Although Neo-Marxism is a form of Marxism, it does not see religion as a conservative force, rather it can be used as an authentic expression and tool of resistance against class based oppression. Maduro says that religion can play a role in the political struggles of oppressed classes in developing countries and looked closely at the ideas of Liberation Theology. The Liberation Theology occurred in Latin America where the vast majority of people were trapped in poverty. The very rich elite ruled many countries. A few people had a great deal of power and were desperate to keep it at all costs, leading to torture, assassinations and the “death squad.” In 1968 a conference of Bishops met in Medellin in Colombia, concerned with the general situation in Latin America. The Bishops recognized the temptation to resort to revolutionary violence. They did not believe violence would result in any permanent change. The term “Liberation Theology” became popular. Priests became active in joining movements to fight for injustice and oppression, becoming prepared to speak out. The Liberation Theology supports the idea that religion can be a force of social change and goes against the Marxist idea. Also in criticism of Marx is the fact that some religions are revolutionary like the Levellers and Puritans, also, supporting Liberation Theology, in Nazi Germany many priests spoke out against Hitler, likewise in South Africa Archbishop Desmond Tutu spoke out against apartheid. Also British Church leaders campaigned against inequalities in Capitalism during Thatcher’s time as Prime Minister. The Church of England commissioned various reports to show what a poor condition the poor were in.
Max Weber believes that religion is a force of social change. He spans both structuralist and interpretive perspectives. Weber believed that social inquiry must begin with the individual, and attempt to understand the motives and ideas, which influence behaviour. Weber argued that ideas and beliefs can have important consequences for the way people think and act, only by understanding the meaning given to situations can we understand social action. In Weber’s work “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism” he pointed out that religion itself could be a source of major social change through the intervention of significant ideas or people. Weber looked at Calvinists, which he believed has key teachings and values that encouraged capitalism. Calvinists believed in predestination, an idea that people were already allocated places in heaven in advance. Calvinists would look for “signs” that they were among those chosen for salvation and reduce fear they may not be saved. These “signs” included working hard, material success gained through work and living a sober life. Weber believed that the idea of predestination lead to the rise of capitalism by making it possible for people to accumulate wealth and reinvest it, seeing poverty as a moral degradation so people were under moral obligation to look after the poor and because people did not enjoy their wealth by spending, instead reinvesting it to make more money. Weber also believes social change can occur by the intervention of significant individuals. A charismatic leader may arise and people may follow. Many religions have a single prophet and there are numbers of charismatic leaders who have influenced people’s religious belief in modern times, like Adolf Hitler and Martin Luther King.
In criticism of Weber, there were parts of the world where Calvinism was strong, but capitalism did not develop until much later, e.g. Scotland, Hungary, Switzerland and the Netherlands. Also it has been argued that Calvinism developed in cities where commerce and industrialization was already strong. Weber does not examine pre-Reformation Europe, where there were some very well developed capitalist structures, such as in Italy. Also, as Kautsky argues, some extreme Protestants were barred from a variety of professional occupations and so were forced into business. Finally, Sombart argues that Weber was mistaken about the beliefs held by Calvinists. He believes that Calvinists were against greed and the pursuit of money for their own sake. Non the less Weber gives an alternative view to Marxism and gives a strong argument for religion as a force of social change. Also it is important to note that Weber was not saying that religion always caused change, but that it could be an important factor. Weber highlights the fact that ideas can conceivably lead to economic change.
G.K. Nelson also gives arguments for religion as an initiator of social change. In his work “Religion”, Nelson highlighted numerous occasions when religion has undermined stability and/or promoted social change. Examples Nelson gave included Catholicism and the IRA Nationalism in Northern Ireland, Martin Luther King and his push for civil rights in the USA. Nelson looked also at Liberation Theology, when in 1979 catholic revolutionaries supported Sandinistas when control of Nicaragua was seized, also the supporting of Solidarity and opposition of the Communist state by the Catholic Church. Finally Arch Bishop Tutu’s opposing of apartheid in South Africa. Nelson concluded that religion does not encourage people of accept their place at all, rather encourages them to resist and revolt.
Meredith B. McGuire does not question whether religion promotes social change; rather in what way and under what conditions does it promote rather than inhibit change? McGuire came up with six factors, which might inhibit or promote change. Firstly charismatic leaders motivate and direct others toward a new goal, leaders provide focus for discontent and act as a catalyst for social change. Beliefs and practices can promote change, McGuire looks at Weber’s distinction between ‘other worldly out look’ and ‘this worldly outlook’, meaning ‘other worldly’ would foster passive response to life now, but ‘this worldly’ would foster activity here and now. Next is the idea of religious relationships to society when religion is seen as a distinct and separate institution it is more likely to become an independent factor social change, e.g. Sects versus the Church of England. Religion can bring about social change through sects and the social status of the religious membership. Established churches tend to have membership drawn from the upper classes, hence are less likely to oppose the status quo. However Sects attract less privileged groups who have less to loose from social change. The presence of alternative non-religious avenues for change can promote change through religion. If change cannot be achieved through non-secular methods, perhaps a religious alternative might result. E.g. E. P. Thompson said on the role of Methodists, 1790-1850, that before this period the working class had a great hope of political change and only turned to Methodism when these hopes achieved very little. Finally, those in a powerful position in religious institutions have more of an impact of influencing social change. However, this can restrain parts of an organisation, e.g. the Pope clashed with Latin American Roman Catholic Bishops and Priests over Liberation Theology.
In conclusion, according to Marxists and other perspectives coming from a structural perspective, religion does not promote, rather keeping society stable and encouraging the social structure. Weber and Nelson see religion as a promoting social change and undermining stability. They believe that religion can act as a catalyst for social change. However, religion can both encourage and inhibit social change, but it depends on the circumstances and of course the role of religion in society and how influential it is. Many may argue that religion is not as influential in today’s society as it once was due to society becoming more secular, therefore is neither a force of social control, nor change.
