The final person who sees the role of religion from a functionalist point of view is Talcott Parsons. Parsons developed Durkheim's analysis of religion as a force of social cohesion and agreed that religion embodied the values and morals of society. Parsons firstly sees the role of religion in society as providing guidelines for people to live by; religion legitimises the core values of society. For example, the Ten Commandments basically make up the laws of society, e.g. “Thou shalt not kill” or “Thou shalt not steal”. Therefore religion helps to keep society stable and in order by giving people values and norms. Parsons also sees religion as linked to stressful events, like Malinowski. In times of the unforeseen or uncertainty religion’s role in society to help people cope and adjust. For example after September 11th church attendance rose dramatically, allowing people with something they feel is stable and secure. Therefore religion maintains social solidarity and prevents tension that may disrupt social order.
In comparison Marxists see the role of religion quite differently; they favour the idea that religion is a form of social control. The traditional Marxist view is that religion exploits and oppresses individuals and in the idea society there would be no religion. Marx argues religion is the “Opium of the people,” and is an illusion, which eases the pain of exploitation and oppression. The poor are placed in a state of false consciousness through a process of socialisation. Religion eases the pain of oppression of the working class by a number of ways. Firstly religion promises life after death and eternal bliss, this makes life on earth more bearable and people have something to look forward to. Engel argues that this is the appeal of Christianity; there is a promise of “salvation from bondage and misery”. Religion also makes people believe the suffering endured by oppression is a virtue. People believe they are rewarded for their pain and those that are rich and live luxurious lives are less likely to get into heaven. Religion offers hope that supernatural powers will intervene to solve problems, the anticipation makes life more bearable. Finally the role of religion as easing the suffering endured by oppression takes place through justifying social order and the position a person has in it. For example the Monarch was considered “The Divine Right” and was placed on earth by God, Hindus also have a caste system where an individual is born into their caste and cannot move out of it. Marxists argue that all this supports the social structure of society. Also there are examples in the past of how religion has influenced the working class, for example the Chartist movement of the 19th century was a political reform movement hoping to change the position of the working class through a six point charter. Although there were other factors involved, one of the main reasons Chartism failed was because the Church did not support them. The church told the working class that they should accept their position in society and not try to change it. This supports the Marxist idea that religion can be used to maintain the class structure in society.
Of course both Functionalist and Marxists are criticised. Firstly, Functionalists often ignore the dysfunctional side of religion, which Marxists highlight. Functionalists have the consensus view of society, whereas Marxists favour the conflict, therefore Functionalists do not see the role of religion in society as to suppress or control individuals. however, there is strong evidence of religion being divisive and disrupted like in Northern Ireland where religion has lead to years of serious conflict between Protestants and Catholics, there is also the Muslim and Hindu partition of India. As well as this Functionalists do not pick up on the point Marxists also high light, that religion can act as a comfort and allow them to accept injustice and inequality because they will be rewarded in the after life. However sociologists do support Functionalism. Robert Bellah developed the concept of civil religion by looking at the USA. In the USA there are a variety of faiths, but Americans are unified by a faith in Americanism. The USA have many symbols that could be considered sacred, like Durkheim’s sacred symbols in Totemism, these include statues, places, songs and sayings, e.g. “God Bless America” and American coins reading “In God We trust”, as well as oaths being said to the American flag. This supports Durkheim’s theory that people are actually worshiping their society in religion and also supports the idea that religion can unite people. Other support for Functionalism includes it offering an account of the personal attraction of religious belief with people seeking reassurance from religion when things go wrong. Finally, religious practice and ritual also offers people a sense of comfort and unity at times of social stress, like bereavement.
Marxism is criticised through the fact that some religions are revolutionary like the Levellers and Puritans, they rebel against the system and are not passive and docile. Also there has been a tradition of radical theology, for example in Latin America with the “Liberation Theory”, this was the idea that the only way the poor will escape poverty will be through their own political action and the clergy must play a role by expressing the discontent of the poor from the pulpit. Another example is Nazi Germany where priests opposed Hitler and South Africa where many of the clergy spoke out against Apartheid, led by Archbishop Desmond Tutu. This shows that religion can help bring about change and does not necessarily keep society stable. The final criticism is that Marxism views religion as a form of social control to justify and maintain inequalities. This idea is weakened by the fact that many church leaders in Britain have campaigned against inequalities in capitalism. Some church leaders saw Thatcher’s Britain based on greed. The Church of England commissioned a report, “Faith in the City”, which claimed that Thatcher’s policies were making the plight of the poor in the inner cities worse. Also a survey in 1996 by the Daily Mail showed that the Church of England Synod felt the most important moral issues of the day were unemployment, the environments and the developing world. Therefore religion can highlight inequalities rather than maintain them. Support for Marxism comes from the idea of linking religion and the state, as in the concept of the “Devine Right of Kings”. Religion has been used to justify oppression. For example on the sugar plantations in the West Indies during the eighteenth century, slaves had to become Christians. Finally religious belief is often strongest among the poor and oppressed.
The Neo-Marxist idea of the role of religion in society varies somewhat from traditional Marxism. Neo-Marxists do not necessarily see the role of religion as reflecting the interests of the ruling class. Neither do they see religion as always a form of false consciousness for the oppressed. Instead Neo-Marxists see religion as an authentic expression and tool of resistance against class based oppression. Gramsci, an Italian Marxist, saw the Roman Catholic Church as a tool of the state and the ruling class, but he did not believe this was inevitable. He believed that the working class intellectuals could develop popular forms of religion to challenge the dominant ruling class ideology. Maduro said that religion can play a role in the political struggles of the oppressed classes in developing classes and he looked closely at the ideas of the Liberation Theology. Therefore, the Neo-Marxist approach would belief that religion could be used to create change and would support religious groups such as the Levellers and religious leaders like Archbishop Desmond Tutu. Brian Turner used a Marxist Approach in his book “Religion and Social Theory” (1983). He agreed with Marx that religion comes from the economic infrastructure, but not that religion has a universal role in society today, nor that religion is always an important part of the ruling class ideological control. Turner believes that in the past religion was more important to the ruling class than peasants. This was because there was a need to pass on land to the eldest son (known as primogeniture), so the church defended marriage and the legitimacy of children and also religion provided a livelihood for younger sons. Turner sees the reason for religion being of less importance in today’s society because wealth lies in the hands of corporations not land and property, therefore religion is an optional extra for modern capitalist societies.
Functionalism and Marxism approaches to the role of religion are both that it is there as a form of social cement, to keep society stable. Max Weber argues against this idea by saying that religion can bring about social change. In his book “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism” Weber studied the impact of Christianity on the development of modern western societies, his book remains highly influential because it offers an alternative view of the rise of Capitalism to the one suggested by Marx. Weber believed that religion could be a major source of social change through the intervention of significant ideas or people. In his book, Weber examined why capitalism has developed in some western countries, but not in the east, which is the idea that religion can be a major source of change through the intervention of significant ideas. He suggested that other societies do not have the values necessary for the development of capitalism. He argued that Judaism and Christianity had the key teachings and values, which encouraged capitalism, especially Calvinists and Puritans, because many of the people in industrial areas of Europe in the seventeenth and eighteenth century were Calvinists. Calvinists believe in Predestination which is an idea that people are not free to make their own choices but are allocated places in heaven in advance, those who go to heaven are elect. Calvinists often look for reassuring “signs” which include working hard, material success gained through work and living a sober life. This gives rise to capitalism, Weber argues, by making it possible for people to accumulate wealth and reinvest it, property was seen as a sign of moral degradation so people were under no obligation to look after the poor, people did not enjoy their wealth by spending it, instead reinvesting it to make more money.
However, Weber also has the idea of “The Legitimisation Debate” where religion can be a source of change through the intervention of significant individuals. Weber argues that state religions can offer legitimacy and power to governments, which Marxists view. Weber argues there are three types of authority, Rational legal authority, where people rule because they see it makes sense to do so, Traditional authority where people obey because they always have done and there is no question of their leaders rule and Charismatic authority where people obey because they are hypnotised by the powerful personality of the leader. Weber believes social change occurs because charismatic leaders arise and people follow. Many religions have a single prophet and there are numbers of charismatic leaders who have influenced people’s religious belief in modern times. Weber offers a useful challenge to traditional Marxism, which is often too simplistic because only economic factors are considered. Weber also sees religion as a positive force of social change whereas Marxism and Functionalism do not. Finally, Weber offers us an understanding of the meaning of religion in people’s lives. However, Weber’s work has been criticised due to the fact he does not examine pre-Reformation Europe, where there were some very well developed capitalist structures, such as in Italy. Also, as Kautsky argues, some extreme Protestants were barred from a variety of professional occupations and so were forced into business. Finally, Sombart argues that Weber was mistaken about the beliefs held by Calvinists. He believes that Calvinists were against greed and the pursuit of money for their own sake.
In conclusion, Marxism and Functionalism do disagree on the finer points of the role of religion in society. The Functionalist belief the role of religion is to provide social solidarity, value consensus and harmony, whereas from the Marxist perspective the role of religion is to maintain the social structure and ease the pain of oppression. Both views see religion’s role as keeping society stable and not bringing about any social change. Weber’s views provide a useful argument against this idea, viewing religion force of social change. All three views on religion are applicable to today’s society, although it has changed somewhat from when many of the theories were written. The perspective give a deeper insight into the role of religion and allows religion to be seen not just as a practice that should be taken for granted, but as an having an influential role in the way society operates.
