Description of the Module

Items Description of the Module

Subject Name Sociology

Paper Name Classical Sociological Theory

Module Name/Title Religion and Society

Pre Requisites Religion, Animism/Animatism/Nature Worship,

Religion and collective Consciousness
Objectives This module seeks to examine Durkheim’s views on
importance of religion in organizing and maintaining
societal functions
Key words Totemism, sacred, profane, modernity, Cult of the
individual

Module Structure

Religion and Society Introduction, Religion and societal cohesion ,

Durkheim’s critique on existing theories of
Religion, Cult of the Individual

Team Details

Role Name Affiliation

Principal Investigator Prof Sujata Patel Dept. of Sociology,
University of Hyderabad
Paper Coordinator Vishal Jadhav Dept. of Sociology
Tilak Maharashtra Vidyapeeth,
Pune

Content Writer Vishal Jadhav Tilak Maharashtra Vidyapeeth,

Pune

Content Reviewer Dr. M.T Joseph University of Mumbai

1
 CLASSICAL SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY

Religion and Society

Introduction

In this module we will be examining Durkheim’s contribution to understanding the relevance of

religion in controlling societal functions and binding society as functional whole. We will be
asking what are the constituent elements that form religion? How is religion organised? For what
purpose? Does religion undergo transformation? What kind of religion does Durkheim envision in
modernity?

Durkheim was witness to a drastic social change occurring in Europe and his works deal with this
change. For Durkheim it was very important to examine the cohesive forces that held society
together. This was an era in Western Europe and in France where the processes of rapid
industrialization and urbanization were leading to drastic changes in the given societal structure.
Impersonalisation of human interaction, social conflicts, urban poverty, under and over
employment and excessive bureaucratization led him to believe that the society was undergoing
change at a pace that could destroy the very cohesive forces that held the social system together.
This drastic change he argued had an impact not only on collective societal institutions but also
individuals. With the inauguration of a modern society, rationality and reason ruled and this system
had little to no place for religion. He sought to assess the importance of religion in the organization
of the normative order which he thought was necessary for society to function and for it to remain
a cohesive unit. The industrial economy posed new challenges for collective consciousness to
emerge leading thereby to new ways of coping with issues related to inter-personal relationships
and collective ways of life. Durkheim posed these set of questions. What would be the role of the
erstwhile religions in modern societies? Would they undergo a transformation? Would a new
religion emerge? What would be the form and contour of this religion? What would be the ideology
of this new religion?

Durkheim contends that society is a sui generis reality i.e. society has a unique reality which is
irreducible to adding up its component units and has come about due to historical and cultural
factors. This phenomenon occurs when individual consciences merge through collective
effervescence (a moment when collective conscience develops) and a completely new and larger
whole is formed i.e. society. However society cannot be simply replicated by forming groups of
individuals. The logic of how society is formed and reproduces itself does not solely depend on
the constituent units i.e. individuals. The demographic and material conditions together with
technology lead to disparate levels of human interaction. These interactions in turn lead to the
formation of ‘dynamic density’ i.e. the rate at which individuals come in contact with each other.
Thus the dynamic or moral density as Durkheim calls it differs in time and space and hence cannot
be replicated.

Durkheim in his work ‘The Elementary Forms of Re1igious Life’, 1964 states,

2
 “Society can neither create itself nor recreate itself without at the same time creating an
ideal. This creation is not a sort of supererogation for it, by which it would complete itself,
being already formed; it is the act by which it is periodically made and remade. . . . The
ideal society is not outside of the real society; it is a part of it. . . . For a society is not made
up merely of the mass of individuals who compose it, the ground which they occupy, the
things which they use and the movements which they perform, but above all is the idea
which it form of itself.” (1964:422)

In this way he places more importance on the larger whole i.e. society rather than the individual.
He has argued that it is society that provides the basic infrastructure through which humans
socialize and find meaning. Individuals for him are a secondary consideration. Therefore for
Durkheim social norms that have emerged are external to the individual but binding on her.
According to Durkheim social change entails a drastic structural change in the division of labour.
This shift from mechanical solidarity (small groups of individuals, intimacy, high inter-personal
relationships and hence high on collective conscience) to that of organic solidarity (individuated
society, large population, impersonal social behavior) leads to weakening of collective forms of
social integration. Organic solidarity because of higher moral density if it has to survive entails
cooperation and interdependency of disparate interconnected units within society. Durkheim
contends that religion plays this pivotal role in unifying disparate units into a cohesive whole.

Religion and Societal Cohesion

Durkheim argues that religion (Christianity) itself was in a state of transition. Modern European
society was undergoing changes ushered in by the industrial revolution. The modern state, polity
and economy relied on reason and rationality. The political economy was so structured that it
atomized collectives into individuals who desired individual progress and achievements. With
reason and science at the helm there came a rejection to the normative order anchored in
Christianity.

Durkheim argued that religion played a pivotal role in integrating individuals into society. He
believed that it was through religion that humans socialized and internalized the normative order.
Without this integrative force individuals would tend to move towards the state of normlessness
(anomic state). As he contends in his ‘The Division of Labor in Society’,

“It is this anomic state that is the cause . . . of the incessantly recurrent conflicts, and the
multifarious disorders of which the economic world exhibits so sad a spectacle. . . . That
such anarchy is an unhealthy phenomenon is quite evident, since it runs counter to the aim
of society, which is to suppress, or at least to moderate, war among men. . . . A form of
activity which has assumed such a place in social life evidently cannot remain in this unruly
state without resulting in the most profound disasters. It is a notable source of general
demoralization.” (1968; 2-4)

His central question was how humans rise above their everyday profane world reflected by
individuation and individual aspiration to a level that allows for collective functional behavior.

3
Unlike most other sociologists of his time he argued that religion was a major force to reckon with
even in the modern era as it generated an overarching moral order that allowed for modern secular
processes to function. He asks whether reason and rationality the hallmarks of modernity are
antithetical to religion. As religion is based on myths and faith, would religion and its paraphernalia
not lose science which is anchored in empiricism and certainty? Durkheim concludes that even in
this era of modernity, religion holds a special place and without it society would collapse.

It was in this vein of thought that he concluded that suicide amongst the Protestants was higher
than amongst the Catholics because the former had a lesser integrative set of practices as compared
to the latter. He argued that religion was a social fact that served several important social functions.
He was not too concerned about the spiritual or the supernatural aspects of this social institution.
For him religion was an organised social entity and practice a supra constructed order, that enables
individuals to connect to the larger social realm. It was through religion that a certain value system
emerged and this normative order foisted itself on the individual such that she may not deviate
from the norms of the society. In this sense religion is a social fact that is external to the individual
and has a coercive effect on her agency.

In his earlier work ‘The Division of Labour in Society (1968)’ he concludes

“Religion is an essentially social phenomenon. Far from pursuing only personal ends, it
exercises, at all times, a constraint upon the individual. . . . Offenses against the gods are
offenses against society.” (Durkheim, 1968; 92-3)

For Durkheim then, all religions across the world shared certain commonalities and these religious
doctrines and practices were anchored in the sole objective i.e. to maintain social order. Religion
in this sense was a social institution for Durkheim whose functional role was to inculcate ideas of
solidarity and social integrity. The normative frame of society for him was internalized by
individuals through various systemic procedures and practices such as rituals, festivals, carnivals,
assemblies amongst others. Education had a special place for Durkheim as it was through
educational apparatus that the state or nation could inculcate and imbibe collectively agreed and
shared moral values and ideals of society.

Durkheim’s critique on existing theories of Religion

He believed that in order to explicate the functional aspects of religion, it would be simpler to
examine primitive societies that possessed less complex social orderings and interrelationships.
Durkheim argued that modern European societies with their complex religious practices could
obfuscate such an analysis. With this assumption he argued that even the simplest of societies that
practiced ‘primitive’ forms of religion had some inherent social functions inbuilt within them. It
was with this objective in mind that he undertook a study of religious life amongst the aborigines
of Australia.

In his famous work ‘The Elementary Forms of Religious Life’ he sought to comprehend the
functional aspects of the system of clan, moiety, endogamy-exogamy, kinship patterns together of
the Arunta tribe. He relied on secondary data collected by anthropologists called Baldwin Spencer
and Gillen on the Arunta , a tribe found in Central Australia.

4
In his quest for unearthing the functional need for the organization and reproduction of religion as
was his basic assumption, Durkheim examined various existing explanations whose spectrum
ranged from Animism, Naturism, and Animatism to the idea of existence of god (Monotheism and
Polytheism). The early ethnographies on religions and various associated practices of exotic tribal
societies examined religion as a way of life within the communities. It brought forth the importance
of religion in all walks of life including marriage, kinship, family, economy, polity among others.
However the social anthropologists examined religion and its complex of rituals and ceremonies
as exotic phenomenon. They were more interested in examining religion as a supernatural
phenomenon and practice. Durkheim on the contrary was interested in comprehending how
religion and its complex of practices enabled societal cohesion and social control. He was not
much impressed by the organization of the religious hierarchy and its paraphernalia but by its
ideology and its importance as a coercive social fact. As he suggests

“For we know today that a religion does not necessarily imply symbols and rites, properly
speaking, or temples and priests. This whole exterior apparatus is only the superficial part.
Essentially, it is nothing other than a body of collective beliefs and practices endowed with
a certain authority.” (The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, 1973; 51)

According to Taylor a leading proponent of animism, this form of religion was probably the
antecedent to other complex religious forms that emerged over time. 1 Animism was the
acknowledgement of the presence of the soul. It is a worldview that actors other than human such
as flora and fauna and nature at large possess a spiritual essence. This world view therefore
suggests that human world in interconnected through the presence of souls. This idea according to
Taylor emerged when humans first began to attempt answering a central philosophical question
i.e. death. How is it possible that even the dead appear in the dreams? Does it imply that there is
life after death? Does it mean that all living things have something common? Do all animate and
inanimate substances possess souls?

A similar world view that Durkheim critiqued was that of Animatism. This was a term coined by
the British Anthropologist Robert Marret. 2 According to this view all animate and inanimate
objects possess a certain impersonal power termed ‘Mana’. This inanimate Mana confers power,
strength and success and therefore in earlier forms of religion it had come to be objectified as
something to be revered.3

Durkheim argued that both animism and Animatism as theories are exotic in that they remain at
the level of philosophy and do not in any way attempt to connect to the social. In this sense then
religion denotes a system of faith that attempts to answer supernatural or scientifically unprovable
phenomenon. All that they do is instill a sense of fear and a sense of divinity. Religion then
represents an individual belief structure that offers possible answers or offers a world view that
1
E.B. Tylor was a cultural Anthropologist who followed the school of cultural evolutionism. In his work s Primitive
Culture and Anthropology, he argued how contemporary religions evolved from simpler forms.
2
He was a British anthropologist.
3
Mana, Marett states, is a concentrated form of animatistic force found within any of these objects that confer power,
strength, and success. To various cultures, animatism and mana are visible through the successes and failures of these
various objects. Success equals a high amount of animatism, or mana, whereas failure is the result of animatism, or
mana, being lost

5
science cannot address. These two perspectives do not offer much in comprehending the social as
they remain esoteric theories and philosophies.

In a similar vein Durkheim questions another perspective on religion i.e. naturism. This theory was
propounded by Max Muller4 who argued that this world view arose from the human experience
with nature and was the earliest form of religion. Phenomenon such as lightning, thunderstorms,
eclipses, volcanoes, earthquakes among others drew speculation from humans that nature was the
prime divine living being that controlled human actions and hence humans need to propitiate this
Supreme Being. Humans devised ways to propitiate this supreme power through rituals,
ceremonies, prayers among many other forms. This perspective too does not delve into
understanding the need for religion for societal functioning. Durkheim’s central question was
related to comprehending the functions of religion and not what religion is as a philosophical or
metaphysical entity.

Totemism and the Sacred and Profane

Durkheim argued that it would be difficult to study the functional aspects of religions in the
advanced societies as these societies are highly specialized and fragmented. He thus chose to
examine the ‘primitive societies’ of Australia.

He contends that ‘totemism’ represents religion in its most elementary or simple form and claimed
it to be the earliest form of religion.5 Durkheim defines totem as an object or artifact either animate
or inanimate from which the group (clan) derives it common ancestry. A totem was generally an
animal or plant considered to have a particular symbolic significance for the social group. It is a
sacred object that is venerated by the group and many kinds of taboos are associated with it. Eating
or killing the totemic animal or plant is forbidden and as a sacred object the totem is believed to
have divine properties. Other plants and animals can be hunted or consumed as they are not divine.

According to Durkheim the totem is central to all social, political, economic and cultural functions
of the society. The totem represents their common descent and hence rules and regulations related
to marriage, family, barter, leadership among many others have to be within the permissible social
distance that is prescribed by the group. Rituals and ceremonies necessarily must involve the use
of the totem. Durkheim refers to an implicit belief in a mysterious or sacred force or principle that
provides the rules and regulations, sanctions, and institutes moral responsibilities on its members.
Ordinary objects whether a piece of wood, polished stone, plant or animal once transfigured into
a sacred emblem, it comes to denote sacredness and power. He contends,

“Since religious force is nothing other than the collective and anonymous force of the clan,
and since this can be represented in the mind only in the form of the totem, the totemic
emblem is like the visible body the god.”(The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life,
1973; 184)

4
Friedrich Max Muller , generally known as Max Muller, was a German-born philologist and Orientalist, who lived
and studied in Britain for most of his life. He was one of the founders of the western academic field of Indian studies
and the discipline of comparative religion.
5
Totemism means the workship of certain symbolic artifacts such as a plant or animal that evokes a certain sense of
common descent from an ancestral of mythical origin.

6
Durkheim argues that any object or artifact be itself is not sacred or profane, it is the collective
decision of the society or community to deem it so. Thus any animate or inanimate plant, animal
or object or even statues or idols of gods and goddesses come engender sacredness as it is through
collective acceptance that it has become so. However once it is declared to be sacred, taboos and
sanctions are invented so as to protect the sacred. Powers are invested in the sacred and it is through
the norms sanctioned by the sacred that the profane domains of the society function.

Using this analogy Durkheim has argued that ‘modern religions’ are similarly organised wherein
the most fundamental tenets of religion form the core without which that religion cannot survive.
This forms the sacred domain of religion. The collective conscience that emerges from belief is
the sacred. The profane is the everyday utilitarian life functions such as the economy, democracy,
education among others. Durkheim argues that the substantial function of religion is the creation,
reinforcement and maintenance of social solidarity. He argues that a religious phenomenon
emerges in any society when a separation is made between the sphere of the profane (realm of
everyday utilitarian activities) and the sphere of the sacred.

Discussing the importance of the sacred Durkheim argues that the essence of totemism is the
workship of an impersonal, anonymous force, at once immanent and transcendental. This
anonymous, diffused social force is superior to individuals and emanates from shared mental belief
structures.

According to Durkheim the characteristic or common features of the sacred across all world
religions are as follows. Firstly, sacredness is superimposed i.e. nothing is sacred by itself and it’s
not intrinsic in nature. But whatever the collective deems as sacred comes to be sacred. Therefore
what is sacred for one community may not be the same for individuals from another community.
Secondly sacredness is also non-utilitarian. In that it need not have a profit motive or utility
objective. It need be of practical use to society or its institutions. Thirdly sacredness is non
empirical. It cannot be gauged as it is accepted through faith and collective recognition. One cannot
prove or disprove it. Fourthly sacred is not amenable to reason or rationality as it is an ambiguous
entity. Therefore it is beyond doubt. It is a belief. And finally sacred is believed to have
supernatural powers and therefore needs to be propitiated. By doing so it is believed that the sacred
reciprocates.

Describing the totemic practices Durkheim suggests that members of the totem group refer to
themselves and each other by a common name. This binds them together as if they are
consanguineous or blood relatives. The totem worship and rites compels them to recogonise their
duties and reminds them of their social functions and social prescriptions such as exogamy
obligation, reciprocal aid, participation in death and mourning among others. The totemic beliefs
invoke certain taboos and prohibitions. Totems are revered especially when the tribes or clans go
to war as it represents the supernatural thus provides them psychological assistance.In this way
totem becomes an emblem, a symbolic force that facilitates organization of group or community
solidarity and through this symbolic power integrates various units within the community.

7
It is through the belief in the totem that a normative order is able to emerge and which is followed
by all the members. It is the sacredness and fear of disobeying this moral order that allows for the
community to survive and reproduce itself over time.

Thus according to Durkheim, ultimately religion has a very important social function and it grows
out of collective effervescence. Belief in religion is belief in the normative order of society that
allows for social control of individuals.

Cult of the Individuals

Durkheim argues that rapid industrialization, growth of political economy and urbanization has
led to high degree of diversification and high level of moral density. These multifarious social
interactions anchored in contractual relationships and ambiguous social relations led Durkheim to
argue that there needs to be some system to integrate these heterogenous interests. He contends
that erstwhile form of religion based on myths and superstition could no longer exert social control
in modern times. And yet religion is the only institution that has the capacity to appear a super
ordained social entity. In such a context he suggests that religion needs to be now premised on a
secular ideology that grew out of the collective effervescence of the Enlightenment and French
revolution i.e. the ideas of liberty, fraternity, equality and justice.

He therefore suggests that modern democracies and states have set in new practices that promote
human rights and humane practices. He further contends that the modern state can through a
secular ideology organise a universal and all encompassing normative order that will function in a
similar fashion as religion did earlier. Thus Durkheim believed he had solved the religious moral
dilemma of modern society. If religion is nothing but indirect worship of society, then individuals
need only express their religious feelings directly towards the sacred symbolization of society. The
source and object of religion, Durkheim points are the collective sacred belief structures.

Durkheim contends that modern nations having democratic forms of government allow for the
formation of the cult of the individual. Modern capitalism which is premised on private property,
free labour, individual and civil rights, justice and equality which form the fundamental principles
on which the cult of individual emerges. Thus Durkheim was not so much in doubt as to whether
religion would survive the onslaught of modern ideas, but he was more concerned about the nature
of the transfigured religion that would take the place of the erstwhile ones. For Durkheim religion
stimulates ideology which is expressed in terms of language. Thus religious ideals, its values and
essence, rituals and ceremonies are transmitted from one generation through various organs of the
modern state, through nationalism and universal ideals of humanity.

As Durkheim extrapolates,

“[The] human person is considered sacred in the ritual sense of the world. It partakes of
the transcendent majesty that churches of all time lend to their gods. . . . Whoever makes
an attempt on a man’s life, on a man’s liberty, on a man’s honor, inspires in us a feeling of
horror analogous to that which the believer experiences when he sees his idol profaned.
Such an ethic is not simply a hygienic discipline or a prudent economy of existence; it is a

8
 religion in which man is at once the worshipper and the god. (The Elementary Forms of
the Religious Life, 1973; 46)

Durkheim contends that in modern societies where modern states have large populations to
manage, it becomes difficult to do so without an overarching, omnipresent ideology. This is so
because the modernity advocates individual freedom and individual aspirations to flourish. This
emphasis on self-actualisation and means to end kind of rationality and ever demanding human
nature could lead to chaos. This profane realm of utilitarian activities needs to be controlled by a
supra ideology. This is what religion has been doing in the past and will continue to do in the
future. Only the garb of religion transforms from time to time.

Conclusion

Durkheim began his enquiry of the relevance of religion in modern Europe. This quest led him to
seek answers as to the role and function of religion in society. But what is religion? Durkheim’s
views regarding religion were quite distinct from what the social anthropologists believed. For him
religion was a collective recognition of certain fundamental ideals. To better understand how
religion emanates through collective effervescence and how it operates in society, Durkheim
undertook a study of the totemism amongst the Arunta tribe of Australia. He concluded that
totemism represented societal ideals and this comprised the sacred domain of religion. All other
social domains (profane) were in some way or the other connected to the sacred. Thus the sacred
domain and its ideology were the real underlying power that set up a normative order which could
not be questioned. Every individual had to follow this and in doing so, it allowed for the tribal
community to function. All social institutions and social phenomenon such as marriage, family,
kinship, ceremonies, rites and rituals had to conform to the ideals set up by the sacred i.e. totemism.

Durkheim proposes that modern society is based on a new religion i.e. cult of the individual. In
this system modern processes and practices of the state has allowed for a new moral order to
emerge. This order is based on a unified system of beliefs and practices which are deemed to be
sacred by the citizens of the state.

He argues that democracy has replaced feudalism and aristocracy. In this system individual rights
are protected by laws which are enacted by the state. This new cult of the individual is anchored
in the premises of the enlightenment and French revolution ie. Freedom, liberty, justice, human
dignity, equality, democracy among other such ideals. The state ensures that these ideals are
protected and a normative system is put in place that allows for the dissemination of these
objectives through various agencies of the state especially education. These ideals then become a
collectively organised goal which then becomes the sacred domain. What is interesting is that these
principles are universal and hence acceptable across various states in the world. Durkheim
contends that the new religion is based on humanism that promotes human rights and individual
freedom.

Durkheim was criticized as a conservative who viewed modernity as a system that had no place
for religion. However that is not what he had in mind. His theory on religion attempted to explicate
the formation of new forms of religion in modern times.

9
10