Marx also thought that religion prevents social change but for different reasons to Durkheim. Marx thought that any religion is a form of ideological control. He felt that religion provides people with a sense of 'false class consciousness'. For example, religious ideas such as "Blessed are the meek for they will inherit the earth" give the working class the idea that they will be rewarded in heaven. As a result, these people never become fully class conscious, they never question their status and they never threaten to overturn the status quo. As a result of this Marx felt that religion ensures that capitalism continues to survive and control the people when he expressed, "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature...it is the opiate of the masses". However, it can still be argued that religion is much more than a set of beliefs and practices that serve a capitalist society. For example, in the former communist country of the USSR and in modern day Cuba the practice of religion was, and is still very popular. Surely this acts as evidence that religion is not just a means to support capitalism.
Max Weber offered opposition to the idea that religion is a conservative force. Unlike sociologists such as Durkheim and Marx, Weber thought that religion can act as a radical force for social change and he used the idea of the 'Protestant ethic' as an example. He described the main aspects and beliefs of Protestantism to be that wasting time, food or any resources is considered a sin, extravagance is wrong, and that living a God fearing life is admirable. Weber thought that the sanctions and discipline of the Protestant ethic encouraged men rationally to achieve wealth. These aspects were, according to Weber, a major factor in industrialisation. If this were the case then it would be true that religion can play a part in social change.
Weber also considered the idea of Calvinism. This held the view that people are either born among the ‘elect’ or not and only these ‘elect’ would be allowed into heaven. Wealth was considered a sign of being one of the ‘elect’ and therefore people would try to acquire wealth. It would appear that striving to become wealthy to fulfil religious aspirations would involve a social change among those who attempted to improve their fortune. This would seem to be a clear indication of religion as a con-conservative or radical force.
In response to Marx’ ideas that religion merely reaffirms communism, Weber studied non-western societies and found that other pre-industrial societies had the preconditions to begin capitalism but lacked the motives to abandon traditional ways.
What makes Weber's ideas different from the structuralist views of Durkheim and Marx is that although Weber acknowledges that social forces can influence an individual’s behaviour, he believes that the forces are socially produced. He describes it as being a two way process in that the individual can shape society as well as be influenced by it. Unlike Marx, who thought that change is brought about by such things as technology and distribution of wealth, Weber thought that individual's ideas could bring about change. The problem with this is that it is impossible to study people's ideas by the use of positivist methods. This is why Weber is often considered the founder of Interpretivism.
Phenomenologists Berger and Luckmann claimed that religion does not cause social change but rather that the 'universe of meaning' will change and adapt to meet any new social conditions which may occur. For example, British society has become more multi-cultural leading to a decline in traditional Christian beliefs causing people to create a new universe of meaning for themselves.
This view states that it is social structure that initiates change in religion and beliefs and not the other way around as Weber argued. Berger and Luckmann make the assumption that religion only has a positive effect on society such as maintaining social stability and overlooking the examples of where religion has caused conflict (such as in Northern Ireland where the differing views of Protestantism and Catholicism has caused division, conflict and violence). What makes phenomenology different from other structural theories such as functionalism is that rather than looking at the role and functions of such things as religion, it considers the actual individuals in society and what things such as religion means to them. One example of this kind of theory is Eileen Barker's participant observation study of the Moonies. The individuals within the cult shared meanings such as a sense of belonging, clear direction in terms of how they thought and their answers to spiritual questions.
Religious fundamentalism is one of the more difficult areas to address when considering whether religion is a conservative or radical force. Initially it would seem that any group basing its behaviour and beliefs on a strict interpretation of an ancient text could hardly be seen as progressive and that they would be keen to effect any social change. However, the teachings of fundamentalist groups have promoted dramatic social revolutions in recent years especially in the Islamic world. Islamic fundamentalists do not stress a simple return to an older form of society but a particularly modern response to the conditions of the modern world. It is possible to argue that fundamentalism is both a conservative and a radical force. This is particularly relevant in today’s society with religious fundamentalism as seen in Afghanistan with the Taliban, Palestinian fundamentalists in Israel and Muslim fundamentalists in Iraq who the west would call terrorists, whilst they would refer to themselves as freedom fighters. In all these cases their fundamentalism stems from traditionally conservative forms of religion, but involves radical methods in an attempt to control the people, overthrow regimes or resist occupying forces.
So is religion always conservative, always radical, or both in different circumstances? Marx and Durkheim are both associated with analyses that see religion as conservative whilst Weber is more clearly associated with the idea that in certain circumstances, especially the development of capitalism in Western Europe, religious beliefs can contribute to social change. On the other hand, the treatment of women within many religious groups can be seen as fundamentally conservative and failing to keep up with social change in the secular world.
In conclusion, although the likes of Durkheim and Marx provide very good evidence of how religion may act as a conservative force, once you consider modern examples such as Islamic fundamentalism, the state of Israel and Ireland and the apparent process of secularisation, it seems that religion is not necessarily as conservative as Durkheim or Marx believe. If religion were responsible for anything, then it would seem less likely to be preserving the status quo and the social norm. If anything it would seem that religion is often a source of great conflict and surely this cannot be viewed as a conservative force.
