Assess and evaluate the relationship between religion and social change

For example, when one has died a funeral is formed and many come together to share their grievances which then supports social solidarity and unity within society.However, functionalists can be criticised as they fail to recognise the production of secularization within western societies. As well as failing to acknowledge the many examples of where religion has caused social change, this will be discussed later. Other sociologists which believe religion is a conservative force are Marxists. Marxists however, believe that the inhibit for social change is a bad thing. This is because they see society being controlled by the bourgeoisie and therefore society contains the ideas and interests only of the bourgeoisie and oppresses those who are not in control (the proletariat). Marx describes this inequality towards lower social classes as ‘the opium of the masses’ as the working class are unaware of their exploitation within society and are made to believe (false class consciousness) that God produced them this way and they should accept things as they are.  This then prevents social change as the ruling class inflict their ideas throughout society and make the working class believe they are meant to be as they are and so prevents the working class from trying to change the inequality between them and the ruling class. An example which promotes a stance for social change is when the Pope had prevented the use of contraception, abortion and homosexuality. However, within modern society this has now changed and the above are widely accepted. Other criticisms of the Marxist view is that again it fails to recognised the increase of secularization and how religion can be used to oppose the ruling class, suggested for by Neo-Marxists.Neo-Marxists believe that religion does not always act as a conservative force. Yet, it can be seen to cause radical change. Promoting this idea is Otto Maduro. He found that priests began to revolt against the ideologies of the bourgeoisie and helped those who had been oppressed within society to help relieve their grievances. This happened particularly within Latin America in the Somoza regime. This then caused Christianity and Marxism to fuse together, which was known as the ‘liberation theology’.Another sociologist who installs the idea that religion is a force for social change is Max Weber. Weber suggests that Calvinism (non-conformist Protestants) had caused the arising of capitalism through the protestant work ethic. Calvinists believed in ‘predestination’ which meant that God had already set out their fate in life and there was nothing they could change about this. However, they had failed to recognise the ‘elect’, which were those who were destined to prevail and go to heaven. They then placed principles of sheer hard work, living the simple life and the money they accumulated would be reinvested within their businesses which then introduced the ‘spirit of capitalism’.However, there are many criticisms of this belief. It is mentioned that countries containing large amounts of Calvinists, did not industrialise and therefore capitalism had not yet been produced. However, Gordon Marshall dismisses this criticism and states that Weber did not suggest that Calvinism caused capitalism yet contributed to the up rise of capitalism. Another criticism from Kautsky suggests that ‘capitalism predates Calvinism. Early capitalists were attracted to Calvinism as it makes capitalism seem legitimate’. Lastly, Bruce and Hamilton rejected Weber’s view that Calvinists brought about capitalism and noted that there is no evidence to suggest his theory.In addition to the views that religion causes social change is millenarianism. Millenarianism was mainly found within developing worlds who focused on the creation of a ‘heavenly place of earth’. Both Marx and Engels suggested that they could be vehicles for political protest and therefore social change. However, they believe that such revolts would fail as it was inspired through false-class consciousness. Hamilton analyses Engels and Marx’s views and states that it is contradictory as to them religion is ‘an opium of the masses’.Lastly, is the belief of social change through fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is the idea that the ideas within modern society are wrong and that previous ideas and traditional values of religion need to be reinstalled and returned to the way they believe it should be. This is a force for social change as it is predating the existence of religion. Yet, they want to prevent further change within modern society.To conclude, the ideologies both show how religion can be a force for social change, yet it can also prevent it. I believe that whether religion can change society or not very much depends on the values you believe. It is shown in the arguments outlined above that depending on which society you live in religion can be a factor as to whether it changes society or not. For example Marxists believe that the bourgeoisie reproduces the interests of their own and create a false class consciousness for those who are not powerful and prevent the working class from rebelling. However, in places such as Latin America, religion can be a cause for social change to help those being oppressed within society.