Download elli_social change essay

Assess the contribution of religion to social change – 18 marks
There are two main arguments regarding the idea of religion impacting on social change.
The first is that religion is capable of causing a change of opinion, belief or way of life within
a culture and therefore it has an ability to adapt citizens to the developing world. And the
second is the opposite, that suggests that religion acts as a conservative force within
society. The latter view is generally held by the metanarrative thinkers like Marxist,
feminists and functionalists. Nevertheless, it is not this simple for example Neo-Marxists,
amongst others, take a different stance on the debate and argue both religion as acting as a
force for social change and a conservative. Good, but don’t forget the other point made by
Ernst Bloch that religion has a dual function often – it creates change but often
conservative change.
Traditional/orthodox Marxists see religion as a conservative for primarily due to capitalism
within societies. By this they mean that religion prevents social change by best not to use
‘brainwashing’ the working class into thinking that their situation is okay because God is on
their side and promises them the wonders of the afterlife. This means consequently that if
they were to suddenly realise that there was a class divide (something Marx notes as having
a ‘false class consciousness’) and start a revolution, they would not be obeying the peace
God wishes for us and so would not get the rewards of the afterlife. An obvious example of
this is the caste system in Hinduism where people believe they are born into a hierarchical
system that they cannot change themselves in this life but can if they behave appropriately
for their next life. Marx went as far as saying that religion is the ‘opium of people’ and a
form of social control that maintains the hierarchy in society and the ruling and power of
the bourgeoisie. Good stuff – remember that Marx was an atheist and whilst he
understood that religion functioned for people by giving them hope, community and
belonging; he argued that religion was only needed if capitalism existed – get rid of
capitalism and religion can be removed too. Also, consider how political leaders often still
use religion as an excuse for their actions – George Bush, Tony Blair, Taliban, Isis, Iran
etc…
This theory can be criticised on several grounds; one for making the working class seem
inadequate of seeing reality which is a huge generalisation that is foolish to say, another for
been overly pessimistic and a third for economic determinism which means they blame
everything on capitalism. To address this, Liberation theology has been proposed my neoMarxists, Maduro and Lowy. They argued that sometimes religion can cause social change.
They used the example of Latin America where priests sided with the oppressed and helped
to find freedom fighters and develop literacy programmes in opposing military dictatorship.
However Shiner argues that this form of social change is not a religious matter and although
it is an example of social change, its motives are on principle, not religion – an example of
secularisation too.
To contrast, Functionalists such as Durkheim and Parsons also see religion as a conservative
force however they have an optimistic attitude towards it. They feel that religion is a force
of social stability and helps people to be integrated into a harmonious value consensus.
They feel that being taught religious beliefs reduces the likelihood of society collapsing
because it teaches collectivism and support for one another and therefore not creating
people who will act on selfish interests. Also, Malinowski argues that religion helps to deal
will stressful life events and therefore this contributes to the functioning of society However
this view is based on the assumption that there is a value consensus, which when
considering that the whole population are not religious, leaves us to believe this cannot be
the case regarding religion. Postmodernists argue that that there is far too much diversity
for this sort of consensus to exist and the increasing evidence of secularisation posited by
sociologists such as Bruce would indicate that religion has less influence over us than
functionalists might imagine. Moreover, if this overly optimistic view was true it would
mean that we as individuals have little free will and power to change society and therefore
it is deterministic in its manner.
On the other hand, Weber, a neo-Marxist, feels that religion is able to change society
through its teachings. He uses the idea of Calvinism, which has the ‘work ethic’ – this is how
Calvinists highly value the idea of wanting salvation through hardwork. Consequently he
believed that this was the foundations to the creation capitalism who has the similar ethic
of hard work but for the unethical motive of profits instead of the promise of the afterlife. In
essence, Weber feels that religion has shaped capitalist economy in some societies. An
excellent modern example of the protestant ethic is in the tiger economies of the Far East.
Whilst not influenced by Calvinism, the countries of South Korea and Singapore have been
heavily influenced by the values of Confucianism which promote Calvinist values such as
frugality, hard work and investment. Thus, these values have helped transform these
countries into the late modern capitalist societies they are today.
However, Gramsci also feels that the hierarchy plays a role in society and religion however
he felt that the hegemon ie the powerful religious leaders, help the powerful to keep society
under control for they have a say in the house of commons. Moreover, this is paralleled in
political leaders like George Bush who use religion in their speech to gain support from the
religious community. A similar argument involving how religion is able to control is put
forward by feminists. They would argue that religious texts and teachings are patriarchal
and so have control over the women by oppressing them. Both these therefore complement
one another by both insinuating there are issues within religion that is not obvious to those
following it of a lower status than the priests. Cool – I mentioned this earlier.
Another way to assess the view of religion acting as a force of social change is with how new
religious movements and Millenarian movements (Worsley). There are so many examples of
groups and individuals like Desmond Tutu and Martin Luther King who have been able to
change political and moral opinions throughout history. So events such as the American civil
rights movement are therefore evidence in support of religion acting as a force for social
change.
To conclude, it is interesting to see both sides of the argument and Bloch YES! proposed a
new theory that in actual fact religion provides a dual function. This is a mixture of both
arguments suggesting that religion can cause change but it can also revert back to tradition
and cause social control. Good examples of this would be the New Christian Right and the
Iranian revolution for in effect they both show the fundamentalist idea that incorporates
both a social change and conservative argument. Therefore we can see that there is a
sufficient argument for both religion acting as a force of social change, a conservative force
and a dual function of both. I would make more of fundamentalism…but nice conclusion.
Your intros and conclusions are great!
13/18
A01: 4/6
A02: 9/12
A very good answer – just add in more A01 and A02 and you will be on course for a top
mark. Feminists are worth adding too.