Compare and Contrast Functionalism and Marxist Theories of the Role of Religion These Two Different Ideas Try To Identify the Role of Religion.

The second contributor is Bronislaw Malinowski. Malinowski studied the Trobriad Islands.In his analysis and evaluation he studied more on functions to a individuals rather than a whole community like Durkeim. He accepted like Durkeim that religion does create social solidarity but he believed that religion was a response to people's needs during stress. Malinowski believed that stress were surrounded by religion eg birth and death. Religion therefore reduces anxiety and can console grieving people during stressful occasions i.e. funeral. Religion evaluated by Malinowski has a creator of social unity and order.

The last contributor to the functionalist theory is Talcott Parsons. Parsons tried to apply both Malinowski's and Durkeim's work and to analyse the role of religion in America. Parsons believed the role of religion served two functions. One is to provide guidelines and the other is to answer ultimate questions. Religion gives out guidelines which provide us with normal behaviour within society i.e. human life,individualism,democracy and self discipline. It also helps us with difficult situations i.e. how to help the sick and elderly. This promotes value consensus needed to create social order and stability. Religion also gives us answers to evil acts on earth and the answer is god is believed to be giving us a test this helps people adjust to difficult situations which creates social bonding.

The other main theory to the role of religion is Marxism. Marxism is a also a large approach and sees society as base/superstructure. However Marxists believe that in today's society is based on conflict and exploitation rather than a peaceful society. Religion makes this society justify inequality and maintains ruling class domination. The main contributor towards the theory of Marxism is Karl Marx. Marx believed religion is a form of social "opium" which dulls oppressive pain and provides hope to the working class people who are being exploited. However in Marx's idea this is really a false hope and hides the true nature of a capitalist society. This therefore supports status quo and prevents any revolutionary change.

Marx believed that religion is an ideology of society it sends out a false picture of what society is like which helps the ruling class exploit the working class even further. This is a false consciousness that stops them realising the situation they are in and stop them thinking about the own interests and ideas. In Marx's view religion is used by ruling class to control the working class and they control them in four ways.

The first way is to make the working class believe that supernatural powers control the events on earth. This makes social change seem impossible and not desirable. Religion also causes people t forget the reasons why there is so much unhappiness in the world. This prevents people trying to achieve happiness for themselves and for others. The third point is that religion justifies social class. This means everyone was too scared to challenge this system as they thought it was punishable to eternal damnation. The last point is that religion encourages people to accept their position. Religion says that if your poor your more likely to be able to go to heaven than a rich man

Marx's last point about religion was that it was a compensator and oppressed pain in the following ways. Religion promises life after death (makes life worth living), Those who don't complain will be awarded in afterlife, Rectifying injustice on earth and lastly offering hope of supernatural intervention to solve problems

These two theories both have similarities and differences in there view of religion. The first similarity is that both of the approaches are macro (large) and see each part of society performing vital functions which help society survive and prosper. This makes these two sets of people want to analyse the role and functions of religion. Marxist and Functionalist approaches are both structural because they both believe that people's behaviour is determined by the structure of society. Religion unites people and controls their behaviour. This according to both functionalists and Marxists maintain social order and stability. Functionalists and Marxists both believe that religion offers comfort and support for individuals and both see religion has a conservative force which maintains the status quo and holds back on social change.

However not all the ideas of functionalist and Marxist agree with each other.Functionalism is a consensus theory which believes society is basically harmonious because of the high level of agreement in society.There also believe in the organic analogy which is like the human body where education, health, religion etc. creates a healthy living society. Therefore religion is a vital cog for helping individuals and society

Marxism is a conflict theory which believes that there is a conflict between the ruling and working classes. The ruling class exploit the working class. Marxists also split the economic base with the super structure,this justifies the existing mode of production which benefits the ruling class. This means that overall the religion has a negative consequence on individuals and the community itself.

In conclusion the two points of view both have strong points but also weak points. The functionalism view is too positive and can not spot any flaws in our society, it is too keen to express their ideas on the good parts of the society but seem to be missing vital points on why religion can be bad for society. In some ways Marxism is completely the other way round. The Marxists are very critical of the role of religion about it being a safe guard for the ruling class it does express all the flaws but only concentrates on capitalism which makes Marxism limited in ideas. My belief is that a idea in the "middle of the park" would be better has it could express the good and bad points of the role of religion in our society.