Chapter 13: The Elementary Forms of the Religious LIfe

In Chapter 13 Durkheim begins by explaining why he feels his methods for studying religion are best. He explains that in the past people studying religion have started with their assumptions and made hypotheses that were set up to get the answers that they wanted them to. Also they chose to study religions that fit into the points they were trying to make. Another downfall of most of the religion study going on a this point Durkheim points out is that many religions are very much comprised of things of secondary importance and it is hard to find what is primary and necessary to the religions and what has simply been added on over time because of the changes made over time.



In “lower societies” as Durkheim puts it, religion is more primitive, there is less development of individuality and personalities and religious beliefs are less differentiation. Therefore, Durkheim argues that studying more primitive religions makes it easier to see what is primary, what the religion is truly centered on, “Since the facts are simpler the relations between them are more apparent. The reasons with which men account for their acts have not yet been elaborated and denatured by studied reflection; they are nearer and more closely related to the motives which have really determined these acts…”
This idea makes sense to me, because time has a way of complicating things, and taking organizations further from their purpose. As an example, it would be much simpler to see what the true meanings, goals and purpose of Christianity were in the days when Jesus was alive or when the apostles were alive and the purpose was clear, what Jesus wanted was all that was important and his words were still fresh. It would be much harder to see what was of primary importance hundreds of years latter when the Catholic church had become a political power and largely corrupt, it would be very hard to study it then and see what was truly important to the religion.
Another distinction that Durkheim feels is very important is that between a religion and religion in general. Religion in general has many important characteristics but it is impossible to find these things by looking at a particular religion, it is imperative that those studying to look at many different religions if it is going to be possible to see what is true of religion in general. Durkheim specifies that it is not the surface level things they have in common that is important, not the rituals and visible things that are important, but things like cosmology (an idea of how the universe began and the structure of it) and some sort of divinity, though Durkheim points out that it is a mistake made because of the religions of familiarity that it must have a god. I think he makes good points here as well, that religion is a hard subject to study objectively, but it is important if people are to make points about generalized religion.
Durkheim points out that knowledge, science, and philosophy have roots in religion. He points out that the domain of religion has been narrowed in recent history. That religion used to be the authority on all realms of life instead of it’s narrow domain in peoples lives now. It used to be that everything in life was dictated by what religion said about it, now even more than when Durkheim was alive. Now church and state are legally separated, and most people feel that religion is a thing for Sunday mornings and not a way to live their lives.
Aristotle called the intellectual ‘roots of our judgment’ categories of understanding. Durkheim explains that these ideas: time, space, class, number, cause, substance, personality, etc. are necessary frame which allows us to understand things. He goes on to say that this is a sort of logical conformity that we all must adhere to in order to be able to understand one another. These are the things that we must assume everyone else is on the same page, and therefore allows social interaction. Because of the importance of these ideas they are intensely internalized. And If someone operates outside of these walls it makes them ‘inhuman’ in a way because it isn’t possible to be social, and therefore not a human. It is an interesting idea to think of an intellectual frame work that is what allows us to interact with each other. Think of how much must be assumed for people to interact.
These categories of understanding are found in primary religion Durkheim explains, “They are born in religion and of religion; the are a product of religious thought” This is also showing how much religion is a part of all of life, and how much religiosity shaped how life evolved and is a part of things that today we wouldn’t consider religious.
He goes on to split thought into two different kinds. Durkheim splits it into empirical (provable or verifiable by experience or experiment) and thought which is more complex, and less provable, more intellectually fathomable . He compares them to the individual and how the individual within society. He explains that, “There are two beings in him: an individual being which has its foundation in the organism and the circle of whose activities is therefore strictly limited, and the social being which represents the highest reality in the intellectual and moral order that we can know by observation - I mean society.” He shows that by being a part of society a man can rise above the limitations of his singular physical boundaries. Durkheim explains that society raises the need for the individual to rise above the limits of himself and religion is a way for him to do just that.
Religion is often a way for a person or people to become more important that they are as individuals, but society in the same way can be a way that people go beyond the limitations of being just one person. Religion can also give purpose to society that makes it more stable. For example feudalism relied heavily on religion as a way to keep things the way they were. By saying that it was God that said those who were power belonged there it gave much higher purpose to those ruling. Religion also allowed peasants to believe that they were not just toiling away with no reward, they could believe that they were going to be rewarded in the next life.
Imperfect societies forming the ideals and perfection of religion may seem unlikely, but Durkheim says that this makes as society develops an ideal develops along with it. “For society has constructed this new world in constructing itself, since it is society which this expresses. Thus both with the individual and in the group, the faculty of idealizing has nothing mysterious about it. It is not a sort of luxury which a man could get along without, but a condition of his very existence.” Also, religion isn’t only the perfect and ideal, there is divinity symbolizing evil and bad things too. He argues that religion is really an extension and exaggeration of real life, a reflection of society. Durkheim shows that religion is sort of like an intellectual answer to society. He suggests that religion is an explanation for the feelings we have but cannot explain though empirical, so they are explained by morphology. Durkheim suggests that, Showing that to construct a society an ideal is necessary.
This makes sense because society is not perfect or ideal, but when constructing a society there is an ideal which is trying to be reached. When making something new, or when growing it is hoped that it will be better, that it will be good, even though it isn’t always. This could be part of the reason that there is always an ideal created alongside the creation of a society.
“There can be no society which does not feel the need of upholding and reaffirming at regular intervals the collective sentiments and the collective ideas which make its unity and its personality.” This is Durkheim’s explanation for the physical manifestations of religion is that they what reminds people, what keeps the truth of their beliefs fresh. I think he is saying that these physical, empirical actions of religion is not the point of religion and more of the particular, not the general religion that it is much more important to understand, which is why ideas must be studied not just actions.
He ends with a section pointing out that there is a turning over of these ideals, along with the turn over of society. This brings back his point that it isn’t the ideal at odds with the real, its that two ideals are at odds with one another. I think this is an interesting point because whenever there is war or revolution it is the ideals that are told to the population, it is the ideals that make people willing to fight for one side or the other despite that there is often more pressing issues more based in reality that the war is really being waged over.
The beginning of Protestantism for example this was a clash of ideals, some felt it was better for individuals to have a more direct relationship with the Bible and with God. While others still held the ideal that what they were doing was right and the Church should have control over these things. It was not the ideal clashing with reality, it was the ideal associated with the reality clashing with an ideal that would be part of a new reality.