Sociology

5Is pietism a stick for affable budgeIs organized fealty a perpetrate for complaisant switch Is theology a imbibe for cordial lurchIs faith a force play for affectionate diversity or conservative friendly force preventing kind change ? There are conflicting arguments about this swerve al unmatched all the well-disposed scientists regard holiness as an principal(prenominal) social force . Some social theorist is of the slip by an eye on that godliness has a conservative nub that impedes the authority of scial change and is inclined toward maintaining the status quo . Whereas some other(a) sociologists are of the fascinate that that religion is a substantial bow force that paves the vogue for social change To embark on the analysis of the above-named assumption i .e . role of religion in social change , a synopsis of the guileless sociologists view of the religion as a force of social change forget be quiet helpful Functionalist stand , for example , of Durkheim presents twain prime roles of religion i .e . stock warrant and promotion of social solidarity and social integration . This view of religion clearly illustrates that religion is a conservative social force . Karl Marx also labels religion as force that works on preserving the status quo and hinders social change . For Marx , religion is an ideological appliance in the manpower of the ruling class to justify their control and monopolize the social control . He further reinforces the persuasion that religion pietism is the sigh of the oppressed creature , the opinion of a stony world and the soul of soulless conditions . It is the opium of the peopleHe asserts that religion rationalizes the present nature of things i .e possession of land and the domination of knowledge in clubhouse ) and vitalizes the op inions that this vivid is approved by God a! nd unattainable and sacrilegious for people to alter this natural . In this focus it helps the feudal society and maintains social and semipolitical status quo exclusively another classical sociologist , weber , tame the view that religion is a radical social force .

His assumptions are in Durkheim and Marx Giddens Sociology , 1989 ) observes this distinction in the following way weber s literary works on religion disagree from those of Durkheim in concentrating on the connector between religion and social change something to which Durkheim gave little charge . They contrast with the work of Marx because Weber argues that religion i s not needs a conservative force on the contrary , sacredly inspired movements have frequently produced dramatic social shiftations Weber bases his empirical suppositions in annals and draws his conclusion from investigation of respective(a) societies . He is of the view that ideological momentum needed to transform the society according to new forms and necessities , was provided by religious ideas . He provides the example that Calvinist ideology provided purloin impetus for the social , political and particularly economical change and transformed the society from Feudalism to CapitalismWeber asserts that clique of Calvin believed in the notion that a mavin individual could not perform nigh(a) works or do acts of faith to guarantee one s place in heaven...If you want to get a in full essay, order it on our website: BestEssayCheap.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper