Comparing Marx And Durkheim's Function Of Religion

Karl Marx and Emilie Durkheim both try to make sense of modern society using sociological theories, but in very different ways. Both Marx and Durkheim’s theories are structural, meaning that society functions within social constraints that have been set prior to individuals birth. Free will is controlled and kept within the norms the structure has set. The difference between Marx and Durkheim however, is that Marx’s theory is one of conflict while Durkheim’s is one of consensus. This difference leads to the points this essay will be comparing. This essay will compare Marx and Durkheim’s views on the function of religion in modern society, Marx’s “alienation” to Durkheim’s “solidarity”, and their differing views on the current state of modern society and where it is leading.
Again, both have structural theories, so they believe that religion in society works to form its structure in some way. Marx, being a bit more economist then sociologist, bases a lot of his theory around capitalist society having divided everyone into those who own property and those who do not. This division has the owners in a dominant position over the non-owners, as the non-owners are left with little other choice then to work for the owners. The book Karl Marx states, “The social function of religion, then, is to cloud people’s minds and anaesthesize them to the sufferings of their alienated condition. This is what Marx means when (famously) he calls religion ‘the opium of the people’” (Wood, 2004). So, in Marx’s view religion acts as a tool to encourage the subservience of the non-owners. This is necessary in the capitalist society because without the non-owner’s willingness to service the owners, production of good and the accumulation of wealth cannot be continued and that is the aim of capitalist society. This view also demonstrates how conflict is a main vein in his