However people would criticise functionalists views by saying that church attendance is declining in the UK, so it’s difficult to see how religion can be functioning to socialise members, so therefore its promoting change. Functionalists believe that religion serves positive functions in society; however it can be dysfunctional such as the Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland, so therefore can reduce social solidarity between different religious groups and societies.
However, Weber an internationalist argued that religion promotes social change and even though shared religious beliefs might integrate a social group, those same beliefs may have repercussions which in the long term can produce changes in society. Weber examines the relationship between certain forms on Protestantism and the development of western industrial capitalism. Weber claims that a particular form of Protestantism, ascetic Calvinist Protestantism developed capitalism. He shows that capitalism developed in places where this religion was very influential and dominant. He
says that places like India and China who had the technological knowledge to produce capitalism didn’t develop it until after Calvinist dominant countries. Calvinists believed that your destiny or fate was fixed in advance so they believed that any form of social activity with religious significance and that material success that arose from hard work and an ascetic life would demonstrate gods favour and lead to a place in heaven. The ascetic protestants ethic reflected the origins of capitalism as it was the “the pursuit of profit and forever renewed profit”. So therefore religion helped to encourage the spirit of capitalism which is a set of ideas, ethics and values. Therefore Weber claims that religion does contribute to causing social change amongst society as it contributed a great deal in the industrial revolution. This is reflected in Item A as it shows the Protestants main work ethic to “produce riches” and “grow rich” which also is very similar to the capitalism ethic. Weber also says that social change can be caused by charismatic religious leaders as they have been responsible for a number of many alternative social arrangements, often causing conflict with mainstream society.
However people argue against Webers theory as some countries with a large Calvinist population didn’t industrialise such as Norway and Sweden. Some sociologists would say that slavery, colonialism and piracy were more important in developing industrialisation and producing the capitalist work ethic. Marxists such as Kautsky argued that capitalism predates Calvinism; he argued that the early capitalists were attracted to capitalism because it made their interests appear legitimate. Aldridge argues that charismatic leaders can be unstable and the movements that these leaders create are often changed when the leader dies.
Like Durkheim, Marx also argues that religion is a conservative force, however he sees this force as negative. Marx argues that the primary function of religion is to reproduce, maintain and justify class inequalities, and that is used as ideological apparatus which serves to reflect the working class ideas and interests. Marx describes religion as the ‘opium of people’ that prevents working from becoming aware of the true nature of their exploitation and doing anything about it so overall preventing any social change coming about. He says that religion acts as an opiate- it does not solve problems but just blocks out the pain. For example Halely argues that Methodism distracted the working class from their class inequalities by encouraging them to see enlightment in spirituality rather than religion. Overall Marxists claim that religion distracts the working class from noticing class inequalities so therefore prevents change, so is therefore a conservative force.
However people would criticise Marxists by saying they fail to consider secularization and that only 10% of people attend church so religion therefore can’t be having too much of an impact. Marxists also failed to explain why religion remained when there was no oppression such as communism in the Ussr; despite the banning of religion, it still remained strong in Russia. There have also been some examples of religious movements that have bought about social change such as in Egypt, the Moslem brotherhood played an important part in the revolt that deposed King Ferouk in 1952.
Neo-Marxist Gramsci believes that there is a relative autonomy in society which is the degree of freedom that state institutions, such as religion have from the direct control of the dominant class. He believed that religious beliefs and practices could develop that would support and guide challenges to the ruling class due to the church not being completely oppressed by the ruling class. He believed that the working class could challenge the bourgeoisie by distributing more radical ideas. Otto Maduro also believed there was a relative autonomy such as in Latin America, the clergy can provide guidance for the oppressed in their struggle with dominant groups. Macguire and Thompson say there are a number of factors that determine whether religion can result in social change. Their first factor is culture, where they believe that where religion is central to the culture of society, then anyone wishing to change that society is more likely to use religion to cause that change for e.g. Ghandia used the Hindu concept of sarvodaya to attack the British colonial rule. Another factor they is social location, they believe that where a religious organisation plays a major role in political or economic life, there is more chance of it causing social change. Their third factor is beliefs, religions are that emphasise strong moral codes are more likely to produce members who will be critical and challenge social inequality and injustice, for e.g. Christianity was a huge opponent of apartheid in south Africa. Their last factor is internal and external organisation and they believe that religions with a strong centralized source of authority have more chance of affecting events.
In conclusion, many sociologists such as functionalists and Marxists would argue that religion doesn’t affect social change and is a conservative force. Functionalists would say religious does this by keeping social solidarity in tact which prevents people needing a change; they also describe people of having a value consensus which is the shared beliefs in society which prevent social change. Marxists would argue that religion is ideological apparatus which distracts the working class from oppression and distracts people from seeing a need for social change. However internationalists would disagree as they see religion as causing radical changes such as the Calvinists being a major factor of the industrial revolution due to their similar ethics. Other sociologists would also argue that religion causes social change such as Neo-Marxist Gramsci, who claims religion is a relative autonomy and allows change to take place.