Download Nidhi - WordPress.com

Assess the contribution of religion to social change (18 marks)
Undeniably, religion has been a strong weapon used by the masses as well as the elites to
initiate and implement social change. Although, sociologists disagree to the extent religion
can be a source of social change and a conservative force. Metanarratives, Marxism and
Feminism place great emphasis on the idea of religion being a conservative force,
legitimizing inequality. Whilst Functionalists agree, they differ on the foundation that social
change is pragmatic and religion does not play a huge part in this. However, a more
convincing argument is of Neo- Marxists and Weber who argue the contribution of religion
to social change being revolutionary, even in the world today.
Although Functionalists consider the positives of religion such as “social solidarity” and
“value consensus” they fail to acknowledge the significance of social change throughout
history. Thus they argue it is a conservative force, which continuously generates positivity
throughout society. The Functionalist view can be criticized for its over simplistic view, for
example, in order to stay relevant in the world today, they must acknowledge that the norm
must be challenged in order for gradual change or radical change to occur. For example,
during the apartheid, Desmond Tutu’s religious stance was useful for black people to fight
for their rights and so the contribution of religion has been extremely positive.
Moreover, whilst Karl Marx argues religious ideas can have autonomy, he supports the
functionalist idea of religion being a conservative force. However, Marx states religion
enables class inequality to be legitimized. For example, he calls religion “the opium of the
people” thus dulling the pain, and the proletariat being injected continuously to soon start
believing their inferior status. This is supported by the Hindu caste system, where those at
the bottom of society (untouchables) are seen as polluted. Thus Marx emphasizes the
untouchables could not escape this position due to the false class conscience that religion
legitimized. However, the caste system is extremely outdated and deterministic, which
raises the issue of whether Marx’s theory is really relevant today. Although, it must be
remembered the caste system was abolished in 1950 when India became a democracy. So,
the driving force for overthrowing the caste system, thus social change was down to the
political context. Therefore, the political context is extremely vital in measuring the extent of
the contribution of religion to social change. Although, the example of Kibbutz in Israel,
shows how religion can be entrenched within a society, which is under going massive social
change.
Although Neo Marxists, such as Engels support Marx’s idea of religion legitimizing the status
quo, in contrast places weight on the notion that religion can encourage change as a result
of exploitation. He uses the example of early Christian sects opposing Roman rule,
comparing them to socialist political movements. Gramsci, agrees with this notion of the
Liberation theology, however, he argues how the hegemon be challenged by political
leaders who can actually help create social change. For example, Merino and Boff, despite
being part of the Catholic Church who stood against the corruption in South America. Thus
supporting Engels’ view, however, Boff was silenced by the Church twice suggesting the
hegemon are all-powerful, and so this supports Marx’s view of religion being a conservative
force. In contrast, Bloch argues religion is a “principle of hope” although this can mean
religion gives a false promise of heaven for the working class, it can also mean a hope to
create a better world. This was shown explicitly, in the case of Martin Luther King, who
argued his hope in God such as “I eyes have seen the coming of the Lord.” He revolutionized
America’s vision towards blacks, one of the greatest examples of social change in history.
Although, we must remember the fact America is a democracy meant Martin Luther King
was able to aspire to these values and use the democratic political system to put pressure
on those on power. Therefore, similarly to the abolishment of the caste system, it is clear
that the political context with religion plays a large part in the social change.
Arguably, Weber places the contribution of religion to social change being the most
influential. He argues Calvinism, was based on the idea of the theodicy of privilege or non
privilege, creating a protestant ethic where the members of society worked hard, as they
would be the chosen ones. Therefore, “the spirit of capitalism” had elective affinity with
Capitalism, which meant capitalism replaced Calvinism. Although Hamilton supports Weber
by arguing Calvinism was its own gravedigger. Weber’s controversial theory is undoubtedly
flawed. Bruce and Hamilton argue Weber assumes religion is being replaced by capitalism,
however this is not true as Capitalist countries such as America who advocate this “American
dream” still state the importance of religion. Moreover, R Tawney argues Capitalism was not
a result of Calvinism, for example Scotland had many Calvinists but capitalism came much
later. Therefore, many factors need to be considered, such as the Industrial revolution which
brang about extraordinary social change. Most importantly Calvinism cannot be applied to
the world today, postmodernists argue with the rise of diversity we cannot suggest one
religion can influence all individuals.
Although fundamentalism inhibits social change, its impact can be questioned. The rise of
fundamentalism will be of growing importance in the future, as undoubtedly in the past the
Iranian revolution clearly highlighted how ordinary people can revolutionize and revolt
against the king. Although, in the west (pre dominantly democratic countries) it’s clear that
fundamentalism is seen as negative. For example, the NCR despite having influence in
Reagans presidency, in the present day they have little significance, as Americas 1st
amendment means they have many opposition groups like pro choice groups who are
regarded as more important than the NCR. The evidence suggests western countries want to
let ideas flourish for social change and so the impact of religion is limited. Similarly, ISIS and
the Taliban are highly criticized by democratic countries and so their influence towards
social change is also limited.
To conclude, there is overwhelming evidence suggesting religion has had immense
contribution to social change. Sociologist Thompson has provided the best explanation,
arguing the culture, the political system, and the type of religion all need to be considered
when assessing social change. History shows religion has created positive social change,
however with diversity rising its clear religions contribution to social change will be limited,
especially with the rise of fundamentalism.
A very good attempt, well done. You are clearly trying to use A02 skills and this is great to
see.
You now need to focus on your structure. Firstly, at times you need to offer a little more
A01 (see functionalism).
Also, your expression sometimes hides your meaning somewhat.
5/6 – A01
8/12 – A02
13/18