For the purposes of A-level sociology, ‘conservative’ usually has two meanings:
Preventing social change
Supporting traditional values.
We might also add a third: modest, reserved, austere, not showy.
On important analytical point is that some Fundamentalist groups want to reverse some social changes that have undermined the role of religion in society, taking society back to a more ‘traditional era’.
A second analytical point is to distinguish between the extent to which different religions promote conservative views and how successful they are in actually translating those views into actions.
Arguments and evidence for the view that religion acts as a conservative force
Various functionalist thinkers have argued that religion prevents rapid, radical social change and that it supports traditional values
Marx certainly argued that religion was a conservative force – through acting as the ‘opium of the masses’
Simone deBeauvoir argued that religion propped up Patriarchy by compensating women for their second class status.
Churches tend to have traditional values and be supported by more conservative elements in society. They also tend to support existing power structures (e.g. links to royalty and the House of Lords in the U.K.)
Islamic Fundamentalist movements, such as the Islamic State, aim to take society back to a more religious era
The New Christian Right in America support conservative values: traditional family structures, for example.
Arguments and evidence against the view that religion acts as a conservative force
Liberation Theology – a movement for the oppressed in Latin America stood against the powerful elites. However, it didn’t seem to have much success in changing anything.
The Baptist Church and the Civil Rights movement in the USA, much more successful.
The Nation of Islam promoted radical social change in the USA in the 1960s.
The New Age Movement promotes acceptance and diversity, so is not ‘conservative’ – in the sense that the New Right tend to support family values, for example.
Feminist forms of spirituality are not conservative.
More ambiguous arguments and evidence and analytical points
Max Weber’s ‘Protestant Ethic’ – Calvinism was a religion which was very ‘conservative’ and yet it unintentionally brought about Capitalism which ultimately undermined the role of religion in society.
As a general rule, churches and denominations tend to be more conservative.
Many sociologists argue that religious beliefs and organisations act as conservative forces and barriers to social change. For example, religious doctrines such as the Hindu belief in reincarnation or Christian teachings on the family have given religious justification to existing social structures.
Similarly, it is argued that religious organisations such as churches are often extremely wealthy and closely linked to elite groups and power structures.
Applying material from Item B and your knowledge, evaluate the view that religious beliefs and organisations are barriers to social change (20)
Suggested essay plan
The question asks for beliefs and organization, so deal with both.
Remember you should look at this in global perspective (it’s on the spec).
Remember to use the item. NB all of the material in item is covered in the plan below, all you would need to do in an essay is reference it!
Stay mainly focused on the arguments in the first section below.
Arguments and evidence for the view that religion is a barrier to social change
Parsons argued religions maintains social order: it promotes value consensus as many legal systems are based on religious morals.
It also maintains stability in times of social change (when individuals die), and helps people make sense of changes within society, thus helping prevent anomie/ chaos and potentially more disruptive change.
Religion prevents change through ideological control and false consciousness. It teaches that inequality and injustice are God’s will and thus there is no point trying to change it.
Religion also prevents change by being the ‘opium of the masses’. It makes a virtue out of suffering, making people think they will be rewarded in the afterlife and that if they just put up with their misery now, they’ll get reward later,.
Simone de Beauvoir – religion is used by men to justify their position of power, and to compensate women for their second-class status. It oppresses women in the same way Marx said it oppresses the proletariat.
The Church (typically a conservative force)
The church tends to be closely tied to existing political and economic power structures: the Church of England is closely tied to the state for example: the Queen is closely related and Bishops sit in the Lords. Also most members and attendees are middle class. It thus tends to resist radical social change.
World Accommodating and World Affirming NBMs
World Accommodating NRMs can help prevent change by helping members cope with their suffering in the day to day.
World Affirming Movements (such as TM) reinforce dominant values such as individualism and entrepeneurialism.
Arguments and evidence against the view that religion is a barrier to social change
Some Catholic priests in Latin America in the 70s took up the cause of landless peasants and criticized the inequalities in the region.
However, they were largely unsuccessful!
The protestant ethic gave rise to the spirit of Capitalism (Calvinism and Entrepreneurialism etc.)
El Saadawi – It’s Patriarchy, not Islam that has oppressed women… but it is possible for women to fight back against it (as she herself does)
Carol P Christ – believes there are diverse ways to ‘knowing the Goddess’ and criticizes dualistic thinking and the idea that any religion can have a monopoly on truth
Some World Rejecting NRMs
E.G. The Nation of Islam have aimed to bring about radical social change
The New Age Movement
Encourages individualism and pick and mixing of different religions, so encourages diversity and hybrid religions to emerge.
Means religion has less power in society, and thus is less able to act as a barrier to social change.
Thoughts on a conclusion
Make sure you distinguish between beliefs and organisations and types of social change
Beliefs in Society is one of the options taught as part of A-level sociology, usually in the second year of study.
A 10 mark question (which has no item) will ask students about two elements from one or more of the bullet points on the topic specification. Thus it is here that you might see ‘classic’ questions such as this one.
Outline and explain two ways in which religion might promote social change (10)
The first way in is through helping people to challenge perceived social injustices and helping them fight for a ‘better’ society.
One example of where this has happened is with Liberation Theology. This developed in South America in the 1970s, when certain members of the Catholic Church started to criticize the economic inequality in the region, following witnessing the enormous deprivation suffered by the poorest in society.
Some priests challenged the role of the church in supporting the economic and political elites, taking up the cause of the landless peasants and campaigning for a more equal society.
Maduro actually argued that in such societies, where the church is central, it is the only institution which might bring about social change!
While they were not very successful, the question does say MIGHT! This type of political involvement has a long history in Christianity, and lately the Archbishop of Canterbury has been criticizing the effects of neoliberal economic policies, again standing up to power.
While the above examples may not have been successful, they can be: as with Martin Luther King and the wider Baptist Church – churches not only act as sources of solidarity for those fighting oppression, they can also act as centers which can organise protest marches.
Weber argued that the values of Calvinism (A very strict version of Protestantism) gave rise, over a couple of centuries, to the economic system of capitalism.
Calvinism taught that working hard was a way to worship God and also to ‘prove’ that you were one of the ‘elect’ (saved). It also taught that having fun was sinful. These two religious beliefs together encouraged the development of societies with cultures which valued hard work and entrepreneurialism, and discouraged frivolous expenditure.
Eventually, this led to any money saved from setting up businesses to be put back into the business (it was a sin to spend on leisure) in order to encourage more ‘work’ and ‘industry’.
These were the exact same set of values which were necessary for Capitalism to work – the work ethic and entrepeneurialism.
Weber developed his theory by doing comparative analysis – he argued that Capitalism emerged first in Holland and England where Calvinist values were strongest (he has been criticised but I don’t any marks for that, so no point saying why).
A further analysis point is that this is religion promoting social change unonciously.
Another further analysis point is that this study shows that religion can promote huge ‘systems level’ socio-economic changes in society.
Weber argued that the values of the protestant religion led to the emergence of Capitalism in Western Europe around the 17th century.
Weber observed that Capitalism first took* off in Holland and England, in the mid 17th century. He asked himself the question: ‘why did Capitalism develop in these two countries first?’
Protestant Individualism and the Emergence of Capitalism
Based on historical observation and analysis, Weber theorized this was because these were the only two countries in which Protestantism was the predominant religion, rather than Catholicism, which was the formal religion of every other European country.
Weber theorized that the different value systems of the two religions had different effects: the values of Protestantism encouraged ways of acting which (unintentionally) resulted in capitalism emerging, over a period of many decades, even centuries.
Protestantism encouraged people to ‘find God for themselves’. Protestantism taught that silent reflection, introspection and prayer were the best ways to find God. This (unintentionally, and over many years) encouraged Protestants to adopt a more ‘individualistic’ attitude to their religion by seeking their own interpretations of Christianity.
In contrast, Catholicism was a religion which encouraged more conservative values and thus was resistant to such changes. The Catholic Church has a top-down structure: from God to the Pope to the Senior Bishops and then down to the people. Ultimate power to interpret Catholic doctrine lies with the Pope and his closest advisers. Practicing Catholics are expected to abide by such interpretations, they are generally not encouraged to interpret religious scripture for themselves. Similarly, part of being a good Catholic means attending mass, which is administered by a member of the Catholic establishment, which reinforces the idea that the church is in control of religious matters, rather than spirituality being a personal matter as is more the case in Protestant traditions.
Part of Weber’s theory of why Capitalism first emerged in Protestant countries was that the more individualistic ethos of Protestantism laid the foundations for a greater sense of individual freedom, and the idea that it was acceptable to challenge ‘top down’ interpretations of Christian doctrine, as laid down by the clergy. Societies which have more individual freedom are more open to social changes.
Calvinist Asceticism and the Development of Capitalism
Weber argued that a particular denomination of Protestantism known as Calvinism played a key role in ushering in the social change of Capitalism.
Calvinism preached the doctrine of predestination: God had basically already decided who was going to heaven (‘the saved) before they were born. Similarly, he had also already decided who the damned were – whether or not you were going to hell had already been decided before your birth.
This fatalistic situation raised the question of how you would know who was saved and who was damned. Fortunately, Calvinism also taught that there was a way of figuring this out: there were indicators which could tell you who was more likely to be saved, and who was more likely to be damned.
Simply put, the harder you worked, and the less time you spent idling and/ or engaged in unproductive, frivolous activities, then the more likely it was that you were one of those pre-chosen for a life in heaven. This is because, according to Calvinist doctrine, God valued hard-work and a ‘pure-life’ non-materialistic life.
According to Weber this led to a situation in which Calvinist communities encouraged work for the glory of God, and discouraged laziness and frivolity. Needless to say there was quite a motivation to stick to these ethical codes, given that hell was the punishment if you didn’t.
Over the decades, this ‘work-ethic’ encouraged individuals and whole communities to set up businesses, and re-invest any money they earned to grow these businesses (because it was a sin to spend the money you’d made on enjoying yourself), which laid the foundations for modern capitalism.
Weber argued that over the following centuries, the norm of working hard and investing in your business became entrenched in European societies, but the old religious ideas withered away. Nonetheless, if we take the longer term view, it was still the Protestant work ethic which was (unintentionally) responsible for the emergence of Capitalism
On the plus side, Weber’s theory of social change recognizes that we need to take account of individual motivations for action in order to understand massive social structural changes
On the negative side, critics have pointed out that the emergence of Capitalism doesn’t actually correlated that well with Protestantism: there are plenty of historical examples of Capitalist systems having emerged in non-Protestant countries – such as Italian Mercantilism a couple of centuries early.
Find out More
This post is a very brief summary of Max Weber’s theory of religion and social change. For a much more detailed account, including more specific historical details of Calvinism, please see this post (forthcoming!)
*Weber recongized that features of the Capitalist system were present in other parts of Europe previous to the 17th century, but Holland and England were the first societies to really adopt capitalist values at the level of society as a whole, rather than it just existing in relatively isolated pockets.