Durkheim on Totemism

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.

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

Emile Durkhiem, a French sociologist, Developed the theory of "Functionalism". Functionalism is the theory that all aspects of a society serve a function and all are necessary for the overall stability of that society. Durkheim (1912) said that all societies are separated into the profane and sacred and that religion is a combined structure consisting of beliefs and practices which are associated to sacred items. In Durkhiems theory of functionalism regarding religion, there are three major functions for it in society. Durkhiem believes religion helps provide social cohesion, Social control, and that religion offers meaning and purpose. According to Durkhiem religion provides social cohesion through

Along with Marx and Weber, Durkheim is considered one of the founding members of modern sociology. He is also credited with making sociology a science through his application of scientific and empirical research. Durkheim believed that sociology should be seen as a science separate from other sciences such as psychology, by studying “social facts” objectively as things. (Kiviston, 2011)

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 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

There are a variety of different definitions of religion including substantive definitions, which refers to focusing on the content or substance of a religious belief such as God, functional definitions, which refers to religion in terms of the social or psychological functions it carries out for the individual and there are also social constructionist definitions which focus on how members of society actually define religion. Functionalists hold a consensus view and argue that society requires both social order and solidarity in order for it to run smoothly, and religion is one way of providing this as it encourages shared norms and values.

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

The goal of functionalism, with regards to religion, is to analyze religion and explain its purpose by showing what role it plays for humans within society. Sigmund Freud, Emile Durkheim, and Karl Marx were all functionalist who developed theories as to why religion was such a major part of their society. Their views are very different from the two theorists E.B. Tylor and James Frazer, as they believed humans were using religion to try and explain the unknowns in the world. Though all three of the men took a fundamentalist approach to religion, their theories to explain religion have some major differences between them. Sigmund Freud, who is predominately known for his work in psychology, tried to explain religion by saying it is merely

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).

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

The functionalist analysis of religion is concerned with the contribution religion makes to meeting society's needs such as social solidarity, value consensus and harmony and integration between its parts. Durkheim = == ==