According to Donald Taylor (1987), ‘fundamentalism involves the reassertion of traditional moral and religious values against changes that have taken place and those who support the changes. If fundamentalists are successful, they succeed in defending traditional values, but at the same time they change society by reversing innovations that have taken place’.
However, it should be kept in mind that religions are usually open to many different interpretation. Those claiming to be returning to the original teachings of a religion may well disagree with one another. Thus, Fred Halliday, commenting on Islamic fundamentalism, says that ‘no such essential Islam exists: as one Iranian puts it, Islam is a sea in which it is possible to catch almost any fish one wants’ (Halliday, 1994). Ultimately, each particular fundamentalist interpretation of a religion is only one amongst many.
In this case, it can then be argued, religious beliefs contributed to producing revolutionary change. Religion did not therefore act as a conservative force in one sense of the word. Nevertheless, in terms of supporting traditional values, it did act as a conservative force.
Generally, most sociologists agree that changes in society leads to changes in religion; Marx believed that ‘a change in the infrastructure of society would lead to changes in the superstructure, including religion. Thus, Marx anticipated that, when a classless society was established, religion would disappear (Marx and Engels, 1957). Bryan Turner (1983) claims that ‘religion lost its function of facilitating the smooth transfer of property from generation to generation when “feudalism” gave way to capitalism’, and Talcott Parsons (1937), believed that, ‘as society developed, religion lost some of its functions’.
So far, it appears to be generally agreed that, first, religion helps to maintain the status quo, and that, second, changes in religion result from changes in the wider society. Some sociologists, however, see religion as having the power to cause social change.
Both Functionalists and Marxists emphasize, the role of religion in promoting social integration and impeding social change. In contrast, Weber (1958) argued that in some circumstances religion can lead to social change: although shared religious beliefs might integrate a social group, those same beliefs may have repercussions which in the long term can produce changes in society.
In his book, ‘The Protestant Ethic and the spirit of Capitalism’ (1958), Weber examine the relationship between the rise of certain forms of Protestantism and the development of Western industrial capitalism. In his argument, he tries to show that capitalism developed initially in areas where this religion was influential. Other areas of the world possessed many of the necessary prerequisites yet they were not amongst the first areas to develop capitalism. For example, India and China had technological knowledge, labour to be hired, and individuals engaged in making money. What they lacked, according to Weber, was a religion that encouraged and facilitated the development of capitalism.
Having established a relationship – a correlation between Calvinism and capitalism – by comparing religion and economic development in different parts of the world, Weber goes onto explain how and why this type of religion was linked to capitalism.
Calvinist Protestantism originated in the beliefs of that there was a distinct group of the ‘elite’ – those chosen to go to heaven – and that they had been chosen by God even before they were born. Those who were not among the elite could never gain a place in heaven however well they behaved on earth.
Other versions of Christianity derived from the beliefs of Martin Luther. Luther believed that individual Christians could affect their chances of reaching heaven by the way that they behaved on earth. It was very important for Christians to develop faith in god, and to act out gods will on earth. Whatever position in society, they must carry out the appropriate duties.
Hence, Lutheranism seems the doctrine more likely to produce capitalism. However, it encouraged people to produce or earn no more than was necessary for their material needs. It attached more importance to faith than wealth.
The doctrine of predestination by Calvin seems less likely to produce capitalism. If certain individuals were destined for heaven regardless of their behaviour on earth – and the rest were equally unable to overcome their damnation – there would be little point in hard work on earth. Therefore, the interpretation than the Calvinists put on the doctrine of predestination contributed to them becoming the first capitalists.
Many sociologists do now accept that religion can be a force for change. Despite the examples that can be used to support the functionalist and Marxist view that religion promotes stability, other examples contradict their claims. For example, G.K. Nelson (1986) points to a number of cases where religion had under stability or promoted change:
“In the USA in the 1960s the Reverend Martin Luther King and the Southern Christian Leadership Council played a leading role in establishing civil rights and securing legislation intended to reduce racial discrimination”.
“Also in the 1960s, a number of radical and revolutionary groups emerged within the Roman Catholic Church in Latin America. They preached liberation theology, arguing that it was the duty of church members to fight against unjust and oppressive right-wing dictatorships”.
“In Iran, Islamic fundamentalism played a part in the 1979 revolution, led by the Ayatollah Khomeini”
“In South Africa, Archbishop Tutu was a prominent opponent of apartheid”
Examples such as these lead Nelson to conclude that ‘far from encouraging people to accept their place, religion can spearhead resistance and revolution’. In many cases when religion has been a force for change in society, the society that results may be strongly influenced by that religion.
Engels, unlike Marx, did realise that in some circumstances religion could be a force for change. He argued that groups which turned to religion as a way of coping with oppression could develop into political movements which sought change on earth rather than salvation in heaven. Some contemporary neo-Marxists have followed Engels and developed this view.