However, Marxist sociologist Kautsky criticised Weber’s theory arguing that capitalism preceded Calvinism, not the other way round. He further argues that successful capitalists used Calvinism and Protestantism to justify their own social position and this became their ideology. Weber is further criticised by Sombart, who criticised the validity of Weber’s description of the values of Calvinism and argued that Weber was mistaken in his view of Calvinists; they were against greed and the pursuit of money for its own sake, which therefore contradicts the ideologies of capitalism. Sombart further adds that not all the parts of the world were Calvinism was strong did capitalism develop, such as Norway and Sweden.
Gordon Marshall’s article, ‘The protestant Ethic’ tackles Weber’s criticisms. He argues that Weber did not claim that Calvinism caused capitalism; he only suggested that it was a major contributor to a climate of industrial change. Calvinist beliefs had to be supplemented by a certain level of technology, a skilled workforce and rational models of law and bureaucracy. Marshall further argued that predestination wasn’t introduced to produce a rational pursuit of profit, but was an unintended consequence, therefore, the interpretations that Calvinists put on the doctrine of predestination contributed to them being the first capitalist. Marshall concluded that although other areas might have other prerequisites of capitalism, (labour, profit etc) they lacked the final aspect of religion which facilitated the development of capitalism.
Some Neo-Marxists reject the classic Marxist idea that all cultural institutions in society, the media, the law and religion, are inevitably under control of the ruling class. They argue that the ruling class domination is more effective if its members are not directly involved in theses cultural institutions. This is because it then appears that these cultural institutions are independent when in fact the economic power of the bourgeoisie means that whoever fills any particular roles within these institutions is irrelevant, they are still under ruling-class control. The Italian neo-Marxist Antonio Gramisci wrote that although he was aware that the church was supporting ruling class interests, he did not believe this to be inevitable. He argued that religious beliefs and practices could develop that would support and guide challenges to the ruling class, because like other cultural institutions, the church was not directly under their control. Members of the working class could challenge the dominant class through the distribution of more radical ideas. This in theory allows religion to become a force for social change.
Otto Maduro also argued that in situations where there is no other outlet for frustration and grievances, the clergy can provide guidance for the oppressed in their struggle with dominant groups. Pakin argues that political leadership of the Black population in the southern states of America was frequently taken on by clergymen and that churches provided an organisational focus for the civil rights movement, (1972) showing that religion can act as a force against the consensus, if it so wishes.
The religious, especially Calvinist, role in the development of capitalism is a primal example that religion is a force for social change and progress. Religion is shown to directly contribute to the development of the new ideology that is capitalism. The position and values of religious leader, especially with enough followers, in theory, are equipped to influence and encourage social change within their society.
However, to a large extent religion is not a force for social change, but a force for social control. Both functionalist and traditional Marxist sociologists agree that religion is a conservative force. However, functionalists tend to view this as a positive thing, unlike Marxists who see this as a negative thing. Functionalisms main focus on the study of religion is religions contribution to social stability and value consensus in society. Durkheim argues that religion is rarely a matter of individual belief as most religions involve collective worship, ceremony and rituals, during which group solidarity is confirmed. The continual act of group worship and celebration through ritual and ceremony serves to create group identity, creating cohesion and solidarity. In maintaining social solidarity, religion acts as a conservative force; when it fails to perform this function, new ideas emerge that effectively become new religion. Durkheim therefore regarded nationalism and communism as examples of the new religions of industrial society, taking over from Christianity, but still performing the same essential functions. Durkheim and other functionalist sociologists argue that religion does, in its form change, but what remains unchanged is its function, which is essentially to support and maintain the status quo.
Furthermore, like Durkheim, Malinowski sees religion as reinforcing social norms and values, the status quo. Malinowski identifies specific areas of social life with which religion is concerned as situations of emotional stress that threaten social solidarity. Anxiety and tension tend to disrupt social life and crises such as birth, puberty, marriage and death tend to disrupt social life. Malinowski believes that death is the most disruptive of all these life crises but sees religion as able to deal with the problem. He argues this with death, comes religious ritual. There is a funeral ceremony in which a belief in immortality is expressed, which denies the fact of death and so comforts the bereaved. Death is socially disruptive as it removes a member from society. The funeral unites the social group to support the bereaved and this comfort controls stress and anxiety death produces that might disrupt society. Through this religious ceremony, the appearance of solidarity reintegrates society, reinforcing social solidarity and preventing anomie from ever occurring.
However, in most Western societies, such as the UK, Church attendance is declining. It is therefore difficult to see how religion can be functioning to socialise the majority of society into shared morality and consensus if only a minority of people regularly attend church. Furthermore, Durkheim and other functionalist sociologist fail to recognise religion as having a negative effect of society, it can be dysfunctional. Rather than binding people together many of the world’s conflicts have been caused by religion, for example between Catholics and Protestant in Ireland and Hindus and Muslims in India. It is also argued that much of the functionalist analysis is based upon the ideas that society has one religion, but many modern societies are multicultural, multifaith societies. Malinowski has been criticised for over emphasising the importance of religious rituals in helping people to cope with situations of stress and uncertainty. A particular function religion has, does not necessarily a key feature of religion in general.
Like Durkheim, Marx also argued that religion was a conservative force in society. However, he did not agree that this force was essentially positive and beneficial to society. Instead, Marx argues that the key function of religion is to reproduce, maintain and justify class inequality. He sees religion as an ideological apparatus, which serves to reflect ruling-class ideas and interests. Marx, along with Engels, sees religion as being ideological in three ways. Firstly, religion acts in legitimating social inequality. Religion serves as a means of controlling the population by promoting the idea that the existing hierarchy is natural, god-given and, therefore, unchangeable. Secondly, religion is ideological in disguising the true nature of exploitation. Religion explains economic and social inequalities in supernatural terms. In other words, exploitation by the ruling class is obscured and distorted by religion’s insistence that inequality is the product of sin or a sign that people have been chosen by God. Finally, it is a tool for keeping the working classes passive and resigned to their fate. Some religions suggest that those who do not question their position will be rewarded with a place in heaven. Such ideas promote the idea that there is no point in changing society now; instead people should wait for divine intervention. Religion offers hope and promises happiness which prevents the working class from actually doing anything which challenges the ruling class directly. Therefore, Marx believes religion discourages people from attempting change, so the dominant groups can retain their power. Religion is used by the ruling class to justify and maintain their position, and therefore, makes religion a key force in preventing social change and maintaining social solidarity.
However, Marx fails to explain the existence of religion where it does not appear to contribute to oppression of a particular class. Marxism further fails to explain why religion continues to exist when, in theory, oppression has come to an end. In 1917, under communism, the USSR states actively discouraged religion, many worship places were closed and religious teachings to children where band. However, despite Marx’s prediction, religion did not die out under communism. There are also examples of religious movements that have brought about radical social change and helped remove ruling elites. In Britain, for example, churches have often provided refuge for immigrant groups facing deportation by the government.
Many Christian feminists argue that there will never be gender equality in the church so long as the notions of God continue to be associated with masculinity. Mary Daley goes as far as to suggest that Christianity itself is a patriarchal myth. Women’s bodies and sexuality have also been seen as dangerous by many religions. Women menstruate and give birth so are considered to have a greater capacity to pollute religious rituals. In addition, their presence may distract men from their more important roles involving worship. Bird points out that sexuality is an important issue in many religions. Roman Catholic priests are expected to be celibate, while some religions are still opposed to homosexuality. This reproduction of gender inequality and sexism with religious institutions directly hinders social change.
Overall, Max Weber and Neo-Marxists argue that the values within most religion allow for social change through supported ideologies and the ability of religious leaders. Religious organisations have supported social movements and organisations that have resulted in social change. However, the socialisation of these religious values onto the individual means that religion being used to shape and control the individual. Therefore, as religion acts as a tool for the ruling class to justify the exploitation of the working class and encourages the working class to passively accept this position, religion is acting as a force for social control. Religion also promotes inequalities within gender and it reproduces traditional views of women, discouraging social change. It is clear that religion is used as a vital force for social control, whether this is seen as a positive thing or not is, in theory, irrelevant.
