Emile Durkheim And Mircea Eliade

Durkheim defines religion as “a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things”. He says all societies

Mircea Eliade’s The Sacred and the Profane analyzes a wide variety of components that are found within various world religions. Eliade uses the history of religion to support his ideas as the the book itself is a brief introduction to religion as a whole, particulary the religions of primitive societies. Nonetheless, when looking to the past one can see that mankind’s desire to associate itself with the sacred has been occuring for thousands of years. From temples to passages of intiation, religious man is a unique microcosm that follows and repeats the structure of the religious macrocosm, the creation of the cosmos. One can conclude that Eliade views religion as the “paradigmatic solution for every existential crisis.” (p210) and

Several people find Mircea Eliade’s view on religion similar to Emile Durkheim’s, but in truth, it is similar to Tylor and Frazer’s. One of Eliade’s major works was The Sacred and the Profane. In his writings he explains that his understanding of religion are two concepts: the sacred and the profane. The profane consists of things that are ordinary, random, and unimportant, while the sacred is the opposite. The sacred “is the sphere of supernatural, of things extraordinary, memorable, and momentous” (Pals 199). When Durkheim mentioned the sacred and the profane, he was concerned about society and its needs. In Eliade’s view, the concern of religion is with the supernatural. To Eliade, the profane doesn’t hold as

present as many others. Based on this and Emile Durkheim’s sociological findings religion focuses on uniting societies.

Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, and Sigmund Freud were intelligent theorists that tried to reduce religion to simple explanations. Marx explained religion as a phenomenon created by economic position meant to give reason to people’s social economic position and thus provide them satisfaction, while they are promised salvation in paradise. Durkheim reduced religion as something created by the social interaction of people, thus making religion a social phenomenon, in which people interact and have rites. Freud, on the other hand, explained religion as being neurotic due to people’s obsession with security alongside the father. All in all, these three theorists attempted to reduce religion to its basic elements, which they later used to explain primitive life, and the reason for the continuity of religion in modern life. However, Mircea Eliade and Max Weber did not agree with the views. Weber and Eliade determined that the reductionist view did not give enough insight into religion, because they focused on primitive culture to say what religion was, information was confined to only western civilization, and in Freud’s case religion was neurotic. Thus, Weber and Eliade rejected the reductionist views of Durkheim, Marx, and Freud.

It should be undisputed that religion is very much intertwined with the construction of our world. Both Peter Berger and Emile Durkheim consider similar ideas about the role of religion in the construction in our world. However, both approach the sociological study of religion from two different viewpoints: functionalist and substantive. Berger adopts the functionalist stance, which much more scientific than the substantive stance, which Durkheim chooses to adopt. The functionalist study of religion focuses more on the “quantity” of religion, i.e. an individual’s experience of religion, or religion’s impact on that individual. Functionalists also believe that there is a clear demarcation between what is sacred and what is “profane.” Meanwhile, Durkheim adopted the more sociological substantive stance towards religion, which studies the community and collective effect that religion brings about.

The analysis and comparison of Karl Marx and Emile understanding of religion Introduction This essay analyses and compares the views of both Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim on religion. It encompasses the views of other scholars on the same subject. For instance scholars like Gorsuch (1988) saw religion as an important variable in people's lives and yet Marx and Durkheim view religion absolutely in an unexpected way, nevertheless both of them concur that religion is a vital part of a general public. Amid his profession, Marx talked little on the subject of religion.

Durkheim considered religion within a social context. His primary concepts involve the “separation between the sacred and profane; ideas of souls

The History of religion as a sociological concept is very important in order to fully understand religion as a whole. In the top of the 19th Century, three social theorist by the names of Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, and Karl Marx, examine the relationship between religion and society. Durkheim believed religion worked as a community. It is the opportunity to bring people together and offer strength to push through life 's transitions and tragedies. Religion provides a meaning and purpose to life. Durkheim states “Religion is not just a social creation, but something that represents the power of society." Durkheim also believed religion was a source of social stability where Weber focused on the effects of religious beliefs on economic activities. The

Throughout my childhood, I have been nurtured in communal values, having been raised in the security of a tightly-knit Jewish community. My appreciation of my family and religious background have led me to want to pursue studies in the field of religion, more specifically the nature of G-d who has, until now, played a vital part in my life and shaped my values, beliefs and behaviour. I have a constantly questioning mind and, through my involvement with a religious community, I have developed an interest in the origin and nature of religious belief, and religion's role in society. This recently led me to Emile Durkheim's The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, in which he attempts to yield an understanding of religion by investigating Australian

Emile Durkheim saw religion as a functional institution that reaffirms social bonds between people. As he explains in one of his works, "A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative

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.

Regarding the functionalist view, according to Parrillo (2014), “Emile Durkheim identified religion as an integrative bond for society, a theme elaborated on by modern functionalists” (p. 423). Using religious bonds, the societies identity and resolve could be strengthened (Parrillo, 2014, p. 401). Regarding the conflict view, several theorists concluded that mechanisms of social control could be used to protect the power of those in interest (Parrillo, 2014, p. 424). Resources of political and economic competition support the argument of peaceful or violent religious confrontation (Parrillo, 2014, p. 424). According to Parrillo (2014), “appearance is a key element in perceptions of different religions”, (p. 424). Some religions have embraced

This work examines Durkheim’s sociological approach to religion. Several central aspects of Durkheim’s approach are defined, including the concepts of religion, clan, and totem. The Totemic Principle and how it can be applied to religion is also discussed. Supporting evidence for Durkheim is offered through Eliade, while dissension is offered by Malinowski. This work concludes with an example of Durkheim’s ideas applied to the story of Lame Deer.

Emile Durkheim, the world 's first official Sociologist believes society is a complex structure in which each separate part is responsible for its own function for the benefit of the whole. This essay will explain how society can be both internal and external to human beings, also three characteristics of the social fact concept, and three of Durkheim 's sociologically significant concepts. According to Durkheim, society comes in two forms: internal and external. First, the internal society forms the 'collective moral conscious ' . In other words, it is the defining mechanism in shaping our beliefs and attitudes for survival in the world. If society does not conform to the internal society, then social isolation, ridicule, and other forms