Assess The View That Religion Is A Force For Social Change

02) Using material from item A and elsewhere, assess the view that religion is a force for social change?
Religion, I think is not a force for social change, as your religion teaches you the basics; the difference between the right and the wrong, and then it's totally up to you whether or not you tend to follow the teachings, so therefore i think religion is not a force for social change, as its your choice if you want to go with the teachings or not.
Talcott Parsons (1965) said that religion sacralises (makes sacred) norms and values, meaning individuals accept societies goals as their own. Religion is the primary source of meaning for people in society. It provides answers to those unanswered questions about the world and humanity. This point made by Talcott parsons clearly shows that religion is a force for social change, as it gets people to accept the norms and values of religion as their own; so they don't really take into account what their chosen religion teaches them, but they still go with the norms and the values of religion.
According to item A, sociologists argue that religion can provide meaning and purpose to life, and help to integrate people in society, and also enable them to cope with times of stress and disaster.
Bronislaw Malinowski says that religion performs a social function by providing psychological support during times of emotional stress that might otherwise threaten social life. Such as life crisis like birth marriage and death and it helps with uncertain and uncontrollable events. This again obviously states that religion is not a force for social change; but it's more like a thing that helps you get through a hard time or whatever the situation may
be.
However on the other hand what postmodernists argue that many traditional religious organisations are now less important Bauman (1992), and individuals are now free to shop around among a range of cults, sects etc. This to an extent shows that religion is a force for social change as it lets people do what they want and pick what religion they wish to pick, but it's not how it used to be the old way like by following the religion your family tend to follow; so this clearly shows that religion is a force for social change; by letting people have that freedom and having the spiritual movements to find something that suits their lifestyle. Postmodernists are in favour of letting people have their freedom on what they choose to be their religion.
Different sociologists have different opinions on if religion is a force for social change, like for example sociologists disagree about the roles played by religion in society, and also postmodernists such as Bauman (1992) argue that many traditional religious organisations are now less important. Some sociologists argue that religion is essential like functionalists, but some argue that it force for a social change.
In conclusion I conclude that religion is not a force for social change as it's up to the individual whether or not they want to be religious or what religion they pick, so therefore how can religion be force for social change, even though religion has a big impact on peoples life, but it's totally up to the individuals I think so therefore religion is not a force for social change.