When religion maintains social solidarity, it is acting as a conservative force. When religion fails to perform this action, new religions form.
Durkheim claimed Nationalism and Communism were the new religions of the industrial society. They took over from Christianity but performed the same functions.
Functionalists do not say that Religion doesn't change. its form certainly does. Parsons believed that religion was in differentiation, but what does not change is the function of religion in society and therefore supports the status quo. The culture of a particular political movement is parralelled with the collectivity of religious movements, ie, rituals like flag waving and protest are a collective sign of respect for their sacred symbol (weather it be religious or political). Consequently, religion is in any form, is a neccessary and essential feature of society.
Criticisms of the Functionalist view on the Role of Religion
Firstly, Elementory Forms of Religious Life was based on bad and second-hand anthropology. Durkheim seemed to misunderstand both Totenism and the Aboriginal tribes on which his study was based. Durkheim's analysis was not applicable to societies of cultural diversity.
The idea that religion is the worshipping of society has been criticised by many, as people who worship a God do not always look at society in the same light. It can be argued that all worshipping is a form of false conciousness anyway.
Marxism argues that religion does not in fact support social solidarity, but in fact it encourages social control and exploitation although Durkheim did admit that those in the aboriginal tribes saw religion as a tool for making inequalities become less noticeable. However Marxism argues that social order is not a good thing.
Overall Functionalism ignores the dysfunctional aspects of religion apparent in places such as Northern Ireland and Lebanon.
Marxism
Marxism does agree with Functionalism, that religion functions as a conservative force, but that is where the agreement ends. Marx argued that religion is "the opium of the people". It is there to make a person accept their inequalities and act as a form of oppression. Lenin claimed that religions act as a "spiritual gin in which people can drown their human shape and their claims to any decent life." The fact that religions preach the world to be controlled by God's will, leads their members to believe and accept that the world is beyond any of their control. Therefore, they do not try to change the world in any, way, shape or form, and just let the world form as it spins. Marx claimed that Religion stops people from achieving class conciousness and encourages false conciousness, therefore it keeps people from wanting a revolutionary change. Class conciousness, Marx believed, is one of the things society would have to have in order for it to see the polarisation of the class structure via communism. Therefore Marx argued that Religion stops the world from evolving and solving inequalities and oppression. This supports the argument that Religion does have an effect of society and that it causes society to act as a conservative force. People dream of their reward in the afterlife and their religion will therefore prevent them from wanting to revolutionize their current situation. They believe that if they are "good" then they will be rewarded. Therefore acting upon this value consensus, society will accept all inequalities that it may come accross.
Early Marxism looked at how God is made by humans, originally used by earlier societies to explain the world (the plausibility structure), and gradually becoming an aspect of the legitimisation of the status quo. Religion is therefore the distortion of reality and is merely an ideological apparatus (like education) in they eyes of Althusser. Religion provied the basis for ruling class ideology and false conciousness.
Marx claimed that in communist society religion would dissappear, as the conditions that create religion will have dissappeared. Religion acts as an opiate in that it does not solve any problems that people may have but merely dulls the pain, and therefore, argued Marx, most religious movements originate in the oppressed classes.
"Christianity was originally a movement of oppressed people; it first appeared as the religion of slaves and emancipated slaves, of poor people deprived of all rights or peoples subjugated and dispersed by Rome"
(Engels)
Religion dulls the pain of the current life by:
*Promising paradise in the "afterlife"
*Some religions make a virtue of suffering" - Fasting in the Islam faith, Judaism etc. (Beatitudes)
*The hope of spiritual intervention makes the present bearable (The hope that God will change the world for his people) adopted by Jehovah's Witnesses.
*Religion justifies the social order. Lyrics from the Hymn "All Things Bright And Beautiful" explain:
"The Rich Man in his castle, the poor man at his gate; god made them high or lowly and ordered their estate."
Thus religion discourags people from attempting change, and thus the dominant groups can maintain their power (the symbolism involved in both religion and politics are similar). Religion is used by the ruling class to justify their position. Therefore the ruling class and the subject class adopt the mutual agreement that:
'The parson has never gone hand in hand with the landlord'.
Marxism generally concludes that religion of the poor focuses heavily on the afterlife, and therefore justifies all social inequality apparant in the class structure. Marxism looks at the nature of faith closely. However, there are some tradional Marxists who see Religion as a platform for social change, a postion also adopted by some Neo-Marxists.