Malinowski believes that the function of religion is to bond a community together. He complements Durkheim’s view that religion contributes to social solidarity and reinforces a value consensus. However, he challenges Durkheim when the community threatened, in times of disruption and anxiety. Malinowski religion produces public rituals which reinforce collective norms when they might be threatened, e.g. death rituals create stability. He conducted a study in the Trobraind Islands in the South Pacific. He found rituals associated with fishing in open sea but not when sailing in the lagoon which was safer. Tension generated by sea fishing was potential threat to community stability.
Bellah, a neo-functionalist, uses ideas of functionalists to examine civil religion. He applies these ideas to the USA where being ‘American’ is seen as serving as a ‘religion’. The sacred symbols are the American flag and the statue of liberty and there are a number of ceremonies, which are centred on ‘God bless America’, which have more of a secular content than a religious one. Nevertheless, the functions of promoting social solidarity, assisting in life crises etc, are all performed by being ‘American’.
Marxists concentrate on the ways in which religion reinforces the status quo. They argue that it acts as a conservative force, in that it upholds the ruling class and maintains the social and economic order through ideological control.
Marxists have four main views on religion, these include:
- Ruling class want profit.
- This requires an obedient, hardworking workforce who will accept low wages.
- The purpose of religion is therefore to produce this obedient workforce.
- This is achieved through the ideological powers of religion – to condition people into acceptance and passivity.
Karl Marx said that ‘Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of the heartless world…It is the opium of the people.’ He argued that the capitalist system alienates and exploits people and that religion, rather than challenging the capitalist system, allow people to escape within their own beliefs. Most religions believe that if they suffer in this world their reward will come in the next. Religion can be seen as a method of social control where people accept rather than challenge the status quo. Marxists argue that religion is an ideology i.e. a system of thoughts and ideas that works in the interest of those in power. Marxists believe that religion alone cannot bring about social change.
Neo-Marxists fundamentally agree with Marx’s views on the role of religion in a Capitalist society i.e. that it is predominantly a tool of oppression used to keep the working-class in its place. However, they argue that in certain circumstances religion can change and become independent from the economic base and thus ruling-class domination. They argue that religion can actually be a tool of liberation, hence the term liberation theory. It can be used as an organising vehicle to challenge and possibly overthrow ruling class domination.
Where Marx argued that the economic infrastructure of capitalism determined the nature of religion in society. He argued religion arose alongside capitalism to legitimate the Capitalist system. Max Weber, a neo-Marxist argues that it is possible for the reverse to happen, i.e. for religion to have an effect on the economic structure. In his study, ‘The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism’ Weber used the comparative method and looked at China, India and Europe and noted that although similar economic conditions had prevailed in all three Capitalism only developed in Europe. Weber developed his theory that the explanation lies in the nature of Protestant beliefs in a number of ways. Clearly Weber is suggesting that religion may promote social change. However, it is easy to over-simplify his theory, as he is not saying that Protestantism was the only factor. Elective affinity was the significant thing – it was the right set of beliefs in the right place at the right time. However, he is saying that religion can promote social change in the right circumstances.
Feminists generally take a critical view on religion, both for individuals, especially women, and society as a whole. Many feminists stress that religion further helps men to exert patriarchal control over women and see religion as a tool of oppression. They would see religion as most definitely an agent of social control, maintaining and supporting the secondary position of women in society; as a conservative social force.
Liberal feminists, such as Betty Friedan generally argued that changes in the law could make significant differences to the social position of women. Liberal feminists believe that women are still under-represented in the higher status roles within the hierarchies of churches and denominations.
Marxists-Feminists such as Benston generally argue that Marxism only provides part of the explanation for female oppression. They believe that religion is just one more tool in the armoury of the Capitalist class, which can be used to keep the proletariat, and women in particular, in their place. Most religions stress a subordinate position for women in society, with very few exceptions, and it could be argued that this supports Capitalism’s need for a ‘reserve army of labour’ etc. Marxists-Feminists would generally suggest that women couldn’t become truly liberated until the Capitalist system.
A number of radical feminists argue that until about 4000 years ago images of women as goddesses were widespread, based on archaeological evidence. Often people worshipped nature and women were seen as closer to nature because of their childbearing role. Armstrong argues that the invasion of these prehistoric societies by more male dominated cultures from the Northern hemisphere led to more monotheism and the goddesses gradually disappeared and one God emerged. Most radical feminists e.g. Millet would simply see religion as one aspect of patriarchal ideology, deliberately used by men, to support their dominant position in the family and in society in general.
Overall, feminists see religion as a negative social force and one that contributes to the patriarchal control of women in society. However, there are some strong arguments to suggest that this is an over-simplification of a complex relationship between gender and religion overall.
After evaluating the view that religion acts as a conservative force in modern society, we can see from the evidence given that, Functionalists and Marxists believe that religion acts as a conservative force in modern society. Whereas, Feminists believe that religion doesn’t act as a conservative force as it has helped to bring some changes within modern society.
