Summary last week 1. Durkheim and his time 2a. Why Durkheim is

Summary last week
1. Durkheim and his time
2a. Why Durkheim is bothering at all about religion?
2b. Why is Durkheim searching for the most primitive form of religion?
3. What is magic (versus religion)?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Religion according to Durkheim
5. What is "the function" of religion according to Durkheim
6. Which are the most relevant questions answered by religion
7. What in the eyes of Durkheim is the functional equivalent for religion in
our secular times
Some of your questions / comments
In my opinion Durkheim explains very well the spirit of totemism and how
a totem forms and keeps the unity of a society. Is there another
phenomenon which has the power to form a collective thought in the
same way as religion does?
First of all I support it that Durkheim considers totemism as religion or as
very important for the development of religion. Nowadays totemism is
unfortunately rather considered as magic or superstition. But I still don't
agree with Durkheim's approach to religion in general. I think there is no
development towards a most developed and therefore 'right' or 'best'
religion. But talking of a 'primitive' religion that finally develops into a
'real' religion, that is obviously our religion or rather Durkheim's religion,
implies that this religion is better than for example totemism.
Furthermore I think that the idea of social pressure is really interesting.
You can still experience it nowadays for example while singing in a choir.
There is this special arousal of emotions that is just developing when you
are singing with others. You can't experience this feeling when you're
singing alone. In my opinion this might be as well motivation for joining
for example radical groups.
Though, in my opinion, I believe that Durkheim´s argumentation in this
chapter is very thin. First, he describes moral authority as the force able
to make members of a clan follow the moral rules out of respect,
without empirically proving what or who this moral authority is: “But
social action works in circuitous and obscure ways, using psychic
mechanisms that are too complex for the ordinary observer to perceive
their source.” (Durkheim, pp. 157, 2001). Secondly, his position about
whether science is only a form of opinion or not is very clouded: “All the
scientific demonstrations in the world would have no influence if a
people had no faith in science.” (Durkheim, pp. 156, 2001). Does this
make science a sort o f religious cult? At last, the conclusion that religion
is the essence of the development of various disciplines and practices
seems too simple and mono-causal. Maybe, it is worth looking upon
religion as a subcategory of science - and not the other way around.
Different things are thus connected with each other because the society
needs their connections to unite people together. Durkheim says that this
proves that logical understanding is a function of society. What’s more,
Durkheim considers that it is religions that commit to the existence of
science. ‘As soon as man sensed that internal connections between things
exist, science and philosophy became possible. Religion cleared the way.
But it could play this role because it is a social thing’ (p.181) What are
then the relations between science, religion and society? What is the role
of religion in the modern society? Are science and religion are compatible
or incompatible?
Some systematic questions
Overview
1. Religion according to Durkheim
2. The most famous example: Totemism in Australia
3. What is "the function" of religion according to Durkheim
4. Which are the most relevant questions answered by religion
5. What in the eyes of Durkheim is the functional equivalent for religion in
our secular times
1. Religion according to Durkheim
p. 46
- sacred versus profane
- (supernatural versus natural)
- the Divine
- beliefs and rites
- a community of believers (church)
2. The most famous example: Totemism in Australia
First of all: Durkheim is not a specialist in social anthropology. Therefore
many of his more specific claims have never been accepted by the
specialists.
For example totemism – what is totemism more exactly?
According to Franz Boas (who was a renowned specialist) totemism is
based on the precondition that families (clans) within a society have
become too large (depending also in the system of residence and
inheritance). Therefore to recognize the members, the clans refer to a
common system of symbols (today we have still heraldic signs, at least for
nobility). The symbols are taken from a cosmological (sub)system, e.g. an
ecological community (of plants and animals).
But let us leave totemism aside, and look to the core:
collective effervescence
p. 162f.
What is going on here?
The "collective consciousness" has to sides, one suppressing, the other
motivating;
p. 157
But society is "among us" even when we are alone
But only with sociology we can see that this force is not outside, but
inside ourselves. We create our Gods – necessarily. Without God (i.e.
without a relationship to some imagined moral community) we are
without hope and motivation.
p. 157
3. What is "the function" of religion according to Durkheim
Introduction, p.8
Forming and uphelding a collective and its solidarity
4. Which are – more generally – the most relevant questions
answered by religion
- identity: who are "we"?
- cosmology: where we come from?
- motivations and morals: what should we (not) do?
- sensemaking: why should we live on and continue our doings?
- contingency / consolation: why we have to die at a certain point in time?
5. What in the eyes of Durkheim is the functional equivalent for
religion in our secular times
Introduction, xiii - xiv