#bsocialchange

[cuturalcapitals]

 In particular, postmodernists argue that traditional religion declining as a result of society becoming increasingly secular can act as impetus for social change, where individual consumerism replaces collective tradition. People became spiritual shoppers, by choosing elements they wish to explore and the groups they would like to join. As a result, Hervieu-Leger argues that two groups of pilgrims and converts have emerged, where the first one follows a path of self discovery whereas converts join religious groups that re-create a sense of community.

[cuturalcapitals]

Paragraph 1 - Introduction - Give a definition of Social Change and state that the three founding fathers (Marx, Durkheim and Weber) were interested in social change. Paragraph 2 - Functionalism - I'd start by mentioning functionalism. Write a paragraph saying what it's about (organic analogy, socialisation, norms and values, etc). - Identify and explain some studies: -- Durkheim - Totem Poles -- Parsons - Core Values -- Malinowski - Life Crisis and Unpredictable Events* -- Civil Religions* - Link back by saying that due to religion being responsible for keeping norms and values running, society is unable to change. Therefore, functionalism inhibits change. AO2: Functionalism is sometimes considered too positive and ignores negative aspects of society such as oppression and conflict. Paragraph 3 - Marxism - Like Functionalism, Marxism states religion inhibits change. Write a little bit about Marxism and how it states that there is conflict between the middle and working classes. - Identify and explain some studies: -- Halvey -- Leech -- Hook -- Caste System* -- Camel Quote - "It's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the gates of heaven".* -- Divine Right of Kings* AO2: Neo-Marxism - Otto Maduro and Liberation Theology. Could also mention Abercrombie, Hill and Turner along with Engles too. Paragraph 4 - Feminism - Like Marxism, Feminism also inhibits change. Write a brief paragraph explaining how feminists believe religion passes on partriarchal ideologies and therefore oppresses women. - Identify and explain some studies: -- Daly* --- Religious Images* --- Religious Teachings* --- Religious Hierarchy* -- Walby AO2: Veiling. Paragraph 5 - Weber - Unlike the others, Weber states that religion can instigate change. -- The Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism* AO2: Some Calvinist populations didn't turn into a capitalist society. Stark and Bainbridge suggested religion is used as a "Compensator" too. Paragraph 6 - Middle Range - This is a much more diplomatic approach which suggests that it depends on the nature of each individual religion as to whether it brings about change or not. It focuses on the POTENTIAL. - McGuire* - Belief* - Culture - Social Location - Internal Organisation* Finish by concluding that religion has evidence to suggest that it can both inhibit and instigate change. Weber and Neo-Marxism suggests it can instigate change whilst Functionalism, (Classical) Marxism and Feminism all suggest religion inhibits change. The Middle Range theory focuses on the potential to bring about change rather than committing itself. Remember that the question may ask you to give examples too... so you could refer to 9/11 for Malinowski's Functionalist study. Liberation Theology focuses on the protests in Nicaragua. You may wish to talk about the issues in Northern Ireland which were spurred on by religious conflict, or perhaps the Arab-Israeli Conflict too.

[cuturalcapitals]

  Many sociologists take middle ground, acknowledging that in some situations, religion can be a conservative force, whilst at others, can act as a radical force that provokes change. Many argue that it depends on the circumstances of the country and the religion in question.

For example, McGuire argues that if a religion’s beliefs are central to society, and are a dominant part of culture of the country, then religion has greater power to change society

[cuturalcapitals]

The relationship of social change and religion can further be illustrated by the conflict in Sudan where opposing religious ideas led to the split of the country into the Republic of Sudan and South Sudan in 2011. The north, attempted to enforce hegemony upon all of the country, but this had only aggravated the greviences of the Southern Christian Sundanse and thus had served to increase their determination to oppose the Islamic South.

[cuturalcapitals]

Does Religion Inhabit or Lead to Social Change?

Social change is development of society for e.g. science and medicine developing. However some believe it’s for the good while others believe that religion helps to control society.

Functionalists believe that religion prevents social change. It’s a conservative force, meaning religion is a brake upon social change. This according to functionalists helps to prevent anomie in society.

Marxists also believe that religion prevents social change. According to Marxists theory, only the ruling class, who control the means of production, benefit from religion. Marx stated that the ruling class don’t want social change, as the working class will have a revolution to overthrow capitalism, the current social structure, and replace with the fair for all system of communism.  However this my lead to an end of religion, if working class don’t need religion to make themselves feel better, if they have good pay and good working conditions.

Neo-Marxists support this ideology; Gramsci argued that religion can be vehicle for a social change. For e.g. Martin Luther King led the civil rights movement in America 50’s, to create equality between the races. He backed up his messages with teachings from the bible. This resulted in a peaceful protest and therefore led to the equal rights act. This is also supported by the liberation theory, a radical version of Catholicism; for e.g. the Catholic Church led the working class to a revolution, in a South American country, as they thought the ruling class was treating the masses unfairly.

Troeltsch and Niebuhr however disagree as churches and denominations have an hierarchy; social change cannot happen as the levels of hierarchy are too big, and people at the top, such as the pope of the catholic church, will dismiss any ideas. Wilson argues that new religious movements such as sects, can create social change, as they have fewer members and less likely to have so many levels of hierarchy; more likely to have just one leader, who everyone can talk to. 

Feminists on the hand argue that religion is a conservative force; stops social change. An example will be the Catholic Church which is anti-contraception and anti-abortion. This will impact women as they can only do traditional gender roles such as house-wife and mother, as they can’t develop careers. This will lead to a patriarchal society according to feminists, thus religion has inhabited social change. However there are some female priests in the church as a result of campaigns from pressure groups.

Weber also states that religion can be a force for social change, for e.g. the protestant work ethic in the 16th century. Calvinists and Protestants theodicies stated that god had chosen The Elect before birth, who were going to heaven and nothing can be done to change this. As no-one knew who this group actually was; they all worked hard to make people think that were the ones chosen by God. The protestant work ethic stated that leisure was evil, people must work hard in their careers and signs of being rich were also sinful. This resulted in people re-investing profits back into their businesses as they couldn’t partake in leisure activities. This according to Weber created a major social change; the super structures of capitalism. However religion couldn’t have created this social change without the right technology and economic system; material factors like such also need to be taken into account. This can be seen in countries such as Norway and Sweden, who had a large Calvinist population but didn’t have the right technology and therefore didn’t industrialize at the same time as the UK.

Religious fundamentalism can also lead to social change as they back traditional values. In the 70’s, Islamic fundamentalists led a revolution in Iran. With the power they reversed liberal attitudes for e.g. towards women. The tea party in America have led arise of Christian values in America, even resulting in taking politics back to the right. The Civil Rights Movement in America is another example of religion creating massive social change. This has even led to the presidency of America’s fist black president. Martin Luther King

However for e.g. Black Gospel churches have prevented social change as they provide an uplifting environment, and people forget their worries about low-paid jobs and bad working conditions. This is what Marx stated is the opiate of the masses; religion is a drug that aims to make distorter people’s perception, dulls their pain and becomes addictive.

Nelson argued that religion can create social change under three circumstances. Potential revolutionary class need to hold same religious attitudes, main religion needs theology which can be used against those in power and clergy and revolutionary classes need to have close contact. An example of the revolutionary class having same religious attitudes is the working class in South America, who all believed in the catholic religion, and thus the Catholic Church led the revolution. This fits with the liberation theory as Jesus was a liberator and wanted freedom for everyone; working class shouldn’t be exploited. Also Jesus was a revolutionary leader and defend the under dog. Working class revolutionaries also attended church, therefore in close contact with the clergy. 

In conclusion in some circumstances religion has led social change such as the Catholic Church overthrowing the dictator of a South American country. However religion is also a brake upon social change, for e.g. women can’t have careers because of the required traditional gender roles of the Catholic Church.

[cuturalcapitals]

McGuire holds similar views, arguing that if a religion’s beliefs are central to society, and are a dominant part of the culture of the country, then religion has greater power to change society. Also, she proposes that the belief system held by a religion will shape its role in society. If for example, a religion emphasises adherence to strict moral codes, it is more likely to produce individuals that are critical of society and wish to change it.

[cuturalcapitals]

Neo-Marxist Otto Maduro comments on how religion has the power to spark revolutionary change. He points to the example in Latin America, a predominantly catholic country. During the Somoza regime, many priests began to break away from the Catholic Church, claiming that it was their God-given duty to help and liberate those who are oppressed. They began collaborating with Marxists, and started to preach “liberation theology”. These religious views challenged the status quo, and led to a revolution in Nicaragua.