Religion can both be a conservative force and an initiator of social change. To what extent do sociological arguments and evidence support this view of religion?

Authors Avatar

Religion can both be a conservative force and an initiator of social change. To what extent do sociological arguments and evidence support this view of religion? (40)

There are a number of possible relationships between religion and social change. Religion can either promote social change, or can be a factor in helping to promote it. On the other hand, religion itself may not influence changes in society, but there is still a relationship between the two.

Functionalists and Marxists both argue that religion does not bring about change in society. They believe that religion acts as a “Conservative Force” and that it is changes in society that shape religion, not religion shaping society.

A conservative force can have two meanings. It is usually used to refer to religion as preventing change and maintaining the status quo. However, it can also refer to promoting traditional beliefs and customs that can bring about social change. Fundamentalist religious movements usually operate along these lines, asserting traditional moral and religious values against changes that have taken place. Fundamentalists can support social change while at the same time promoting traditional values.

This essay is now going to look at the functionalist view of religion.

Emile Durkheim argues that social life is impossible without the shared norms, values and moral beliefs that form the collective conscience. Without this, there would be no social order, social solidarity or co-operation. Religion reinforces the collective conscience through the process of collective worship, whereby individuals come together to express their shared values and become united together. Religion therefore inhibits social change, as it maintains social solidarity and stability within society.

In maintaining social solidarity, religion acts as a conservative force; when it fails to perform this function, new ideas may emerge that become the new religion. Durkheim uses communism and nationalism as examples of the new religions that have taken over from Christianity. Functionalists argue that religion itself does not change -its form does- but what does not change is its function. Politics and its associated rituals, for example, parades and flag waving, are the new forms by which collective sentiments are symbolically expressed.

This evidence suggests that religion is a necessary and essential feature that helps to maintain the existing social order in society. Functionalists believe that religion reinforces the collective conscience, which controls social solidarity, social order and co-operation. Religion therefore inhibits social change, as its main function is to maintain stability within society.

Marxists have a similar view to Functionalists in that they believe religion acts as a conservative force within society. However, Marxists argue that this force was not always positive and beneficial to society. Marxists argue that the primary function of religion is to reproduce, maintain and legitimate class inequality acting as an “ideological apparatus” which reflects the ruling class’ beliefs.

Join now!

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 ...

This is a preview of the whole essay