Using material from item A and elsewhere, assess the view that religion is a force for social change
Using material from item A and elsewhere, assess the view that religion is a force for social change
There are two primary views on the issue of whether religion is a force for social change in society. Certain theorists adopt the view that religion is a conservative force, maintaining the status quo, whereas other theorists have the belief that religion is a force for social change, bringing about revolutions in society. With all views, the lack of a universal definition of religion remains a problem. Marx for example would argue that religion inhibits social change as it legitimises and justifies the status quo, whereas this contrasts Weber’s belief would be that religion can cause social change as it helped the development of capitalism.
Functionalists and Marxists are the theorists who claim that religion is a conservative force, functionalists believe that religion promotes a stable society with no disruptions. Marxists on the other hand believe that the Bourgeoisie use religion to maintain their position of power in society, therefore keeping things as they are. Marx claimed that religion was an effective aget of social control, referring to religion as the ‘Opium of the masses’, pumping perception-distorting drugs into the proletariat like a hypodermic needle. For him it was a mechanism of social control, regulating the behaviour of the working class and preventing them from seeing their true situation in society.
Functionalists claim that religion acts as a conservative force by promoting integration and social solidarity. Durkheim states that religion does this by totem worship; worship of a sacred object which symbolises the group itself, who by worshipping their totem are worshipping their society. Most religions have collective worship with rituals which lead to social solidarity being heightened. Durkheim proposes that Gods are society’s expression of their collective conscience which are the shared beliefs, values and traditions which make a
There are two primary views on the issue of whether religion is a force for social change in society. Certain theorists adopt the view that religion is a conservative force, maintaining the status quo, whereas other theorists have the belief that religion is a force for social change, bringing about revolutions in society. With all views, the lack of a universal definition of religion remains a problem. Marx for example would argue that religion inhibits social change as it legitimises and justifies the status quo, whereas this contrasts Weber’s belief would be that religion can cause social change as it helped the development of capitalism.
Functionalists and Marxists are the theorists who claim that religion is a conservative force, functionalists believe that religion promotes a stable society with no disruptions. Marxists on the other hand believe that the Bourgeoisie use religion to maintain their position of power in society, therefore keeping things as they are. Marx claimed that religion was an effective aget of social control, referring to religion as the ‘Opium of the masses’, pumping perception-distorting drugs into the proletariat like a hypodermic needle. For him it was a mechanism of social control, regulating the behaviour of the working class and preventing them from seeing their true situation in society.
Functionalists claim that religion acts as a conservative force by promoting integration and social solidarity. Durkheim states that religion does this by totem worship; worship of a sacred object which symbolises the group itself, who by worshipping their totem are worshipping their society. Most religions have collective worship with rituals which lead to social solidarity being heightened. Durkheim proposes that Gods are society’s expression of their collective conscience which are the shared beliefs, values and traditions which make a