The article examines the theoretical development of Czech sociology of religion during the period of communist rule, which widely affected the social sciences in general and research on religion in particular. The author divides the period into three different stages. First, from the very end of the 1940s to the beginning of the 1960s sociology as a whole was abolished as a 'bourgeois pseudo-science', and any discourse on religion was possible only in purely negativistic, anti-religious terms. However, some scholars (most notably A. Kolman, E. Kadlecová and I. Sviták) established less ideological attitudes and called for deeper sociological analyses of religion at the end of the 1950s and the start of the 1960s. Their 'revisionism' eventually won out in the 1960s, in the second stage, when Czech sociology of religion achieved international acceptance and Kadlecová became (for a short time) the author of the state's new religious policy. Although these scholars (V. Gardavský and M. Machovec) accepted a wider definition of religiosity and debated with Christian scholars, they remained Marxists. They were convinced religion is doomed to extinction. The last stage began after the violent termination of the Prague Spring in 1968 and lasted throughout the era of the so-called normalisation in the 1970-80s. Progressive scholars were removed from their posts. The official sociology of religion changed its name to 'scientific atheism', but the outcomes of its work were far from any standard of excellence, both in the theoretical and empirical fields. Research from the era of official neo-Stalinism was very poor in quality, but during that time very important unofficial scientific contributions did emerge, written by banned sociologists (E. Kadlecová, J. Šiklová), social theologians (B. Komárková), and Czechs in exile. Unfortunately, since 1989 the reception of these works has been narrow. With the abolition of official Marxist scientific atheism there is an opportunity for the spread of truly modern sociological approaches to religion - if only there were enough students.
The article focuses on the relationship of religionisity and subjective satisfaction, a problem that has recently become one of the topical themes of social sciences. The author on the one hand presents the great expectations that the society (even non-religious) puts in the "satisfactory" role of religion, and on the other hand their factual unfulfillment, or better to say the minimum real influence of (non-)religiosity upon the subjective contentment.
Slavná kniha Elementární formy náboženského života francouzského sociologa Émile Durkheima je jedním z nejdůležitějších příspěvků k sociologii náboženství. Po řadu let byla vychvalována a citována, stejně jako kritizována a zavrhována. Kniha se stala chartou celé řady sociálně vědních badatelů, zejména těch, kteří se zaměřovali na studium společnosti a náboženství. V roce 1966 však vyšel článek amerického antropologa Clifforda Geertze nazvaný „Náboženství jako kulturní systém“, v němž autor tvrdil, že Durkheimova teorie náboženství, stejně jako teorie náboženství Sigmunda Freuda, Bronislawa Malinowského a Maxe Webera, by měla být překonána dokonalejší teorií náboženství. Touto dokonalejší teorií měla být Geertzova teorie. Porozuměl však Geertz Durkheimove teorii dostatečně, aby nás to opravňovalo k tvrzení, že Durkheim byl na poli teorie náboženství překonán?, Émile Durkheim’s famous book Elementary Forms of Religious Life is one of the most important contributions to the sociology of religion. For years, it had been praised and cited as well as criticised and condemned. The book had become a charter of subsequent generations of social scientists, especially those who studied phenomena of society and religion. However, in 1966, an American cultural anthropologist Clifford Geertz presented his opinion claiming that Durkheim’s theory of religion as well as the theories of religion of Freud, Malinowski and Weber should be substituted with more subtle and superior theory of religion. A superior theory of religion was supposed to be Geertz’s theory presented in a paper entitled “Religion as Cultural System”. Did Geertz understand Durkheim’s theory adequately, so that we can agree with Geertz’s claim of surpassing the classic authors like Durkheim?, and Nikola Balaš.