Weber argued that religious beliefs have the possibility to generate large scale social changes, in his study ‘the rise of capitalism‘, Weber concluded that the new protestant religion was a vital element in the development of capitalist economies.
Evidence supporting this would be that Christian churches were involved in the other throw of Marxism in Eastern Europe, similar evidence in different situations such as liberation theology supporting radical political movements for change in Latin America, Islamic fundamentalism being the basis of opposition to the Soviet involvement in Afghanistan in the 1980s also support Weber’s argument.
Neo-Marxist also acts to promote social change, they say there are instances when religion has acted a force for social change. Maduro has pointed out that some religious theologies might offer a connection into the experiences of oppressed groups and my contribute to the development of change promoting movements.
However, functionalist, Marxist and feminism argues that religion acts as a conservative force.
The key concern of functionalist writing on religion is the contribution that religion makes to the well being of society, its contribution to social stability and, value-consensus.
Durkheim argues that the function of religious ritual is to maintain social solidarity by affirming the moral superiority of society over its individual members. Durkheim believed that social life could only exist if values were shared and society integrated into a coherent whole. Religion is an important aspect of this process, not only providing a set of unifying practices and beliefs, but also by providing a way in which people can interpret and give meaning to the world. For Durkheim the sacred are symbols for society, therefore in worshipping God, humans are really worshipping society.
Durkheim regarded Nationalism and Communism as the new religions of industrial society, taking over from Christianity but performing the same essential functions. Therefore Durkheim, and other functionalists are not saying that religion does not change; clearly its form does. Parson's argument concerning differentiation, but what does not change is the function, and that essentially is to offer support for the existing status quo. Politics and its associated rituals - for example, flag waving, parades - are the new forms by which collective feeling are symbolically expressed. Consequently religion, in one form or another, is a necessary and essential feature of society. In general functionalism views religion as a change inhibiting, conservative force that operates to maintain the existing social order.
It is claimed that Durkheim's analysis is not related to societies that are typified by cultural diversity.
The idea that religion is the worship of society has been criticised - as an argument it is difficult to substantiate other than through some idea of false consciousness since people clearly believe they are worshipping God. Also, the idea depends on a particular conception of worship; collective, and a particular definition of religion - inclusive.
Marxists, would argue that religion, far from being an instrument of social solidarity, is an instrument of social control and exploitation.
Clearly, the functionalist position is weak on the dysfunctional aspects of religion, for example, societies with more than one faith, for example; Northern Ireland, Lebanon.
Marxist theory starts from the belief that God is made by humans, originally used by earlier societies to explain the world, and gradually becoming an aspect in the legitimation of the status quo. Religion involves the distortion of 'reality', it is ideological. It provides the basis of ruling class ideology and false consciousness. Marx then argued that in communist society religion will disappear since the conditions which produce religion will have disappeared.
Religion acts as an opiate (a drug) 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.
Some religions make a virtue of suffering produced by oppression. The hope of supernatural intervention. Jehovah's Witnesses, Millenarian movements. Expectation of the future makes the present bearable, moreover they don't have to get off their backsides and change things because god will do it for them. For example All things bright and beautiful... "The Rich Man in his castle, the poor man at his gate; god made them high or lowly and ordered their estate." Social relationships seem inevitable and god given.
Religion therefore discourages people from attempting change, and consequently the dominant groups can retain their power. Religion is used by the ruling class to justify their position. Church and ruling class are mutually reinforcing, however evidence for the traditional Marxist position is biased and tends to be of a documentary nature; looking at the nature of faith and the way in which the religion of the poor concentrates on the afterlife. Also there are some traditional Marxists who adopt the view that religion can bring about social change, a position also adopted by some neo-Marxists.
Criticisms of this is that both functionalist and Marxism make substantial value judgements about the fundamental nature of society, one seeing society as operating on a consensus and the other identifying society as being fundamentally divided and unequal although neither set of assumptions are provable. There are also many instances when religion appears to have had a change promoting effect.
Feminism have seen religion as a conservative force, where Marxist as seen religion as maintaining the power of the ruling class. Feminism sees religion as it creates conflict and division through its patriarchal ideology. Feminism claim that religious institutions often exclude women from full membership by reference to particular interpretations of religious text. It is also seen that rituals often exclude women from full environment. Evidence to support feminism view on religion is that the Christian god ‘our father’ has traditionally seen as male, it is also known as Eve was created as a helpmate for Adam.
Until recently women could not become clergy in Christian churches. This changed in 1992 in the Church of England. However women are still barred from becoming religious professionals in the Roman Catholic church.
There appears to be no definite relationship between religion and social change. Maguire argues that sociologist should try to identify the factors which influence whether or not a particular religious organisation acts in a conservative or non conservative way. Maguire’s approach is “ under what circumstances does religion encourage or discourage change?” she answers this questions by looking at beliefs. Maguire claimed that religions with strong moral codes are more likely to be critical of the wider society. As a result their members are more likely to demand changes in society. Religions which focus on the social conduct of their members in this world are more likely to produce change than religions which focus on spirituality or other worldly concerns. In terms of this view Protestantism is more likely to produce change than Buddhism with its spiritual goal of elimination the self and earthly desires.
Maguire also looks at culture - where religious beliefs are central to the culture society, they are more likely to be used to justify or legitimates demands for stability or change. This can be seen in Central and south American countries with a strongly Roman Catholic tradition. Social location is another answer to Maguire’s question. If religious institutions are closely integrated with other parts of the social structure for example the political and economic systems they have greater power to produce stability or change.
Religious institutions with a strong centralised authority will have more power to affect stability or change.
Maguire has outlined factors which influence whether religion acts a force for stability or change, however she does not indicate why the same religion the same beliefs, the same relationship and same culture and the same social location and internal organisation sometimes promotes change and sometimes inhibits change.
There is evidence that it can be both, it depends on the circumstances. Thompson 1986, outlines a range of factors affecting the relationship between religion and social change; Charismatic leaders, beliefs and practices, relationship to society. The social status of religious membership, the presence of alternative avenues to change and organisational structure.
Thompson believes that the main distinction of beliefs and practices is between this worldly and other worldly beliefs. Thompson is concerned with the extent to which the church is linked to the state. The closer the links the more likely it is that a church will support the state. Additionally, of course within the same society over a period of time the relationship between church and state may differ, and therefore the pressures for change or continuity.
Social status of religious membership is linked to the last point that there is tendency for established churches to draw their membership from upper status groups while sectarian movements tend to attract less privileged groups.
Overall there is no conclusion on the relationship between religion and social change. Religion both encourages and inhibits social change depending on which view you look at it.
By Shireen Prewett