Marx saw religion as the “opium of the people” as the working class ceased to realize their exploitation by the ruling class. The working class saw their exploitation, as “gods will” and passively accepted their fate. Religion acts as an opiate, dulling the pain of oppression but does not solve any problems that individuals may have. Reglion dulls the pain of oppression by: the promise of paradise in the next life, justifying social order (for example, the song “All things bright and beautiful”, and those social relationships are inevitable. Therefore, Marxists argue that religious movement occurs mainly in the oppressed classes.
However, Engels argued that: “ The history of early Christianity has notable points of resemblance with the modern working-class movement. Like the latter, Christianity was originally a movement of oppressed people: it first appeared as the religion of slaves and emancipated slaves, of poor people deprived of all rights, of peoples subjugated or dispersed by Rome. Both Christianity and the Workers’ socialism preach forthcoming salvation from bondage and misery; Christianity places this salvation in a life beyond, after death, in heaven; socialism places it in this world, in a transformation of society” (Marx and Engels 1975)
This evidence suggests that there is no point in changing society now. Instead, people should wait for divine intervention as religion offers hope of happiness in a future world. Religion therefore discourages people from attempting change and the dominant groups in society can retain their power.
Halevy (1972) supports the Marxist view of religion, arguing that religion played a key role in preventing working class revolution in the 19th Century. Most nations apart from Britain experienced some type of proletarian attempt to bring about social change at this time. Halevy argued that working class dissatisfaction was expressed by leaving the Church of England, which was seen as the party of the upper class. Methodism attracted large numbers of individuals, encouraging members to seek enlightenment rather than revolution. By doing this, religion inhibited social change.
Like Functionalists and Marxists, Feminists argue that religion acts as a conservative force within society. However, they argue that it reinforces the patriarchal systems found in many societies. The refusal of many religions to accept women as religious leaders, the persecution of witches and religious perceptions of the role of women within the family all point to a particular type of conservatism that wishes to conserve the subservient role of women that many religions endorse.
Jean Holm (1994) argues that, while the classical teachings of many religions have stressed equality between men and women, in reality women have usually been far from equal. “Women do of course, have a part to play in many religions, but it is always subordinate to the role of men, and it is likely to be in the private rather than the public sphere”.
This evidence suggests that religion acts as a conservative force within society, in that it helps to conserve patriarchal power systems and the subservient role of women. Religion therefore inhibits social change, maintaining the status quo.
This essay is now going to look at religion as a conservative force that brings about social change.
Fundamentalism involves the reassertion of traditional moral and religious values against changes that have taken place. If Fundamentalists are successful, they succeed in defending traditional values, but at the same time changing society by reversing innovations that have taken place.
An example of this is in the USA, where Reverend W.A Criswell spent 50 years insisting that the Bible is the unerring word of God and that its historical accuracy is beyond question. Criswell led a domination of 16 million people and he and his followers worked untiringly to ensure that their conservative social agenda dominated the US political debate. Criswell was part of the influential network surrounding the Bush family who regularly worshipped at the First Baptist Church, which Criswell led. George Bush made strenuous efforts to retain the backing of Criswell’s adherents during his own presidential electoral campaign. The relentless energy of this core conservative group- drawn from such disparate fields as the oil industry and the Christian right – led a Washington Post commentator to observe that “For the first time since religious conservatives became a modern political movement, the president of the United States has become the movement’s de facto leader” a development which Criswell could claim much credit.
However, Criswell’s message, went back uncompromisingly to Genesis, where God created the world in six days and made man in his image. This led to a repeated effort to encourage the teaching of creationism in American schools. It also brought about such rulings as its 1998 declaration that a woman’s duty was to submit graciously unto her husband’s leadership.
This evidence suggests that fundamentalists were successful in defending traditional values, but at the same time changed society by reversing innovations that had taken place. Cohen and Kennedy (2000) argue that “the desire to restore fundamentalist religious values and social practices is associated with the fear that any real increase in women’s freedom of choice and action will undermine the foundations of tradition, religion, morality and, it could be argued, male control.” This is shown in Criswell’s 1998 declaration that a woman’s duty is to submit unto her husband. By doing this, Fundamentalists have restored traditional values but have also acted as a conservative force that has brought about change in society.
This essay is now going to look at religion as an initiator of social change.
Both Functionalists and Marxists emphasize the role of religion in promoting social integration and inhibiting social change. However, Weber (1958) argues that in some circumstances religion can lead to social change. For example, shared religious beliefs may promote social integration, however, those same beliefs may have repercussions, which in long term could initiate social change.
In his book “The Protestant Ethic and The Spirit of Capitalism”, Weber examines the relationship between Protestantism and the development of capitalism. Weber argues that a certain type of Protestantism – ascetic Calvinist Protestantism preceded the development of capitalism and developed mainly in areas where this religion was influential. Weber distinguished a correlation between Calvinism and capitalism by comparing religion and economic development in different parts of the world.
Calvinist Protestantism originated in the beliefs of John Calvin in the 17th Century. Calvin believed that there was a distinct group – the elect (those chosen to go to heaven) and their fate has been pre-determined by God. Those were not amongst the elect could never go to heaven, regardless of how well they behaved on earth. However, Calvinists did not know whether they were amongst the elect and convinced themselves that they had been chosen to go to heaven. They believed that if they behaved well they would be able to go to heaven after earth. Therefore, the interpretation that Calvinists put on pre-destination contributed to them being the first capitalists.
Weber describes the Protestant ethic, which developed in 17th Century Western Europe. The ethic was ascetic – encouraging abstinence from life’s pleasures, an austere lifestyle and self-discipline. Making money was seen as a sign of success and those who were successful did not lose grace in Gods sight. John Wesley quotes: “For religion must necessarily produce industry and frugality, and these cannot but produce riches. We must exhort all Christians to gain what they can and to save all they can; that is, in effect to grow rich.” These riches could not be spent on luxuries, but in the glory of God. Protestants prohibited anything that could divert people from living an ascetic lifestyle and by living by these guidelines an individual would not lose grace in the sight of God. Weber argued that Calvinists obsessive work ethic and self-discipline, inspired by a desire to serve God, meant that they reinvested rather than spent their profits. Such attitudes were ideal for the development of industrial capitalism.
This evidence suggests that religious beliefs can cause economic change. Weber believed that Calvinist Protestantism initiated social change, in that they brought about capitalism. Calvinists believed that material success that arose from “hard work” and an ascetic life would demonstrate God’s favor, and therefore gain them a place in heaven. No agreement has been reached about the accuracy of Weber’s theory, however, Weber does successfully highlight that religious ideas can conceivably lead to economic change.
This essay is now going to look at the Neo-Marxists view on religion.
Antonio Gramsci (1971) wrote his theories in the 1920’s and 1930’s. At this time he was aware that the church supported ruling class interests, however, he did not believe this to be inevitable. He argues that religious beliefs could develop that would support and guide challenges to the ruling class because the church, like other cultural institutions, was not directly under their control. Members of the working class could challenge the ruling class by the distribution of more radical ideas.
Similarly, Otto Maduro (1982) denies that religion always acts as a conservative force and claims that it can be revolutionary. He says that: “ Religion is not necessarily a functional, reproductive or conservative factor in society; it is often one of the main (and sometimes the only) available channel to bring about a social revolution.” Maduro claims that up until recently, Catholicism in Latin America tended to support the bourgeoisie and right wing military dictatorships, which have represented its interests. The Catholic Church has tended to deny the existence of social conflicts and between oppressive and oppressed classes. On the other hand, Catholic priests have increasingly demonstrated their autonomy from the bourgeoisie by criticizing them and acting against their interests. Maduro argues that the members of the clergy can develop revolutionary potential where oppressed members of the population have no outlet for their grievances. An example of this is in Latin America, which has developed the idea of “Liberation Theology”.
Liberation Theology is a fusion of Christianity and Marxism that has been influential in Central and South America. In the 1960’s, various radical groups emerged from the Catholic Church in Latin America. They argued that it was a Christian duty to be involved in political and economic liberation. Catholics and Marxists collaborated in political and social action. In 1979, Catholic revolutionaries played a part in the overthrow of the Somoza regime in Nicaragua and the new government included a number of priests.
Another aspect of liberation theology is that some religions decided to turn back to a time when society and its moral order were more in line with their religious ideals. Such religions were opposed to what they consider to be the undesirable state of modern society. Christian and Islamic fundamentalists illustrate the position well.
This evidence suggests that Christian and Islamic fundamentalists decided to return to traditional values, as they believed they were more in line with their religious ideals. By doing this, religion acted as an initiator of social change. Liberation Theology has also helped to promote social change as Catholics and Marxists they saw things from the viewpoint of the economically poor and the oppressed, bring justice through political activism.
In conclusion, religion can be both a conservative force and an initiator of social change.
Functionalists would argue that religion acts as a conservative force in that it inhibits social change by promoting social solidarity and integration. Marxists have a similar view, however, they believe religion inhibits social change in that it discourage individuals from trying to change their position in society. On the other hand, Weber and Neo-Marxists argue that religion can be revolutionary and act as an initiator of social change. This evidence suggests that religion can both be a conservative force and an initiator of social change.
Jessica Pemberton