Wanser 1

Durkheims Theory of Religion

mile Durkheim was a turn-of-the-nineteenth-century French sociologist who saw the
social aspect of human beings to be the most crucial factor to study when trying to understand
behavior, including that involving religion. He claimed that social factors are more important
than individual oneslike biology, psychology, and the selfto consider when searching for an
explanation of the existence of religion. Though raised by a Jewish rabbi father and guided by a
Catholic schoolteacher, as an adult, Durkheim declared himself agnostic. His explanation for the
endurance of religion, despite the absurdity of religious belief and superstitions, was its necessity
in perpetuating social construct. He believed in evolutionary civilization from theology to
philosophy to science, but he did not see that religion would ever be replaced by science. This is
contrary to the thoughts of prior theorists. As a functionalist, he saw religion as serving the
purpose of restoring a sense of community for practicing individuals. As a relativist, Durkheim
admitted that normal and pathological behaviors vary from one society to the next; however, he
maintained that there would always be a religious element to society despite those differences.
Durkheims importance to academia reaches beyond that of religious studies. Without
him, sociology as a scientific discipline would not exist today. He insisted that society is a body
of real and tangible facts and, therefore, must be studied as an objective science. He claimed that
the anthropological studies of Tylor and Frazer were not scientific in nature because they made
assumptions about the beliefs of primitive people. Durkheim said that real examples of religion
must be studied without assumptions. He studied the tribes of Australia who practiced totemism.
The fields of social psychology and anthropology were later shaped by his studies, as were future
studies of religious symbolism.

Wanser 2

As a functionalist and a reductionist, Durkheim can be readily compared to Freud. They

both agree that religion serves a specific purpose in society, it can be reduced to something other
than what it appears to be, and it is a symptom of something deeper. For Freud, religion is a
symptom of psychological neurosisa negative social aspectwhile for Durkheim religion is
the evidence of underlying social health. Durkheims thesis is that religion is a symbolic
expression of social reality. He claims that worshiping a totem showed loyalty to ones clan.
To support his thesis, Durkheim shows that societies are what form individuals, not vice
versa. Concepts of the individual self come from a social framework. He uses as examples the
signing of contracts and owning of private property. This is in contrast to Tylor, Frazer, and
Freud who say that societies are formed by individuals. Morality is inseparable from religion and
morals are inseparable from a social framework, says Durkheim; therefore, religion fulfills a
social function, not an individual one. Durkheim concludes that religion and morality must
change as society changes. Primitive people had a collective consciousness, but religions and
morals changed when the social order changedeconomically by the Industrial Revolution and
politically by the French Revolution. The dissolution of social classes brought a decline in
morality, but not a loss of religion.
The basis for Durkheims theory of totemic principle is that religion is a
conceptualization of the sacred versus the profane rather than an involvement with the
supernatural as Tylor, Frazer, and Freud contend. He disagrees with Frazer and says that magic is
an individual concern and religion is a communal concern; one is not an evolutionary stage of the
other. Totemism, says Durkheim, is a religion as it demonstrates the sacred versus the profane. A
totem animal is sacred and cannot be eaten because it is a representation of a god, but there are
other animals considered profane that can be eaten because they are not idols. The totem itself is

Wanser 3

sacred and, because it is a symbol of the clan, makes the very clan sacred as well. In turn, if the
totem represents god and simultaneously represents the clan, then god and the clan are one. To
worship the totem is to worship society. He concludes that if the sacred is social and the religious
is sacred, then the religious is the social. In contrast to theorists who came before him, Durkheim
does not see that for primitives there was a supernatural realm separate from the natural world.
There was only the sacred/social kept separate from the profane/personal by primitive people.
The individual is swept into the sacred group during ritual chants and dances.
Durkheim says that totemism is the earliest form of religion and none existed prior. The
others theories point to totemism having evolved from some prior form of religion. Further,
Durkheim says that totemism, as a religion, is tied to the social. As the totemic principle is found
in numerous cultures, this is what needs to be studied in order to find the root of religion because
this is the first religion. The social rituals form the individuals beliefs; individual beliefs do not
construct the rituals. Religious traditions may change within a single sect, traditions vary from
religion to religion, but ceremonies endure because they bind individuals. This binding is what
forms a social unit; therefore, religion will never disappear and science will not replace it.
In todays society, Durkheims theory seems less relevant than it may have been to
primitive societies. If the function of religion is to restore a sense of unity, and the function of
sacred things is to unite the moral, and if religion has not been replaced by science, and if
civilization is evolutionary, then according to Durkheim, todays world should be tightly bound.
In light of the modern-day wars, derision, and religious backlash, Durkheims theory seems
obsolete.

2011 Mary M. Wanser.

All rights reserved.