Textbook Responses for Richter 44-54
Whitehead views religion as what an individual does while in solitary. To understand religion, it must be focused on the individual. Durkheim believes that society controls what values in religion are important. In my opinion, I think being able to understand religion needs to be focused on the societal views. Durkheim makes a point about how religion is declared as a private matter, when in reality, it is a creation of a community. The book goes on to talk about how religion creates cohesion within society. I think individual religions have their own set of beliefs and values that is decided upon by the group. This is what makes religion more of a societal focus rather than individual. Cults in the general
Durkheim defines religion as “a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things”. He says all societies
For me, coming from a background in sociology, the concept of collective consciousness seems natural. If society is composed of various social institutions that were shaped, are shaped, and will be shaped by the peoples participating in them, it only makes sense that this idea of shared consciousness would explain the institutional formation of religion with its sacred rites, beliefs, and symbols. While I am not a fan of how he chose ‘Church’ as his specific word to define the social organization involved with religion, for its basis is rather ethnocentric, the definition he ascribes to the religious social body is appropriate. According to Durkheim, a ‘Church’ is “a society whose members are united because they imagine the sacred world and its relations with the profane world in the same way, and because they translate this common representation into identical practices” (41). Similarly, he later describes this ‘Church’ as “one single moral community” and that “it conveys the notion that religion must be an eminently collective thing” (44). Durkheim’s sole focus of his definition revolves around
Religion is defined as “a particular response to dimensions of life considered sacred, as shaped by institutionalized traditions.” The value of having a specific religion is significant. Religion has been the foundation of life. It helps us define ourselves and making the world and life more comprehensible to us. Something that stuck to me in the reading was Emile Durkheim when he proposed that humans cannot live without organized social stuctures, and that religion is a glue that holds a society together. A specific religion helps one better understand who they truly are, and hopefully find a better path later down in life. When attending a church of a specific religion, one is more likely to interact and focus better when it is with a group of people that make it feel more like home to them. Some religions may also provide rules for living, and a way to help with relationships in their lives. I feel that the value of having a
Pope and Johnson (1983) state that Durkheim proposed that society revitalizes individuals and gives them strength to persevere in the face of the vicissitudes of everyday life. Stones (2008), further states that Durkheim felt that we acquired all the best in ourselves and all the things that distinguish us from other animals from our social existence. Thought, language, world-views, rationality, morality and aspirations are derived from society. Thus, the unsocialised individual, the individual divorced form society, the beast within us, is a poor approximation of the highly socialised beings that constitute societies.
Please describe the impact Marx, Durkheim, & Weber had on sociology as prominent contributors of the discipline.
Again, in EFRL, Durkheim shows religiosity from a sociological standpoint in which “individual consciousness” is combined with “common consciousness.” To look at it another way, individuals use signs and symbols to interpret and/or explain their feelings. If the group all uses the same signs and symbols, it then becomes the symbol or representation of the group’s sacredness. Even if the individual is no longer part of the collective society, he still holds the sacredness of the signs/symbols to the same high standard, and he does this by way of festivals, ceremonies, etc.
It reinforced the morals and social norms held collectively by all within a society. Society, to Durkheim, was greater than the individual and it gave people strength and support and made things possible and meaningful. The function of religion was to keep society in check, to assist social control, and to provide individual meaning for each individual’s life.
Émile Durkheim and Mircea Eliade have dissimilar understandings of religion. Emile Durkheim did not have an interest in a belief system or the cognitive approach. He dismissed the study of how particular beliefs lead to certain practices and adopted a functionalist approach. He does not acknowledge the belief in God, rather focuses on what religion does within society. He believed that individuals encompassed a more pure form and focused on the essential structure of religion. His theory of totemism developed, which centers around the idea that the subject of religion is to bring people together, and to ultimately result in social cohesion. He metaphorically relates this to when people in a community rally around the totem. Furthermore, making the totem represent the sacred. Durkheim then understands that the totem will eventually develop into a spirit, and ultimately into a ‘God’ or spiritual form. Moreover, connecting a society on a metaphysical level. This concept does not center around a belief system, rather on social cohesion.
“Treat social facts as things” is an expression that epitomises the works of Emile Durkheim. This essay focuses on four main sociological concepts proposed by the functionalist Emile Durkheim; the division of labour; mechanical and organic solidarity; anomie and suicide, and examines their relevance in contemporary society.
Conversely, according to (Turner 23-109), Durkheim points out that religion is part and parcel of the society and that each society has religion. Emile Durkheim’s purpose was to assess the connection between particular religions in various cultures, and finding a common cause. Basically, he wanted to comprehend the three major aspects of religion; that is the empirical together with the social and the spirituality components. His definition of religion is that; it is a joining arrangement of beliefs together with practices in relation to sacred things. According to him, it is religion that establishes the contemporary society as
He describes the totem emblem as a symbol both for a society and its sacredness. This is because, he states in his fundamental hypothesis, "god and society are one and the same," though not necessarily on a conscious level. For Durkheim, religion is what brings people together by reinforcing social relations and moral norms through a "collective effervescence" or group energy. This energy, when felt by the individual, is not recognized as the result of communal energies, but is attributed to the sacred.
Known as the father of modern liberal theology, Friedrich Schleiermacher was a German theologian, philosopher and biblical scholar who focused his attention on the nature of religious experience from the viewpoint of the individual and human nature itself (Mariña 3). Influenced by German Romanticism, Schleiermacher attempted to reconcile the criticisms of the Enlightenment with traditional Protestant Christianity (Crouter 261). By doing so, he abandoned the pietistic Moravian theology that had failed to satisfy his increasing doubts and he adopted the rational spirit of Christian Wolff and Johann Salomo Semler. He then became acquainted with the techniques of historical criticism of the New Testament and of Johann Augustus Eberhard, from whom he acquired a love of the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle. As a result, he began applying ideas from the Greek philosophers to a reconstruction of Immanuel Kant’s system (Mariña 3). On this basis, this essay articulate Friedrich Schleiermacher’s understanding of religion and its relationship to Christianity as described in Speech I: Defense and Speech II: The Nature of Religion of his work On Religion: Speeches to Its Cultured Despisers. The essay will explore Schleiermacher’s rejection of various views of religion held by the despisers, explain his identification of the true religion with feeling and describe his view of the relationship between religion and Christianity.
According to author Randall Collins, Emile Durkheim has been deemed sociologies most famous representative (Collins, The Durkheimian Tradition, 211.) The Durkeimian Tradition is “sociology’s most original and unusual set of ideas but revolutionary in the same sense ” (Collins, 211). Durkheim contributed an insightful view on the role of religion and how “God is the symbol of the society and its moral power over individuals” (Collins, 211.) By proving that “religion is the moral foundation of society” simply shows the dire need of religion in order to live. As a result of following any religion comes a consistent ritual, no matter what steps it consists of and a link to social interaction. According to Durkheim, rituals are instrumental in the process of providing concepts or ideas that directly echo the structure of society (Collins, 212.) Durkeim’s original beliefs still apply to the structure of society today. Though it may not be solely focused on religion, people identify themselves within other social groups. I myself identify to be apart of a social group with my involvement in the women’s basketball team at Hofstra. Like other student-athletes, there is an obvious distinction of athletes around campus and noticeable segregation between athletes and regular students. Durkheim discussed rituals that took place amongst those who followed a religion, and like that social group; my team performs
Durkheim and Weber both had distinct theories as they expressed and conceptualized religion and it’s impact to society in quite different ways however, they somehow overall parallel each others theories. Durkheim observed religion in the context of the integrated society and recognized its place in affecting the reasoning and conduct of society.Max Weber saw religion as how it fortifies other social organizations. Weber suspected that the religious belief setup contributed a social system that SUPPORTED the improvement of other social organizations, like the economy. Weber is also addressing the shrinking hold of religion in modern society.”(Veugelers) This notionally theorizes that both philosophers acknowledge the importance of religion as influencing and supporting society. As indicated by Durkheim, people consider religion to be adding to the wellbeing
Because Durkheim’s main interest was the ways in which society is bound together, he investigated the role and the origin of religion in various communities. He believed that a simpler society has a simpler religion. Durkheim claims that, “a religion as closely connected to a social system surpassing all others in simplicity may well be regarded as the most elementary religion we can possibly know” (Ritzer, 91). For instance Durkheim argues that totemism a religious system in which animal figures are regarded as sacred is among the simplest religious forms in the world. The totemic animal, Durkheim believed, was the original focus of religious activity because it was the emblem for a social group, “the clan” (Ritzer, 91). He thought the model for the relationships between people and the supernatural was similar to the relationship between individuals and the community. For him the function of religion was to make people willing to put the interests of society ahead of their desires. He also believed religion is an important part of society and that the functions of religion are to maintain the equilibrium in the society.