SOCIOLOGY OF RELIGION

                                                       SOCIOLOGY OF RELIGION

 

by

DOMINADOR N. MARCAIDA, JR.

30 January 2007

Introduction

Many people today find the topic on religion quite interesting. Others, due to their sensitiveness to religious questions, especially when religious beliefs or convictions are discussed, would rather avoid the topic of religion. In the study of sociology, however, it is but inevitable not to take up the topic of religion as a social institution.

The purpose of this paper is not to be critical of any religion. The intention is simply to look at religion on its sociological perspective, or point of view. It shall be concerned merely on the study of the complementariness of religion and society in human history. In particular, it will: Show the relationships between religion and society; Present the psychological and sociological theories on the universality of the religious phenomenon and behavior; Contain a definition of religion and its elements and society in its different evolutionary stages; and Present a theoretical representation that shows the complementariness of religion and society, including an explanation of each of the predominant forms of religious beliefs that cropped up in the evolution of the human society. This theoretical model will be presented in a tragic and comic framework of drama.

Relationship between religion and society

Emile Durkheim was a pioneer in the sociology of religion.[1]  He emphasized the function of religion as a celebration of the social order.

Karl Marx saw religion as an instrument of oppression used by a ruling class to cover up economic exploitation of the masses.

Max Weber saw religion as an agent of social change.

Edward B. Taylor (1832-1917), Durkheim’s contemporary, and Sir James Frazer (1854-1941), were interested in the historical origins of religion and speculated on its evolution from “primitive” beliefs. By implication they viewed religion as a relic of earlier stages of human societal evolution. The evolutionist theoretical model of Taylor and Frazer was criticized as “armchair sociological theory” by some 19^th century anthropologists, headed by the German-born anthropologist Franz Boas.[2]

According to the evolutionists, “All societies are undergoing historical changes that are passing through definite stages of development.”[3]  This evolutionist point of view may be complimented by the functionalists’ theoretical model by the proposition that each element in society has the function to keep that particular society stable in any given moment in the history of society.

The functionalist theoretical model of the religious phenomenon was spearheaded by Bronislaw Malinowski (1884-1942). He saw religion as filling a gap between human aspirations and abilities. Anthropologist Clifford Geertz (1965) saw religion as “relieving the intense anxiety people feel when they are at the limits of their analytical capacities and moral insights.”[4]

In support of this statement, one source says:

“By trusting that they could be implored for help through rituals and prayers, the person’s anxieties over the uncertainties of life is fairly quieted down to a point that gives him self-assurance and confidence and a mind set for coping up with reality. This is the adaptive function of religious rituals” (Castroverde, 2000).[5]

Functionalism is concerned with the close correlation between social structure and social functions. It explains that the unit of functions of society tend to serve the structure, and to perpetuate it.  According to the functionalist theoretical model, religion has a functionalist role in society. An author said:

“In viewing religion as a social institution, functionalists evaluate its impact on human societies. The first two functions of religion…integration and social control – are oriented toward the larger society. Thus they are best understood from a macro-level viewpoint in terms of the relationship between a religion and society as a whole. The third function – providing social support – is more oriented toward the individual and can be understood more effectively from a micro-level viewpoint. The fourth function, promoting social change, is illustrated using Max Weber’s macro-level concept of Protestant ethic.” [6]

The Sociological and Psychological Theories on the universality of the Religious Phenomenon and Behavior

The sociological theories on the universality of the religious phenomenon and behavior may be complemented with the psychological explanation on the origin of religion. Sigmund Freud and William James saw religion as springing from a deep psychological need.[7]

However, the sociological and psychological perspectives may be quite different from each other. Whereas the sociological perspective is concerned with the external expression of religion, how religious behavior affects social relationships among people in society, psychological perspective concerns with the internal root causes of religion, its psychological origins and functions, individual motives, purposes and religious experiences.

Psychological theories explain the universality of religion in the attempt to reduce anxiety or to satisfy cognitive need for intellectual understanding. Sociological theories say that religion is the reflection of society and its social conditions.

Some sociologists prefer a mixture of the psychological and sociological perspectives, saying, “Religion is the response to strain or deprivation felt by the individual and caused by events in society.”[8]

As the psychological motive is the source of the outward expression of religion, the two perspectives therefore could not be separated from each other. Both perspectives, together with the anthropological, have offered theories to account for the universality of religion. Both the psychological and social needs of man give rise to religious beliefs and practices.[9]

Two other sources explaining the complementariness of religion and society are the psychological source and the Marxian source. The psychological source states that religion is...

“the product, psychologically speaking, of an empty life, a repressed life, a bitter life. Speculation on the meaning of life inevitably results in a philosophy, at whatever level of thought and culture it takes place, and the instant such speculation begins to justify the present in terms of a hoped-for and imagined better or idealistic future that will give what the heart longs for and the situation in life denies, we have religion. Religions may, also, take the view that there never can be aught that humans would enjoy and that the purpose of life is to teach resignation, aloofness, non-resistance, but behind even this lies the belief that by such means with or without the aid of magic or superhuman agencies, individuals may achieve a better life, a life which, while pleasure is not increased, at least pain and struggle will be diminished.”[10]

            According to this psychological explanation on the origin of religion, there are two worlds which man tries to reconcile in his personal life: one, the ideal, and the other, the real world. The ideal life is everything that man’s heart desires, which is limitless. The real life is everything that he does not like, which he more or less avoids, because it is painful, cruel, corrupt and bitter. Man tries to reconcile this by discovering a benevolent force outside, which is much stronger and greater than him, which he believes, would help him cope or tame the strange and hostile forces of life. Such beliefs give him the power to attain whatever is desirable or beneficial to him. Man, therefore, invents religion as a vehicle to approach the natural forces. Relying on some supernatural forces, he believes that the natural forces could be manipulated, tamed and controlled for his benefit and advantage in order to make his life more bearable. Thus, religion is involved in intricate rites and practices, that are mysterious (the weirder, the better) and magical, believed to have the power to repel the evil forces away from, and attract the benevolent forces towards, himself.

            The development of all these religious rites and practices, with their magical or “miraculous” powers that man knew since the beginning of human evolution, is what constitutes religious history.

            To support this opinion, let us take a further elaboration from the same author of Psychology quoted earlier:

“The history of religion shows clearly, for each age and each people, that it is an effort to square an imagined good life with an actual not-so-good existence. Each new theology is both a philosophy of life and a sketch of the universe, a bridging of the gap between the organism and its home. In so far as such philosophies work in terms of fact, use objective methods, base results on human values of biological satisfaction and happiness, the become psychologies and ethics, and the other-worldliness fades and becomes a mere gesture. We now live here, and wherever we may someday live, our present problem is emphatically here. The hereafter must be in terms of the now, not the reverse; the so-called spiritual must be founded on the physical and not mere words that have no significance, no relation to real facts and conditions; higher values depend on lower ones, and there is no royal road to freedom other than through health, balance, and the sanity of individual and group.”[11]

            This home that man tries to bridge is the sense of the “sacred.”  Phyllis A. Tickle says: “The sacred is essence perceived as a place wherein all that can be grasped is equally present, where the good and the evil have changed to the warm and the cold, and neither is better; a place where light and its absence are the emotions.”[12]

            Based on these observations, it is discovered that the concept of man about his relationship with the supernatural forces also underwent a corresponding development as human society passed from one mode of production to another, an observation that did not escape the scrutiny of Carl Marx. The Marxian explanation on the source of religious beliefs states that the religious phenomenon and behavior had resulted from the predominant economic base, or mode of production, and that there is an inverse, or dialectical, relationship between the religion and society. [13]

According to Carl Marx, the development of social consciousness is conditioned, to a great extent, by social existence. Hence, the transformation of the economic base alters the superstructure of society. Marx wrote, “Whatever is the mode of production of society, such in the main is society itself, ideas and theories its political views and institutions.” [14]

In his “Critique of Political Economy (1859)”, called the materialist conception of history, or historical materialism, he proposed that in every historical epoch the prevailing economic system by which the necessities of life are produced determines the form of societal organization and the political and intellectual history of the epoch. [15]

According to Amable G. Tuibeo, “While the superstructure arises from the economic base, it can impact in, or influence, the economic base of society. In other words, the relationship between the economic base and the superstructure is dialectical”[16]

The prevailing form of society gives rise to a predominating form of religious belief that complements and builds it, according to Carl Marx (1818-1883). An author wrote:

“Marx acknowledges that religion plays an important role in legitimating the existing social structure. The values of religion, as already noted, reinforce other social institutions and the social order as a whole. From Marx’s perspective, religion promotes stability within society and therefore helps to perpetuate patterns of social inequality. In a society with religious faiths, the dominant religion will represent the ruling economic and political class.” [17]

Hence, the theoretical representation on the complementariness of religion and society (see Figure 2) illustrates the inverse, or dialectical, relationship that existed between religion and the economic base, or modes of production, in the history of human society. 

Carol R. Ember et al aptly summarizes the psychological and the Marxian sources in just one statement: “The realm of the gods parallels and may reflect the everyday social and political world.”[18]

Religion and its Elements

            What is religion? Religion, etymologically speaking, comes from the Latin word “religare,” meaning to bind or tie again, to reconcile.

In the strict sense, religion is “any set of institutionalized beliefs and practices that deal with the ultimate meaning of life."[19]

From the sociological viewpoint, religion may be defined as “a system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things which unite their adherents into a kind of moral community.” [20]

            According to Richard J. Gelles et al, (1999), religion has four elements. These are: Religious Beliefs – affirms the existence of a divine or supernatural order, define its character and purpose, and explain the role humans play in that order; Rituals – formal, stylized enactment of religious beliefs; Subjective experience – grow out of beliefs and rituals, as a feeling that someone is guiding and may feel transported from everyday reality and experience; and Community – belong to a community of believers, either as a natural group in a less complex environment, to a “church” in a more organized society. 

This paper will not go into much detailed discussion of the other elements, the functions and techniques that go with the practice of religion. It will confine itself with religious beliefs to focus the discussion on the different predominant forms of religious beliefs that developed as society evolved. The other elements are mentioned just to make the reader aware of the dynamics that went through with the practice of religion.

What is religious belief?  Religious beliefs may be defined as “statements to which members of a particular religion adhere.” [21] According to Epitacio Palispis, religious beliefs attempt to explain the nature and origin of sacred things.” [22]

Just to summarize this part, a whole paragraph of Phyllis A. Tickle (1995), contained in her previously cited work, may be quoted, thus:

“Religion, for most of us, is an attitude for interpreting history, both the massive, collective history of our species in general and the private histories of our own small existences. Religion is also a governor we set upon our choices, upon both our large society’s choices and upon our own small individual choices. Religion gives point and purpose to the confusion of our foreshortened view of life, although sometimes, ironically, it does so to the diminution and denigration of the sacred. But religion, whether we are comfortable admitting it or not, is as much man-made construct as a god-made one. It is, in the popular terminology of our day, at its core a co-creation between the mystery of immutable absolutes and our attempts to engage, apply, manipulate, appease, and enjoin those absolutes. The sacred, however, admits to nothing. It is.”[23]

Society and its Evolution

What is society? Society is “a group of people who share a common culture.” [24] Since society is concerned with people, therefore society also underwent a historical evolution, and, with it, all its other institutions.

According Richard J. Gelles and Ann Levine, the sociologists Gerhard and Jean Lenski viewed “the history of society as a process of sociocultural evolution, from simpler to more complex forms.”[25] They mentioned four basic types of societies that emerged over the course of human history: hunter-gatherer bands, horticultural villages, agrarian states, and, more recently, industrial nations. It is believed that 99 percent of human history had been spent in the hunter-gatherer stage. To illustrate, below is a diagram of the four types of societies that had been identified.[26]

3-4 Million years B.P. The Dawn of Humanity

          

         * B.P. means before present.

Figure 1. The history of Human Societies

Theoretical Representation of the Complementariness of Religion and Society

In this section, it will be noted that a modification was made on the above presentation of the evolution of society, as presented by Richard J. Gelles and Ann Levine. Such modification reflects that the hunter gatherer stage was split into the cave and nomadic society, horticultural villages was named as the primitive communal or tribal society, the agrarian states stage was split into the slave and feudal society, and the industrial nations stage was split into the capitalist and socialist society. The present stage of society is now called as the cyber society. Adam Presbitero (1990) illustrates the evolution of society with a parallel development of religious beliefs as: [27]

SOCIETY                        IDEAL

       CAVE SOCIETY                                                                  “NEW AGE”

                                                                                                 ATHEISM

                                                                      MONOPOLYTHEISM

                                 NOMADIC                MONOTHEISM

                                                         POLYTHEISM

                                        PRIMITIVE          COMMUNAL

      H U M A N                                            FETISHISM          H I S T O R Y

                                                                                 SLAVE 

                                 SHAMANISM                

                                                                                FEUDAL                

                                                                                 CAPITALIST  

                                                                                          SOCIALIST

        ANIMISM                                                                                  CYBER

        RELIGION                          REAL

Figure 2. Dialectical relationship between predominant religious beliefs and society.

          This drawing tries to illustrate the link, or relationship, that exists between society and religion, and their complementariness. It uses the tragic and comic symbols of drama. Three crisscrossing arrows, from the left going to the right side, indicate society (topmost), human history (center) and religion (bottom). There are also two lines, one on top and the other at the bottom of the drawing, which are realms, and accordingly marked as the “Ideal” and the “Real”.  The two arrows that represent society and religion are punctuated with buttons indicating the different forms of society (starting with the Cave Society and so on and so forth, from the top line on the left side and ending with the Cyberspace society towards the bottom line on the right side) and religion (starting with Animism, and so on and so forth, from the bottom line on the left side and ending with New Age Religion at the top line on the right side) that have arisen as human history evolved. The broken lines on the left and on the right are the starting and the terminal points of the arrows.

The cave society, the first button on the top line in the ideal realm, is the most ideal society. It is called “cave” to indicate both habitat and mode of life that existed in that particular society. It is complemented by the Animist religion, also the first button at the bottom line in the real realm, to indicate that the animist religion is the most real religion that human history had ever known. The explanation to this assertion may be found in the statement of George Ritzer who said: “Primitive religion’s ideological systems are less well developed…As a result, religion can be studied in primitive societies in its most pristine form.” [28] We are now ready to investigate the different economic base, or modes of production, and their corresponding religion, as man passed from one form of society to the next in the course of human history.

A. Animism and the Cave Society

            Going back to the theoretical model on the complementariness of religion and society, the first society and religion that the first man in pre-historic existence knew was that of the cave society and animism. In the model, the cave society is shown in the apex of the Ideal Realm, while Animism is shown in the lowest ebb of the Real Realm. This way of presentation on the complementary relationship that existed between the first society and religion shows that the Cave Society was the most ideal society and that Animism is the most real religion that man had ever known in history.

            Why were the cave society and animism the first society and religion that the first man knew? And why is it that the cave society is considered as the most ideal society and Animism the most real religion that man had ever experienced and known in history?

1. Cave Society: Its Characteristics

The earliest beginnings of man could be traced back to the cave man, so called because of his habitat and mode of life which he inherited, more or less, from the apes, his most immediate predecessor in the mammalian order Primates. This is the dawning of prehistoric man, man’s emergence from his ape ancestors.

Some authorities also called the cave man as the “ape man” (pithecanthropus), since he shared the ape’s physical features and habitat.

The earliest man may be described as sharing the same physical features as his ape ancestors, except that he had a more developed brain than them, and a continuing development of the brain’s cerebral cortex. With full development of the leg muscles, his hands were freed from its use in walking and he became a “pithecanthropus erectus,” an erect ape-man. This was during the Old Stone Age, at around 250,000 – 500,000 years ago.

With the emergence of the erect ape man, such inventions as stone tools and implements began to appear. Artifacts, such as pottery, knives and dishes, flaked flint tools, were identified as having been used by pre-historic man, the Homo sapiens (thinking or wise man, because of a fully developed cerebral cortex), in the New Stone Age about 10,000 years ago.

For the consideration of this paper, we shall begin with Homo sapiens. The hominid family embraces both the Australopithecus[29] and Homo (habilis, erectus, heidelbergensis, neanderthalensis, and sapiens) species. [30] Modern sociologists and anthropologists begin the study of human society with prehistoric man, Homo sapiens. The first man showed characteristics of the first primates because social behavior is also exhibited even among animals.

 Man’s immediate ancestors were the fist primates. According to Kenneth Cooper, the order of mammals called primates is of particular interest to man because he himself belongs to the group.

Although the ancestors of man, the first primates, or anthropoids, were tree dwelling animals that lived about 70,000,000 years ago, and continued to dwell in trees, hence these constituted the so-called arboreal primates.  It was only the baboons and man which broke away from this mode of life later on.[31]

The first hominids (pre-human apes) appeared about 4 million years ago; fossils discovered in Africa indicate that they walked erect and had bipedal stride even before the great increase in their brain size. [32]  Regarding the earliest form of the human species, the Homo sapiens, to practice religion, the Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia has this to say:

“By 350,000 years ago, planned hunting, fire-making, and the wearing of clothing were well established, as was possibly ritualized disposal of the dead. Evidence of religion, recorded events, and art date from 30,000 to 40,000 years ago and imply advanced language and ethics for the complex ordering of social groups required for such activities. From about that time the genus Homo began to stabilize into the one generalized species of Homo sapiens”.[33] 

To elucidate this point, another author had said:

“Religious beliefs and practices are found in all known contemporary societies and archeologists think they have found signs of religious belief associated with Homo sapiens who lived at least 60,000 years ago. People then deliberately buried their dead, and many graves contain the remains of food, tools, and many other objects that were probably thought to be needed in an afterlife. Some of the artistic productions of modern humans after about 30,000 years ago may have been used for religious purposes. For example, sculptures of females with ample secondary sex characteristics may have been fertility charms. Cave paintings in which the predominant images are animals of the hunt may effect a belief that the image had some power over events. Perhaps early humans thought that their hunting would be more successful if the drew images depicting good fortune in hunting. The details of religions practiced in the distant past cannot be recovered. Yet evidence of ritual treatment of the dead suggests that the early people believed in the existence of supernatural spirits and tried to communicate with, and perhaps influence, them.”[34]

Richard Gelles et al also reported that:

“The earliest evidence of religious behavior dates back over 50,000 years. In Europe and southwest Asia, Neanderthals buried their dead with tools and other supplies, suggesting that they had some notion of the “world beyond.” We cannot know exactly what Neanderthal groups believed or how they enacted their beliefs in ritual. But we do know from historical records and ethnographic studies that all societies tend to have some form of religion.”[35]

A report on the characteristics of the Neanderthals is found in Encarta Encyclopedia that says:

“Neanderthals had long, low, thick-boned skulls, with heavy brow ridges, in contrast to the high-domed, thin-walled skulls of modern human beings. The robust, heavily muscled frames of Neanderthals, with relatively long bodies and short legs, were well-adapted to their hunter-gatherer lifestyle in the often extremely cold conditions leading up to the last Ice Age. Although males were more strongly built than females, both sexes were very muscular, even as children. Neanderthals had large heads with very large projecting noses and receding chins. On average their brains were as large as or larger than the average modern human brain, which was probably related more to their large body size and heavy musculature, than heightened intelligence.

Although Neanderthal technology was fairly simple, there is evidence that they were capable hunters, and that they demonstrated a degree of compassion by caring for the infirm and the disabled, and by burying their dead. It has been suggested that Neanderthals practiced cannibalism, but there is little substantial evidence in the archaeological record to support this theory.” [36]

Reuters News  (PDI, 6 March 2005) reports “Early 'hobbit' human was smart.” This is its story:

“Tiny pre-humans who lived on an Indonesian island until about 12,000 years ago had brains so surprisingly sophisticated that the creatures may represent a previously unrecognized species of early humans, scientist reported Thursday. CAT scans of the inside of a skull – among the bones of eight individuals found in a cave on the Indonesian island of Flores – suggest brains that would have allowed advanced behavior such as toolmaking, the international team of researchers said. They said further study of the skulls of the creature, nicknamed “the Hobbit” after a literary character, showed it clearly was a normal adult of its species, not a mutant or diseased species, as some critics have alleged. “I am bowled over,” said Dean Falk of Florida State University, who studied CAT scans to make a virtual cast of the inside of the creature's skull. “I thought we were going to see a little chimpanzee-like brain and I was wrong. Nothing like this had been seen before,” she told a telephone briefing. Falk saw features that would have allowed the “Hobbit” to have made the tools found in the Indonesian cave, to use fire and to hunt as a group...Homo floresiensis stood only about one meter tall and had a brain about a third the size of modern adult humans. It had long arms and         would have walked upright. “We know from the record that these little humans, these little meter-high humans, were hunting things like pygmy elephants, were making fire and were making some stone tools,” said Mike Morwood of the University of New England in Australia, who led the initial mission that uncovered the bones. Writing in the journal Science, the team of US, Australian and Indonesian researchers said their unusual study of the inside of the “Hobbit's” brain case showed it was related to Homo erectus, which lived from 2 million years to about 25,000 years ago. “However, it was not like a little miniature Homo erectus brain. It was different” Falk said.”

Associated Press (PDI, 10 March 2005) reports “Scientists find man's earliest walking ancestor.” This is the story:

“A team of US and Ethiopian scientists has discovered the fossilize remains of what they believe is humankind's first walking ancestor; a hominid that           lived in the wooded grasslands of the Horn of Africa nearly 4 million years ago. The bones were discovered in February at a new site called Mille, in NE Afar region in Ethiopia, said Bruce Latimer, director of the Cleveland Museum of Natural History in the US state of Ohio. They are estimated to be 3.8-4 million years old. The fossil include a complete tibia from the lower part of the leg, parts of the thighbone, ribs, vertebrae, a collarbone, pelvis and a complete shoulder blade, or scapula. There is also an anklebone, which, with the tibia, proves the creature walked upright, said Latimer, co-leader of the team that discovered the fossils. “Right now we can say this is the world's oldest bipedal (an animal walking on two feet) and what makes this significant is because what makes us human is walking upright,” Latimer said. “This new discovery will give us a picture of how walking upright occurred”... Paleotologists previously discovered in Ethiopia the remains of Archipethicus ramidus, a transitional creature with significant ape characteristics dating back as many as 4.5 million years. There is some dispute over whether it walked upright on two legs, Latimer and Aiello said. Scientists know little about A. ramidus. A few skeletal fragments suggests it was even smaller than Australopithecus Afarensis, the 3.2 million year old species widely known by the nearly complete “Lucy” fossil, measures about 1.2 meters tall. Scientists are yet to classify the new find, which they believe falls between A. ramidus and A. afarensis.”

2. Animism: Its Characteristics

The cave man practiced the earliest form of religion, the worship of dead ancestors. It consisted with the rituals that accompanied the burial of the dead, from the washing of the body, embalming with herb juices, stuffing into two wooden planks, drying them on top of tree branches or hollows of tree trunks, and burying them inside caves or earthen ground.    

The animist religion began with, and was the predominant form of religious belief during, the cave society. Nature worship was the religion of the earliest man, his rise from irreligion to religion. Nature worship, which constitutes Natural religiosity, is the lowest or minimal form of religiosity. As man saw the awesome forces of nature, he worshipped their beneficial and life giving powers and recognized his dependence on them. With this also came the awareness of the destructive forces, the apparent death of nature in the seasonal cycles with the death of plants, the sun and moon. With darkness comes the fear of death and extinction, which are the dynamics of natural religiosity. 

Animism (from Latin, anima, “breath” or “soul”) is the belief in spiritual beings. As a religious belief, animism holds that all objects in the world have an inner psychological being, or soul. The 18th-century German doctor and chemist Georg Ernst Stahl coined the word animism to describe his theory that the soul is the vital principle responsible for organic development. Since the late 19th century, however, the term has been mainly associated with anthropology and the British anthropologist Sir Edward Burnett Tylor, who described the origin of religion and primitive beliefs in terms of animism, a term which he used to refer to beliefs in souls.

In Primitive Culture (1871) Tylor defined animism as the general belief in spiritual beings and considered it “a minimum definition of religion”. He asserted that all religions, from the simplest to the most complex, involve some form of animism. According to Tylor, primitive peoples, defined as those without written traditions, believe that spirits or souls are the cause of life in human beings; they picture souls as phantoms, resembling vapors or shadows, which can transmigrate from person to person, from the dead to the living, and from and into plants, animals, and lifeless objects. In deriving his theory, Tylor assumed that an animistic philosophy developed in an attempt to explain the causes of sleep, dreams, trances, and death; the difference between a living body and a dead one; and the nature of the images that one sees in dreams and trances.

Tylor's theories were criticized by the British anthropologist Robert R. Marett, who claimed that primitives could not have been so intellectual and that religion must have had a more emotional, intuitional origin. He rejected Tylor's theory that all objects were regarded as being alive. Marett thought that primitive peoples must have recognized some lifeless objects and probably regarded only those objects that had unusual qualities or that behaved in some seemingly unpredictable or mysterious way as being alive. He held, moreover, that the ancient concept of vitality was not sophisticated enough to include the notion of a soul or spirit residing in the object. Primitive peoples treated the objects they considered animate as if these things had life, feeling, and a will of their own, but did not make a distinction between the body of an object and a soul that could enter or leave it. Marett called this view “animatism” or “preanimism”, and he claimed that animism had to arise out of animatism, which may even continue to exist alongside more highly developed animistic beliefs.[37]  

According to Richard Gelles et al, “Animist Religions hold that the world is inhabited by spirits with motives and emotions like our own. Although believers do not worship these spirits as gods, they do attempt to influence their behavior through magic. This animist belief in spirits explains the occurrence of illness or accidents and prescribes a course of action.”[38]

Alvin Toffler characterized animism as a “Belief behind immediate physical reality of things lie spirits that even seemingly dead objects, rocks or earth, have a living fuse within them, which they called mana. The Sioux called it wakan, the Algonquians, Manitou, and the Iroquois, orenda. For such people, the environment is alive!” [39]           

The most ideal society, according the model, is that of the cave society because man was living in a most pristine kind of existence. Although this society may have lasted for several centuries only after the first human evolution from the first primates, yet it is the most ideal society man had ever known.

The most real religion that man had ever known is the animist religion, according to the model. Animism is nature worship.

B. Nomadic Society and Its Shamanistic Religion

The second economic base is the nomadic society. During this time, nomads lived “in small bands and tribes and subsisting by gathering, hunting, or fishing.”[40]   Its religion is the shamanistic religion.

In the theoretical model illustrating the complementariness of religion and society, the second society (Nomadic) and second religion (Shamanism) which man knew in history are shown halfway between the Ideal and the Real realms. The Nomadic society is shown halfway down from ideal realm and the middle line, indicating a decadence of this society. The shamanistic religion is shown in the model as halfway up from the Real Realm and the middle line, indicating that this religion was an improvement of the animistic religion.

1. The Nomadic Society: Its Characteristics

Nomads are groups of people whose way of life involves frequent moves from place to place. Usually nomads live in tents, grass-covered shelters, or other temporary or mobile dwellings. The term “nomadism” (from Greek, “nomas,” wanderer) is used to refer to the peripatetic or wandering way of life.

There are three kinds of nomads: Pastoral nomads, Hunter-gatherer nomads, and Nomadic travelers.

The difference between these three is that: the pastoral nomads, or pastoralist nomads of the Middle Eastern countries, are those who moved and even today move with their camels, cattle, sheep, and goats, seeking pasture for them at each season of the year; the hunter-gatherer nomads are those who live by hunting and gathering, have been peripatetic and without fixed dwellings; and the nomadic travelers are those living and moving among sedentary peoples and making their living from their sedentary neighbors by working as musicians, metal workers, seasonal laborers, traders, fortunetellers (the gypsies), and a whole range of other occupations that are recurrently in demand. [41]

Richard J. Gelles and Ann Levine report that,

“The hunter-gatherer nomads lived in nomadic bands of ten to fifty, whose members were free to come and go. The basic unit of social structure was the nuclear family. There were no formal economic institutions: the exchange of goods and services was governed by informal norms of reciprocity. Although each family was able to provide for itself, food was shared with other members of the band. Hunter-gatherer had no formal leaders. Individuals might earn special respect for their skills or knowledge and wisdom. People looked to them for advice but had no obligation to follow it. Religion was woven into everyday life: what we might call rituals and prayers were considered an integral part of such practical activities as carving arrows or cooking food. Children learned the skills they would need as adults by observing adults, listening to their stories and gossip, imitating adult activities in play, and working alongside them. Every male was a hunter, and every adult female, a gatherer. Within the confines of these roles, hunter-gatherers enjoyed a high degree of individual freedom. No one worked for anyone else, and no one had the right to issue commands. Warfare was unknown in this stage of the evolution of societies. The human population of the world was small, and natural resources were abundant. When families or bands could not get along, they simply moved apart. Only a few such societies have survived into modern times.” [42]

2. Shamanism: Its Characteristics

A shaman is a religious specialist, originally found in hunter-gatherer cultures, which are loosely structured, technologically simple, and homogeneous. The word shaman is derived from a word in the Tungus language of Siberia, one of the areas in which the classical form of shamanism was found.[43]

Shamans are “women or men who are socially recognized as having special abilities for entering into contact with spirit beings and for controlling supernatural forces.” [44]  According to another source, a shaman is “usually a part-time male specialist who has fairly high status in his community and is involved in healing. Westerners call shamans witch doctors because they don’t believe that shamans can effectively cure people.” [45]

Although a shaman can achieve religious status by heredity, personal quest, or vocation, the recognition and call of the individual is always an essential part of that individual's elevation to the new status. The shaman, usually a man, is essentially a medium, a mouthpiece of the spirits who became his familiars at his initiation, during which he frequently undergoes prolonged fasts, seclusion, and other ordeals leading to dreams and visions. Training by experienced shamans follows.

The main religious tasks of a shaman are healing and divination. Both are achieved either by spirit possession or by the departure of the shaman's soul to heaven or to the underworld. Accounts exist of the shaman effecting miraculous resurrections by traveling to the land of the dead to fetch back the deceased's spirit. Shamans also divine the whereabouts of game, the position of the enemy, and the best way of safeguarding and increasing the food supply.[46] 

Marvin Harris et al report: “While in a trance, the shaman may act as a medium, transmitting messages from the dead ancestors. With the help of friendly spirits, shamans predict future events, locate lost objects, identify the cause of illness, battle with spirits on behalf on the patient, prescribe cures, and give advice on how clients can protect themselves against the evil intentions of enemies.[47]

C. Primitive Communal Society and its Fetishistic/Totemistic Religion

Man left the nomadic stage to live in a more settled life in the tribal villages or settlements. We call this period the Tribal Village or the primitive communal society.

1. Primitive Communal Society: Its Characteristics

This period of the Primitive Communal and its fetishistic/totemistic religion is shown in the theoretical model as halfway between the Ideal and the Real realms, meaning that  this primitive communal society and totemistic/fetishistic religion was the most normal kind of society and religion; neither too idealistic nor too  realistic, but on an average level.

Sociologists are of the opinion that the fundamental driving force which brought about the stage of the Village Tribal society was the invention of agriculture. Richard J. Gelles and Ann Levine report that:

“About 10,000 years ago, some groups of hunter-gatherers discovered how to plant and harvest crops and to tame and herd animals. For the first time, human beings became food producers. Slash and burn agriculture (burning down a patch of forest and planting in the cleared area) enabled people to establish larger, semipermanent villages. The domestication of plants and animals did not create a “Garden of Eden.” To the contrary, attacks and raids on neighboring villages were frequent. But village or tribal warfare was largely a ritual activity, staged to settle disputes and restore balance, in which few people were killed.” [48]

Agriculture became the main economy and force of production, the main form of occupation for the village people. Hunting no longer appealed to them since the wild animals became scarce. The forest no longer gave the fruits to men as they have become more populous. That is why he now learned to cultivate and till the soil to plant seeds that would serve as food for the tribe.

Man invented the plow and learned to domesticate animals for farming purposes. He invented the art of irrigating his fields by constructing canals and dikes to channel water from mountain springs. With the invention of the wheel, he used wooden carts drawn by animals to transport his product from his farm to the market. Boats were used for water transportation.

With agriculture, man learned to band together for common or joint labor. Thus, agricultural society was born, and with it, the first civilization.

The members of the agricultural society equally shared in the farm work, depending upon sex, age and ability; so did they equally share the surplus of their labor. The tools, equipments and land used for production were owned in common. Thus, relationship within the agricultural society of the tribal village people was cohesive and friendly, and not antagonistic or divisive.

The village tribe was composed of one family clan. It was headed by a chief or chieftain. It began as more of a ceremonial figurehead, awarded to a person who had shown exemplary strength or heroism in a battle against other enemy tribes. In some tribes, the chieftain was assisted by the council of elders. Later, chieftainship began to be hereditary, handed down by the chief to his favorite offspring. By hereditary chieftainship, the other members shared in the status and dignity of the chief, by being called nobles. Thus, hereditary chieftainship gave rise to the nobility class among the communal tribes.

With the conquest of new territories, through the waging of tribal wars or through intermarriages, the chief grew wealthy and powerful. His wealth could support the needs of the whole tribe. With wealth, he could furnish his household with a retinue of servants whose needs were well provided for. With the capture of people from other tribes, his servants were substituted by these captured prisoners, becoming virtual slaves of the chieftain’s household and land holdings.

Private property became in vogue. Production surplus brought more wealth and more property to be owned privately. The land which was held in common before became the private property of the chief and the nobility class. The other members of the tribe could privately own a portion of land belong to the tribal territory through personal reward for service rendered to the chief, by inheritance, or by purchase. Since work in the land was now done through slave labor, the members of the tribe did not work directly but participated in the production force by owning more lands, tools, animals, equipments, or slaves. With privatization of the means of production, came the end of the tribal society, as relations became antagonistic and divisive, breaking away of tribal loyalties and ties. Thus, social stratification of society started with the nobility class, warriors, free men and slaves. Classification may concern property, the propertied and non-propertied class or poor men.

Social stratification brought society into the next period – slave society. The propertied class becoming masters, while large masses of people became poor men, to become virtual slaves of the rich.

Primitive communism designates “a largely self-sufficient village economy where the basic tools of production, animals, land, etc., are the property of the community as a whole. The idea that individual private property is an impediment to a just society has led many writers to imagine a state of affairs without private ownership.” [49]  

The characteristics of the Primitive communal or tribal village society are the following: 1. All tools and lands were collectively owned; 2. all tribal members engaged in common labor on the basis of their age, sex, and strength; 3. the fruits of labor, or surplus of production, were commonly owned and shared; and 4. social relations were mutual, since tribal man had to band together to withstand the forces of nature which they could neither understand or control. Tribal man “had to associate and work together to struggle for physical survival.” [50]

Regarding this stage of social evolution, Richard J. Gelles et al reported that:

“Horticultural villages ranged in size from 40 to 250 members. There were no formal political, economic, or religious institutions in these villages, but the beginnings were there. Kinship was more clearly defined, and membership in a clan (or extended-kinship group) determined the individual’s rights to land and to marriage partners. There was little formal trade (direct, calculated exchange for one item for another), but feats and banquets were used to cement alliances between clans.” [51]

2. Fetishism: Its Characteristics

The most predominant religion of the Tribal period was Fetishism. It was the worship of the Tribal Fetish – a sacred object or thing that is believed to possess magical powers. This was a development of the ancestor worship were relics of dead ancestors were carried or worn around the body as necklaces or amulets by nobles and warriors.

When a dead man was a person of renowned or heroic deeds, such as one who killed a wild beast or brought the biggest game that saved the group from famine, not only did they preserved his body but his past deeds were retold as well. With the invention of language, tales about the heroic acts of valiant villagers were retold inside tribal houses or communal dwellings from generation to generation.  Such narratives of powerful deeds of dead ancestors when told and retold sanctified their subjects and inspired the listeners to emulate their feat and revere them. Skeletal remains of these men were treasured and kept until they became sacred relics of the tribe, called fetishes. Thus, fetishism began with the primitive communal society.

These relics were believed to be possessed by the “spirit” of dead ancestors, to help their possessors in times of difficulties or crises. With the advent of the Village Tribal folks, this belief was transferred to the Tribal fetish – a totem pole, the dried head of a war chief, an ancient tree, a sacred rock or stone, skull or tooth of an animal. The fetish was worshipped and invoked with elaborate tribal rituals and ceremonies – dancing and chanting around tribal fires, with eating and drinking wines and spirits. Power is believed to emanate from the sacred Fetish if accompanied with the killing of a sacrificial victim, a person (usually slave women) or animal. Blood sacrifice is poured over the fetish object or totem pole. The flesh of victims is eaten raw or roasted in the sacred fire. Participants of the tribal rituals may experience euphoric feelings during the ceremony. Rituals also brought about cohesiveness among the tribes.

Fetishism is a term used in anthropology to identify the concept of devotion to objects. These sacred objects are called fetishes and totems.  In anthropology, fetishism applies to a form of belief and religious practice in which supernatural attributes are imputed to material, inanimate objects, known as fetishes. The practice includes magic, often with many attendant ceremonies and minor rituals. The fetish itself is usually a figure modeled or carved from clay, stone, wood, glass, or other material in imitation of a deified animal or other object. Frequently it consists of fur, feathers, hair, or a bone or tooth of a tutelary (guardian) animal. Sometimes it is the animal itself, or a tree, river, rock, or place associated with the tutelary in the mind of the devotee. In some cases the belief is so definitely crystallized about the object that the original connection with the tutelary is obscured, and the belief merges into idolatry. At one time fetishism was thought to be practiced only in West Africa, but it is now known to prevail among peoples in all lands. Anthropologists in the 19th century limited the use of the term to the doctrine of potencies (spirits) attached to, or conveying influence through, material objects. According to more recent data, however, fetishes need not be connected with spirits, except to the extent that they are employed to thwart malevolent beings.

            3. Totemism: Its Characteristics

Rites of solidarity were also common among clans and other descent groups. Tribal groups, or whole villages, usually have names and emblems that identify group members and set one group off from another. Animal names and emblems predominate, but insects, plants, and natural phenomena such as rain and clouds also occur. These group-identifying objects are known as totems. [52]

            The fetishistic religion, and its accompanying Totemism, compensated for the degradation of man who was being dispossessed of his natural right to own the land in common. The tribal fetish reminded him that the tribe had only one ancestor, although now dead, but had always remained in their midst calling his children to surround him. This was more wonderful and important thing than the powers that the tribal fetish could give to its worshippers. But tribal men had missed this, or had forgotten this point. The slaves or the poor men of the late tribal period, who were totally dispossessed of their tribal rights, began to look upon the tribal fetish for liberation from their oppressive conditions or for individual salvation from this cruel world. These salves wore their fetish objects on necklaces around their necks and clan to it devotion during adverse times, and they felt power surging their bodies to make them endure oppression and deprivation of the soul and body. But the burning hope was alive in them that one day the land that was unjustly taken from them will be restored to make them owners and tillers of the soil again. This was the magic they hoped to get from worshipping or wearing their fetish objects. However, that day never came for many of the slaves of the late tribal period. Instead, tribal society was ushered in to its next tragic period, the slave society. 

D. The Slave Society and Its Polytheistic Religion

           

The fourth society is that of the Slave society. This is shown in the model as located a little down the middle line towards the Real realm, indicating that this society is a decadent society of the primitive communal or tribal society.

            1. Slave Society: Its Characteristics

Slavery, social institution defined by law and custom as the most absolute involuntary form of human servitude. The definitive characteristics of slaves are as follows: their labor or services are obtained through force; their physical beings are regarded as the property of another person, their owner; and they are entirely subject to their owner's will. Since earliest times slaves have been legally defined as things; therefore, they could, among other possibilities, be bought, sold, traded, given as gifts, or pledged for a debt by their owner, usually without any recourse to personal or legal objection or restraint.[53]

The practice of slavery dates to prehistoric times, although its institutionalization probably first occurred when agricultural advances first made possible more highly organized societies.

Tribal society, with its agricultural economy, made possible the ownership of private property. This not only included the means of production, such as land, tools, machineries, and the surplus of production which brought more wealth to their owners, but also the ownership of the labor force. The more property to manage meant more people are needed for production and cultivation. The propertied class relied on slave force to do the work of cultivation of the land for them. In return, they received protection and benefits. Since they owned nothing, they had to sell their labor to those who have the means of production in order to subsist and to support the needs of his family. Thus, they willingly became slaves.

Others have been captured in battle. The conquest of other territories brought about the capture of its people. Taken as prisoners into the conquering tribe, mostly the women and children, who could not resist their capturers or return back home, were made into slaves by the conquerors.

Others became slaves because of indebtedness. They had to sell themselves to redeem their own or their parents’ debts. For a large sum of debt was tantamount to be reduced to slavery.

For others, it was punishment for crimes committed, viz., rebellion, murder, theft, etc. They were chained to work in mines, or to row battle or merchant ships, or become gladiators in the sports arena of the emperor.

Because of these, vast majority of the population became virtual slaves to some few masters who could do anything to their slaves, either to be sold, or killed if not fit for more productive work.

Private individual became masters by privately owning the means of production, land, tools, goods, and wealth due to the accumulation of surplus labor or goods.

The chiefs and the nobility, the war chiefs, army men, statesmen, who were prominent citizens, were the masters of slave society.

The establishment of the state became necessary to protect the interest of the masters against these slaves. The State, headed by the Emperor, brought about the emergence of the empire’s massive conquests through slave force.

The formation of armies came about to aid in the work of conquest, in empire building, and to maintain peace and order among the slaves to prevent rebellion and to suppress it, if there arose one, in the empire.

Citizenship was granted only to those who had property, land and slaves. Slaves therefore could not qualify for citizenship.

Social stratification during the slave society comprised the following: 1. the Ruling Class, composed of the Emperor, statesmen, army men and warriors; 2. The Nobility, composed of the most prominent and wealthy citizens; 3. the  Citizens, or the propertied class; and 4. the Slaves, property-less class.

 The same stratification was found in the subjugated regions, only that tribute to the emperor was being demanded from its citizens as payment for imperial protection.

The slaves were a useful commodity, which resulted in the slave-holding venture. They were found in all aspects of empire building. They were found in households, army, and gladiators in sports arena, battleships rowing, transportation and road building, construction work in such wonders of Rome, Greece, Egypt and Asia Minor.

The conquest from the North and the countless rebellions of slaves brought about the collapse of the Mediterranean empires and the end of the slave society.      

2. Polytheistic Religion: Its Characteristics

The most predominant religion that arose during the Slave society was polytheism. As shown in the model, this religion is a little above the middle line going up towards the Ideal realm, indicating that polytheism is a much improvement of fetishism or Totemism.

Polytheism, etymological speaking, is taken from two Greek words “poly”, many, and “theos”, god. Hence, it connotes the worship of many gods.

Polytheism is the belief in the existence of many gods or divine beings. It has been widespread in human cultures, past and present, and has taken many forms. Natural forces and objects—celestial, atmospheric, and earthly (such as stars, rain, mountains, and fire)—have often been identified with divinities. Gods have also been worshipped in the form of vegetation (especially trees and cultivated plants) and animals (for instance, the monkey in India and the hummingbird among the Aztecs). The assumption of human forms and characteristics by divine beings (anthropomorphism), as in the emphatically human passions and behavior of the Greek and Roman gods, is virtually a universal feature of polytheism.

Polytheism is clearly related to a belief in various kinds of demons and spirits, as in animism, Totemism, and ancestor worship, but in polytheism the spirits are distinct, personified deities who belong to a cosmic hierarchy described in myths or sacred writings. Scholars have proposed several theories to account for its emergence. It has been attributed, for instance, to the need for supernatural moral sanctions or to the awe inspired by (and the desire to appease) the uncontrollable forces of nature. It has also been associated in some theories with the development of a social structure characterized by specialization and class distinctions.

            Many polytheistic religions, such as Hinduism and ancient Egyptian religion, have exhibited a clear tendency towards monotheism, the belief in and worship of one god or divine power, and polytheistic beliefs and practices sometimes coexist with an essentially monotheistic theology. [54]

            Polytheism was an offshoot, or a form of ancestor spirit worship, which believed the dead ancestors’ spirit as living in an ethereal, or heavenly existence, in another world. Polytheistic deities had anthropomorphic personalities, behaving and acting like ordinary mortals.

            Mortal men looked upon the deities as controllers of their fates. The failure or success of an endeavor was determined or decided by the gods in the heavens. Every aspect of human life, be it a journey or endeavor, had a heavenly patron who must be consulted first, through auguration and divination before being undertaken.

            If mortal man had a master on earth, the gods have a chief or master or “high” god in heaven. For the Greeks, the chief god is Zeus (Latin “Deus”, or Spanish “Dios”) who lived at the peak of Mt. Olympus. The Romans had Jupiter, or Jove, as their chief god. These high gods had wives and children and a whole cohort and retinue of gods and goddess that composed their whole household and court. This observation is indeed in contrast with the one that was made by Carol R. Ember, who said, “A polytheistic religion recognizes many important gods, no one of which is supreme.” [55]

            The temple priests and priestesses were the earthly representatives, and in some places were even considered as earthly counterparts, of these gods and goddesses. The chief priests ruled the temple cohort and retinue. The temple was the place of worship, and every god or goddess had their own temples dedicated to their honor. The priests took charge of the auguration and divination to consult the gods or goddesses.

Temple sacrifices were demanded by the priests as a way to approach the gods: such as, fruits, human offerings, and blood poured (libation) on the altar or sprinkled on devotees.

Fertility cults and temple fornications were practiced. Slave virgins were offered as victims to arouse the goddess of nature to bring fertility to the land.

Polytheism affected the life of the people. Its elaborate rituals aroused euphoria among devotees. The sight and spilling of blood through the butchering of sacrificial animals gave satisfaction to masters and slave spectators alike, both of which lusted for blood. The variety of gods for a variety of functions aroused the imagination of the Greek and Roman classical writers to produce immortal literatures about the immortal gods and goddesses.

Slaves, who had suffered much the tragedy and misery of slavery, looked to the immortal gods enthroned in the heavens for much sought solace and refuge from their daily sufferings. Slaves were forbidden to practice the religion. However, they became part of the worship of such religion when they become the sacrificial victims offered on the altar of the master’s gods and goddesses or to be the sports and entertainment for the emperors. The slaves were burned on the sacred fires both for the satisfaction of the gods and the emperor.

Polytheism was a higher form of religion than fetishism. It was supposed to compensate for human degradation, which the slaves endured. It offered them a sense of other-worldliness and transported them psychologically to a place of bliss and contentment which were physically denied of them. As they were roasted alive in sacred fires, their masters watched with pious satisfaction that they were fulfilling a religious obligation to their gods and goddesses. These slaves constructed the temples of these gods and goddesses and the tombs of the emperors as they endured much hunger and disease. The propertied class who propagated polytheism for the entertainment of the slaves watched them languish in their oppressive chains. The propertied class felt ecstatic at the sight of blood oozing from the necks of their slaves being butchered upon the altar of inhumanity. As the priests sprinkled the blood of slaves over them, the propertied class claimed responsibility over these inhuman acts in the name of religious belief.  Meanwhile, these slaves paid much for their long-awaited liberty and freedom at the hands of death.

Polytheism rose to become monotheism to free at last the slave masters of their crimes against humanity though the capture, torture and sacrifice of the slaves in the name of religion and to cover up for another decadent inhuman society, which is the feudal society, which transformed the slaves into serfs.

E. Feudal Society and Its Monotheistic Religion

The slaveholding society and its polytheistic religion had gone away, only to be replaced by another more decadent society, the Feudal Society. The masters of the slave society had gone away, only to return in a new form, the lords of the Feudal Society.

This society is shown in the model as half way down in the Real realm, next to slave society. Its religious belief, Monotheism, which is an improvement of polytheism and, therefore, higher in the ideological ladder, is shown half way up to the Ideal realm.

1. Feudalism: Its Characteristics

Feudal society first appeared in Western Europe during the Middle Ages, after the fall of the Roman Empire. While many Mediterranean states were still slave-holding, a new political and socio-economic system was emerging in the subjugated regions of the empire, especially in Western Europe.

Western Europe was once the barbarian kingdoms of the Gaul, Teutons, Swiss, Iberians, and Belgians. These were conquered by the Romans at the first half of the 2^nd century, A.D. When the Roman Empire collapsed, these kingdoms, or subjugated regions, were awarded to some Roman military generals. Because of their outstanding military service to the Roman Emperor, they were given territories to administer. They were awarded tracks of lands on condition that they will continue to render military service.

Feudalism is defined as “a contractual system of political and military relationships existing among members of the nobility in Western Europe during the High Middle Ages.” [56]

Feudalism was characterized by the granting of fiefs, chiefly in the form of land and labor, in return for political and military services—a contract sealed by oaths of homage and fealty (fidelity).

When the German invaders conquered the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century, they destroyed the professional Roman army and substituted their own armies, made up of warriors who served their chieftains for honor and booty. To support his cavalry soldiers, Martel gave them estates farmed by dependent laborers, which he took from the Church. Such estates, called benefices, were given for the duration of the soldiers' service. The soldiers were called vassals (from a Gaelic word meaning servant). The vassals, however, being selected soldiers with whom the Carolingian rulers surrounded themselves, became models for the nobles who followed the court. With the breakup of the Carolingian Empire in the 9th century, many powerful men strove to assemble their own bands of mounted vassals, giving them benefices in return for their services. Some of the weaker landowners then found themselves obliged to enter into vassalage and to concede their lands to the lordship of the more powerful, receiving them back as benefices. The greater lords were expected to protect their vassals, as the vassals were expected to serve their benefactors.

Some of the essential features of classical feudalism are: 1. The fief - the estate given a vassal, understood to be hereditary, provided that the vassal's heir was satisfactory to the lord, and provided further that he paid an inheritance tax called a relief; and, 2. A special oath of homage to the feudal lord who invested him with a fief. Thus, feudalism was a political as well as military institution that was based upon a contract between two individuals, both of whom held rights in the fief.

Feudalism reached its maturity in the 11th century and flourished in the 12th and 13th centuries. Its cradle was the region between the Rhine and the Loire, but in the late 11th century rulers of that region conquered southern Italy and Sicily, England, and, with the First Crusade, the Holy Land. To each place they took their feudal institutions.

In its classical form, western feudalism assumed that most of the land belonged to the sovereign prince, be he the king or duke, marquis or count.

The prince then granted fiefs to his barons, who made their oaths of homage and fealty to him and were required to give him political and military service according to the terms of the grant. The barons, in turn, might grant portions of their fiefs to knights who swore homage and fealty to them and served them according to their grants.

Military service in the field was fundamental owed by a vassal to his lord. When the lord had a castle, he might require his vassals to garrison it, a service called castle-guard. The lord also expected his vassals to attend his court in order to give him advice and to participate in judgments of cases concerning other vassals. If the lord had need of money, he might expect his vassals to give him financial aid.

2. Monotheism: Its Characteristics

Monotheism was the religion of the Feudal society. It originated with the monotheistic beliefs of the Hebrew people. Began with the legendary Hebrew patriarchs, Abraham, until this God revealed (“revelare”, lit. means to remove the veil) himself as “YHWH” to Moses. It was not a powerful religion until King David founded a kingdom with monotheistic laws and institutions. The temple worship of monotheistic religion began.

Monotheism is the belief or worship of one God. It found its champions in Judaism, Christianism and Mohammedanism.

Monotheism is the “belief in one God.” [57] Carol R. Ember describes monotheistic religion as: “…one in which there is one high god as the creator of the universe or the director of events (or both); all the other supernatural beings are either…”[58] In another part, she adds, “Although monotheism means “one god,” most monotheistic religions actually include more than one supernatural being (e.g., demons, angels, the Devil). But the Supreme Being or high god, as the creator of the universe or the director of events (or both), is believed to be ultimately responsible for all events.” [59]

F. The Capitalist Society and Its Monopolytheistic Religion

     1. Capitalism: Its Characteristics

Capitalism is an “economic system in which private individuals and business firms carry on the production and exchange of goods and services through a complex network of prices and markets.”[60]

Karl Marx, the founder of Communism, first introduced the term capitalism in the mid-19th century.

The individual who comes closest to being the originator of contemporary capitalism is the Scottish philosopher Adam Smith, who first set forth the essential economic principles that undergrid this system. In his classic An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776), Smith sought to show how it was possible to pursue private gain in ways that would further not just the interests of the individual but those of society as a whole. Society's interests are met by maximum production of the things that people want. In a now famous phrase, Smith said that the combination of self-interest, private property, and competition among sellers in markets will lead producers “as by an invisible hand” to an end that they did not intend, namely, the well being of society.

            Capitalism has certain key characteristics. First, basic production facilities—land and capital—are privately owned. Capital in this sense means the buildings, machines, and other equipment used to produce goods and services that are ultimately consumed. Second, economic activity is organized and coordinated through the interaction of buyers and sellers (or producers) in markets. Third, owners of land and capital, as well as the workers they employ, are free to pursue their own self-interests in seeking maximum gain from the use of their resources and labor in production. Consumers are free to spend their incomes in ways that they believe will yield the greatest satisfaction. This principle, called consumer sovereignty, reflects the idea that under capitalism producers will be forced by competition to use their resources in ways that will best satisfy the wants of consumers. Self-interest and the pursuit of gain lead them to do this. Fourth, under this system a minimum of government supervision is required; if competition is present, economic activity will be self-regulating. Government will be necessary only to protect society from foreign attack, uphold the rights of private property, and guarantee contracts. This 19th-century view of government's role in the capitalist system has been significantly modified by ideas and events of the 20th century.

Two developments paved the way for the emergence of modern capitalism; both took place in the latter half of the 18th century. The first was the appearance of the physiocrats in France after 1750; and the second was the devastating impact that the ideas of Adam Smith had on the principles and practice of mercantilism.

Physiocracy is the term applied to a school of economic thought that suggested the existence of a natural order in economics, one that does not require direction from the state for people to be prosperous. The leader of the physiocrats, the economist François Quesnay, set forth the basic principles in his Tableau économique (1758), in which he traced the flow of money and goods through the economy. Simply put, this flow was seen to be both circular and self-sustaining. More important, however, was that it rested on the division of society into three main classes: (1) the productive class was made up of those engaged in agriculture, fishing, and mining, representing one-half of the population; (2) the proprietary class consisted of landed proprietors and those supported by them, which amounted to one-quarter of the population, and (3) the artisan, or sterile, class, made up the rest of the population.

Quesnay's Tableau is significant because it expressed the belief that only the agricultural classes are capable of producing a surplus or net product, out of which the state either could find the capital to support an expansion of the flow of goods and money or could levy taxes to meet its needs. Other activities, such as manufacturing, were regarded as essentially sterile, because they did not produce new wealth but simply transformed or circulated the output of the productive class. It was this aspect of physiocratic thought that was turned against mercantilism. If industry did not create wealth, then it was futile for the state to try to enhance society's wealth by a detailed regulation and direction of economic activity.

The ideas of Adam Smith represented more than just the first systematic treatise on economics; they were a frontal attack on the doctrines of mercantilism. Like the physiocrats, Smith tried to show the existence of a “natural” economic order, one that would function most efficiently if the state played a highly limited role. Unlike the physiocrats, however, Smith did not believe that industry was unproductive or that only the agricultural sector was capable of producing a surplus above the subsistence needs of society. Rather, Smith saw in the division of labor and the extension of markets almost limitless possibilities for society to expand its wealth through manufacture and trade.

Thus, both the physiocrats and Smith contributed to the belief that the economic powers of governments should be limited and that there existed a natural order of liberty applicable to the economy. It was Smith, however, far more than the physiocrats, who opened the way for industrialization and the emergence of modern capitalism in the 19th century.

The ideas of Smith and the physiocrats provided the ideological and intellectual background for the Industrial Revolution—the material side of the sweeping transformations in society and the world that characterized the 19th century.

The fundamental characteristic of the industrialization process was the introduction of mechanical power (originally steam) to replace human and animal power in the production of goods and services. As the mechanization of production gained momentum in England and gradually spread to other parts of the world, several fundamental changes occurred. Production became more specialized and concentrated in larger units, called factories. The modern working class began to emerge; workers no longer owned their tools, they had little property, and generally they had to exchange their labor for a money wage. The application of mechanical power to production brought with it a great increase in worker efficiency, which made goods abundant and cheap. Consequently, the real standard of living rose throughout much of the world during the 19th century.

The development of industrial capitalism had serious human costs. The early days of the Industrial Revolution were marred by appalling conditions for large numbers of workers, especially in England. Abusive child labor, long working hours, and dangerous and unhealthy workplaces were common. These conditions led Karl Marx, who spent most of his adult life in England, to produce his massive indictment of the capitalistic system, Das Kapital (3 vol., 1867-1894). Marx's work, which is the intellectual foundation for the kind of Communist economic systems, used in the USSR and still nominally in use in China, struck at the fundamental principle of capitalism—private ownership of the means of production. Marx believed that land and capital should be owned collectively (that is, by society) and that the products of the system should be distributed according to need.

Capitalism was also beset by business cycles of “boom and bust”, periods of expansion and prosperity followed by economic collapse and waves of unemployment. Marxian criticisms, along with frequent depressions in the major capitalist nations, helped to establish vigorous trade union movements that fought to raise wages, shorten working hours, and improve working conditions.

In the late 19th century, especially in the United States, the modern corporation, with its limited liability and immense financial power, began to emerge as the dominant form of business organization. The tendency towards corporate control of manufacturing led to many attempts to create combines, monopolies, or trusts that could control an entire industry.

Despite such difficulties, capitalism continued to expand and prosper almost without limit throughout the 19th century. It was successful because it demonstrated an enormous ability to create new wealth and to raise the real standard of living for nearly everyone touched by it. As the century closed, capitalism was the dominant economic and social system.

2. Monopolytheism, or Unitrinitarianism: Its Characteristics

Most predominant religion in Capitalist society was Monopolytheism. Capitalism’s monopolistic tendencies found its counterpart in religious Monopoly-theism.

Monopolytheism comes from the Greek word “mono”, one, “poly”, many, and “theos”, god. This is the Trinitarian belief of the Christian churches. Because they believed the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, one God in three divine persons, some groups called such belief as Unitrinitarianism.

Monopolytheism began to be practiced by men even before society began to practice capitalism, as wage-labor pre-existed capitalism and slavery pre-existed slave-holding society, or private property pre-existed the tribal period. And so, Monopolytheism pre-existed the capitalist society also.

Monopolytheism attempts to combine monotheism and polytheism. This doctrine arose when Christianity began to be influenced by pagan beliefs and practices, with the intrusion of the Roman emperor into the administrative activity of the early Christian churches. At this time, early attempts had been made to amalgamize the two beliefs of monotheism and polytheism that gave birth to Monopolytheism, a belief in three equally divine persons within the one God, as a way to accommodate the monotheistic beliefs of the Jews with the polytheistic beliefs of Rome.

            Monopolytheism is the worship, or belief, in the one God in three persons, or the Trinity, as Catholics and Protestants would name this kind of god.

Of particular interest of the two religious groups are the Protestants, with their religious belief on austerity and renunciation of wealth. The Protestants claim to have given rise to the capitalist system of the economy, with the doctrine of Max Weber (1864-1920).

Max Weber was a “German economist and sociologist, known for his systematic approach to world history and the development of Western civilization. His best-known works, Die protestantische Ethik und der Geist des Kapitalismus (The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, 1904-1905; trans. 1930), wherein he tried to prove that ethical and religious ideas were strong influences on the development of capitalism. He expanded on this theme in his later writings on Asian religions, in which he postulated that the prevailing religious and philosophical ideas in the Eastern world prevented the development of capitalism in ancient societies, despite the presence of favorable economic factors.”[61]

G. Socialist Society and Its Atheistic Religion

            1. Socialist Society: Its Characteristics

Socialism is “the concept and party-based political movement, originally based in the organized working class, generally antagonistic towards capitalism.”[62]  While the final aim of socialists was a communist or classless society, they increasingly concentrated on social reforms within capitalism. As the movement developed, the concept itself acquired different meanings in different times and places.

The term began to be used in the first half of the 19th century by radical intellectuals who considered themselves to be the true heirs to the Enlightenment. Among its early theorists were a French aristocrat, Claude de Saint-Simon, and a British capitalist, Robert Owen. With Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, socialism acquired a theory of exploitation and a theory of history.

Socialists assumed that all their demands could be achieved peacefully in democratic countries, that violence might be necessary where despotism prevailed, and ruled out participation in bourgeois governments. The majority assumed that their task was to build up the movement until the eventual collapse of capitalism would enable socialism to be established.

Socialist society was characterized by common ownership of the means of production. This means that society should hold wealth in common; that the management of the economy should be by the state and that public sector should be expanded through nationalization.

Socialist society is fundamentally a different socio-economic formation. Similar to primitive communalism, the relations of production are characterized by mutuality and cooperation. There is social ownership in the means of production, so that people are no longer divided into those who own and to those who own nothing. Abolition of private property in the means of production is what makes socialist society “classless.” Harmonious relationship between forces of production and relations of production is cohesive since there is a social appropriation of the fruits of social production.

In socialist society, development is geared to meet people’s needs and to perfect social relations. Any individual regards his work and its results as contribution to social transformation and to the enrichment of the various aspect of social life. Idleness has no place in socialist society – putting into practice the Christian dictum “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”. Man has to work and to produce in order to eat and fulfill himself.

The socialist state is still a revolutionary phase towards the communist state, because it has to consolidate the gains of the proletariat class and to attain the economic and cultural reconstruction of society. Hence, the superstructure must play an important role as socialism is not the end of social revolution as it must lead to communism. The totality of the ideological, political and other institutions is mobilized in a scientific way to advance a worldview that is reflective and supportive of the aspirations of all people for equality, brotherhood and prosperity. The present socialist society must, therefore, be understood as a revolutionary stage towards the communist state.

“Towards the end of the 1950s West European socialist parties began to discard Marxism openly, accepted the mixed economy, loosened their links with the trade unions, and abandoned the idea of an ever-expanding nationalized sector. The late 1950s revisionism proclaimed a new goal of socialism, which is the redistribution of wealth according to principles of social justice and equality.” [63]

2. Atheism: Its Characteristics

Atheism (Greek, a,”not”; theos,”god”) is a “doctrine that denies the existence of deity.” [64] Atheism differs distinctly from agnosticism, the doctrine that the existence of deity can neither be proved nor disproved. Many people have incorrectly been called atheists merely because they rejected some popular belief in divinity. To the Romans, the early Christians were atheists because they denied the Roman gods. Adherents of various Christian sects have applied the term to anyone unwilling to accept every tenet of their doctrine. Freethinkers, such as the French philosopher and writer Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the French writer Voltaire, or the Anglo-American political philosopher and author Thomas Paine, although subscribing to a form of deism, may frequently be referred to as an atheist. The Sankhya philosophy, one of the great systems of Hindu thought, Buddhism, and Jainism have all been described as atheistic because all deny a personal God.

With the increase in scientific knowledge and the consequent scientific explanation of phenomena formerly considered supernatural, atheism has become a more natural and less despised philosophical trend.

H. Cyber Society and the New Age Religion

1. Cyber Society: Its Characteristics

Cyber society, the term used by Toffler to refer to Third Wave civilization, began in the United States of America “sometime in mid ‘50s”, when the Silicon Valley in California zoomed.[65] Toffler says: “Electronics and computers clearly form one such interrelated cluster, and is the fourth largest industry. Computers are destined to reshape, not only business, from production to retailing, but every nature of work and even the structure of the family.”[66]

The term “cyber” is derived from the word “cyberspace.” Cyberspace is the “environment created by the global networking of computer systems.” [67] The term is widely applied to the Internet as it exists today, but in its origins in science fiction it referred to a far more ambitious and speculative conception: the total immersion of the human senses in an artificially generated environment. The human being's sensory experience would actually be generated by the machine and fed directly into the human brain. The other aspect of cyberspace is indicated by this quotation: as a system for organizing and accessing the vast amounts of data stored on computers. Currently the Internet, and especially that facet of it called the World Wide Web, is the major system for collating and accessing the huge store of electronic data

One characteristics of Cyber society is its cyber infosphere, one that is “imparting to ‘dead’ environment not life but intelligence.”[68]

The key point is the computer, combination of electronic memory with programs that tell machines how to process stored data. Cyber society is also characterized by machine age thinking, a part of social mythology. Moviemakers, cartoonists, science fiction writers use them to symbolize the future, and pictured the computer as all-powerful brain with a massive concentration of superhuman intelligence.[69]

Other characteristics are the Electronic cottage, where “people huddled around a computer” and the telecommuters.[70]  Toffler says of the cyber society as a “home-centered society.”[71]  Certainly not everyone can and will work at home. Many people will work at home part-time and outside the home as well. Dispersed work centers will no doubt proliferate. Some will work for months or years in their homes and then switch to outside job. Small firms will take the responsibility to organize, train, and manage teams of houseworkers.

With the introduction of the computer in every home, a chain of consequences would flow to society, such as the following:

a)      Community impact – Working at home involving sizeable function of the population mean greater community stability;

b)      Environmental impact – work transfer into the home not only reduce energy requirements, but could also lead to energy decentralization, spread out energy demand and thus make easier the use of solar, wind and other alternative energy technologies. Small-scale energy generation units in each home could substitute for at least some centralized energy now required;

c)      Economic impact – Electronics and computer and communication industries would flourish, to the diminution of oil companies, automobile industries and commercial real estate developers; and

d)     Psychological impact – Working at home suggests a deepening of face-to-face and emotional relationships in both home and neighborhood.

2. New Age Religion: Its Characteristics

With cyber society comes “cyber religion,” a term that was used by Richard Gelles and Ann Levine.[72] The World Wide Web offers information on all kinds of religious beliefs current in the world today. All that one has to do in other to learn and join is to browse and access in the web sites.

Passionate religious sects characterize Cyber religion. Alvin Toffler reports: “Today, millions are desperately searching for their shadows, devouring movies, plays, novels and self help books that promise to help them locate their missing identities. Victims hurl themselves into group therapy, mysticism or sexual games.” [73]

The New Age Movement, the predominant religious beliefs of the cyber society, is a:

“Broad-based amalgam of diverse spiritual, social, and political elements with the common aim of transforming individuals and society through spiritual awareness. The New Age is a utopian vision, an era of harmony and progress. Comprising individuals, activist groups, businesses, professional groups, and spiritual leaders and followers, the movement brought feminist, ecological, spiritual, and human-potential concerns into the mainstream in the 1980s, creating a large market in various countries for books, magazines, audio and videotapes, workshops, retreats, and expositions on the subject, as well as for natural foods, crystals, and meditation and healing aids.

Often seen as resurgent paganism or Gnosticism, the modern movement has more recent roots in 19th-century spiritualism and in the 1960s counter-culture, which rejected materialism in favor of Eastern mysticism and preferred direct spiritual experience to organized religion. Techniques for self-improvement and the idea that the individual is responsible for and capable of everything from self-healing to creating the world, have found applications in health care and counseling as well as in sports, the armed forces, and corporations, and have provoked debate in religious and other circles.

Holistic thinking has influenced attitudes about medicine, the environment, the family, work, regional planning, and world peace, among others. Ideas frequently associated with the New Age movement include anthroposophical teachings, inner transformation, reincarnation, extraterrestrial life, biofeedback, chanting, alchemy, yoga, transpersonal psychology, shamanism, martial arts, the occult, astrology, psychic healing, extrasensory perception, divination, astral travel, acupuncture, massage, tarot, Zen, mythology, and visualization.[74]

Christianity today “recommends that no version should be the ‘standard’. Our religious views, like our tastes, are becoming less uniform and standardized.”[75]

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

We have seen the drama between religion and society. Society played the tragic drama in human history, one which started from the apex of life. Religion played the comic drama that started from the ebb gradually going up to the apex of life.

Man is dead – and so is his society – this is the greatest irreligion of all. For everything he went through from one religious belief to another to hide from his fear of death, and what he went through from one form of society to another to assuage his hunger for food, shelter and clothing, all the while he was just looking at the ground for a place to be buried in.

As earliest man left the pristine life of his arboreal existence, living on the bounty of the forest jungles and where he did not labor much, going to the last stage of communal existence in the communist society, he experienced decadence, a corruption or downward move towards degeneration, in his society.

And from his lowest level of irreligion in the Cave society, where he practiced the crudest form of religion which is animism, a religion that is a kind of dialogue with nature, he progressed upward from one religious belief to another, until he reached the highest form of irreligion which is atheism.

All these show man that one need is supplied by another need. His lack in the real world is supplied and filled in his ideal world, and vice versa.

Human nature then learns to balance, and to compensate for his needs in life. This is the most important law of life, a law of nature.

That is how religion and society played their role in human history. Whatever had been lacking in human society was supplied by religion, and whatever is lacking in religion was supplied by society. Man to compensate, to balance, and to reach the average or normal, what society was actually losing gradually, which is life, used religion. Hence, man to cover up what society lacks, and vice versa used religion. There was that type of religious belief that was suited to a particular type of society.

In the final stage, in communism, man is in the most decadent, in the lowest ebb of social existence, as he labors in order to eat (one has to be a productive citizen so that he could eat – “no produce - no food”). One must therefore learn once more how to protect and to dialogue with nature for it to produce more food. In this stage, he does not bother with any god or gods to be a religious believer, as it could not help him get his food – he is busy looking for it. But from its lowest ebb in communism, man could either die or rise up again to continue his existence, he could start his climb in society, while from atheism, his highest irreligion, he could gradually go down to another form of religion.

Anyone who thinks that society can do without religious belief of any form is surely mistaken. As can be seen from the beginning to the end of human history, man cannot do away with the drama and the interplay between religion and society. Religion, together with all the other institutions or superstructures of society, will always be there to fulfill their functions for the advancement and betterment of society.

One has to take account the present religious behavior in studying the past and the future of human society. The past of all religions is animism. Its future form is the New Age religion. There is a type of religious belief that is suited to a particular type of society, one that dominates all the others. Religion serves to cover up what society lacks and vice versa. When society was in the ideal state, it seems that man did not need the God of religion.

For every trouble in society that man encounters, there is always born an aspiration and longing for a messiah or savior. Religion and society has served the interest of man for a long time since the beginning. As we said in the beginning, the intention of this paper is not to be critical of any religion. The intention is simply to mention the predominant religious beliefs that cropped up in every form of society. For man cannot do away with religion in society because of his longing for the sacred: “those experiences that transcend everyday experiences its extraordinary, powerful, potentially dangerous and awe-inspiring. The sacred consists of the things kept separate or apart from everyday experiences, things awe-inspiring and knowledgeable only through extraordinary experience.” (Dr. Epitacio S. Palispis, Introduction to Sociology and Anthropology.  Manila: Rex Book Store, 1997), page 264.

Those who practice religion are either psychologically or sociologically bitter. Those in the business of religion are necessary in society since the existence of these religious beliefs make people resilient and able to cope up with the bitterness and sufferings in life. These services may not only be offered now-a-days by religion but are quite readily available for a fee at psychiatric clinics and hospitals.

There is indeed complementariness between religion and society when a civilized society is likely to produce a kind of religion that best reflects its predominant socio-economic condition.

Human institutions, just like human beings, are here today in order to survive by hook or by crook. That, indeed, is a basic instinct.

Religion, particularly the Roman Catholic form, has served well Philippine society as one factor that keeps it away from going into a bloody civil revolution, as much do the other factors of OFW remittances and the rampant drug use among the majority of the Filipino populace.

Religion remains to be a mere human institution, contrary to its claim of divine institution. It is considered to be man’s attempt to link reality, one that exists outside his external senses, to an ideal world that exists merely in the mind. In the final reckoning, however, religion still serves this purpose by bringing to his reality the sense of the sacred. What man considers sacred to him will his home in the ground where he will be finally rested when he die. His burial ground is one reality most sacred to man because it is his real home after all.  As a human institution, then, religion will always be a subject to sociology.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Brinkerhoff, David B. and Lynn K. White, Sociology. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co., 1988.

Broom, Leonard and Philip Zelznick, Sociology. Harper and Row, 1963.

Castroverde, Jacob M., “Theories of Society and Culture”. Photocopy.

Castroverde, Jacob M., “What Is It That Changed In Society”. Photocopy.

Cooper, Kenneth, Science Through the Ages, “Apes, Monkeys and Their Kin.”

Ember, Carol R. and Melvin Ember, Anthropology. (Prentice-Hall (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.,

1999.

Gelles, Robert J. and Ann Levine, Sociology: An Introduction (6^th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill College, 1999.

Harris, Marvin and Orna Johnson, Cultural Anthropology, Singapore, Pearson Education Asia Pte. Ltd., 2000.

Leary, Daniel Bell, That Mind of Yours. Philadelphia, USA: Lippincott Co., 1927.

Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia, 2003.

Presbitero, Adam, Manual of Evangelization, “New Mind, New Heart, New Strength,” Book 2 - Teacher’s Explanation. Iriga City: Manuscript, 1990.

Ritzer, George, Classical Sociological Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1973.

Salcedo, Lucila L. et al, General Sociology. Quezon City: JMC Press Inc., 2001.

Schaeffer, Richard T. and Robert P. Lamm, Sociology (5^th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. 1983.

Tickle, Phyllis A., Re-discovering the Sacred. New York: Crossroad Publishing Co., 1995.

Toffler, Alvin, Third Wave. New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1981.

Tuibeo, Amable G., A Critical Discourse in Sociology. Makati City: Grandwater Publications and Research Corporation, 1996.

---

[1] Richard J. Gelles and Ann Levine, Sociology: An Introduction (6^th ed.) (McGraw Hill College, 1999) p.  486.

[2] Jacob M. Castroverde, Ph. D., “Theories of Society and Culture,” (Photocopy).

[3] Ibid.

[4] Robert J. Gelles and Ann Levine, op. cit., p. 484.

[5] Jacob M. Castroverde, “What Is It That Changed In Society?” (Photocopy).

[6] Richard T. Schaefer and Robert P. Lamm, Sociology (5^th. Ed). (NY: McGraw-Hill, Inc.:1983), p. 396.

[7] Richard J. Gelles and Ann Levine, op. cit., p. 487.

[8] Epitacio S. Palispis, Introduction to Sociology and Anthropology (Manila: Rex Bookstore, 1997),

       p. 263.

[9] Carol R. Ember and Melvin Ember, Anthropology, (Singapore: Prentice Hall Pte. Ltd.: 1999), p. 422.

[10] Daniel Bell Leary, That Mind of Yours, (Philadelphia, USA: J.B. Lippincott Co., 1927), pp. 205-206.

[11] Ibid, p. 208.

[12] Phyllis A. Tickle, Rediscovering the Sacred. (New York: Crossroad Publication Co., 1995), p. 14.

[13] Dialectical process is a process where “a concept gives rise to its opposite, and as a result of this conflict, a third view, the synthesis, arises, or else a form of consciousness, through reflection of itself, discovers a contradiction within itself and is thereby forced to transform itself into a new form of consciousness.” (Article on “Dialectic,” from Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia, 2003).

[14] Carl Marx, Critique of Political Economy, 1859.

[15] Article on “Carl Marx,” Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia, 2003.

[16] Amable G. Tuibeo, A Critical Discourse in Sociology, (Makati: Grandwater Publications, 1996),  p. 22.

[17] Schaeffer and Lamm, op. cit, p. 398.

[18] Carol R. Ember et al, op. cit., p. 426.

[19] Robert Gelles et al, op. cit., p. 484.

[20] Lucila L. Salcedo et al, General Sociology (Quezon City: JMC Press Inc., 2001), p. 162.

[21] Schaefer and Lamm, op. cit., p. 401.

[22] Epitacio S. Palispis, op. cit., p. 264.

[23] Tickle, op. cit., p. 13.

[24] J. M. Castroverde, “The Social System Approach,” (photocopy).

[25] Richard J. Gelles and Ann Levine, op. cit., p. 186.

[26] Ibid, p. 187.

[27] Adam Presbitero, “New Mind, New Heart, New Strength,” Manual of Evangelization, Book 2 Teacher’s Explanation. (Iriga City: manuscript, 1990), p. 110.

[28] George Ritzer, Classical Sociological Theory (New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1973), p. 197.

[29] Australopithecus, extinct genus of hominid represented by at least six species that lived in eastern and southern Africa between 4.5 million and about 1 million years ago. In some ways they were similar to living apes in having small brains and ape-like body proportions. However, they were distinguished from them by their upright posture and bipedal (two-footed) gait. In addition, the teeth of australopithecines included smaller canines as well as thickened enamel on the molars. These features are also found in humans. The australopithecines can be divided into two groups: the heavier-built forms (A. aethiopicus, A. robustus, and A. boisei existing about 2.5 to 1 million years ago), which had a diet of rough vegetable matter; and the lighter-built forms (A. afarensis, A. garhi, and A. africanus existing about 3.7 to 2 million years ago), which had a more general diet. A new species, A. anamensis, was discovered in 1994 and is thought to have lived about 4 million years ago. They were partly adapted to bipedal walking and may be ancestral to both groups of australopithecines. Most anthropologists conclude that one of the lighter-built species of australopithecine is likely to have been ancestral to species of our own genus, Homo. (Contributed by the Department of Paleontology, Natural History Museum. Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2003).

[30] Homo sapiens or Human Being, common name given to any individual of the species Homo sapiens and, by extension, to the entire species. The term is also applied to certain species that were the evolutionary forerunners of Homo sapiens Scientists consider all living people members of a single species. Homo sapiens is identified, for purposes of classification, as an animal (kingdom Animalia) with a backbone (phylum Chordata) and segmented spinal cord (subphylum Vertebrata) that suckles its young (class Mammalia); that gestates its young with the aid of a placenta (subclass Eutheria); that is equipped with five-digited extremities, a collarbone, and a single pair of mammary glands on the chest (order Primates); and that has eyes at the front of the head, stereoscopic vision, and a proportionately large brain (suborder Anthropoidea). The species belongs to the family Hominidae.

[31] Kenneth Cooper, “Apes, Monkeys and Their Kin,” from the book Science through the Ages, p.251.

[32] Article on “Hominid,” Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2003.

[33] From the article “Homo sapiens,” Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2003.

[34] Carol R. Ember and Melvin Ember, Anthropology, (Prentice Hall (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.:1999), p. 421.

[35] Richard J. Gelles et al., op. cit., p. 484.

[36] Article on “Neanderthal,” Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia, 2003.

[37] From the article “Animism,” Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia, 2003.

[38] Richard Gelles et al, op. cit., p. 486

[39]Alvin Toffler. Third Wave, New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1981, p. 168.

[40] Ibid, p. 21.

[41] James Woodburn, “Nomads,” Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia, 2003.

[42] Richard J. Gelles and Ann Levine, op. cit., page 187.

[43] From the article “Shamanism,” Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia, 2003.

[44] Marvin Harris and Orna Johnson, Cultural Anthropology, (Singapore: Pearson Education Asia Pte. Ltd., 2000), p. 268.

[45] Carol R. Ember et al, op. cit, p. 432.

[46] From the article on “Shamanism,” Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia, 2003.

[47] Marvin Harris et al, loc. cit.

[48] Richard J. Gelles and Ann Levine, op. cit., p. 187.

[49] From the article on “Communism,” Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia, 2003.

[50] Amable G. Tuibeo, op. cit, p. 35.

[51] Richard J. Gelles and Ann Levine, op. cit., p. 186

[52] Marvin Harris et al, op. cit., p. 270.

[53] From the article on “Slavery,” Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia, 2003.

[54]  From the article “Polytheism,” Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia, 2003.

[55] Carol R. Ember et al, op. cit., p. 426.

[56] From the article on “Feudalism,” Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia, 2003.

[57] From the article on “Monotheism,” Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia, 2003.

[58] Carol R. Ember et al, op cit., p. 437.

[59] Ibid, p. 426.

[60] From the article on “Capitalism,” Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia, 2003.

[61] Article on “Max Weber,” Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia, 2003.

[62] From the article on “Socialism,’ Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia, 2003.

[63] From the article on “Socialism,” Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia, 2003.

[64] From the article on “Atheism,” Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia, 2003.

[65] Alvin Toffler, op. cit., p. 139.

[66] Ibid, p. 140.

[67] From the article on “Cyberspace,” Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia, 2003.

[68] Alvin Toffler, op. cit., p. 168.

[69]  Ibid, 169.

[70] Ibid, pp. 199, 200, 250-251.

[71] Ibid, p. 204.

[72] Richard J. Gelles and Ann Levine, op. cit., p. 511.

[73] Alvin Toffler, op. cit., pp. 123 and 127.

[74] From the article on “New Age Movement,” Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia, 2003

[75] Ibid, p. 255.