Get complete information on Manifest and Latent Functions of Religion

Like all other institutions religious institutions too have manifest and latent functions.

Manifest:

Functions of religion cluster about three types of concerns: a pattern of beliefs called doctrines, which define the nature of the relationship of human beings to one another and to God; rituals which symbolise these doctrines and remind people of them; and a series of behaviour norms consistent with the doctrines. The work of explaining and defending the doctrines, carrying out the rituals, and reinforcing the desired behaviour norms leads to a complex pattern of worship, teaching, evangelism, exhortation, and philanthropic works requiring considerable investment of money and personnel.

In some societies, the manifest functions of religion include actually controlling the state, as in Iran, where the Shah was replaced by a theocracy controlled by Muslim ayatollahs.

Latent:

Few people will object to the manifest functions of religion, but some of the latent functions of the churches bring consequences which often surprise even the faithful. At the same time, they may stimulate either approval or opposition from those who do not consider themselves very religious.

Churches are a setting for sociability as well as worship. Church youth groups provide an opportunity to practise leadership skills and a setting for courtship and mate selection. Churches decorate the community with buildings that are sometimes beautiful and inspirational; they stimulate art and music; they provide settings for concerts and festivals.

Churches help newcomers to become acquainted, help people in the “social climb”. One of their manifest functions is to unite the community in human brotherhood; a latent function is to help divide the community by race and class. While preaching that “all people are equal before God”, churches provide a setting for conspicuous display of wealth by members attired in their Sunday best

Magic, Religion and Science

Malinowski gave the functional analysis of magic, religion and science.

(i) The function of magic, according to Malinowski, is to supply primitive people with a practical way out of difficulties faced by them in day-to-day pursuits for survival. It provides them with the ability to carry on with life despite inevitable problems. Malinowski urgues that “the function of magic is to ritualize man’s optimism, to enhance his faith in the victory of hope over fear.”

(ii) The function of religion says Malinowski, is to establish mental attitudes, respect for tradition, adjustment with nature, courage and confidence in struggle for survival and in the event of death.

(iii) The function of primitive knowledge (science) is to familiarise tribals with their surroundings and enable them to use natural resources. It sets them apart from all living species in the world.

Both magic and religion are tools of adaptation, the objective being to help man out of difficult situations, and relieve his tensions. Both approaches seem to have always existed together; sometimes, they come so close to each other as to almost blend into each other. However, it is believed that the magical approach is more primitive. Man must have resorted to supplication only after his ego-driven magical approach failed to produce results invariably:

Magic:

Magic can be defined as the attempt to activate supernatural or spiritual agencies in order to attain a specific outcome by ritualised means. Magic is not always readily distinguishable from religious activity and, in operation, is often associated with it. However, an activity is usually identified as magic by its more instrumental, often more immediate, concern with the achievement of specific ends.

Frazer is probably one of the best known writers on magic. His book, The Golden Bough, is mainly concerned with the problem of magic and its relation to science and religion. For Frazer, the efforts to control nature for day-to-day survival led early man to resort to magical practices. Frazer found that magical formulae are based on two principles: (i) like produces like, and (ii) once in contact, always in contact.

He reduced these principles into two laws.

(1) Law of Similarity:

he magic associated with it are homoeopathic imitative or mimetic magic. In Chota Nagpur, some tribal groups believe that thunder with its rumbling noise is the direct cause of rain. Therefore when they want rain, they go to a hill top, sacrifice a hen or a pig, and then start flinging stones, rocks down the hill, expecting rain to follow the rumbling noises created by their action, just as it follows thunder.

The Ho light fires expecting rain to come out of the cloud of smoke that is raised to the skies. Human sacrifice is made by the Khond- believing that as tears roll down from the sufferer’s eyes, and blood gushes forth from his wounds, so will rain come. These are cases of homoeopathic magic.

(2) Law of Contact:

The magic associated with it is known as contagious magic. Primitives have been found “unwilling to use each other’s clothing, not for reasons for hygiene, but because clothes are regarded a part of that person’s body who wore them first. The main implication of the law of contact is that a part is always associated with the whole to which it belongs or belonged; once a part, always a part. This association is extended to clothing, nail and hair trimmings, utensils, and soon.

On these two principles are based all the various magical rites found in primitive societies. All types of magic are labelled ‘sympathetic’ by Frazer, because he considers them to be based on the principle of sympathy between cause and effect. Magic, like modern science, is based on the observation of, and experimentation on, cause-effect phenomena.

Magic and Religion. Magic and religion are very close to each other in their role as tools of adaptation when, common skills and capabilities are of no avail. Malinowski has shown that while making boats and canoes, the Trobriand islanders are perfect technicians and have a sound body of scientific knowledge. But the amount of science they know, is not enough to enable them to cope with the problem of why a storm comes at a particular moment and why particular canoes are sunk. So magic and religion step in as post-scientific techniques. Magic and religion are both imbued with the mystery of the world. However, there are fundamental differences in practising magic and religion.

Similarities:

(i) Both magic and religion belong to the area of the sacred and are imbued with the mystery of the world.

(ii) Both phenomena provide an escape from emotional stress which cannot be wished away on the basis of the primitive people’s range of rational knowledge.

(iii) Mythological traditions closely surround both magic and religion. Taboos and practices associated with the two areas separate them from the domain of the profane.

(iv) The technique of both magic as well as religion is ritualistic. The entire performance is governed by a traditional order which must be strictly followed, or the efficacy of the rite is lost.

Differences:

(i) Magical acts are a means to an end; religious acts are self-contained acts, performed in self- fulfillment.

(ii) Religion is ‘worship’-submission of the. Individual to the supernatural powers, while magic is an attempt to ‘control’ them.

(iii) Usually magic is individualistic phenomena, while religion is collective.

(iv) Magical art is handed down, from generation to generation, mostly in direct filiations (from father to son),” thus it is confined to the specialist. In religion everyone takes an active part.

(v) In magic, there exist both positive and negative types; not so in religion.

(vi) Magic (especially black magic) is a matter of fear, and people are usually afraid of magicians, while priests hold a high status in society.

Finally it can be said that, religion and magic are two ways of tiding over crises. Primitive man faced the realities of life with his belief in some superior power, or powers, either by trying to coerce it

into service, i.e. by magic, or by praying and offering worship to it i.e. by the religious approach. Both magic and religion are tools of adaptation, the objective being to help man out of difficult situations and relieve his tensions.

Magic and Science. Both Science and magic depend upon mechanistic procedures. The magician must follow the same type of process as is done by the scientists. But whereas the latter deals with the natural world, the former deals with the supernatural. The failures of science are due to inadequate knowledge and can be corrected by further research. The failures of magic are supposed to be due to some error in the performance of the ritual, or else due to counter magic by more powerful magicians.

Similarities:

(i) Like science, magic has a specific aim related to human needs and instincts. Both are governed by a system of rules which determine how a certain act can be effectively performed.

(ii) Both are man’s effort to control nature.

(iii) Both develop techniques of carrying out certain activities.

Differences:

‘Science’ is related with the general experience of everyday life; magic on the other hand, is founded in particular experiences of tense emotional states.

The basis of science is the conviction in validity of experience, effort and reason. Magic is based on the belief that one can still hope, one can still desire.

The corpus of rational knowledge is incorporated in a social setting and certain types of activities which are clearly separable from the social setting and activities related to the magical knowledge.

On the basis of these differences Malinowski concludes that science belongs to the domain of the profane while magic comprises half of the domain of the sacred. Magic, unlike science, is based on fallacious assumptions. The example given by Tylor is the superstition of the modern Greek peasant that gold will cure jaundice. The Greek peasants classified jaundice with gold because of their common colour (yellow). Tylor regards magic as an example of ‘pseudo-science’.

Both magic and science assume the existence of non-variant relations and the operation of impersonal causes in a more or less mechanical fashion. In magic there is an assumed uniformity of cause and effect as postulated in natural laws. Frazer says that the two are essentially the same, the difference being that magic is based on wrong assumptions regarding causal relations. That is why he calls magic the bastard sister of science.