Religion and Social Change Revision

Today a few brief points on social change.

There’s a lot to cover here, so just some general pointers.

From the theories: Functionalists tend to see religion as important in maintaining social stability. But a functionalist like Parsons would see religion’s role changing as society changes, so that the functions carried out by religion are gradually taken over by other institutions.

Marxists would also emphasise religion’s role in maintaining the status quo.

But both of the above are structural theories, so they perhaps tend to underestimate the role which religion can play in causing social change.

Weber’s thoughts on this topic are well known and important- its worth making the point that he is important though, because he offers an alternative to structural theories.

Some key points:
The relationship between religion and social change is not fixed or cast in stone. It can vary depending on the nature of particular religions, the culture in which they are located, and the type of social structures at any particular time and place.

Giddens idea of reflexivity can be instructive. It might for example suggest that while religion is a social construct, it also becomes a structure and influences society in many, often unanticipated ways. So the idea that religion causes or doesn’t cause social change can be dropped; arguably it is more helpful to see the relationship more as a two-way thing.

This can be helpful with those irritatingly dichotmous exam questions - on the lines of whether religion is a force for change or conservation. Maybe the truth is simply that religion is not necessarily either radical or conservative - it depends on many other factors. But if you do adopt this line, do support it with some examples.