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”
In this case, it can be argued that religious beliefs contributed to producing change, religion did not therefore act as a conservative force in one sense, nevertheless in terms of supporting traditional vales it did act as a conservative force.
Both functionalist and Marxist perspectives believed in supernatural reality they didn’t believe in God, they believed that man created God and not vice versa. They both believed that religion was a social construction and that it was made up by society’s norms and values. Both Marx and Durkheim believed that religion had a social function of control and that religion gives meaning to people’s lives.
Durkheim distinguished between the sacred and the profane he believed that religion gave people a social identity and a sense of social integration and sharing, Durkheim laid emphasis on morality, he believes that this reinforces the collective conscience. Durkheim believed that religion gave meaning and purpose. The strength of Durkheim was that he linked religion into society and put it into social context however his link to religion was to scared things just as a totem pole and not supernatural beliefs, this therefore makes the boundary of religion much wider and beings in ideas that are irrelevant. Durkheim empathised religion’s moral base , however he did not take account of the dysfunctions of religion such as conflict, oppression and war. Although Durkheim linked religion to socialisation and control, he did not translate this into modern day society. Durkheim did work on an aboriginal tribe with a clan based social organisation belief of totems. A totem is a sacred object represented by the clan regular rituals served to unite clan members into collective unity. Development of collective conscience as members worshipped totems but sacred objects was clan or society. Religion for Durkheim was constructed by society. Instead of worshipping God, the clan were worshipping society within their religious practice.
Malinowski was concerned with the religious rituals which minimise anxiety. He was interested in pre-industrial – Trobriand islanders. It is also a way to counteract unpredictable events, it deals with emotional stress and allows you to adjust. Through his primary research he found rituals associated with fishing in open sea but not when sailing in the lagoon which was safer, he also noted that tension generated by sea fishing was a potential threat to community stability. Malinowski complements Durkheim in that religion contributes to social solidarity and reinforces a value consensus, However he challenges Durkheim by saying that he community is threatened and in times disrupted and anxious. However emphasis on consensus of values and norms ignores the dissent, deviance and resistance found in modern, industrial society.
Parsons believed that religion is the primary source of meaning in society, it provides the core values and thereby promotes social solidarity. It provides answers to ultimate questions such as the meaning of life. However Parsons’ view of society is limited by a white middle class position.
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. Marx anticipated that when a classless society was established religion would disappear. Bryan Turner (1983) claims that “religion lost its function of facilitating the smooth transfer or property from generation to generation when feudalism gave way to capitalism”. Parsons believed that as society developed religion lost some of it’s functions.
Both Functionalist and Marxists emphasise the role of religion in promoting social integration and impeding social change. In contrast Weber (1958) argues 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 run can produce changes in society.
Marxism links power and ideology to religion and that it acts as a comfort mechanism to help people to adjust to capitalism. Neo-marxists links important movements of underprivileged groups like Martin Luther King’s movement and civil rights legislation, sometimes revolutionary movements use religion to gain support. To be successful people need to be religious, however the liberation theory shows that religion can act for change of a radical and political kind as with radical movements in Nicaragua, but theory still credits mass of population with little independent actions. There is also little evidence to show that working class have ever been especially religious in the UK and thus have not been duped by religion.
Gramsci believed that religion can be independent from it’s economic base and that beliefs are as important as the economy, he also believed that the need for action for a revolution.
Maduro believed that the church could take action against oppression and Maduro developed Gramsci’s view. Some practical examples of religion as a radical force have been South African leaders like Desmond Tutu and the influence of the Catholic Church in Poland on the breakdown of communism.
On the other hand there are examples of religion as a conservative force. Post revolutionary Iran and fundamentalist influences in both East and West. Also Catholicism in Ireland and the Catholic Church under fascist regimes.
The doctrine of 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 on religion promotes stability other examples contradict their claims. For example Nelson points to a number of cases where religion had under stability, promoted change:
“In Iran, Islamic fundamentalism played a part in the 1979 revolution, led by the Ayatollah Khomeini”
Examples such as these lead Nelson to conclude that far from encouraging people to accept their place, religion can be spearhead resistance and revolution. In many cases when religion has been a force for change in 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.
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.
