Malinowski looked more specifically at how religion is an antidote in times of trouble. Like Durkheim he saw religion as reinforcing sets of social norms and values, but unlike Durkheim he did not see religion as a reflection of society as whole, nor did he see collective worship as effectively worshipping society. He focused far more on specific areas of social life and how religion serves its members in solving the threats to social solidarity. In particular Malinowski identified anxieties and tensions that disrupt social equilibrium and how these crises are all surrounded by religious ritual. The key crises he notes are birth, puberty, marriage, and death. Each of these can alter or disrupt the dynamics of a social group or its members. Malinowski though, recognises that the way religion has been associated with these events brings about comfort and support, and consequently control and order, which ensures these events do not become socially destructive.
His study of the Trobriand Islanders showed how they attatched rituals to fishing in an unfamiliar place. Fishing in the Trobriands is a subsistence practice for the people but it is only in the lagoon that they can “rely completely on his knowledge and skill.” Beyond the barrier reef however, in the open sea, they are faced with unfamiliar and potentially dangerous waters. The anxieties that arise form this situation are expelled through the process of rituals, which for them ensures a good catch and the safety of their fishers. It is the process of uniting for a common purpose that is considered ‘sacred’ that gives them strength. Malinowski did however note this as magic, but others have commented on how this functions religiously, and can be regarded as a religious practice. This example therefore further promotes the functionalist view that religion promotes social solidarity, and is therefore functional to the well-being of society in dealing with stresses that threaten its stability.
In contrast to this view, Marxists note religion as playing a crucially different role in society. Unlike Functionalists, who see religion as serving society as a whole, Marxists say religion benefits only those who own productive wealth because it merely masks and legitimates exploitation and inequality in society. A recent example of this that Steve Bruce discussed was with conservative Protestants in USA. The New Christian Right consistently supported right-wing political candidates in the Republic Party, more specifically Ronald Reagan in 1984 elections. Yet in the 1988 elections he was challenged by New Christian Right candidate Pat Robertson. Robertson, a television evangelist, wanted to enforce a more aggressive anti-communist rule, with less welfare spending and more free enterprises. Bruce noted therefore that the religious group sought to defend the interests of the rich and powerful over the subject classes.
Marx said religion was just another tool of oppression and legitimates the subordination of the subject class. In particular he referred to it as the opium of the people; it dulls the pain of oppression and acts as a pacifier. In some cases it is considered to be a postenergenic, making people see things that aren’t there. By masking society’s inadequacies in this way the ruling class can convince the underclass that suffering is almost a virtue as well as a divine intention. It is because of this, Marxists would argue, that society is static and fails to change and evolve. They see religion as a conservative force in the sense that it prevents social change and maintains status quo. Religion supposedly makes difficult lives satisfactory and discourages people from attempting to change their situation. To a Marxist therefore, religion perpetuates and monopolises class inequality. It helps produce false class consciousness which convinces its members that their position is fair.
Additionally, religion not only blinds the subject class but also the ruling class as they adopt beliefs that justify their position, implying there are ordained or blessed.
From a Neo-Marxist perspective though, religion can be seen as a radical force. In this way it still stands in great contrast to Functionalist views but also demonstrates one of the many internal debates within Marxism. Unlike traditional Marxists, Neo-Marxists would suggest that religion is a conservative force in the second sense of the word, which refers to religion as a set of traditional beliefs and customs. In some circumstances religion can support social change while also promoting traditional values. This is most common in the revival of fundamentalist religious beliefs. There have been several examples of resistance to political choices, when fundamentalists will try to reassert traditional morals that are otherwise being ignored. One key example of this is the imposition of a return to traditional values in Iran. Under the previous Shah there was a liberalisation of traditional attitudes towards women, but the 1979 Iranian Revolution, inspired greatly by Islamic fundamentalists, ensured these changes were reversed. In this way religion acted as a conservative force (with regards to the latter definition, being of traditional values and customs) and was therefore a radical force for change also.
More specifically to Neo-Marxists though, Engles commented on how the Early Christian church is a good example of how religion plays an active role in effecting revolutionary change. He looked at how Christians in the early church demonstrated extraordinary resistance to Roman rule, and thus acted as a dynamic force for social change.
Similarly, Otto Maduro recognised how religion’s independence or ‘relative autonomy’ from the bourgeoisie has meant it has actually created one of the only available channels to bring social change. Maduro looked at the Catholic Church in Latin America and how in the past it has supported the bourgeoisie, and most often represented its interests, but that in more recent years the Catholic Church, and in particular its leaders, have displayed their autonomy by acting against the bourgeoisie’s interests when it conflicts with their religious customs. Potentially therefore, some Neo-Marxists see religion is an outlet for its members’ grievances and a channel though which they can resist oppression. From this therefore the liberation theory has developed and we can see how religion can function to enforce change rather than prevent it. Martin Luther King for example, a political and religious leader, used religion to justify new civil rights and the reduction of racial discrimination. Archbishop Tutu opposed the apartheid in South Africa also, using religion to change people’s way of thinking, and thus bring about change.
In conclusion we can see how Functionalists and Marxists have largely different views on the role of religion in society. Traditionally they would both agree that it prevents change but even this is debatable within both persuasions. There are also internal debates on whether religion serves society as a whole or simply its members and the individual. Functionalism tends to take a very inclusive attitude towards analysing religion’s role and often fails to recognise its negative influences, while Marxists take a very negative view, failing to recognise how religion is necessary to maintain equilibrium.
