Although Durkhiem provides us with a lot of positive views about religion, some sociologists would criticise theory on religion as he mainly studied pre industrial society, his ideas cant really be applied to complex society were there is different people all on different walks of life.
Malinowski a functionalist focuses on the psychological needs of individuals in times of stress. Malinowski believes religion provides people with meanings in times of life crisis for example death and funerals. Things such as funerals allow people to move on and minimise the disruption to society. He argues that the idea of heaven provides people with a meaning of life. This maintains the status quo as it allows people to get on with day to day life. Malinowski did a study of the Troiband Island and he argued people use religion in times of uncertainty. He found that when the people of the island went to out to fish they felt safe when they fished in the lagoon they felt safe as they was close to home, However when they went to fish out in the sea where the survival rate was low they would pray to god to keep them safe. This shows that religion is a conservative force as it maintains the status quo because it allows people to forget their problems and carry on with their every day life.
Parsons another functionalist would ague that religion provides answers to question that appear to be unanswerable, for example when villains seem to be getting away with crimes others question themselves why don’t they turn to crime. They are then reminded that if they lead a good life they go to heaven and those who lead a life of crime go to hell. Bellah argues that in countries were there is large diversity people come together and worship there own country, this unites different groups and helps maintain the status quo of the particular country. This is known as civil religion.
I realise that functionalist provide interesting facts about religion many sociologist criticise them as they think that it is difficult to see how religion can be functioning to socialise the majority of society’s members into morality and social integration if only a minority of people regularly attend church. Functionalists are also criticised as religion often has dysfunctional consequences. Rather than binding people together, many of the world’s conflicts have been caused by religion for example in Northern Ireland there is conflict between Protestants and Catholics.
Marxist would agree with the functionalists to an extent as the also believe that religion as a conservative force as it is seen to maintain the position of the rich and helps the status quo in terms of the power structure. Karl Marx claimed that the proletariat are alienated and oppressed by the bourgeoisie and religious beliefs. Marx believes that religion acts as a drug “opium of the people” he argues that religion takes away the pain of inequality between the bourgeoisie and proletariat with the promise of heaven. This acts as a conservative force as it creates a false conscious and prevents the proletariat from rebelling against the bourgeoisie, this reinforces the status quo as the bourgeoisie are still in power. Marxist also believe that religion acts as a form of social control as the promise of hell for those who lead a rebellious life prevents people from disobeying the rules of society and also keeps the bourgeoisie in power this shows as religion does act as conservative force as it is helping to keep control of society and maintain the status quo. Marxist would argue that in medieval times religion acted as a conservative force as the bourgeoisie associated themselves with god therefore this made the proletariat not want to rebel against them so allowed society to remain as a conservative force as it ,maintained the status quo. Marxist would also argue that as god is a supernatural being people can only turn to him in prayer they are unable to see him therefore the have no-one to turn to in times of complaint.
Interactionists would disagree with both functionalists and Marxist as they believe that religion does not act as conservative force. An interactionist called Berger believes that as there is now a lot more computers and updated technology, the behaviour of society is not governed by religion. This is known as “modernity”. Rationalization now explains most of society’s modern world. Rational behaviour can explain things a lot more scientifically. Modern society’s are now far more geographically mobile and have a lot more wide spread electronic media for example the internet. This has made a lot more people aware of alternative solutions than always depending upon god. Therefore they are less likely to have behaviour governed by god, this leads to social change. As there is now a large amount of religions that exist in society people believe that it is better to not have a religion at all, Berger argues that this leads to anomie as religion no longer provides the meaning to life.
Nelson a sociologist also believes that religion does not act as conservative. He argues that religion creates most of the problems that occur within society, for example the conflict between two religions in Northern Ireland (protestant and catholic) Nelson believes that religion is the source of much unrest. Therefore as religion is the cause of unrest within society it does not help to maintain the status quo.
Toni McCall
