Although both functionalism and Marxism offer a plausible account of religions role in society, many are critical of such narrow views, arguing that religion does not act as a conservative force but it actually has the complete opposite purpose and that it actually can act as a radical force and a motion for change. Neo Marxism, a subset of Marxism, holds such a view in particular, some Neo Marxists, comment on how religion has the power to spark revolutionary change.
There are many examples which show that religion is acting as a conservative force, this adding evidence to the claims of these theories. For example since contraception and the birth control has been limited in many catholic countries. In this case religion has created a value consensus that contraception should not be used, in support of Marxists views of religion the social order of India was justified by Hindu religious beliefs, and no one ever question their power. Although there are strong examples of support towards the view that religion is a conservative force, although these theories completely reject the idea that religion can cause social change, and therefore do not support the statement concerned entirely as religion looks to be more of a conservative force.
This example can highlight how religion can act as a force for social change as well as being a conservative force; there are many examples which support the claims of this view. Some sociologist comments on how the Christian churches of southern American provide an organisational structure for the black ‘civil rights movement’ during the age of apartheid. Nelson mentions a number of examples of when religion has undermined authority or promoted change; such as when the catholic church apposes communism, and how Archbishop Desmond Tutu was a strong opponent of apartheid. We have seen how religion can be a conservative force, but sociologists have also shown it to be a force for change. Perhaps pone of the most famous examples of this is the view of Weber, and that he argues that the religious beliefs of Calvinism. Weber notes that many past societies had capitalism in the sense of the greed for wealth, which they often spent on luxury consumption. However modern capitalism is unique he argues, as it is based on the organized, efficient rational pursuit of profit for its own sake, rather than consumption.
He proposes that the beliefs of ascetic Calvinists Protestantism created a work ethic which was conducive to the development of capitalism. Calvinist held beliefs in “predestination”, that is, god allocates your place in either heaven or hell before you are even born and there is nothing you can do about it. This created a psychological problem for Calvinists, as they could not be sure as to whether they were amongst this “elect” few that where going to haven, to solve this problem, they developed a set of value that embodied hard work, thrift and the accumulation of wealth, as sure God would not let the ungodly to flourish. These values naturally lend themselves to the “spirit of capitalism” and Weber claims that this is why capitalism first developed in Northern Europe, where Calvinism was most important.
As previously mentioned, many sociologists take the middle ground in this debate, acknowledging that in some situations, religion can be a conservative force, whilst in others, can act as a radical force that provokes change. Many argue that it depends on the circumstances of the country and religion in questions. Supporting this view a sociologist Paul Thompson identifies a number of factors which shape the role religion pays in society. He suggests that if there is an absence of other things to change i.e. the political system, religion can play an important role in changing society. However if there are a number of different things for social change i.e. through culture, then religion may play a lesser role and may act as in a conservative way. Some other sociologists argue with this view and see that if a religions beliefs are central to society and are a dominant part of the culture of a country then religion has greater power to change society, which could be an argument towards the statement that religion can act as an initiator of social change also if the belief system is held by a religion, it will more than likely shape its role in society. A religion emphasises obedience to strict morals, it is ore likely to product individuals that are critical of society and wish to change it.
In conclusion the claim that religion can be both a conservative force and an initiator of social change appears to be valid to one and the excess of evidence that highlights the two contrasting views of religion strengthens this proposition. It also seems to depend of the society in question and what role religion plays in that specific society, as religion can take on a number of roles and whether it keeps a conservative force or makes changes can depend on the circumstances. Although both sides of the argument have their support, it is perhaps best to take a broad view of the social institution as there are many factors which have to be considered to see whether religion plays a conservative role or is an initiator of social change.