Durkheim And Weber 's Theories Of Religion And Modernity

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.

From the many theorists that we have read so far where they argued on the way that people think, shapes important features of the social world. That includes both theorists Durkheim and Weber who argue something along those lines; both theorists focus on the moral binding dimensions of ways of thinking. Durkheim sees that arguments revolve around shared representations. By contrast, Weber sees arguments being revolved around a certain idea of Protestantism. Durkheim and Weber use notions of broadly moral ways of thinking in social explanation.

Friedrich Schleiermacher's On Religion: Speeches to its Cultured Despisers led to his description of "the Father of Modern Theology." The first two speeches, "Defence" and "The Nature of Religion" both use established concepts to oppose orthodoxy and establish a new method of theological thought that influences theology to modern times. Paul Tillich and Karl Rahner are also influential, both supporting the vital and intimate relationship between the divine and the human. Furthermore, this essential interrelationship and theology's focus on it are supported by various Christian philosophical/theological thinkers, including Langdon Gilkey, Martin Luther, John Calvin and Blaise Pascal.

Through ethnographic research, Durkheim can explain the fundamentals of religion and its relation to society. We are not born with the innate knowledge of structural situations or cultural effects that occur within a society. Nor, are we aware of the effects our behaviors and attitudes have on a society. Durkheim’s worked untimely explained how the moral realm functioned by focusing on primitive religion. Religious ceremonies closely resemble social life, containing highly routined acts. The essential elements of religion include rites which are expressed by rituals and practice. Rituals unite social groups regardless of individual differences, which are found in both modern and traditional societies because rituals are a part of both. Durkheim noted, to have a

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

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

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 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

Weber, Durkheim, and Freud each offered a fascinating account of the role of religion in modern life. Weber and Durkheim specifically asked how to act ethically in a world of fragmenting values. Freud largely bypassed ethics, looking instead at how the individual utilizes values in negotiating pleasures, pains, and disappointments. While these three thinkers range from attention to the individual (Freud) to the social (Durkheim), and from a general, primitivistic (? Do you mean that he looked at “primitive religions” – the reason he did that was he theorized all aspects of religion could be traced by to the most primitive religion thus the elementary forms of religious life) view of religion (Durkheim) to a very specific, well-articulated one (Weber), they all share attention to the role of rules, the place of the sacred, the source of religious authority, and the value (or lack thereof) of religion in procuring happiness in modern life. (do you mean source of religious authority being human beings? Socially constructed? As for happiness, only Freud articulated it that way. Both Durkheim and Weber were concerned with conflict (Durkheim as a pathology and Weber as a core of modernity and modern institutions)

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

Emile Durkheim and Max Weber both appealed to me in the reading of chapter 1. They both have similarities and differences on their approaches to sociology. While reading the background of Emile, I found it fascinating how he studied sociology in a way that he put together the individual dimensions and added them together to better understand a society or social group. The case of suicide rates and religion. This one case can be analyzed through other elements, such as careers. For instance, the type of profession can be studied. I am really into statistics and like to break down information. The way he broke down the information to analyze a society or social groups interested me. Max Weber, I chose to write about because I felt he had a

The social theories that I find particularly insightful in the study of cities are the Durkheim and Weber classical theories. Durkheim’s theory argues that societies are held together by social cement known as collective consciousness, which forms a moral basis of team spirit. In contrast, the emergent society is characterized by change, complexity and demands division of labor among individuals in the society. According to Durkheim, complex societies gave rise to social interactions or moral density among individuals. Durkheim believed that division of labor arises from increasing moral density in the society. Consequently, cities arise from the need of people to remain in close contact with each other and to uphold collective consciousness (Bounds 7).