Emile Durkheim Religion Inequality Analysis

As I read Émile Durkheim’s classic piece, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, I experienced a whirlwind of thoughts, expressing agreement, disagreement, and complete puzzlement over the details of his logic and conclusions. As far as my essay goes, I will attempt to put these thoughts in a neat, coherent order like the one mentioned above.

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.

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.

Althusser recognised that religion also plays a crucial role in communicating ruling class ideology to the masses. Relating back to Marx’s (1844) description of religion as ‘the opium of the people’. Acknowledging that the teachings of the church are imposed by the ruling class to allow for false consciousness as the church teaches the working-classes to comply with capitalism and provides measures to cope with hardship. Nonetheless, (Giddens, 1971. P: 7) claimed ‘the abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness’. However, ideology is necessary for social life. Regardless if a society has a class system the function of ideology allows for social cohesion (Rancière, 2011).

“Religion is a ritualized system of beliefs and practices related to things defined as sacred by an organized community of believers.” (Basirico et.al. 379). Religion is an important element in the society because it influences the way individuals act and think. It has shaped the relationship and bonding among families as well as influenced the decision made in economics and politics. Religion in general has contributed to shape a society and a government structure which will influence the way the individuals under certain governmental structure behave. Sociologists are interested in religion mainly because religious belief is heavily rooted in individuals’ lives and it helps sociologists to interpret human’s actions, expression, and

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

Emile Durkheim was a taught by a teacher and to add was a sociologist. Durkheim singularly developed sociology and is credited for expanding to academic discipline, social structures, social relationships, and social institutions, in attempt to understand human nature. Later Durkheim took these and applied them into religion. Durkheim focused on the importance of the concept of the sacred" and its relevance to the welfare of the entire community.

In this essay I will be looking at the theories of Edward Burnett Tylor and Émile Durkheim, and comparing them to see which theory I think gives a better explanation about what religion is, or whether religion is actually definable. On the one hand we have Tylor’s theory that tells us that religion is belief in spiritual beings and that religion is just a step on the way to reaching full evolutionary potential. Durkheim’s theory, however, says that religion is very much a social aspect of life, and something can only be religious or “sacred” if it is something public (Durkheim 1965:52). Ultimately these theories do not give us an outright explanation about what ‘religion’ is, but there are aspects of the theory that can be used to gain an understanding or idea.

Following the Industrial Revolution in 19th century Europe, change was in full swing and religion began to have different meanings for different people. The upper-class citizens used Religion, namely Christianity, and the power that it possessed in an attempt to keep their high status in society, while the lower class turned to faith so that their lives could possibly improve. Instead of religion being the cornerstone of faith and worship amongst all people, it was being used for power and money by the upper class. Even worse, religious leaders were using the upper class people as well, gaining money and authority from their endorsement. A man by the name of Karl Marx saw

In order to combat anomie Durkheim asserts that people turn to religion. Religion for Durkheim was not divinely inspired but was simply a set of collective beliefs that shaped norms and values, norms and values that shaped

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

This theory stats that society is structured in a way that maintains its stability (Schaefer, Richard T, 2009, pg 14) How can one use this theory to look at religion? A famous functionalist Emile Durkheim divided the world in to the sacred which holds important significance such as a cross, and the profane which is just an ordinary object that holds no significance (Stevens, William J, 2008). According to William J Stevens, while Durkheim had removed God from religion, he still felt it was a positive force that could unite a society under similar beliefs and values (Stevens, William J, 2008). Bronislaw Malinowski found that religion can perform a function of creating societal solidarity due to religion being a psychological response to the needs of society during times of anxiety (Stevens, William J, 2008). Malinowski also stated that religion can provide security when one is faced with situations that may be out of their control (Stevens, William J, 2008). Talcott Parsons added to this by stating that religion makes the values of a society legitimate (Stevens, William J, 2008). This could in turn also cause conflict amongst society which would serve as a dysfunction such as the religions in the United States creating a battle against the liberal secular movement (Schaefer, Richard T, 2009, pg 337).

Moreover, Durkheim compares religion to society. He says that society is the cause of the unique sensations of the religious experiences, so called “sui generis” (Ritzer, 84). This concept

The crux of Emile Durkheim’s The Elementary Forms of Religious Life lies in the concept of collective effervescence, or the feelings of mutually shared emotions. Through a hermeneutical approach, Durkheim investigates the reflexiveness of social organization, the balance between form and content, and the immense cooperation in collective representations. In his work, society is the framework of humanity and gives it meaning, whereas religion acts as the tool to explain it. Since society existed prior to the individual, the collective mind must be understood before the concept of the individual can be grasped. However, one component seems missing from his social theory – what underlies society in terms of rituals and rites? Only when this

In order to truly assess the legitimacy of Durkheim 's functionalist definition of religion, his notion of Social facts, (upon which his theory is constructed) must be examined. Durkheim advocated that amongst the reputable fields of biology, psychology and history, Sociology also warranted a specific focus. It was, for him: a 'sui generis ' "something that had to be explained on its own terms". Sociology was not, for Durkheim, a field that should be susceptible to overlapping subject matter: he believed that there existed concrete social facts recognisable "by the power of eternal coercion" which they are "capable of exercising over individuals". This claim is an imperative one because it is the platform on which his functionalist