The elementary forms of religious life

The elementary take a craps of sacred spiritednessThe elementary forms of unearthly lifeIntroduction Through his critical look at the most natural organized religion, his epistemological inquiries into the genesis of thought, and his attempt to theoretically account for the functional and universal proposition nature of all religions, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life has proven to be a seminal work both in the academic account of religion, sociology and social theory. Arguing ultimately that religion is the symbolic expression of party and social live on, Durkheim revolutionized the academic study of religion with his received and insightful approach.1 I will begin with a brief recap of the argument primed(p) out in The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, which will be followed by a reason oution of the implications it has on the study of religion. Finally, I will discuss some of the major critiques of his theoretical approach and argument.Argument Durkheim believe s that in put in concert to relieve religion, we must(prenominal) identify its most primitive form (3). The total elements which ar found in primitive religion be side by side(predicate) and to a greater extent related to the initial motives that ca designd unearthly actions (9). These elements provide the designive lens discipline through which we can apprehend all religions (7). Religion is define as a unite system of beliefs and practices relative to unutter fitting things, that is to say, things localize obscure by prohibitions-beliefs and practices that unite adherents to a single moral community called a church (46). The most elementary form must satisfy this definition.For Durkheim, the cardinal leading inventions of the most elementary form of religion were animism and naturism. They attempt to explain what causes spell to experience the dedicated. Animism claims hu gayness experiences the unspeakable because of the misinterpretation of his dreams. This misinterpretation generates the impression of souls that are part of a separate naturalism (61). Naturism claims small-arm feels a sacred realisticity because of the extraordinariness of natural phenomena (68). These theories suggest that mans idea of the sacred is a delirious interpretation because there is nothing inherently sacred about man or nature (76). However, it is a basic take of sociology that a human institution cannot rest on error or falsehood or it could not endure (4). This means that either conception of an elementary religion must account for the sacred as a real ferocity. Durkheim goes on to assert that there must be a religion even more primitive then animism and naturism which is able to explain where the force of the sacred actually comes from. This religion is totemism (77).Totemism is most manifestly found in primitive Australian tribes. The most important disport of these tribes is their division into kinship groups (88). Each clan has a totem , which is its distinguishing feature. The totem is represented in the form of a plant or animal to which the clan has a picky human relationship. This totem, which is the identity of the clan, also has a religious character because of its prominent use in religious ceremonies (96). This totem is central to the clan because things are classified as sacred and profane in relation to the totems religious character (96).The ban cult of totemism uses prohibitions and taboos regarding the totem to keep the sacred and profane separate (221). For instance, there are prohibitions on eating the totemic animal except during religious rituals. Also, women and uninitiate are prevented from coming into contact with sacred objects. These prohibitions are necessary because of the contagiousness of the sacred (237). Sacred objects are contagious because they confer sacrality to the things they touch. This suggests that some case of force resides in sacred objects. This force, or mana, was the o bject of the clans worship, not the animal or plant of the clan (147).The positive cult of totemism uses ritual to put man in organized contact with this sacred force (221). In these rituals clan members gather together in large numbers. This is in contrast to the frequent and monotonous experience the clan member has in which he exists more or less independently from others. When all the clan members come together their proximity generates a kind of electricity that quickly transports them to an extra cut-and-dry score of exaltation (162). This incarnate effervescence takes man outside himself to the point that he feels he has been transported into a special world entirely different from the ordinary (164). When he calms down from this excitement he is left to believe that he exists in two completely separate realities his daily life and his religious life (164). These two realities are natively the profane and the sacred respectively. To understand how this incarnate efferves cence gets its power we must understand the way in which the categories of experience are constructed by society.For Durkheim, atomic number 53 leading theory of companionship was empiricism which claims man constructs the categories of knowledge of time, space, genus, cause, number (etc.) exclusively from his individual experience (15). This is not valid because it does not explain how people from the same acculturation have identical notions of time and space, etc. The second leading theory, apriorism, solves this riddle by claiming man inherits the categories of knowledge from a divine reason vivacious prior to his experience (16). There is no proof this divine reason exists. Moreover, it does not explain why the categories of thought vary inwardly cultures. This implies, for Durkheim, that man gets his categories from society (13). Further evidence suggests this is the basic category of knowledge. Genus, the notion that akin(predicate) objects belong to the same group, c an be modeled from mans experience of his relationship to society. After all, a genus is indeed an ideal yet receively defined grouping of things with internal bonds analogous to the bonds of kinship (114). There were as numerous divisions of space as there were divisions of clans within the tribe (13). In addition, man had a sense the clans were all interdependent and formed a unified whole the tribe. It is this reason why mans classifications represented a complete set of categories through which everything could be accounted. The categories of knowledge are the most basic types of collective representations and are informed by the collection of individual representations. However, when these individual representations are translated into collective representations they take on a new character going away from personal to impersonal. These collective representations outlive the individuals which contributed to them and gain a high decimal point of depth and complexity. They for m a framework for reason that is infinitely richer and more complex then that of the individual and goes beyond the range of empirical knowledge (18). These categories establish the reality of society that is sui generis, or completely unique.Man is otiose to think without using the concepts he inherits from his society. This means man naturally transcends himself when he thinks and when he acts. He elevates himself beyond his individual experience and into the collective reality of society. When man feels the sacred from the collective effervescence it is this social reality he experiences. It is his feeling of being part of something greater than himself. When man feels this force he is unable to attribute a concrete cause, so he represents it externally through objects which he considers sacred. These sacred objects are at the heart of religion and ultimately express society.Implications and CritiqueEssential to Durkheims theory is the dichotomy in the midst of the sacred and profane and how the practices relating to his religious categories effect the social world. Of further magnificence is his argument that (contrary to other theories of religion that argue it being centered well-nigh magic, superstition or a philosophical error) religion is a real social fact. As such, he arguesOur entire study rests upon the postulate that this unanimous feeling of believers across time cannot be purely illusory we assume that these religious beliefs rest upon a specific experience whose demonstrative valuate is, in one sense, not one bit inferior to that of scientific experiments, though different from them (312).In regards to the elementary religion Durkheim studies, he concludes that it is the religious act that allows individuals within the tribe to understand themselves as collective. Further, it is the religious activity that serves to symbolize the social order with the totemic figure as an objective representation of their own society. Through the cons cious repetition of various myths and rituals, a real sense of social unity and collective sentiments for tribal members was fostered (through the collective effervescence). This, in turn, works to strengthen and continually reestablish the social connections within the group.As an institution, taste religion as having the authority to both need and garner compliance and awe is a unique concept in and of itself. Understanding religion as the symbolic expression of society is an authorized and path-breaking idea that has profoundly influenced several academic fields and the direction of profound thought. As religion is a social fact, the objective entity behind religious symbolism and ritual can thus be understood as society (and not God). While I will return to this point, one must note that this idea would be intensely controversial for the religionist, as it implies that the individual participating in rituals is (at the very root) mistaken with regards to the objective pheno menon he is worshiping.When considering what Durkheim has done for the theoretical approach to defining and explaining religion, we can see his original approach to the social nature of religion as most telling. in the first place Durkheim, theoretical approaches to religion mainly focused on the individual and his understanding and philosophy of life or the interpretation of his reality (such as that of Otto, jam or other phenomenologists). Durkheims work further shed light on the social role religion plays in organizing societies. By claiming that religions (a)ll are dependable in their own fashion and all answer though in different ways to the given condition of human existence Durkheim steered clear of questions of absolute truth (and theistic definition) which is ultimately beneficial for those interested in the comparative study of religion.While Durkheims theory has been one of the most powerful in the study of religion, it has been susceptible to various criticisms. For instance, while he worked to misdirect previous theories and positivistic approaches to religion, one can see such elements in his own definition. If Durkheim is indeed right, then the individual participants in rituals and religious ceremonies are mistaken, since the actual object of worship is something other than they are aware of. If we try to Durkheim, we must believe that his scientific methods (and his particular methodology/theoretical approach) is on a higher plan with regards to accuracy, as it his methods which clarify the actual object of worship for the believer. Thus, the main theory of Durkheim has been attacked by those who believe he is minify religion to something other than it is by claiming that it is the symbolic expression of society.This criticism ineluctably leads to ones that are aimed at attacking Durkheims neglect for the subjective value of religious experience. In Durkheims theoretical view, the individual subjective experiences with sacred reality i s exclusively important with regards to its social utility (with respect to the feelings the collective effervescence engenders). This type of approach is in direct opposition to a theorist manage Otto or James.With regards to his evidence for the most primitive form of religion (and his world-wide belief that one could understand a complex phenomenon by conclusion and examining the phenomenon in its simplest form) is also quite questionable. As illustrated by the analyses of Clifford Geertz, one must note that it is difficult enough to interpret ethnographic findings when one is deeply immersed in the society. Since Durkheim himself did not participate in the ethnographic study (and neer actually witnessed the culture), suspicious immediately rises (particularly as his argument hinges on the material). In The Interpretation of Cultures, Geertz statesThe notion that one can find the essence of issue societies, civilizations, great religions, or whatever summed up and simplifie d in so-called typical small towns and villages is palpable nonsense. What one finds in small towns and villages is (alas) small-town or village life. If localized, microscopic studies were really dependent for their greater relevance upon such a premise -that they captured the great world in the little- they wouldnt have any relevance (Geertz, 1973).The representations of religion can be seen as collective representations expressing a collective reality. Durkheimian thought points to the social nature of religion.While there are some criticisms, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life has proven to be immensely influential, both with regards to the theory of religion as well as a variety of other fields.In Geertzian terminology, then, one can see that Durkheim may be imposing his own contextual period (culture, history, scientific method) wrongly. How is Durkheim construe this evidence and is he correcting them with regards to his more advanced worldview?Conclusion1 If religion g enerated everything that is essential in society, this is because the idea of society is the soul of religion.