The Sociology Of Knowledge As An Essential Process Of Enquiry

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

The chapter starts with an important question, “If this is a street in contemporary London and these are its people, what, then, is modern life, and what is the nature of that humanity which lives in our times?” (Miller; 282). He turns to social sciences to find the answer for this question, and sets out from Durkheim. According to Durkheim it is humanity which created religion and cosmology, and people need Gods only to satisfy religious rituals and to help obey the law, which is a base of living in society.

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.

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.

Throughout this essay, I will explain the distinction between sociological and common sense understanding, highlight the differences between sociology and other social sciences, and evaluate two sociological perspectives – Marxism and feminism.

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

Sociology is a social science that enables people to understand the structure and dynamics of society. By using a scientific approach, and by critically analysing society using qualitative and quantitative methods, sociologists can find patterns and connections within human behaviour to provide explanations of how society affects people. Sociological views are based on theories that have been tested through unbiased research and attempt to take all values into account. Common sense theories are generally individualistic and naturalistic assumptions that are based on opinions than can vary depending on an individuals

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 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

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

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

A religion can be seen as a unified system of beliefs and practices which are relative to sacred things and beliefs (Giddens 1972, p.224). It can shape ones thoughts and feelings and gives people a sense of hope and something to believe in. All three main sociologist writers Karl Marx, Max Weber and Emile Durkheim offer different perspectives on religion and how important it is to society. Some of the theorists chose to have a positive view whilst others argue the unimportance of religion. This essay attempts to discover which theorist has the most accurate perspective of religion in modern times. This is done by firstly explaining the basic ideas regarding to religion put forward by Marx, Weber and Durkheim. Then both Marx's and

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