Introduction
Considered by film critiques as the funniest and yet the most provocative documentary film of 2008 is Bill Maher’s “Religulous”. The title itself is a combination of religion and ridiculous, implying an idea of religion’s ridicule and inconsistencies. Maher went to several places to interview Muslims, Jews, and Christians to find the unlikeliest believers in the possible. Maher wanted to prove a point that more and more Americans are becoming non-believers and point out the inconsistencies he found in the bible. However, this essay will not talk about the ridiculous characteristic of religion as Maher conveys in his documentary. Instead, this essay will explore the different individuals in the film from a sociological perspective. The social interactions of each of the characters in the film will be analyzed based on different theories in sociology. The theories will provide a substantial support to the observations made for each character and to demonstrate a more profound understanding of the concepts of each theory in relation to the film character’s social interaction.
Character 1: the Anonymous Man in Red Shirt
Trucker’s church was among the first places that Maher visited to promote his so called doubt. One of the most memorable people in that place is the unnamed man in red shirt that walked out of the chapel after having this perception that god and his faith is being questioned by Maher. The way the man-in-red-shirt interacts with Maher demonstrates evidence of Symbolic Interaction Theory. It is defined by Max Weber as a social interaction in which individuals act based on how they interpret the meaning of the world (Andersen and Taylor). It is the same believing in a single tree without realizing a whole forest surrounding the tree. The man-in-red-shirt strongly believes in his faith in god and does not accept any indications of questioning of his faith. The man immediately asserted that Maher is there to refute the Christian religion. The man-in-red-shirt sees only contradiction without giving a chance to see what’s on the other side of the argument.
Character 2: Pastor John Westcott
Back in the Exchange ministries, Maher interviewed a self confessed to be a former gay that is now refuting the homosexuality as an unacceptable way of life and a sin according to the bible. He further insinuated that gays are people that are living in insecurity and that gays have this sense of incompleteness. Maher rephrased John’s statement and added that the reason John stated such word of judgment is because John sees gays are as people that are not like him. It appears that John is an example of a person that defines the meaning of Critical theory. This theory conveys that people in the society move towards critiquing and changing their own society as a whole according to their own standards (Johnson). In sociological perspective, John is a type of person that belongs in a society that aims to change the world and sees homosexuality as something that is out of the norms of social reality. Furthermore, John believes that he, god and the ministry that he serves are the significant actors that will drive the change in society by refuting homosexuality.
Character 3: Father Reginald Foster
One of the most interesting people that came up in the film was Father Reginald Foster, a senior priest in the Vatican that although a senior priest has a different perception of Catholicism and appeared to be skeptical about a few beliefs about the religion. During the interview, Father Reginald demonstrated a characteristic of a person that belongs in a society outlined in the tenets of Social Learning theory. The theory conveys the idea that socialization has a significant attribution to self development. In addition, the theory suggests that the formation of one’s identity is a response learned from social stimuli (Andersen and Taylor). Father Reginald demonstrated the characteristics of the theory on the manner of his interaction with Maher. For example, he openly agreed to Maher’s arguments citing an example that the bible did not specifically stated how Vatican should be built in such grandeur. Father Reginald’s expressions in his agreements could be considered by his peers as a form of deviance for agreeing to statements such as if he was the boss he not be living in the colossal palace built by the Vatican because the bible did not said so.
It seems that this realization came to Father Reginald because of the social stimulus manifesting in actual studies and surveys revealing that Jesus came up only sixth in the list of holy figures that people of Italy often offer their prayers to. The social learning theory clearly stipulates that people learn from what they perceived within their social environment and Father Reginald is among those people that defy the conventional beliefs and rationality of the church. Maher even called Father Reginald a maverick because of his attitude towards the traditions of the church such as the observance of Christmas day. Furthermore, Father Reginald asserted his doubts about the real date of Christ’s birth. These doubts came into Father Reginald because of the mere realization of social reality that surrounds the church and not based solely on what the church itself tells the people to believe. It is ironic to see a senior priest of the Vatican to even have doubts about his church, which exemplifies a defiant behavior that the theory of social learning also defined.
Character 4: Rabbi Dovid Weiss
Another memorable part of the documentary is the interview with an equally-eager to explain Anti-Zionist Rabbi Dovid Weiss. The interview didn’t go for more than five minutes of the social interaction that the Rabbi has demonstrated towards Maher. He was very determined to present his arguments about the issue that Israel should have never existed in the first place. The Rabbi is very determined to rationalize his beliefs by insinuating a ruling behavior (Young). The Rabbi wanted to imply a long explanation of his stand against Israel that he doesn’t want to be interrupted while talking. This kind of behavior is prevalent on a society based on the Chaotic Theory as sensitive to initial condition because the very slight deviation from the starting point of argument leads the Rabbi to a completely different notion about the discussion. For example, when Maher mentioned about the holocaust, the Rabbi immediately changed mood about the discussion, which accentuates the sensitive characteristic stipulated by the Chaotic Theory. In addition, the aggravation that the Rabbi demonstrated from the tone of his voice and choice of words suggests his great sensitivity to the historical facts about the Jews particularly when Maher said OK during the discussion on holocaust. Maher never said that holocaust is OK, but his expression of OK is to show agreement to the Rabbi’s arguments, but the Rabbi took it in negatively. The Chaos Theory also mentioned about the representation of equilibrium meaning the system runs from one situation to another and forgets to settle down. These things are all present during the discussion with the Rabbi because he simply does not want to hear any indication of reasoning that would directly shake the grounds of his arguments.
Character 5: Senator Mark Pryor
An Arkansas senator appeared in the documentary to answer Maher’s question about the role of religion in his political career. One of the questions asked to Senator Pryor is why faith is good and the brief response by the senator is that faith is a way of softening the people. Given that response, it stipulates that religion is being used in politics as a way of keeping social order. This response by the senator is an indication of Conflict theory in sociology described as the emphasis of the role of power and coercion to produce social order (Coser). It is a common goal for politicians to keep the society at their best behavior and maintain peace and order in the land. The way the senator reacts to the question and to Maher constitutes an obvious indication of the principles of conflict theory. It is a normal behavior for a politician particularly in the United Sates to stay away from the issues of religion in order to avoid making a wrong impression about religion, which could evolve into a national security risk. Therefore, for the best interest of the safety of the people politicians would most likely to deviate from the issues of religion as much as they can. It is also obvious from the gestures and the choice of words of the senator when responding to Maher’s questions that he does not want to make a wrong impression of his beliefs by reiterating that his views are based on his own religion and not to generally represent the country as a whole. Going back to the senator’s response that faith is a way of softening the people; the Conflict theory suggests that it has an ultimate attribution to altruism, civil rights and democracy. However, insinuating that faith is a way softening the people is the same as saying that it is a way to pacify the people. Using common belief to control the masses is paramount to the principles of Conflict theory that generally aims to maintain power and social order.
Character 6: Bill Maher himself
The last on the list of interesting people in the documentary is the star of the film himself, Bill Maher. He is an example of a person described in the Labeling theory because the theory conveys the fundamental understanding of deviant and criminal behavior. It is not that Maher is a criminal, but his utter opposition to religion can be considered as a depiction of labeling theory’s key tenets of assumption that no act is a criminal act (Giddens). On a simple analogy, criminals are labeled as such because the law said so and infidels are labeled as such because religion said so. As for Maher he is a self-confessed agnostic not because religions said so, but it is his own personal choice. He chose not to be associated to any religion. However, his strong opposition to other religion becomes an open invitation for believers from all walks of faith to synonymously look at him as a criminal of religion because of openly defying the religion’s principles. In context, Maher’s defiant behavior towards religion is a result of his own individual characteristics derived from the process of interaction among deviants and non-deviants.
He mentioned that by the age of 13 his religious faith had already been eroded by his lack of interest to religion so as his family. They no longer go to the church as often as before and his views of religion are already faded by the discrepancies he perceived from reading the bible. According to the labeling theory, the context of criminality and deviant behavior depends on how criminality is being interpreted. In Maher’s case, his agnostic belief depends on how different religion interprets his arguments. Some would consider him as someone that challenges the faith and the best example for that is when the man-in-red-shirt reacted to Maher’s questions of doubt about Catholicism in Trucker’s Church. The common people do not want to initiate debates about religion because it would only mean provocation and conflict. However, Maher continued to defy the principles of religion and go against it on the grounds of common sense.
Works Cited
Andersen, Margaret L., and Howard F. Taylor. Sociology: The Essentials. 6th ed. Caliornia, USA: Cengage, 2010. Print.
Coser, Lewis A. "Social Conflict and the Theory of Social Change." The British Journal of Sociology 8.3 (1957): n.pag. Web. 11 Dec. 2012.
Giddens, Anthony. Introduction to Sociology. 8th ed. New York, USA: W.W. Norton & Co, 2009. Print.
Johnson, Allan G. The Blackwell Dictionary of Sociology. Massachusetts, USA: Blackwell Publishers, 1995. Print.
Religulous. Dir. Larry Charles. Prod. Bill Maher. Perf. Bill Maher. Lionsgate, 2008. Film.
Young, Elizabeth M. "cannotParse." Helium - Where Knowledge Rules. helium.com, 19 Apr. 2010. Web. 11 Dec. 2012.
