the case of the Protestant Reformation, this is the
collapse of the hierarchical structuring of both the empirical and
transcendental worlds. “This” world is not rejected but the focus is now on a
direct relation between the individual and the transcendental reality.
Religious action is identified with the whole of life and the world is a valid
sphere to work out the will of God. Religious organisations are also affected
by the collapse of hierarchical structures as illustrated by the motto “the
priesthood of all believers.” The outcome of this stage, according to Bellah is
the image of the self-revising social order, expressed in a voluntaristic and
democratic society.
5.Modern
Religion – while this may be only part of a transition to a further new stage,
it is clearly different from the historical and early modern religions because
there is a collapse of the dualism that characterised those earlier stages. Instead
of a single world replacing the double one, an infinitely multiplex one has
replaced the simple duplex structure. Religion is no longer the monopoly of
explicitly religious groups. The mode of action implied by this image is one of
continual choice, with no firm, predetermined answers and the social
implications of modern religion include the image of culture and personality as
perpetually revisable.
oChurch-oriented Religion as Peripheral:
Luckmann
Luckmann proposes that the
specialisation of religion into a single institution is only one social form of
religion The characteristics of the institutional specialisation of religion
include the emergence of specifically religious organisations (such as churches),
the standardisation of doctrine (as in a creed), and the differentiation of
religious roles – especially the emergence of religious specialists (such as
the clergy). The clear distinction between religion and society is possible
only if religion is differentiated in special social institutions, in this
social form of religion.
Luckmann accepts the idea that the
church-oriented religion has declined in influence and notes that vestigial
(residual) strength of historic religion in modern societies lies among the
peripheral members of society, that is those least involved in the major
institutions of the public sphere. The decrease in traditional church religion
may be seen as a consequence of the shrinking relevance of the values
institutionalised in church religion, for the integration and legitimation of
everyday life in modern society.
While this form is declining, religion
itself is transforming into a new social form. A main feature of this new
social form is personal choice: the individual constructs a private system of
meanings, choosing from a wider assortment of religious representations (which
include traditional religious representations). Such individual religiosity
receives no significant support from the primary public institutions (such as
work, education, law, politics); it is virtually totally privatised – supported
by and relevant to relations in private life such as the family, social clubs,
and leisure-time activities.
Like Bellah, Luckmann identifies as one
of the central themes of modern religiosity. Luckmann suggests that individual
autonomy has been redefined to mean the absence of external restraints and
traditional limitations in the private search for identity. While themes of
modern religiosity (self-expression and self-realisation) characterise this
search, the institutions of the public sphere have real power over the
individual; performance of one’s roles in these spheres must conform to
institutional requirement and autonomy is limited to the private sphere. By
endowing the increasing subjectivity of human existence with as sacred quality,
the new social form of religion supports the functioning, power and control of
public sphere institutions without explicitly legitimating them.
·Religious Change and Societal Change
The secularisation thesis implies
several processes of societal change. While these processes are interrelated,
McGuire emphasises four general themes - institutional differentiation,
competing sources of legitimacy, rationalisation and privatisation – which emphasise
significant aspects of religious change.
oInstitutional Differentiation
Insitutional differentiation refers to
the process by which the various institutional spheres in society become
separated from each other, with each institution performing specialised
functions. The contrasting image behind the concept of differentiation is that
in simpler societies, the beliefs, values, and practices of religion directly
influence behaviour in all spheres of existence, and religion is diffused
throughout every aspect of society. In complex societies, by contrast, each
institutional sphere has gradually become differentiated from others. The
division of labour in complex societies is similarly differentiated, with
specialised roles for each different function. In a highly differentiated
social system, the norms, values, and practices of the religious sphere have
only indirect influence on other spheres such as business, politics,
leisure-time activities, educations and so on. This means that religion
influences these other areas through the personally held and applied values and
attitudes of people who are active in each sphere, rather than directly through
specifically religious institutions such as the church. Some theorists point to
differentiation as evidence of religious decline, interpreting the facts that
religion is not diffused throughout the society and that specifically religious
institutions have limited control over other institutional spheres as evidence
of religion’s diminished strength and viability. Particularly important in this
interpretation is the loss of control over the definition of deviance and he
exercise of social control.
§Implications for the Individual
For the individual, the process of
differentiation involves conflicting development. On the one hand,
differentiation appears to go hand in hand with the discovery of the self – the
unique individual within society. On the other hand, differentiation results in
segregation of the individual’s various roles in society. A woman’s role as a
mother is not considered relevant to her role as mayor; a man’s role as
religious believer is not considered relevant to his role as corporate manager.
Values such as moral qualms or self-realisation are not necessarily negated;
they are simply relegated to another institutional sphere and considered
irrelevant if they do not contribute to achieving the goals of the
organisation. The individual may experience a conflict between the needs and
goals of the self and the demands of these social roles.
§Implications for Society
Similarly the processes of
differentiation contribute to society’s difficulty in mobilizing the commitment
and efforts of its members. Values from one separate sphere do not readily
motivate behaviour in another. The process of differentiation has important
implications for the location of religion in contemporary society. The
effective criteria of public institutional spheres – notably the economic – are
separate from the values of the private sphere. Religion is relegated to the
private sphere. An individual’s desire for meaning and belonging must be
pursued in the private sphere. It would seem that the same differentiation that
makes possible the “discovery of the self” also frees the institutions of the
public sphere to ignore or counteract the autonomy of individuals under their
control.
oCompeting Sources of Legitimacy
Legitimacy refers to the basis of
authority of an individual, group or institution, by which they can expect
their pronouncements to be taken seriously.
Legitimacy is not an inherent quality of individuals, groups, or institutions
but is based on the acceptance of their claims by others. The location of
religion in contemporary society reflects societal change in the bases of
legitimacy. Relatively stable societies typically have stable sources of
legitimacy. The key criterion in such societies is usually traditional
authority such as the inherited authority of a patriarch or a king.
Institutional differentiation often produces a different kind of authority: the
authority of the holder of a specialised role of “office”. Claims to be taken
seriously are based not upon who one is but upon what position one holds. The
authority of a judge, for example, is based upon the role rather than the
person.
Religion legitimates authority indirectly
in traditional societies by its pervasive interrelationship with all aspects of
society. Myth and ritual support the seriousness of all spheres of life. The
chief, priest, or matriarch can speak with authority because their roles
correspond to or reflect the authority of divine beings. Historic religions
legitimate authority more directly. Such historic religions such as
Christianity, Islam and Judaism have similarly given authority to
pronouncements on education, science, economic policy, law, family life, sport,
art, and music. Whether directly or indirectly invoked, the images and symbols
of the sacred are a source of legitimacy.
§Competing Sources of Authority
The main feature of legitimacy in
contemporary society is that the differentiation process has resulted in
competition and conflict among the various sources of legitimacy of authority.
In contemporary society religious institution must actively compete with other
sources of legitimacy. Personal, social, and political authority are more uncertain.
§Pluralism
One particular
source of this uncertainty of legitimacy is pluralism, referring to a societal
situation in which no single world view hold a monopoly. Pluralism is sometimes
used in a narrower sense to describe the political or societal tolerance of
competing versions of the truth. Pluralism, in both limited and broader senses,
is a key factor in the secularisation process. Where world views coexist and
compete as plausible alternatives to each other, the credibility of all is undermined.
The pluralistic situation relativises the competing world views and deprives
them of their taken-for-granted status. In a pluralistic situation, no single
world view is inevitable. This results in various world views in society also
competing for legitimacy. Pluralism, furthermore, made it possible to conceive
of religions; the very concept implies a stance of some distance, a meaning
system that one does not personally believe.
§Pluralism and Legitimacy
One general impact of pluralism and
differentiation is to create a problem of legitimacy for both the individual
and the society. The problem of legitimacy at the societal level involves
society’s very basis for authoritative decision making and its grounds of moral
unity or integration. At the individual level, the problem of legitimacy makes
the individual’s meaning system more precarious, voluntary and private.
§Problems at the Societal Level
As world views and authoritative claims
complete in a pluralistic situation, the sources of legitimacy are diffused
among many agents in society. These competing claims may appeal to sacred or
quasi-sacred sources of authority, even if not using explicitly religious
symbols. The problem of legitimacy results from the collapse of a societal
shared conception of order. Without agreement on the way to live together,
claims of moral authority make no sense. This problem affects both individual
and societal decision making. How is it possible for human values to determine
public policy in a pluralistic society? Is the role of religion in political
decision making reduced to that of one more interest group vying with opposing
interest groups? Or is it even possible for a pluralistic society to agree on
human values on a societal level? And if so, does the society consider human
values relevant or important to decisions in the public sphere?
§Unstable Sources of Legitimacy: Fenn
Richard K. Fenn’s defines secularisation
as a process of dealing with uncertainty or ambiguity of boundaries between the
sacred and the profane. It involves conflict among groups, individuals and the
nation. It both disturbs and clarifies the sources of legitimacy of social and
political authority.
·The
first stage of this process is the differentiation of religious roles and
institutions. Fenn emphasises the extent to which certain changes are
qualitatively different, suggesting that even the very concept of “religion”
becomes problematic.
·The
second step is the demand for clarification of the boundary between religious
and secular issues. The demand for clarification may produce a desire for some
general, overarching symbols to which all competing groups can subscribe.
·The
third step is the development of generalised religious symbols or ideology. The
generalised symbols may take the form of a civil religion such as America
developed in the 19th century. This third step is typically
unstable. Dissident minorities attack the generalised symbol system, especially
its “inappropriate” uses of religious symbols.
·The
conflict of world views results in two seemingly disparate situations in Fenn’s
fourth stage: the development of minority and idiosyncratic definitions of the
situation, together with increasingly secularised political authority. On the
one hand is pressure to desacralise the political authority – for example,
removing and ideological notions of what is “good” from decision making and
replacing them with criteria such as due process and technical procedures. On
the other hand, challenging the civil religious synthesis results in spreading
access to the sacred. Thus individuals and groups develop their own particular
(that is, “idiosyncratic”) views and symbols for which they claim the same
seriousness as recognised religions. Individual and group claims to social
authority multiply as the uncertainty of boundaries become evident. According
to Fenn, “secularisation increases the likelihood that various institutions or
groups will base their claims to social authority on various religious grounds,
while it undermines the possibility for consensus on the meaning and location
of the sacred.”
·Two
contrary tendencies are found in Fenn’s fifth step. One is the separation the
individual from corporate life. The other tendency is varying degrees of group
pressure toward integrating personal value systems with activities in the
public sphere. This tendency is expressed in different modes of religious
organisation: church, sect, denomination, cult. Each mode has a characteristic
stance toward the integration of value systems. At one extreme is satisfaction
with minimal integration from groups that consider their values irrelevant to
the public sphere. At the opposite pole are groups seeking totalistic
solutions; these would include seemingly secular ideologies as well as overtly
religious totalism.
Secularisation both disturbs and
clarifies the bases of social authority. It is disturbing because it undermines
the ability of society to maintain belief in a symbolic whole that transcends
the separate identities and conflicting interests of society’s component parts.
Pluralism and institutional differentiation are generally important factors in
this process because they break down the overarching world view – the symbolic
whole. These processes make it impossible to achieve a new firm source of
societal integration and legitimacy. At the same time, however, they increase
the likelihood that people will need and seek this symbolic whole.
§Problems at the Individual Level
As pluralism undermines the
taken-for-granted quality of the world view, the individual’s own meaning
system receives less social support and becomes precarious, voluntary, and
private. This too can produce conflict for the individual. Pluralism increases
personal ambiguity: What am I to believe? How am I to act? On what basis can I
decide? Personal value decisions are important, but a more critical issue at
the individual level is the impact of the problem of legitimacy for personal
identity, which is influenced and supported by religion. The individual’s world
view is an important element of personal identity. The individual’s subjective
meaning system legitimates that persona’s hierarchy of goals, values, and
norms. What happens then, if this key part of the individual’s identity is
undermined?
oRationalisation
Rationalisation is the process by which
certain areas of social life are organised according to the criteria of
means-ends (functional) rationality. Max Webber viewed an increasing emphasis
upon functional rationality as the outstanding characteristic of modern
society.
§Rationality and Modernisation
According to Webber, modern Western
society has a “rationalised” economy and an associated special “mentality”. A
rational economy is functionally organised, with decisions based upon the
reasoned weighing of utilities and cost. The rational mentality involves
openness towards new ways of doing things (in contrast with traditionalism) and
readiness to adapt to functionally specialised roles and universalistic
criteria of performance. Although these forms of rationality originated in the
economic order, they have extended into political organisation and legal order
– the modern state. Weber argued that religious motives and legitimations played
a central role in bringing about this form of organisation and mentality – for
example, by the development of universalistic ethics (the norm of treating all
people according to the same generalised standards) and by the development of
religious drive for rational mastery over the world. Nevertheless this
rationality, once a part of societal structure, became divorced from its
historical origins and acquired an impetus of its own. If modern society is
indeed moving in the direction of increasing functional rationality, this
process implies problems at two levels: the location of individual meaning and
belonging; and a conflict between corporate control and values verses personal
autonomy and values. Personal meaning is not only relegated to the private
sphere but is also undermined by the dominant rationality of other spheres. The
individual seeking to apply meaning to personal experiences is in a weak
situation relative to the powerful institutions for which individual meaning is
irrelevant.
§Disenchantment of the World
Another feature of rationalisation which
undermines the individual’s personal sense of meaning and belonging was termed
“disenchantment” by Webber. This is the process by which things held in awe or
reverence are stripped of their special qualities and become “ordinary”.
Protestantism thus brought about much disenchantment of what Roman Catholicism
had held in awe, emptying the believer’s world of angles, saints, shrines, holy
objects, holy days and elaborate sacraments. Rational science also promotes
disenchantment, explaining natural phenomena without reference to nonnatural
categories of thought. Phenomena previously attributed to miracles are
reinterpreted by rational science as natural. The key figure of the
rationalisation process is not so much the particular explanations of phenomena
but the belief that all phenomena can be rationally explained. The way in which
people think of the world becomes distinct from the way in which they think of
themselves and each other. The process of rationalisation means that the
rational mode of coginition applies to those institutional spheres that “really
matter”; other modes of cognition are treated as frills of private life.
oPrivatisation
Privatisation is the process by which
certain differentiated institutional spheres are segregated from the dominant
institutions of public sphere and relegated to private life. This segregation
means that norms and values of the private sphere are irrelevant to the
operations of public sphere institutions; and that functions of providing
meaning and belonging are relegated to institutions of the private sphere.
Privatisation implies that the individual finds sources of identity
increasingly only in the private sphere. This implies problems in legitimating
oneself. Identity becomes problematic as sources of order, meaning, and
community have been undermined; all have become increasingly voluntary and
uncertain. Luckmann suggests that this voluntary quality contributes to a sense
of autonomy in the private sphere, perhaps making up for the individual’s lack
of autonomy in institutions of the public sphere:
Once religion is defined as a “private
affair” the individual may choose from the
Assortment
of “ultimate” meanings as he sees fit – guided only by the preferences that are
determined by his social biography. An important consequence of this situation
is that the individual constructs not only his personal identity but also his
individual system of “ultimate” significance.
This “self-selected construction” is,
according to Luckmann, the contemporary social form of religion. While church-oriented
religion continues to be one of the elements that some people choose for their
constructions, the other themes from the private sphere (autonomy,
self-expression, self-realisation, familism, sexuality, adjustment, and
fulfilment) are also available in a supermarket of “ultimate” meanings.
[1]Bellah’s
operative definition is that religion is a set of symbolic forms and acts which
relate man to the ultimate conditions of his existence.
Agus (as he introduced himself on joining a lunch with
former Indonesian Foreign Affairs Minister, Dr. N. Hassan Wirajuda), is the former Vice Chairman (Deputy Speaker)
of the National Assembly of the Republic of Indonesia and Indonesian Armed
Forces (TNI) Chief of Territorial Affairs.
He is regarded as one of the TNI’s leading thinkers. During his
appointment as Commandant of the Armed Force’s staff college, the TNI think
tank, he was responsible for restructuring the political and security doctrine
of the TNI. He also serves as a member of the Indonesia-Timor Leste Joint Truth
and Friendship Commission and is a member of the advisory Board of the
Institute of Peace and Democracy, Udayana University as well as an advisor to
President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. He has also visited Fiji in the past to
speak on Indonesia’s transition.
