Marxists such as Weber uses a one sided approach in which religion leads to social change, and is shown in his argument of the role of Calvinism in the development of capitalism. Weber believes that ideas can influence the social structure. He adopts the social action approach and demonstrates how different religions lead to different economic outcomes and shows how other religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam all are religion in which have different morals beliefs and values and so are not suited to the development of Calvinism and he shows how religious values can encourage and promote social change rather than oppose it and so does not believe that religion is a conservative force in the same way that functionalists like Marx and Durkheim do.
Weber argues that religion plays a radical role in society, a force for social change.
Weber is seen as a social action theorist whom emphasized that beliefs and motives direct human behaviour. He showed how religious beliefs and values in different cultures could promote and encourage social change rather than opposing it.
Malinowski is functionalist like Marx he believes that religion is a conservative force he states that in all societies there are life crises e.g. birth, puberty, marriage and death and these are all surrounded by religious rituals. And the religious rituals are used to comfort people that are suffering from bereavements such as deaths and act as a comfort and act as a feeling of control to reduce anxiety that people have. Malinowski argues that religion promotes social solidarity by dealing with situations of emotional stress that threatens the stability of society.
Talcott Parsons, another functionalist, argued that human action is directed and controlled by the norms provided by the social system. However, the cultural system provides more general guidelines for action in the form of beliefs, values and systems of meanings. Such values are not isolated standards for behaviour, but they are integrated and patterned by the values and beliefs provided by the cultural system. Criticisms of functionalism are it neglects that religion can be disruptive and divisions between religions themselves and other religion, divisions that can lead to open conflict. And in some religions where religion can strongly be seen as a cause for social change by creating open conflict. Marxists argue that religion is a form of social control that maintains the capitalist system, which is ruled by the elite and exploits the lower classes. This would basically be a system of keeping people in their place. This Marxist theory basically implies religion is used to control society in such a way that it benefits the ruling-class.
Manduro is a contemporary neo-Marxist argued that religion is not always a conservative force, and that it can be revolutionary. This is a very different perspective view of religion and Manduro being a neo Marxist implies it can cause both conservative and radical changes.
Functionalists and Marxists generally tend to dismiss the possibility of religion being a radical force in society. They believe it is conservative, and it is the society changing which shapes religion. Functionalists claim this acts in this way since it promotes social solidarity however believing it was staying the same due to the dominance of the bourgeoisie.
Weber describes religion as the attempt to make sense of people’s lives and examines the relationship between different social groups he put forward His social action theory in which argued that human action is directed by meanings and motives. This perspective argues that an action can only be understood by appreciating a range of different views and values and looking at different the image of the world held by people in society. And so by looking at this worldwide view you can obtain meanings for life, purposes and motives all in which direct people’s actions and beliefs. Weber argues that Religion is often an important force for this and it can be used to see how religious meaning and purposes direct peoples actions in society.
Most sociologists agree that changes in society lead to changes in religion. Talcott Parsons believed that as society developed, religion lost some of its functions. He argues that religion provides meanings to make sense of all experiences. Some sociologists, however, have argued that religion can cause social change. The functionalists and Marxists emphasize the role of religion in promoting social integration and preventing social change. However, Weber does argue that in some circumstances it does lead to social change: his idea is whilst religious beliefs may bring together religious groups the same religious beliefs may cause conflict and new ideas may come from this conflict amongst religious groups can produce changes in society causing religion to be a force for social change.
Major criticisms of Webber’s theory is one put forward by Sombart whom argued that Weber misinterpreted Calvinistic traditions and beliefs whereas he suggested that Calvinism was against profit for its own sake. Parkin suggests that Weber overemphasizes Calvinist teaching which are generally compatible with the Calvinist ethos, which Weber underplayed, and appear to undermine his arguments.
It is now accepted that religion can be force for social change. Despite the examples used by functionalists and Marxists to support their perspective of religion promoting conservatism there are other examples which I wont look into now that contradict this view.
To conclude I personally feel that religion can be a force for social change if you look at the arguments put forward by Weber’s view in “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism“, yet through the functionalist and Marxist views it can also prevent social change if the ideology of the ruling-class is a strong enough force to keep society subservient and under capitalist control Due to this, I tend to agree with the neo-Marxists mostly, as they allow for both theories, religion being a force for social change and act as a conservative force to be put forward. However I can’t ignore that the functionalists and Marxists put forward some good arguments and a very good and interesting point in saying that sometimes it is the society changing that shapes religion not religion that shapes society. This means that there are four different reasons as to whether religion is a conservative force for social change, as it takes into account how society can prevent change and maintain the same religious views or shape religion differently throughout the changes that occur in society.