Wanser 1

Durkheim’s Theory of Religion

Émile 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 ones—like biology, psychology, and the self—to 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.

Durkheim’s 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 neurosis—a negative social aspect—while for Durkheim religion is

the evidence of underlying social health. Durkheim’s thesis is that religion is a symbolic

expression of social reality. He claims that worshiping a totem showed loyalty to one’s 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 changed—economically 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 Durkheim’s 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 individual’s 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 today’s society, Durkheim’s 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, today’s world should be tightly bound.

In light of the modern-day wars, derision, and religious backlash, Durkheim’s theory seems

obsolete.

© 2011 Mary M. Wanser.

All rights reserved.