Emile Durkheim’S Book Elementary Forms Of Religious Life

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

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.

Religion is that which grows out of, and gives expression to, experience of the holy in its various aspects. (Rudolf Otto)

At the beginning of the semester, I wrote: “Religion is the institutional manifestation of feeling and believing in something beyond yourself” (Kelley 2016). Twelve weeks later, I consider this definition incomplete and problematic; nevertheless, it reveals how religious thinkers such as James Frazer, Emile Durkheim, William James, Mircea Eliade, Jeffrey Kripal, and Bruce Lincoln infiltrate our quotidian definitions of religion. In this paper, I hope to develop a new conception of religion, recognizing the impact of such historical thinkers on personal conclusions. In other words, I hope to show that we are

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

In the article, The Meaning and End of Religion, by Wilfred Cantwell Smith writes about his idea of the concept of religion explaining it to be a universally valid category as it is theorized but is truly a European creation. Throughout the article Smith conveys his ideas of religion. In his piece, there are several interesting ideas and most important thoughts that he tries to communicate to the reader. In response, the reader can respond to some of the important questions posited by Smith.

He believed adamantly in the autonomy of religion.  When discussing religion eliade believed religion consisted of the profane and the sacred.  The profane consisted everyday business, things ordinary, random, and largely unimportant, whereas the sacred consisted of the supernatural, of things extraordinary, memorable, and momentous.  Although the terms of the profane and the sacred are familiar in the works of Durkheim there is a subtle difference in the way they both apply the terms to religion.  Durkheim considers the talk of the profane and sacred in the way it makes people aware of their social duties whereas eliade considers the talk of profane and sacred firmly entrenched in the supernatural.  Eliade based all his observations of religion on the archaic man.  He believes to truly understand and study religion we need to study the archaic man or people in today’s societies who live like the archaic man, those who hunted, fished, and lived off nature as their primary way of life.  Archaic man, as eliade suggests, looked to the sacred to provide the very framework within which they think, the values which they admire, an models or ‘archetypes’ they choose to follow whenever they act.  Eliade supposes that the archaic man chooses to live life in the model of the divine because they have a deep nostalgia for paradise, a longing to be brought close to the gods, a desire to return to the realm of the

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.

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

Emile Durkheim and Max Weber are two prominent philosophers whose theories unequivocally differed on countless themes. The outlooks of Durkheim and Weber contrast however, their general message in which they attempt to convey are of similar ideologies. When examining Durkheim and the concept of sacred and profane, one would see how it parallels with Weber’s notion of enchantment and disenchantment. Their stances on religion correspond with each other and despite their distinct conceptual frameworks and differing perspectives, Durkheim and Weber both offer profound contributions to the concepts of religion and modernity.

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