Marxism
Like Durkheim, Karl Marx argued that religion was a conservative force in society. However, he did not agree that religion s beneficial to society but instead argued that the primary function of religion is to reproduce, maintain and legitimate class inequality. In this sense Marx argues that;
- Religion is an ideological apparatus which serves to reflect ruling class ideas and interests.
- Religion is the opium of the people because it lulls the working class into a state of false class-consciousness by making the true extent of their exploitation by the ruling class invisible.
Religion is seen by Marx to be ideological in three ways.
- It promotes the idea that the existing socio-economic hierarchy is god-given and therefore unchangeable. This can be particularly seen during the feudal period when it was widely believed that kings had a divine right to rule.
- Religion explains economic and social inequalities in supernatural terms – in other words, the real causes (i.e. exploitation by the ruling class) are obscured and distorted by religions insistence that inequality is the product of sin or a sign that people have been chosen by god, etc.
- Some religions even present suffering and poverty as a virtue to be welcomed and accepted as normal. Such ideas promote the idea that there us no point in changing the here and now. Rather, people should wait patiently for divine intervention.
Marx therefore argued that religion functions to produce fatalistic followers uninterested in changing their world for the better. Religion is a conservative force because it inhibits and prevents real social change. Marx concluded that religion would not be necessary in a class’s society – although its survival in communist societies is seen as some evidence o=that this prediction is flawed.
There are a number of examples cited as evidence in favour of Marx’s arguments;
-
Halevy claims Methodism in the 19th century distracted workers from their class grievances and encourages them to see enlightenment in spirituality rather than revolution.
-
Hooks analysis of the Catholic Church notes that it has a very conservative stance on contraception, abortion, women priests and homosexuality. Hook also suggested that the considerable wealth of the Catholic Church could be used to do more to tackle world poverty.
Critics of Marxism
The following weaknesses have been identifies in the Marxist theory of religion.
- Like functionalist, Marxism fails to consider secularisation. The ideological power of religion is undermined by the fact that less than 10% of people attend church.
- There are examples of religious movements that have brought another radical social change. For example, the Reverend Martin Luther King and the Southern Baptist Church were important in dismantling segregation and bringing about political and social rights for black people in the USA in the 1960’s. Liberation theology has encouraged people to actively change societies in South America.
Religion as an indicator of social change
The Marxist Otto Maduro (82) recognised that religion in some special circumstances could bring about radical change. He argued that ruling elites sometimes blocked all conventional avenues for change, e.g. politics, trade unions, etc. through force of ideology. Religion therefore may be the only agency of change for some oppressed groups. The potential for change through religious avenues is enhanced by the presence of a charismatic leader (e.g. Mather Luther King) who provides a focus for expressing discontent.
Max Weber
Like Marx, Weber subscribed to the idea that religion could be ideological in two ways;
- It gave assurance to the most fortunate, .i.e. the powerful and wealthy, by stressing that their position was natural or god-given
- It offered religious reasons for poverty and suffering in term s of themes such as wickedness, sins committed in former lives. Weber argued, like Marx, that both these themes legitimate status quo.
However Weber believed that some religious ideas specifically protestant beliefs, had initiated the economic and social conditions in which capitalism emerged.
From his comparative studies, Weber noted that while similar economic conditions prevailed in china, India and Europe, capitalism only developed in the latter. He noted that capitalism had developed in those parts of Europe where a particular set of protestant beliefs known as Calvinism were dominant. He concluded that Calvinism had brought about the right cultural climate for capitalist ideas practices to develop in two ways.
Weber noted that;
- Calvinists believed in predestination =, i.e. that they were chosen by god for salvation. They were taught to believe that righteous living was all important and that their reward for sticking to such religious principles would be economic success.
-
Consequently Calvinism encouraged values such as self-discipline, hard work, thrift, modesty and the rejection of self-indulgence, pleasure, idleness and lavish spending; the protestant work ethic. The adoption of these ideas, Weber argues, led to the rapid accumulation of capital which was invested in industrialisation and the emergence of a Calvinist capitalist class at the end of feudal era.
Weber did not say Calvinism caused capitalism; he only suggested that it was the major contribute to a climate of change. Many other pre-conditions needed to be in place. For example, Calvinist beliefs had to be supplemented by a certain level of technology, a skilled and mobile workforce and rational modes of law and bureaucracy. These latter pre-conditions were also present in china and India but Weber claimed that eastern religions emphasised the spiritual rather than the rational or material – in other words, ideas which were not conductive to sustained economic activity.
Criticms of Weber
-
Sombart suggests that Weber was mistaken about the beliefs held by Calvinists. Calvinism was against greed and the pursuit of money for its own sake.
-
Some countries with large Calvinist populations did not industrialise and this is cited as evidence that Weber’s thesis is wrong. However marshal points out that Weber did not claim Calvinism was the sole pre-condition for the emergence of capitalism. For example, Scotland lacked a skilled technical labour force and capital investment.
- Some commentators have suggested that slavery, colonialism and piracy were more influential than Calvinist beliefs in accumulating the capital required for industrialisation.
-
Marxists have also been critical of Weber. Kautsky suggested that capitalism pre-dated Calvinism. Bourgeoisie capitalists were attracted to it because it offered convenient justification for the pursuit of economic interests. Thus the protestant religion was an ideology used to legitimate capitalist interests.
Despite some empirical difficulties in testing Weber’s thesis, his ideas remain important because he highlighted the relationship between social structure (i.e. the economic and social system) and social action (i.e. interaction and interpretation). His point was that if certain structural factors are present, people may choose to act upon religious ideas and bring about change.
ASSES THE SOCIOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE FOR THE VIEW THAT RELIGION IS A CONSERVATIVE FORCE IN SOCITY BUT MAY BE ASSOCIATD WITH SOCIAL CHANGE IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES (40 MRKS)
The functionalist, E. Durkheim, claimed that religion is fundamental to the maintenance of collective consciousness, i.e. shared beliefs, values, customs and norms that make social life possible. He claimed that the worship of worship of religion is essentially the unconscious worship of society and results in the reinforcement of values that the group shares and the binding of the group together. Religion therefore functions to promote social solidarity. Religion is a conservative force because its role is to ensure commitment to the existing social order and minimisation of conflict and disruption. In this way, religion is a major contributor to the maintenance of social order.
Other functionalists support this view. Parsons noted that religion provides and legitimates key social values by investing them with a sacred quality, i.e. such values become moral codes. Members of society internalise such codes during socialisation and they become guidelines for behaviour ensuring that people interact with each other in an ordeal and stable fashion.
However, critics of functionalism point to two factors that seem to contradict and challenge the theory. First, we now live in a secular society rather than a religious society, and consequently religion has little everyday influence. How, therefore, can religion function to bind society together? Second, religion is seen as the cause of much conflict in the world rather than social order.
Marxists argue that religion functions to socially control the subordinated working class by transmitting the ideological messages that the social order of wealth and poverty may be the product of gods plane and therefore unchangeable. Some religious ideology – especially that associated with sects and some evangelical protestant religions – socialised its followers into seeing lack of power, poverty and suffering as a sign of salvation or exclusivity. Therefore, people are discouraged from attempting to transform their material circumstances in case they threaten their spiritual place in heaven, etc. Marx refers to religion as the opium of the masses because it dulls their senses in regard to their exploitation – it is the imaginary flowers of religion that cover our chains. In this sense, religion function s as a conservative force to promote false class-consciousness, and the capitalist system and ruling-class power continue undisturbed.
Marxists point to a range of evidence that suggests that religion inhibits social change. Halevy, in particular, notes that the British W/C were probably diverted from revolutionary zeal by religions such as Methodism which encouraged the much safer (for capitalists) path of non-conformity. However, there is also evidence that religion has not always acted as a conservative ideological force and may be a catalyst for change in uncertain circumstances.
Maduro argues that most religions tend to take a traditional and conservative line but some churches have undergone significant internal reorganization which may fuel social change in wider society. For example, the hierarchy of most religions tends to be recruited from elite groups. However, when clergy are recruited from the subordinated class, conflict between bishops and clergy can lead to the emergence of a more radical religion. This seems to have been the case in relation to liberation theology in Latin America. The view held by many Roman Catholic priests in South America working with the poor is that Jesus Christ and Karl Marx had a great deal in common and that the clergy should work towards ending poverty and the political oppression of ordinary people by elites.
Maduro points out that such religions may become the focus for protest if the ruling elite block all normal and democratic avenues of social change and arrest opposition politicians. The church may then become the opposition. Support for revolutionary change from religious leaders may motivate the mass to rise up against their oppressors. The Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua is seen as a good example of this, whilst the role of religion in south Africa, Iran and eastern Europe is also seen as important in bringing about profound social change in those societies.
In conclusion, then, religion can be an ideological tool of the ruling class but it can also be transformed by internal changed or a charismatic leader into a force which can assist major social change.
