Parsons argued that religion is used to promote value consensus in America. He also agreed with Malinowski saying religion alleviates tension and frustration.
Berger, who looked at the idea of phenomenology, claimed that religion works as a sacred canopy, and concentrates on the individual.
In relation to the development of religion in modern society, Functionalism suggests that the division of labour will turn out to be more complicated and this in turn will cause the collective consciousness to fade and less able to direct peoples behaviour. They say that society will no longer be sacred, but instead the individual and peoples attitude towards society will no longer be religious.
A main sociological argument which can be compared to Functionalism is Marxism.
Marxism agrees that religion is a conservative force, although it is not a positive force or valuable to society. Marxism says that religion is used to reproduce, preserve and legitimise class inequality; it is seen as an ‘opiate of the masses’ and lulls the working class into a state of false consciousness. Althusser suggested religion is an ‘ideological apparatus’.
Although, Marxism does fail to take into account secularisation, and although Marxism argues it isn’t a positive force, it has been in some cases for example by getting rid of ruling elites.
Weber described religion as a radical force and suggested society is a result of religion. Weber bases his approach more on detailed studies of real religion such as Protestantism, Buddhism and Hinduism rather than trying to define religion like Durkheim and Marx. Weber arranged religion into two groups, other worldly (being truly religious and retreating from wider society) and this worldly (people who are engaged in wider society, but are religious). Weber believes that religion deals with ‘theodicy’, by answering difficult questions such as ‘why have I become ill?’ The religious answers to questions like this are more rewarding to society than a non religious answer may be.
Feminism describes religion as a way to support patriarchy. It suggests all religion is based on male authority, and as God is seen as male it legitimises other forms of male control. Karon Armstrong saw religion as monotheistic with God being an angry figure who enforced control and punishment. Watson (1994) found in a study that women are beginning to think for themselves in relation to religion, and found that many Islamic women did not feel their religion oppressed women. Also, polytheistic religions have females and celebrate women and have a safer view of God.
Functionalism concludes that religion represents the collective consciousness, which makes social life achievable. Religion also promotes social unity, and brings together the members of society. They also add that religion ultimately helps individuals face up to life by providing them with a feeling of confidence and eagerness.
Durkheim has been criticised for his definition of religion, and sociologists have asked, ‘is it possible to have society without religion?’, and ‘if so what maintains social solidarity in society?’
Through looking at sociological arguments such as Marxism and Feminism, I conclude that although these views do share a few of the Functionalist opinions of the role and functions of religion in contemporary society, overall they have different outlooks on religion and its effect on society.
