Durkheim on religion. In his text Elementary Forms of Religious Life Durkheim begins his introduction to the theory of religion by explaining what it is no

Emile Durkheim

Throughout history there have been many scholars who in one way or another have contributed to the understanding of religion and its importance to society. However there is one man who stands out from this extraordinary bunch by the name of Emile Durkheim. This French sociologist is not only known for his principal of modern social science but is also associated with the finding of the basics of religion and its relationship to modern society. These findings have not only contributed to the understanding of religion but have also been a great factor in figuring out the relationship that religion holds with society. However for us to further understand this relationship we have to start from the beginning, taking a look back at the history of Durkheim's theory, the relationship that it has to society, and also the impact of his theory to our understanding of religion.

Firstly, in order for us to examine the theory of Durkheim, we have to start from scratch, looking at his methods of reaching this theory, which defines religion as a form of strengthening society not through its belief in god but rather its approach of using rituals and symbols to maintain the integrity of society. In his text Elementary Forms of Religious Life Durkheim begins his introduction to the theory of religion by explaining what it is not. He suggests that religion is there not to explain the strange and unusual ways of life, instead it is there to explain the occurrence of basic phenomena's such as rainbows. He goes on to state that religion is a system of beliefs and rituals that are present in society to maintain some level of social structure. Durkheim than goes on to explain what importance religion holds to the existence of society and in order for us to understand this existence, we have to exclude it from two different possibilities; animism and naturism.

According to Durkheim animism is closely related to an individual's hallucinations or dreams and if religion was to be based on such interpretation, it would be an insufficient explanation to the foundation of society. These hallucination or dreams would make religion an imagination of the mind which would hold no importance to the functions of society. On the contrary naturism is defined as a religion based on explanations of natural phenomena, and if you were to look deeper into the meaning of this definition you can easily prove some of these phenomena's as being false. These two elementary forms of religion are the reason why Durkheim looked to totemism as a way to further explain his theory.

According to the encyclopaedia of religion a totem is a natural object of an animate being, as an animal or bird, assumed as the emblem of a clan. These emblem or symbols are used as labels to represent the members of a particular clan in society. These totems hold a great significance to the clans as it represents them in society not as individuals but as whole and for this reason Durkheim saw totemism as the most basic form of religion. The reasons for this simplicity is that totemism bases its existence not on hallucinations or natural phenomena but rather its own members that represent the clan as a whole. The totem represents the principle and power of the group, which is signified for all of the clans that have totem as their symbols. In spite of the different totems, they all see each other as serving the same religion and for this reason the clans clearly understands the significance the totems have for each group.

Secondly, in order for us to understand the importance that totemism has to the theory of Durkheim, we have to first understand the relationship that it has with society. This relationship within totemism acts as a source of identification for the individuals, and because of this they are represented in society as being part of the group. This need to be part of the group gives the individual a sense of hope and purpose in life, and allows them to be affiliated in society as being part of a religious group.

Nevertheless, religion is seen by many societies as a ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Nevertheless, religion is seen by many societies as a force, that is able to pull people together, be it mentally or physically. By doing so religion is able to provide them with a sense of collective morals and beliefs of belonging to a society. This is very important to the mental state of the individual, because a sense of belonging gives them reinforcement and strength to live their life. However without this sense of belonging to a religious group can have dire effects on an individual and one of the worst according to Durkheim is suicide.

Suicide and religion share a very strong connection according to Durkheim, as religion not only provides an alteration to this form of death but also gives the individual a sense of belonging to a group that can provide both moral and mental support. However this moral support is largely dependent on the social group that you belong to and according to Durkheim totemism is of the most basic, as it only relies on the clan as being whole. For this reason totemism is seen as a religion that exists not because it has been brought down to humans through a supernatural force but rather it has been inscribed into the hearts of the members that follow it blindly. These inscriptions are considered so strong that the individuals feeling towards the clan are not determined by his own thoughts but rather by the group and even though these thoughts are of the group and not the individual, they nevertheless make the individual believe that he answers not to god but to society.

Lastly, in order for us to have a better understanding of the theory of Durkheim, we have to look at the impact it has to our understanding of religion. This theory by Durkheim on religion in relationship to totemism has caused some concern over the past few decades, as scholars have been debating over it and some even consider it as a source that is irrelevant to our study of religion. This dilemma against Durkheim is caused not because of the way he

approaches religion in his text but rather his way of research, and according to many scholars his theory of totemism is based on the views that he himself had of the tribes. For this reason many consider his theory to be incorrect as it lacks the resources needed to support his findings. Despite the allegations against Durkheim, he nevertheless brought forward to us a theory that challenges the many aspects of being involved with a religious group.

Durkheim's theory of totemism is no more different that what religion is defined by many modern scholars today, as it involves the same aspects of rituals which gives the individual a sense of belonging. But the main concern for Durkheim was looking at religion as a source that not only emphasized on the individual but also on the group. This emphasis on group provided Durkheim with the theory that religion does not need any sort of spiritual deity to exist, as religious groups form a bond not through the belief in god but rather through their members.

In conclusion, Durkheim's theory on religion is a concept that is very difficult to grasp, as people who follow a certain religious path find the theory going against their customs and beliefs. The reason for this is that Durkheim looks to religion not as a way to gain spiritual healing but rather a way to attain yourself with the belief that you as an individual belong to a certain group, which not only gives you the strength to face society but also the strength to face your own self in times of crisis.

Finally, the theory by Durkheim not only questions the natural phenomena's of religion but also brings forward the concept that religion does not need the existence of god to be symbolized as a true form of religion. The reason for such thoughts are present in the concept of totemism, which according to Durkheim does not base its existence on god but rather the group itself. This not only symbolizes the strength of these tribes but also the strength of the individuals that form them.

J. N. Allen, On Durkheim's Elementary Forms of Religious Life, (72-76)

J. N. Allen, On Durkheim's Elementary Forms of Religious Life, (93)

Emile, Durkheim, Durkheim on Religion, (42-70)

Lindsay Jones, Encyclopaedia of Religion

Geoffrey Walford, Durkheim's Suicide a Century of Research and Debate

“Throughout history”? Never begin a sentence with this, or “since the beginning of time” – these are vague and very weak general statements that don’t help. Assess the worth and content of this statement – what are you saying here? it is a truism that is not really informative. Editing your work, and being critical of your own writing, will help remove these unneeded preliminary statements. If you want a catchy opening sentence – penetrate into an insight about Durkheim and open with your understanding of his work.

Again, this is trite.

This is very vague. What are the basics of religion? Do you mean that he attempted to theorize about the origins of religion? How does Durkheim’s work explicitly relate to “modern society”?

Be precise in your thinking and your writing. How is an ‘understanding of religion’ distinct from the ‘relationship’ between religion and society? Is not this connection a part of our understanding of religion?

This is completely unneeded. Durkheim’s theories are all about society – you are not conveying a clear and new idea in this statement.

your introduction should be a roadmap of the entire paper – a snapshot of what to expect. Your thesis statement is too general and vague. What specifically about his theory do you find interesting – what about his ideas do you focus on in the paper. HOW DOES HIS THEORY IMPACT – do not simply refer to the impact but actually describe what you claim the impact to be.

At the stage of declaring a definition you need to proceed cautiously. Does it work to say that “religion is a form of strengthening society”? I am not clear on what that means.

You’ve inserted us into a detailed conversation without context. You are also not providing references for this material.

This is a vague reference – you are claiming a page range for which specific ideas? Specific ideas used in your paper come from specific locations in your sources – humanities papers in general require precise documentation – a ‘paper trail’ of your sources and how they are used in your paper. You have 5 citations in your entire paper which is completely insufficient. You have whole paragraphs without any references at all.

Again, a vague statement that could be replaced with actual content – instead of saying ‘what importance religion holds…” – actually describe its importance – no vague allusions but direct reference to the ideas that you mention.

Issues with clarity: society can only be understood if we exclude animism and naturism. But you have not defined what these terms mean, rendering your distinction weak.

You are establishing a relation between the concept of animism and other human experiences without having first defined your terms of reference.

You’ve stated it, but you have to argue why this is the case.

Are not dreams of incredible importance in many traditions?

Do you mean naturalism? – naturism as a term is typically associated with nudism – not what I think you are getting at. Be far more refined in your use of terminology. Is this term coming from a scholar? If not, why are you creating terms of reference from scratch – these can only add to the confusion of your exposition.

This sentence is not clear. Your hypothetical statement ‘if you were to look deeper…’ = this is precisely your duty as the author of the assignment!

In one short paragraph you have introduced to very dense ideas with insufficient references and defintions.

emblems

why is he searching for the ‘most basic form of religion’? you need to step back and explain his scientific approach, and his underlying logic behind his approach.

You have to cite evidence to back up this claim.

Undocumented and uncontextualized – what actual people are you talking about? You have made a presumption here that there are totems, and then something else called religion, and that different groups have different totems but practice the same religion? Where is the evidence for this statement? To be it seems completely false.

You need to provide some passages to get rich details into your discussion –this is too brief, undetailed, and not helping to clarify the most essential concepts driving Durkheim’s approach to religion.

You are having trouble demonstrating an understanding of the difference between an academic understanding of religion and how religious people think about religion. Durkheim is not interested in how societies view religion – he is interested in explaining how societies work and how religion is a component of the mechanism of society. Durkheim is very clear that his explanations are not reliant on religious beliefs in God – he seeks his own explanations that might not at all be part of the religious person’s framework of interpretation.

Not clear – simplify and edit

Again, why is finding the most basic example of something of such importance to Durkheim? This is at the heart of his approach.

It is problematic that you can write this paragraph without any concern for demonstrating a use of sources.

This is redundant – Durkheim’s theories include an understanding of religion – it provides a model for understanding religion – so what is the model – go beyond general references to totemism and discuss the mechanics of these social experiences.

According to who? You have to provide evidence (refernces) to back up statements like this.

This is all descriptive with little to no analysis. The first idea that should concern you after making a claim that some scholars see hi theory as irrelevant is to show an example – a statement from a scholar that actually says what you say. You don’t cite anyone, so I am not sure where you got this idea. It is also a pure description – it is far more important to know why someone considers his theory irrelevant than to simply say that someone thinks it is irrelevant.

This is so preliminary and requires far more articulation. Based on this logic we can refute everyone’s theories about anything because they go back to particular individual’s views? What do you really mean by this statement? Where are your sources for this crucial moment of criticism?

You cannot say this unless you actually provide examples – you are talking about phantom individuals unless you actually mention names and provide references to back up your claim that many scholars are simply rehashing Durkheim’s idea about totemism. Is this really the case?

There was never a clear sense of a definition of religion or how it is immediately tied to totemism. You never quote a source and rarely cite sources, with the result that your paper skims along the surface and never actually analyzes any of the key concepts that you introduce.

This paper requires substantial revisions – I would strongly recommend that you come speak with me or follow up with questions through email.