Question

What did Emile Durkheim contribute to our knowledge about religion? How did his views on religion compare with his ideas about education.

Answer 1

For centuries, humankind has sought to understand and explain the “meaning of life.” Many philosophers believe this contemplation and the desire to understand our place in the universe are what differentiate humankind from other species. Religion, in one form or another, has been found in all human societies since human societies first appeared. Archaeological digs have revealed ancient ritual objects, ceremonial burial sites, and other religious artifacts. Much social conflict and even wars have resulted from religious disputes. To understand a culture, sociologists must study its religion.

Pioneer sociologist Émile Durkheim described Religion with the ethereal statement that it consists of “things that surpass the limits of our knowledge” (1915). He went on to elaborate: Religion is “a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say set apart and forbidden, beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community, called a church, all those who adhere to them” (1915).

Recognizing the social origin of religion, Durkheim argued that religion acted as a source of solidarity and identification for the individuals within a society, especially as a part of mechanical solidarity systems, and to a lesser, but still important extent in the context of organic solidarity. Religion provided a meaning for life, it provided authority figures, and most importantly for Durkheim, it reinforced the morals and social norms held collectively by all within a society. Far from dismissing religion as mere fantasy, despite its natural origin, Durkheim saw it as a critical part of the social system. Religion provides social control, cohesion, and purpose for people, as well as another means of communication and gathering for individuals to interact and reaffirm social norms.
Religion then provided differing degrees of “social cement” that held societies and cultures together. Faith provided the justification for society to exist beyond the mundane and partial explanations of existence as provided in science, even to consider an intentional future: “for faith is before all else an impetus to action, while science, no matter how far it may be pushed, always remains at a distance from this.” (Durkheim 1915, p. 431).

According to Durkheim, religion is the product of human activity, not divine intervention. He thus treats religion as a sui generis social fact and analyzes it sociologically. Durkheim elaborates his theory of religion at length in his most important work, Forms. In this book Durkheim, uses the ethnographic data that was available at the time to focus his analysis on the most primitive religion that, at the time, was known, the totemic religion of Australian aborigines. This was done for methodological purposes, since Durkheim wished to study the simplest form of religion possible, in which the essential elements of religious life would be easier to ascertain. In a certain sense, then, Durkheim is investigating the old question, albeit in a new way, of the origin of religion. It is important to note, however, that Durkheim is not searching for an absolute origin, or the radical instant where religion first came into being. Such an investigation would be impossible and prone to speculation. In this metaphysical sense of origin, religion, like every social institution, begins nowhere. Rather, as Durkheim says, he is investigating the social forces and causes that are always already present in a social milieu and that lead to the emergence of religious life and thought at different points in time, under different conditions.

According to Durkheim, a religion comes into being and is legitimated through moments of what he calls “collective effervescence.” Collective effervescence refers to moments in societal life when the group of individuals that makes up a society comes together in order to perform a religious ritual. During these moments, the group comes together and communicates in the same thought and participates in the same action, which serves to unify a group of individuals. When individuals come into close contact with one another and when they are assembled in such a fashion, certain “electricity” is created and released, leading participants to a high degree of collective emotional excitement or delirium. This impersonal, extra-individual force, which is a core element of religion, transports the individuals into a new, ideal realm, lifts them up outside of themselves, and makes them feel as if they are in contact with an extraordinary energy.

Of great significance to Durkheim’s theory is his insistence on the reality of these religious phenomena. As he argues, the social forces that animate a society’s religious life are real, and are really felt by the participants. While it is a mistake for an individual to believe that this power emanates directly from the sacred object, or is somehow intrinsic to the sacred object, behind the symbol manifesting the force is a living and concrete reality. Consequently, all religions are true, at least symbolically, for they express a power that does exist, the power of society. Religion, religious belief, and the religious experience cannot, therefore, be dismissed as mere fantasies or illusions.

Views on religion

Focusing primarily on instructor-student activities and interchanges Durkheim gives limited attention to the students as a group essence - occasions as for interchange as well as reference points of sorts. Durkheim is aware that the students in a class constitute a grouping or collectivity that can be differentiated from the instructor. Thus, both as collectivities on their own at times and in conjunction with instructors on other occasions, students may be seen to develop a generalized consciousness that extends beyond the sum of the individuals in the class.

Durkheim also is aware that, in addition to attending to the education of students in the class as individuals, instructors also face the challenges of dealing with the more diffuse, less readily identifiable, less accountable, less predictable, and less controllable, more distractible student collective consciousness that emerges in each class.

Thus, he encourages his students to sustain an emphasis on “the importance of the group” in relating to their students. He instructs them to explain things more fully and to do so in demystified terms. He also prompts his students to encourage their own students to become more responsible for what happens in the class more generally. However, acknowledging a collective essence that readily assumes an expressive, developmental character of its own as particular programs of study take place over time, he observes that the students and their instructors will rather inevitably find themselves participating in an uneven but still collectively, albeit imperfectly, shared consciousness of “the little society” that constitutes the class.