What do you think?
Rate this book
丕賱兀卮賰丕賱 丕賱兀賵賱賷丞 賱賱丨賷丕丞 丕賱丿賷賳賷丞: 丕賱賲賳馗賵賲丞 丕賱胤賵胤賲賷丞 賮賷 兀爻鬲乇丕賱賷丕
賷毓賲丿 丿賵乇賰賴丕賷賲 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 廿賱賶 鬲胤賵賷乇 賳馗乇賷丞 毓丕賲丞 毓賳 丕賱丿賷賳 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 鬲丨賱賷賱 丕賱賲丐爻爻丕鬲 丕賱丿賷賳賷丞 丕賱亘丿丕卅賷丞 丕賱兀賰孬乇 亘爻丕胤丞貙 賵賷噩丕丿賱 賮賷賴 亘兀賳 丕賱丿賷賳 賴賵 賲噩賲賵毓丞 賲賳 丕賱毓賯丕卅丿 賵丕賱毓丕丿丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 賷賵噩丿 亘賷賳賴丕 毓賱丕賯丕鬲 賲鬲亘丕丿賱丞 賵賲乇鬲亘胤丞 亘兀卮賷丕亍 賲賯丿爻丞貙 賵賷賯鬲乇丨 鬲氐賵乇賸丕 噩丿賷丿賸丕 賱賱丿賷賳 賵賱賱賯賵賶 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 賷賳鬲噩賴丕. 賵賷丐賰丿 兀賳 丕賱鬲賲孬賱丕鬲 丕賱丿賷賳賷丞 廿賳賲丕 賴賷 鬲賲孬賾賱丕鬲 噩賲毓賷丞貙 賵兀賳 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 賴賵 賲氐丿乇 丕賱丿賷賳貨 賮丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 兀賮乇丕丿賴 賷禺賱賯 丕賱丿賷賳 毓亘乇 鬲毓乇賷賮賴 賱馗賵丕賴乇 賲毓賷賳丞 亘兀賳賴丕 賲賯丿爻丞 賵兀禺乇賶 亘兀賳賴丕 賲丿賳爻丞貙 賵賴匕丕 卮兀賳 賲賵噩賵丿 賮賷 賰賱 丿賷丕賳丕鬲 丕賱毓丕賱賲. 賰賲丕 賷乇賶 兀賳 丕賱丿賷賳 賷卮賰賱 丕賱乇丨賲 丕賱匕賷 賵賱丿鬲 賮賷賴 丕賱丨囟丕乇丞貙 賵賷毓鬲亘乇賴 丕賱卮賰賱 丕賱亘丕乇夭 賱賱丨賷丕丞 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞. 賷丨鬲賵賷 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賵氐賮賸丕 賵鬲丨賱賷賱賸丕 賲賮氐賱賸丕 毓賳 賲噩賲賵毓丞 丕賱毓卮丕卅乇貙 賵毓賳 丕賱胤賵胤賲賷丞 賮賷 丿丕禺賱 亘毓囟 丕賱賯亘丕卅賱 丕賱兀爻鬲乇丕賱賷丞貙 賲毓 匕賰乇 胤賮賷賮 賱賱賯亘丕卅賱 丕賱兀賲賷乇賰賷丞. 賰賲丕 賷胤乇丨 賳馗乇賷丞 毓賳 賲丕賴賷丞 丕賱丿賷賳 鬲毓鬲賲丿 毓賱賶 亘丨賵孬 丕賱胤賵胤賲賷丞 丕賱兀爻鬲乇丕賱賷丞. 賵賮賷 丕賱賳賴丕賷丞 賷毓胤賷 丿賵乇賰賴丕賷賲 鬲賮爻賷乇賸丕 爻賵爻賷賵賱賵噩賷賸丕 賱賱氐賵乇 丕賱賲禺鬲賱賮丞 賱賱賮賰乇 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷貙 賮賷 賲丕 賷毓鬲亘乇 賲賯丿賲丞 賮賷 毓賱賲 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓 丕賱廿丿乇丕賰賷. 丕賱賲丐賱賮: 廿賲賷賱 丿賵乇賰賴丕賷賲 (1858-1917)貙 兀丨丿 乇賵丕丿 毓賱賲 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓 賵丕賱兀賳孬乇賵亘賵賱賵噩賷丕 匕賵 爻賲毓丞 毓丕賱賲賷丞. 賰丕賳 兀爻鬲丕匕賸丕 賱賱鬲乇亘賷丞 賵毓賱賲 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓 賮賷 噩丕賲毓丞 丕賱爻賵乇亘賵賳 亘亘丕乇賷爻貙 賵賲賳 賲丐爻爻賷 丕賱賲丿乇爻丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 賱毓賱賲 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓. 兀爻賾爻 賲噩賱丞 L鈥橝nn茅e sociologique 賮賷 毓丕賲 1896 賵賳卮乇 賮賷賴丕 兀亘丨丕孬賴 賵兀亘丨丕孬 胤賱丕亘賴 賵夭賲賱丕卅賴 丕賱兀賰丕丿賷賲賷賷賳. 鬲兀孬乇 亘賲賳 爻亘賯賵賴貙 賵賲賳 兀賴賲賴賲 賴乇亘乇鬲 爻亘賳爻乇 賵兀賵睾爻鬲 賰賵賳鬲貙 賵賰丕賳 鬲兀孬賷乇賴 賰亘賷乇賸丕 賮賷 丕賱亘丕丨孬賷賳 丕賱匕賷賳 兀鬲賵丕 亘毓丿賴貙 賵賲賳賴賲 賲丕乇爻賷賱 賲賵爻 賵亘賷丕乇 亘賵乇丿賷賵 賵賲賵乇賷爻 賴丕賱亘賵丕禺 賵賰賱賵丿 賱賷賮賷 卮鬲乇丕賵爻. 賲賳 兀賴賲 兀毓賲丕賱賴: 賮賷 鬲賯爻賷賲 丕賱毓賲賱 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷貨 丕賱丕賳鬲丨丕乇貨 賯賵丕毓丿 丕賱賲賳賴噩 賮賷 毓賱賲 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓. 丕賱賲鬲乇噩賲: 乇賳丿丞 亘毓孬貙 賲鬲乇噩賲丞 爻賵乇賷丞貙 丨丕氐賱丞 毓賱賶 賲丕噩爻鬲賷乇 賮賷 丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞 賵丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞 丕賱賮賵乇賷丞 賲賳 噩丕賲毓丞 丿賲卮賯貙 賵毓賱賶 丿亘賱賵賲 賮賷 丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞 賲賳 噩丕賲毓丞 賱賷賵賳 丕賱孬丕賳賷丞. 賲賳 鬲乇噩賲丕鬲賴丕: 兀夭賲丞 丕賱賴賵賷丕鬲 賱賰賱賵丿 丿賵亘丕乇 (2008)貨 兀夭賲丞 丕賱胤亘賯丕鬲 丕賱賵爻胤賶 賮賷 丕賱賲卮乇賯 丕賱毓乇亘賷 賱廿賱賷夭丕亘賷孬 賱賵賳睾賳賷爻 (2012)貨 丕賱亘丕亘 - 賲賯丕乇亘丞 廿孬賳賵賱賵噩賷丞 賱亘丕爻賰丕賱 丿賷亘賷 (2017).
608 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1912
300 people are currently reading
7,149 people want to read
About the author
脡mile Durkheim
330听books760听followersMuch of Durkheim's work was concerned with how societies could maintain their integrity and coherence in modernity; an era in which traditional social and religious ties are no longer assumed, and in which new social institutions have come into being. His first major sociological work was The Division of Labor in Society (1893). In 1895, he published his Rules of the Sociological Method and set up the first European department of sociology, becoming France's first professor of sociology.
In 1896, he established the journal L'Ann茅e Sociologique. Durkheim's seminal monograph, Suicide (1897), a study of suicide rates amongst Catholic and Protestant populations, pioneered modern social research and served to distinguish social science from psychology and political philosophy. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (1912), presented a theory of religion, comparing the social and cultural lives of aboriginal and modern societies.
Durkheim was also deeply preoccupied with the acceptance of sociology as a legitimate science. He refined the positivism originally set forth by Auguste Comte, promoting what could be considered as a form of epistemological realism, as well as the use of the hypothetico-deductive model in social science. For him, sociology was the science of institutions,[citation needed] its aim being to discover structural social facts. Durkheim was a major proponent of structural functionalism, a foundational perspective in both sociology and anthropology. In his view, social science should be purely holistic; that is, sociology should study phenomena attributed to society at large, rather than being limited to the specific actions of individuals.
He remained a dominant force in French intellectual life until his death in 1917, presenting numerous lectures and published works on a variety of topics, including the sociology of knowledge, morality, social stratification, religion, law, education, and deviance. Durkheimian terms such as "collective consciousness" have since entered the popular lexicon.
In 1896, he established the journal L'Ann茅e Sociologique. Durkheim's seminal monograph, Suicide (1897), a study of suicide rates amongst Catholic and Protestant populations, pioneered modern social research and served to distinguish social science from psychology and political philosophy. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (1912), presented a theory of religion, comparing the social and cultural lives of aboriginal and modern societies.
Durkheim was also deeply preoccupied with the acceptance of sociology as a legitimate science. He refined the positivism originally set forth by Auguste Comte, promoting what could be considered as a form of epistemological realism, as well as the use of the hypothetico-deductive model in social science. For him, sociology was the science of institutions,[citation needed] its aim being to discover structural social facts. Durkheim was a major proponent of structural functionalism, a foundational perspective in both sociology and anthropology. In his view, social science should be purely holistic; that is, sociology should study phenomena attributed to society at large, rather than being limited to the specific actions of individuals.
He remained a dominant force in French intellectual life until his death in 1917, presenting numerous lectures and published works on a variety of topics, including the sociology of knowledge, morality, social stratification, religion, law, education, and deviance. Durkheimian terms such as "collective consciousness" have since entered the popular lexicon.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 167 reviews
January 7, 2024
丕賲蹖賱 丿賵乇讴蹖賲 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘貙 亘賴 噩賳亘賴贁 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 丿蹖賳 鬲賵噩賴 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 賵 丕蹖賳 噩賳亘賴 乇丕 丕爻丕爻 丿蹖賳 亘賴 丨爻丕亘 賲蹖鈥屫①堌必�. 亘賴 亘丕賵乇 丿賵乇讴蹖賲貙 丕诏乇 丿蹖賳 賴賲趩賳丕賳 讴賴 賴蹖賵賲 賵 丿蹖诏乇 丿蹖賳鈥屬沮樫堎囏з� 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳 賲蹖鈥屭佖嗀� 鬲賳賴丕 賲亘鬲賳蹖 亘乇 卮賳丕禺鬲蹖 賳丕丿乇爻鬲 賵 丨鬲蹖 丕丨賲賯丕賳賴 丕夭 胤亘蹖毓鬲 亘賵丿貙 禺蹖賱蹖 夭賵丿 丕夭 亘蹖賳 賲蹖鈥屫辟佖�. 丿蹖賳 丕夭 賳馗乇 丿賵乇讴蹖賲 噩賳亘賴鈥屫й� 丨賯蹖賯蹖 丿丕乇丿 讴賴 亘賴 乇睾賲 禺胤丕賴丕蹖 卮賳丕禺鬲蹖貙 丿蹖賳 乇丕 胤蹖 鬲丕乇蹖禺 胤賵賱丕賳蹖鈥屫ж� 丨賮馗 讴乇丿賴 賵 丕蹖賳 賴賲丕賳 噩賳亘賴贁 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 丿蹖賳 丕爻鬲. 丿蹖賳 倬蹖卮 丕夭 丌賳 讴賴 趩蹖夭蹖 亘丕卮丿 讴賴 蹖讴 賮乇丿 賲蹖鈥屬嗀篡屬嗀� 賵 亘賴 丌賳 賮讴乇 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 芦讴丕乇蹖禄 丕爻鬲 讴賴 蹖讴 诏乇賵賴 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 诏乇丿 賲蹖鈥屫③屬嗀� 賵 丕賳噩丕賲 賲蹖鈥屫囐嗀�.
丿賵乇讴蹖賲 亘乇丕蹖 賲胤丕賱毓踿 诏賵賴乇 丕氐賱蹖 丿蹖賳貙 亘賴 爻乇丕睾 爻丕丿賴鈥屫臂屬� 丿蹖賳 賲蹖鈥屫辟堌�. 趩乇丕 讴賴 丿蹖賳鈥屬囏й� 倬蹖趩蹖丿賴 亘賴 賲乇賵乇 夭賲丕賳 亘丕 丌賲賵夭賴鈥屬囏й� 賮賱爻賮賴 蹖賵賳丕賳 賵 丨賯賵賯 乇賵賲 賵 亘爻蹖丕乇蹖 趩蹖夭賴丕蹖 丿蹖诏乇 丌賲蹖禺鬲賴 卮丿賴鈥屫з嗀� 賵 丿蹖诏乇 丿蹖賳 禺丕賱氐 乇丕 亘丕夭賳賲丕蹖蹖 賳賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁嗀�. 亘賱讴賴 鬲乇讴蹖亘蹖 丕夭 賴賲踿 丿爻鬲丕賵乇丿賴丕蹖 賮乇賴賳诏蹖 亘卮乇 卮丿賴鈥屫з嗀�. 丿乇 丕蹖賳 乇丕爻鬲丕貙 丿賵乇讴蹖賲 亘丕 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 趩賳丿 爻賳鬲 丿蹖賳蹖 丿乇 丕爻鬲乇丕賱蹖丕 賵 倬爻 丕夭 丌賳 爻乇禺倬賵爻鬲丕賳 丌賲乇蹖讴丕 (讴賴 丿乇 賳馗乇 丿賵乇讴蹖賲 丿蹖賳卮丕賳 亘賴 爻丕丿诏蹖 賵 禺賱賵氐 丿蹖賳 丕爻鬲乇丕賱蹖丕蹖蹖鈥屬囏� 賳蹖爻鬲 賵 倬蹖卮乇賮鬲鈥屬囏� 賵 丌賲蹖禺鬲诏蹖鈥屬囏й屰� 丿丕卮鬲賴 丕爻鬲) 賲胤丕賱毓賴 禺賵丿 乇丕 丌睾丕夭 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�.
丿賵乇讴蹖賲 鬲賵噩賴 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 讴賴 丿乇 噩賵丕賲毓 亘丿賵蹖 丕爻鬲乇丕賱蹖丕蹖蹖貙 賲丨賵乇 丕氐賱蹖 丿蹖賳 賳賴 蹖讴 卮蹖亍 禺丕氐貙 亘賱讴賴 蹖讴 讴蹖賮蹖鬲 丕爻鬲. 賴乇 趩賳丿 丿乇 賳馗乇 丕賵賱 丕蹖賳 噩賵丕賲毓 蹖讴 噩丕賳賵乇 蹖丕 诏蹖丕賴 鬲賵鬲賲蹖 乇丕 賲蹖鈥屬矩必池嗀� 丕賲丕 亘丕 丿賯鬲 丿乇 乇賮鬲丕乇卮丕賳 賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 丿蹖丿 讴賴 丌賳 丨蹖賵丕賳 禺丕氐 蹖丕 丕蹖賳 诏蹖丕賴 禺丕氐 賳蹖爻鬲賳丿 讴賴 賲賵囟賵毓 倬乇爻鬲卮賳丿. 趩乇丕 讴賴 賲蹖鈥屫ㄛ屬嗃屬� 賲賲讴賳 丕爻鬲 蹖讴 爻賳诏 賲毓賲賵賱蹖 亘丕 胤乇丨 鬲賵鬲賲 丿乇 賲賳丕爻讴 賯亘蹖賱賴鈥屫й� 賲賵乇丿 倬乇爻鬲卮 賯乇丕乇 诏蹖乇丿 賵 倬爻 丕夭 倬丕蹖丕賳 賲乇丕爻賲 亘賴 爻丕丿诏蹖 亘賴 丿賵乇 丕賳丿丕禺鬲賴 卮賵丿. 丨鬲蹖 禺賵丿 賳賲丕丿 鬲賵鬲賲 賳蹖夭 賲賵囟賵毓 丕氐賱蹖 倬乇爻鬲卮 賳蹖爻鬲. 亘賱讴賴 讴蹖賮蹖鬲 賲賯丿爻 亘賵丿賳貙 丿乇 賲賯丕亘賱 賳丕賲賯丿爻 亘賵丿賳貙 讴蹖賮蹖鬲蹖 睾蹖乇賲賱賲賵爻 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丿乇 趩蹖夭蹖 賯乇丕乇 賲蹖鈥屭屫必� 賵 丌賳 乇丕 賲賯丿爻 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�. 亘丕 亘乇乇爻蹖 丕賲賵乇 賲賯丿爻 賵 賳丕賲賯丿爻 丿乇 賲蹖丕賳 賯亘丕蹖賱 亘丿賵蹖貙 丿賵乇讴蹖賲 賳卮丕賳 賲蹖鈥屫囏� 讴賴 賴乇 丌賳 趩賴 亘賴 夭賳丿诏蹖 卮禺氐蹖 賵 賳蹖丕夭賴丕蹖 乇賵夭賲乇賴 賲乇亘賵胤 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 賳丕賲賯丿爻 丕爻鬲貙 賵 賴乇 丌賳 趩賴 亘賴 夭賳丿诏蹖 噩賲毓蹖 賯亘蹖賱賴 賲乇亘賵胤 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 賲賯丿爻. 丿乇 丨賯蹖賯鬲 丕蹖賳 禺賵丿 丨蹖丕鬲 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 賯亘蹖賱賴 丕爻鬲 讴賴 趩蹖夭蹖 乇丕 賲賯丿爻 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 賵 鬲賵鬲賲 賳蹖夭 丿乇 賲乇丨賱賴贁 丕賵賱 賳賴 蹖讴 丨蹖賵丕賳 禺丕乇噩蹖貙 亘賱讴賴 賳賲丕丿 蹖丕 倬乇趩賲 賯亘蹖賱賴 丕爻鬲. 賳賲丕丿蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘賴 匕賴賳 爻丕丿賴贁 丕賳爻丕賳 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳 丕噩丕夭賴 賲蹖鈥屫ж� 亘賴 趩蹖夭蹖 丕賳鬲夭丕毓蹖 讴賴 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗀池� 丿乇爻鬲 丿乇讴 讴賳丿 (丨蹖丕鬲 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖) 卮讴賱 毓蹖賳蹖 賵 亘蹖乇賵賳蹖 亘丿賴丿 鬲丕 亘鬲賵丕賳丿 賲賵囟賵毓 倬乇爻鬲卮 賯乇丕乇 诏蹖乇丿. 噩賵丕賲毓 丕亘鬲丿丕蹖蹖 亘丕 鬲賵鬲賲鈥屬矩必池� 賵 噩賵丕賲毓 亘毓丿蹖 亘丕 賳賲丕丿賴丕蹖 丿蹖賳蹖 丿蹖诏乇貙 丿乇 丨賯蹖賯鬲 禺賵丿 乇丕 賲蹖鈥屬矩必池屫嗀�. 禺賵丿 乇丕 丿乇 賳賲丕丿蹖 禺丕乇噩蹖 讴賴 賳賲丕丿 賵丨丿鬲卮丕賳 亘賵丿 亘乇賵賳鈥屬佢┵嗃� 賲蹖鈥屭┴必嗀� 賵 丿乇 丌蹖賳踿 丌賳貙 禺賵丿 乇丕 賲蹖鈥屬矩必池屫嗀�.
丿賵乇讴蹖賲 爻倬爻 丕蹖賳 賮毓丕賱蹖鬲 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 乇丕 讴賴 丿蹖賳 賲蹖鈥屬嗀з呚� 丿乇 賲賯丕亘賱 賮毓丕賱蹖鬲蹖 賮乇丿蹖 賯乇丕乇 賲蹖鈥屫囏� 讴賴 噩丕丿賵 賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗀� 賵 鬲賮丕賵鬲鈥屬囏й� 丌賳鈥屬囏� 乇丕 亘乇乇爻蹖 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�. 噩丕丿賵 亘乇 禺賱丕賮 丿蹖賳 讴賱蹖爻丕 蹖丕 賲毓亘丿蹖 亘乇丕蹖 丕噩鬲賲丕毓 賵 毓亘丕丿鬲 噩賲毓蹖 賳丿丕乇丿. 賮乇丿 亘賳丕 亘賴 賳蹖丕夭 卮禺氐蹖 爻乇丕睾 噩丕丿賵诏乇 賲蹖鈥屫辟堌� 賵 倬爻 丕夭 亘乇胤乇賮 卮丿賳 賳蹖丕夭卮 丕夭 噩丕丿賵诏乇 噩丿丕 賲蹖鈥屫促堌�. 賵噩賴 爻賵丿胤賱亘丕賳賴 賵 賮乇丿蹖 噩丕丿賵 丌賳 乇丕 丕夭 丿蹖賳 噩丿丕 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�.
丕蹖賳 賵噩賴 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 丿蹖賳 鬲賳賴丕 丕賲乇蹖 丕賳鬲夭丕毓蹖 賳蹖爻鬲貙 亘賱讴賴 丨賯蹖賯鬲丕 丿乇 噩賲毓鈥屬囏й� 丿蹖賳蹖貙 丕賮乇丕丿 丨丕賱鬲 乇賵丕賳卮賳丕禺鬲蹖 禺丕氐蹖 鬲噩乇亘賴 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁嗀� 讴賴 丿乇 賮毓丕賱蹖鬲 丿蹖賳蹖 賲賳賮乇丿 鬲噩乇亘賴 賳賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁嗀�. 禺賱爻賴鈥屬囏� 賵 丕丨爻丕爻 賵丨丿鬲 亘丕 噩賲毓 賵 诏匕卮鬲賳 丕夭 賮乇丿蹖鬲 禺賵丿 賵 睾乇賯 卮丿賳 丿乇 卮賵乇 噩賲毓貙 鬲噩乇亘賴鈥屬囏й� 賵丕賯毓蹖 乇賵丕賳蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丕賮乇丕丿 丿乇 丕蹖賳 丕噩鬲賲丕毓丕鬲 鬲噩乇亘賴 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁嗀�.
丿賵乇讴蹖賲 亘乇丕蹖 賲胤丕賱毓踿 诏賵賴乇 丕氐賱蹖 丿蹖賳貙 亘賴 爻乇丕睾 爻丕丿賴鈥屫臂屬� 丿蹖賳 賲蹖鈥屫辟堌�. 趩乇丕 讴賴 丿蹖賳鈥屬囏й� 倬蹖趩蹖丿賴 亘賴 賲乇賵乇 夭賲丕賳 亘丕 丌賲賵夭賴鈥屬囏й� 賮賱爻賮賴 蹖賵賳丕賳 賵 丨賯賵賯 乇賵賲 賵 亘爻蹖丕乇蹖 趩蹖夭賴丕蹖 丿蹖诏乇 丌賲蹖禺鬲賴 卮丿賴鈥屫з嗀� 賵 丿蹖诏乇 丿蹖賳 禺丕賱氐 乇丕 亘丕夭賳賲丕蹖蹖 賳賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁嗀�. 亘賱讴賴 鬲乇讴蹖亘蹖 丕夭 賴賲踿 丿爻鬲丕賵乇丿賴丕蹖 賮乇賴賳诏蹖 亘卮乇 卮丿賴鈥屫з嗀�. 丿乇 丕蹖賳 乇丕爻鬲丕貙 丿賵乇讴蹖賲 亘丕 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 趩賳丿 爻賳鬲 丿蹖賳蹖 丿乇 丕爻鬲乇丕賱蹖丕 賵 倬爻 丕夭 丌賳 爻乇禺倬賵爻鬲丕賳 丌賲乇蹖讴丕 (讴賴 丿乇 賳馗乇 丿賵乇讴蹖賲 丿蹖賳卮丕賳 亘賴 爻丕丿诏蹖 賵 禺賱賵氐 丿蹖賳 丕爻鬲乇丕賱蹖丕蹖蹖鈥屬囏� 賳蹖爻鬲 賵 倬蹖卮乇賮鬲鈥屬囏� 賵 丌賲蹖禺鬲诏蹖鈥屬囏й屰� 丿丕卮鬲賴 丕爻鬲) 賲胤丕賱毓賴 禺賵丿 乇丕 丌睾丕夭 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�.
丿賵乇讴蹖賲 鬲賵噩賴 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 讴賴 丿乇 噩賵丕賲毓 亘丿賵蹖 丕爻鬲乇丕賱蹖丕蹖蹖貙 賲丨賵乇 丕氐賱蹖 丿蹖賳 賳賴 蹖讴 卮蹖亍 禺丕氐貙 亘賱讴賴 蹖讴 讴蹖賮蹖鬲 丕爻鬲. 賴乇 趩賳丿 丿乇 賳馗乇 丕賵賱 丕蹖賳 噩賵丕賲毓 蹖讴 噩丕賳賵乇 蹖丕 诏蹖丕賴 鬲賵鬲賲蹖 乇丕 賲蹖鈥屬矩必池嗀� 丕賲丕 亘丕 丿賯鬲 丿乇 乇賮鬲丕乇卮丕賳 賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 丿蹖丿 讴賴 丌賳 丨蹖賵丕賳 禺丕氐 蹖丕 丕蹖賳 诏蹖丕賴 禺丕氐 賳蹖爻鬲賳丿 讴賴 賲賵囟賵毓 倬乇爻鬲卮賳丿. 趩乇丕 讴賴 賲蹖鈥屫ㄛ屬嗃屬� 賲賲讴賳 丕爻鬲 蹖讴 爻賳诏 賲毓賲賵賱蹖 亘丕 胤乇丨 鬲賵鬲賲 丿乇 賲賳丕爻讴 賯亘蹖賱賴鈥屫й� 賲賵乇丿 倬乇爻鬲卮 賯乇丕乇 诏蹖乇丿 賵 倬爻 丕夭 倬丕蹖丕賳 賲乇丕爻賲 亘賴 爻丕丿诏蹖 亘賴 丿賵乇 丕賳丿丕禺鬲賴 卮賵丿. 丨鬲蹖 禺賵丿 賳賲丕丿 鬲賵鬲賲 賳蹖夭 賲賵囟賵毓 丕氐賱蹖 倬乇爻鬲卮 賳蹖爻鬲. 亘賱讴賴 讴蹖賮蹖鬲 賲賯丿爻 亘賵丿賳貙 丿乇 賲賯丕亘賱 賳丕賲賯丿爻 亘賵丿賳貙 讴蹖賮蹖鬲蹖 睾蹖乇賲賱賲賵爻 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丿乇 趩蹖夭蹖 賯乇丕乇 賲蹖鈥屭屫必� 賵 丌賳 乇丕 賲賯丿爻 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�. 亘丕 亘乇乇爻蹖 丕賲賵乇 賲賯丿爻 賵 賳丕賲賯丿爻 丿乇 賲蹖丕賳 賯亘丕蹖賱 亘丿賵蹖貙 丿賵乇讴蹖賲 賳卮丕賳 賲蹖鈥屫囏� 讴賴 賴乇 丌賳 趩賴 亘賴 夭賳丿诏蹖 卮禺氐蹖 賵 賳蹖丕夭賴丕蹖 乇賵夭賲乇賴 賲乇亘賵胤 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 賳丕賲賯丿爻 丕爻鬲貙 賵 賴乇 丌賳 趩賴 亘賴 夭賳丿诏蹖 噩賲毓蹖 賯亘蹖賱賴 賲乇亘賵胤 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 賲賯丿爻. 丿乇 丨賯蹖賯鬲 丕蹖賳 禺賵丿 丨蹖丕鬲 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 賯亘蹖賱賴 丕爻鬲 讴賴 趩蹖夭蹖 乇丕 賲賯丿爻 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 賵 鬲賵鬲賲 賳蹖夭 丿乇 賲乇丨賱賴贁 丕賵賱 賳賴 蹖讴 丨蹖賵丕賳 禺丕乇噩蹖貙 亘賱讴賴 賳賲丕丿 蹖丕 倬乇趩賲 賯亘蹖賱賴 丕爻鬲. 賳賲丕丿蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘賴 匕賴賳 爻丕丿賴贁 丕賳爻丕賳 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳 丕噩丕夭賴 賲蹖鈥屫ж� 亘賴 趩蹖夭蹖 丕賳鬲夭丕毓蹖 讴賴 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗀池� 丿乇爻鬲 丿乇讴 讴賳丿 (丨蹖丕鬲 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖) 卮讴賱 毓蹖賳蹖 賵 亘蹖乇賵賳蹖 亘丿賴丿 鬲丕 亘鬲賵丕賳丿 賲賵囟賵毓 倬乇爻鬲卮 賯乇丕乇 诏蹖乇丿. 噩賵丕賲毓 丕亘鬲丿丕蹖蹖 亘丕 鬲賵鬲賲鈥屬矩必池� 賵 噩賵丕賲毓 亘毓丿蹖 亘丕 賳賲丕丿賴丕蹖 丿蹖賳蹖 丿蹖诏乇貙 丿乇 丨賯蹖賯鬲 禺賵丿 乇丕 賲蹖鈥屬矩必池屫嗀�. 禺賵丿 乇丕 丿乇 賳賲丕丿蹖 禺丕乇噩蹖 讴賴 賳賲丕丿 賵丨丿鬲卮丕賳 亘賵丿 亘乇賵賳鈥屬佢┵嗃� 賲蹖鈥屭┴必嗀� 賵 丿乇 丌蹖賳踿 丌賳貙 禺賵丿 乇丕 賲蹖鈥屬矩必池屫嗀�.
丿賵乇讴蹖賲 爻倬爻 丕蹖賳 賮毓丕賱蹖鬲 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 乇丕 讴賴 丿蹖賳 賲蹖鈥屬嗀з呚� 丿乇 賲賯丕亘賱 賮毓丕賱蹖鬲蹖 賮乇丿蹖 賯乇丕乇 賲蹖鈥屫囏� 讴賴 噩丕丿賵 賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗀� 賵 鬲賮丕賵鬲鈥屬囏й� 丌賳鈥屬囏� 乇丕 亘乇乇爻蹖 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�. 噩丕丿賵 亘乇 禺賱丕賮 丿蹖賳 讴賱蹖爻丕 蹖丕 賲毓亘丿蹖 亘乇丕蹖 丕噩鬲賲丕毓 賵 毓亘丕丿鬲 噩賲毓蹖 賳丿丕乇丿. 賮乇丿 亘賳丕 亘賴 賳蹖丕夭 卮禺氐蹖 爻乇丕睾 噩丕丿賵诏乇 賲蹖鈥屫辟堌� 賵 倬爻 丕夭 亘乇胤乇賮 卮丿賳 賳蹖丕夭卮 丕夭 噩丕丿賵诏乇 噩丿丕 賲蹖鈥屫促堌�. 賵噩賴 爻賵丿胤賱亘丕賳賴 賵 賮乇丿蹖 噩丕丿賵 丌賳 乇丕 丕夭 丿蹖賳 噩丿丕 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�.
丕蹖賳 賵噩賴 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 丿蹖賳 鬲賳賴丕 丕賲乇蹖 丕賳鬲夭丕毓蹖 賳蹖爻鬲貙 亘賱讴賴 丨賯蹖賯鬲丕 丿乇 噩賲毓鈥屬囏й� 丿蹖賳蹖貙 丕賮乇丕丿 丨丕賱鬲 乇賵丕賳卮賳丕禺鬲蹖 禺丕氐蹖 鬲噩乇亘賴 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁嗀� 讴賴 丿乇 賮毓丕賱蹖鬲 丿蹖賳蹖 賲賳賮乇丿 鬲噩乇亘賴 賳賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁嗀�. 禺賱爻賴鈥屬囏� 賵 丕丨爻丕爻 賵丨丿鬲 亘丕 噩賲毓 賵 诏匕卮鬲賳 丕夭 賮乇丿蹖鬲 禺賵丿 賵 睾乇賯 卮丿賳 丿乇 卮賵乇 噩賲毓貙 鬲噩乇亘賴鈥屬囏й� 賵丕賯毓蹖 乇賵丕賳蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丕賮乇丕丿 丿乇 丕蹖賳 丕噩鬲賲丕毓丕鬲 鬲噩乇亘賴 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁嗀�.
August 17, 2015
As I meander through the social science of religion, Durkheim is a breath of fresh air. Frazer鈥檚 interpretations are interesting, and he has many accurate things to say about magical psychology. But in the end, his perspective is rather narrow. William James does a great job of explaining religious feelings without de-valuing them, and his discussion of mysticism is a must-read; but James fails to take into account the (extremely important) social aspects of religion. For me, Durkheim鈥檚 explanations are the most convincing and the most applicable. They transfer over from religion to all public spectacles 鈥� concerts, sports, civil ceremonies, etc. Although, it should be said that Durkheim鈥檚 discussion of the historical progression of religious ideas and his analysis of the aboriginals cannot be trusted. These parts of the book were the least interesting for me, and the least useful. Nevertheless, Durkheim manages to draw several general conclusions that make this book a must-read for any aspiring social scientists.
March 8, 2020
賲賯賵賱丕鬲 賮丕賴賲賴貙 夭亘丕賳貙 丿蹖賳 賵 爻丕蹖乇 丿爻鬲丕賵乇丿賴丕蹖 丕蹖賳趩賳蹖賳蹖 鬲賲丿賳 亘卮乇蹖 乇丕 蹖丕 亘丕蹖丿 亘丕 鬲賯賱蹖賱 丌賳鈥屬囏� 亘賴 讴丕乇讴乇丿賴丕蹖 賮蹖夭蹖賵賱賵跇蹖讴 匕賴賳 賵 亘丿賳 丕賳爻丕賳鈥屬囏� 鬲賮爻蹖乇 讴乇丿貙 蹖丕 丌賳鈥屬囏� 乇丕 亘賴 賳蹖乇賵賴丕蹖蹖 賲鬲毓丕賱蹖貙 賲丕賵乇丕蹖 亘卮乇 賵 睾蹖乇賯丕亘賱 卮賳丕禺鬲 毓賱賲蹖 賳爻亘鬲 丿丕丿. 丕賲丕 丿賵乇讴蹖賲貙 乇丕賴 爻賵賲蹖 倬蹖卮賳賴丕丿 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�. 丕賵 亘丕 鬲丨賯蹖賯丕鬲蹖 诏爻鬲乇丿賴 丿乇 丕丿蹖丕賳 亘丿賵蹖貙 賵 賳蹖夭 亘丕 賯丿乇鬲 丕爻鬲丿賱丕賱 賵 賳诏丕賴 丕賳鬲賯丕丿蹖 丿乇禺卮丕賳 禺賵丿貙 亘賴 賲丕 賳卮丕賳 賲蹖鈥屫囏� 讴賴 噩丕賲毓賴 賲賳卮丕 丕氐賱蹖 倬蹖丿丕蹖卮 賴賲賴 丕蹖賳 賲賮丕賴蹖賲 丕爻鬲. 丿賵乇讴蹖賲 噩丕賲毓賴 乇丕 賵噩賵丿蹖 賮乇丕鬲乇 丕夭 賮乇丿 賲蹖鈥屫з嗀� 讴賴 丕诏乇趩賴 丕夭 丕賮乇丕丿 鬲卮讴蹖賱 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲貙 丕賲丕 丕夭 賮乇丿 賮乇丿 丕毓囟丕蹖 鬲卮讴蹖賱鈥屫囐嗀� 禺賵丿 賮乇丕鬲乇 賲蹖鈥屫辟堌�. 鬲賳賴丕 亘賴 讴賲讴 噩丕賲毓賴 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賲賯賵賱丕鬲 賮丕賴賲賴貙 賲賯賵賱丕鬲蹖 讴賴 爻賳诏 亘賳丕蹖 鬲賮讴乇 賵 丕爻鬲丿賱丕賱 賲賳胤賯蹖 亘卮乇 丕爻鬲貙 賯丕亘賱蹖鬲 卮讴賱鈥屭屫臂� 丿丕乇賳丿. 鬲賳賴丕 噩丕賲毓賴 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗀� 丕夭 丨丿賵丿 賮乇丿 賮乇丕鬲乇 亘乇賵丿 賵 倬丿蹖丿賴鈥屬囏� 乇丕 丿乇 卮讴賱 毓丕賲 丌賳鈥屬囏� 亘亘蹖賳丿. 丕爻丕爻 鬲賮讴乇 賲賳胤賯蹖 賳蹖夭 賴賲蹖賳 丕爻鬲: 丕蹖噩丕丿 丕賲讴丕賳 賮乇丕鬲乇 乇賮鬲賳 丕夭 禺賵丿 賵 賲卮丕賴丿賴 倬丿蹖丿賴鈥屬囏� 丿乇 賯丕賱亘 毓丕賲 丌賳鈥屬囏� 讴賴 噩夭 亘賴 賵丕爻胤賴 噩丕賲毓賴 丕賲讴丕賳鈥屬矩佰屫� 賳蹖爻鬲.
鈥�
丿賵乇讴蹖賲 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘貙 丿蹖賳 乇丕 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳 丕亘夭丕乇 亘丕夭蹖丕亘蹖 丨蹖丕鬲 噩賲毓蹖 賲毓乇賮蹖 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�. 丿蹖賳貙 賳賴 鬲賳賴丕 蹖讴 禺蹖丕賱 賵 鬲賵賴賲 賳蹖爻鬲貙 亘賱讴賴 蹖讴 賵丕賯毓蹖鬲 毓蹖賳蹖 丕爻鬲. 噩丕賲毓賴 亘賴 讴賲讴 賲賳丕爻讴 丿蹖賳蹖貙 賴賲亘爻鬲诏蹖 禺賵丿 乇丕 鬲賯賵蹖鬲 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 賵 亘賴 丕毓囟丕蹖 禺賵丿 鬲賵丕賳蹖 賲蹖鈥屫ㄘ簇� 讴賴 賮乇丕鬲乇 丕夭 賯丿乇鬲 賮乇丿蹖 丌賳鈥屬囏ж池�.
鈥�
丿乇 卮乇丕蹖胤蹖 讴賴 丕賲乇賵夭 亘丕 賵賮賵乇 丕賳鬲卮丕乇 丌孬丕乇 毓賵丕賲鈥屬矩迟嗀� 賵 卮亘賴鈥屫官勝� 賲賵丕噩賴 賴爻鬲蹖賲貙 丌孬丕乇蹖 讴賴 氐乇賮丕 亘丕 鬲讴蹖賴 亘乇 卮賵丕賴丿 賲毓丿賵丿 賵 丕爻鬲丿賱丕賱鈥屬囏й� 囟毓蹖賮貙 鬲禺蹖賱丕鬲 賳賵蹖爻賳丿诏丕賳卮丕賳 乇丕 亘賴 禺賵乇丿 賲禺丕胤亘 賲蹖鈥屫囐嗀� 銆娯蒂堌� 亘賳蹖丕賳蹖 丨蹖丕鬲 丿蹖賳蹖銆� 丕夭 噩賴鬲 賮乇賲 賳蹖夭貙 亘賴 賲丕 賳卮丕賳 賲蹖鈥屫囏� 讴賴 蹖讴 鬲丨賯蹖賯 毓賱賲蹖 賵丕賯毓蹖貙 賴賲 丕夭 賳馗乇 丕胤賱丕毓丕鬲 賵 丿丕丿賴鈥屬囏й� 噩賲毓鈥屫①堌臂� 卮丿賴 賵 賴賲 丕夭 賳馗乇 賯丿乇鬲 丕爻鬲丿賱丕賱 賵 賳賯丿貙 賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗀� 丕夭 趩賴 睾賳丕蹖 丨蹖乇鬲鈥屫з嗂屫槽� 亘乇禺賵乇丿丕乇 亘丕卮丿.
鈥�
丿賵乇讴蹖賲 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘貙 丿蹖賳 乇丕 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳 丕亘夭丕乇 亘丕夭蹖丕亘蹖 丨蹖丕鬲 噩賲毓蹖 賲毓乇賮蹖 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�. 丿蹖賳貙 賳賴 鬲賳賴丕 蹖讴 禺蹖丕賱 賵 鬲賵賴賲 賳蹖爻鬲貙 亘賱讴賴 蹖讴 賵丕賯毓蹖鬲 毓蹖賳蹖 丕爻鬲. 噩丕賲毓賴 亘賴 讴賲讴 賲賳丕爻讴 丿蹖賳蹖貙 賴賲亘爻鬲诏蹖 禺賵丿 乇丕 鬲賯賵蹖鬲 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 賵 亘賴 丕毓囟丕蹖 禺賵丿 鬲賵丕賳蹖 賲蹖鈥屫ㄘ簇� 讴賴 賮乇丕鬲乇 丕夭 賯丿乇鬲 賮乇丿蹖 丌賳鈥屬囏ж池�.
鈥�
丿乇 卮乇丕蹖胤蹖 讴賴 丕賲乇賵夭 亘丕 賵賮賵乇 丕賳鬲卮丕乇 丌孬丕乇 毓賵丕賲鈥屬矩迟嗀� 賵 卮亘賴鈥屫官勝� 賲賵丕噩賴 賴爻鬲蹖賲貙 丌孬丕乇蹖 讴賴 氐乇賮丕 亘丕 鬲讴蹖賴 亘乇 卮賵丕賴丿 賲毓丿賵丿 賵 丕爻鬲丿賱丕賱鈥屬囏й� 囟毓蹖賮貙 鬲禺蹖賱丕鬲 賳賵蹖爻賳丿诏丕賳卮丕賳 乇丕 亘賴 禺賵乇丿 賲禺丕胤亘 賲蹖鈥屫囐嗀� 銆娯蒂堌� 亘賳蹖丕賳蹖 丨蹖丕鬲 丿蹖賳蹖銆� 丕夭 噩賴鬲 賮乇賲 賳蹖夭貙 亘賴 賲丕 賳卮丕賳 賲蹖鈥屫囏� 讴賴 蹖讴 鬲丨賯蹖賯 毓賱賲蹖 賵丕賯毓蹖貙 賴賲 丕夭 賳馗乇 丕胤賱丕毓丕鬲 賵 丿丕丿賴鈥屬囏й� 噩賲毓鈥屫①堌臂� 卮丿賴 賵 賴賲 丕夭 賳馗乇 賯丿乇鬲 丕爻鬲丿賱丕賱 賵 賳賯丿貙 賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗀� 丕夭 趩賴 睾賳丕蹖 丨蹖乇鬲鈥屫з嗂屫槽� 亘乇禺賵乇丿丕乇 亘丕卮丿.
Read
August 4, 2019賲鬲丕爻賮丕賳賴 亘丕蹖丿 亘诏賲 趩賵賳 讴鬲丕亘 乇賵 亘爻蹖丕乇 倬乇丕讴賳丿賴 賵 賳丕賲賳馗賲 禺賵賳丿賲貙 卮賴蹖丿卮 讴乇丿賲 賵 亘賴 賴賲蹖賳 禺丕胤乇 賳賲蹖 鬲賵賳賲 趩蹖夭 禺丕氐蹖 亘诏賲.
July 16, 2016
One of my current reading projects is on Archaic Greece, and on my reading list are several books by Walter Burkert. In skimming through them, I noticed that they were rather dense and would require some background, so I looked at the bibliographies and notes, and then at the bibliographies and notes of the books they were based on, and then . . . my usual infinite regress. What I realized was that all the different paths seemed to converge on Durkheim's Elementary Forms, so I decided to start with this. Of course, Durkheim was hardly the first writer to deal with the origin of religions. The question goes back to the eighteenth and especially the nineteenth centuries; Durkheim himself begins by summarizing and polemicizing against the theories of Tylor (animism) and Max M眉ller (naturism), but since he does summarize them and I need to start somewhere, I'm not going any further back than this (and I have already read many of the authors he refers to such as Fustel de Coulanges, Lewis Henry Morgan, and Frazer's The Golden Bough -- I have to admit my reading in the social sciences is mostly a century or more out of date.) I'm reading it in the 1915 translation by Joseph Ward Swain, which I bought from a sale at the library; I know there are at least two recent translations which may be better, but I didn't find any passages that didn't make sense because of translation problems (although for a print book there were a lot of typos).
Durkheim begins by defining religion as the division of the world into the categories of the sacred and the profane. He makes a further distinction, which I did not find very satisfactory, between religion as social and magic as private. He simply assumes, like the earlier writers, that there had to be one single origin for religion, either it originated once very early or if it originated in many places, it had the same cause and form everywhere, and went through the same stages. (Actually, he does say that a single effect can only be due to a single cause, which is simply bad logic.) While there are enough similarities between the religions of different parts of the world that I can't accept the postmodernist claim that there are no regularities, I think the situation is probably more complex than these early anthropologists assumed. His preferred version of religious origin -- the "elementary forms" of the title -- is totemism. There is a major problem with his method, which is to try to find the earliest form of religion by looking at the most "primitive" contemporary peoples known to ethnography (he explains that by "primitive" he means essentially close to the origins), which he takes to be the native people of Australia. The premise here is that "primitive" people today were somehow stalled at an early level of development while other peoples evolved pastoralism and agriculture, and maintained the same culture as they had at the beginning. Now, even a little bit of reflexion should show that a people with a rudimentary hunter-gatherer culture such as that of the native Australians could never have reached Australia to begin with; it's basically a big island, and a culture like that would have neither the technology nor the motivation for long sea voyages. So it seems that the culture of the Australians must be a secondary adaptation to the environment there on the part of people whose ancestors were at a different stage of development; and thus there is no reason to suppose that their culture, and particularly their religious ideas, had any continuity or bear any close resemblance to the original hunter-gatherers of the Paleolithic. It's as though someone were to assume that because dolphins and whales live in the ocean, they represent the primitive form of animals before the first amphibians arrived on land. The same would be true for other hunter-gatherers today; they all live in marginal environments which would not have been the choice of the original hunter-gatherers, and were probably forced into those environments by movements of other peoples. The Amazon Basin for example has many small groups with some of the most rudimentary technologies known, yet there is evidence that before European diseases and conquest, the area was heavily populated and had specialized agriculture and trade. If any culture today represents the primary hunter-gatherer culture, we have no way of identifying it, or any reason for assuming that it would have remained unchanged for tens of thousands of years or had no outside contacts and influence.
The general theory he presents is that the distinction between the sacred and the profane -- i.e. for him the origin of religion -- was derived from the experience of assemblies of the clans; where the ordinary "profane" life of the Australians was in separate family groups searching for food, the periodic assemblies were a very different type of experience, and thus became "sacred". The feeling of sacredness of the clan became attached first to its name and emblem, then secondarily to the totem species which the name and emblem represented. The totem, and other entities related to it, became considered as a part of the clan. The sacredness of the totem and the clan became considered as a special, impersonal power -- "mana" -- which was distributed in varying intensities to all the clan members, totem animals, and symbolic items, or in short to everything which was considered sacred. The portion of the "mana" in the individual gave rise to the notion of the soul; the idea of ancestral souls gave rise to spirits; the spirits tended to become spirits of various topological features which were sacred to the clan; and these local spirits, having powers over various natural phenomena, were then generalized into gods. In other words, the stages in Australia -- and presumably everywhere else -- were totemism, pre-animism, animism, "higher religion." He does state that these were logical rather than chronological stages and probably the belief in souls was not later than totemism but merely logically derived from it. In all this evolution, the real essence of the sacred was society itself, the power of the group considered under the various forms of totems, souls, and spirits, because it was a power which was outside the individual. In the second part of the book, he discusses various rituals and explains them on the basis of this theory, including the origins of sacrifice in the double form of communion and oblation.
It is easy to see why this book had such influence. Its major thesis is that religion originated, not from misunderstandings of psychic or cosmic phenomena as others had theorized, but from social structures; that in fact religion was, and still is, a social construct reflecting the organization of a given society. Leaving aside the methodological problems, and the particular theory of the various "stages", this is certainly a major insight into the nature of religion. Of course others, in particular Karl Marx, had much earlier considered religion, like all intellectual activity, as a superstructure based on socio-economic relations, but Durkheim and his "sociological" school were among the first to introduce the idea that religion is a reflection of social categories into academic sociology and try to establish it in detail. One might have expected from his thesis that he, like Marx, would have developed a materialist analysis, but in fact he explicitly defines his theory as "idealist" and claims that it refutes materialism. Essentially, rather than going on to consider the origin of the social order itself, he sometimes claims in circular fashion that it is derived from the totemist beliefs themselves, but more often he treats it simply as a given absolute, which is independent of the conditions which gave rise to it; he then emphasizes that the rites and behaviors of the clan members is determined by the "idea" of the totem and related "ideas". However, when he's not trying to philosophize -- and justify religion rather than exlain it -- he emphasizes just the opposite point, that the ideas or beliefs of religion are secondary to the rituals themselves, which is another concept that has become influential in later theories of religion.
There is much of interest in the book; I was especially impressed by his discussion of early systems of classification, which classify all phenomena into categories based on phratries and clans on the criterion of opposition; i.e. if a black cockatoo belongs to one group, a white cockatoo has to be in the other. This to me cast a new light on the similar classifications in the Presocratic philosophers, which always seemed to me to be totally random. He suggests that a modern survival of this classification system is to be found in the languages which have grammatical gender. His explanation of taboo and asceticism as basically ways of isolating the sacred from the profane is also interesting. He doesn't consider in this book the marriage system and thus deliberately excludes sexual taboos, which might be difficult to explain on this theory; or perhaps the origins could be explained, but they certainly serve other social purposes as well.
Obviously, however, a more than a century-old book is mainly of interest for understanding the later theories and books which it influenced, and that is the purpose for which I am reading it and would recommend it.
Durkheim begins by defining religion as the division of the world into the categories of the sacred and the profane. He makes a further distinction, which I did not find very satisfactory, between religion as social and magic as private. He simply assumes, like the earlier writers, that there had to be one single origin for religion, either it originated once very early or if it originated in many places, it had the same cause and form everywhere, and went through the same stages. (Actually, he does say that a single effect can only be due to a single cause, which is simply bad logic.) While there are enough similarities between the religions of different parts of the world that I can't accept the postmodernist claim that there are no regularities, I think the situation is probably more complex than these early anthropologists assumed. His preferred version of religious origin -- the "elementary forms" of the title -- is totemism. There is a major problem with his method, which is to try to find the earliest form of religion by looking at the most "primitive" contemporary peoples known to ethnography (he explains that by "primitive" he means essentially close to the origins), which he takes to be the native people of Australia. The premise here is that "primitive" people today were somehow stalled at an early level of development while other peoples evolved pastoralism and agriculture, and maintained the same culture as they had at the beginning. Now, even a little bit of reflexion should show that a people with a rudimentary hunter-gatherer culture such as that of the native Australians could never have reached Australia to begin with; it's basically a big island, and a culture like that would have neither the technology nor the motivation for long sea voyages. So it seems that the culture of the Australians must be a secondary adaptation to the environment there on the part of people whose ancestors were at a different stage of development; and thus there is no reason to suppose that their culture, and particularly their religious ideas, had any continuity or bear any close resemblance to the original hunter-gatherers of the Paleolithic. It's as though someone were to assume that because dolphins and whales live in the ocean, they represent the primitive form of animals before the first amphibians arrived on land. The same would be true for other hunter-gatherers today; they all live in marginal environments which would not have been the choice of the original hunter-gatherers, and were probably forced into those environments by movements of other peoples. The Amazon Basin for example has many small groups with some of the most rudimentary technologies known, yet there is evidence that before European diseases and conquest, the area was heavily populated and had specialized agriculture and trade. If any culture today represents the primary hunter-gatherer culture, we have no way of identifying it, or any reason for assuming that it would have remained unchanged for tens of thousands of years or had no outside contacts and influence.
The general theory he presents is that the distinction between the sacred and the profane -- i.e. for him the origin of religion -- was derived from the experience of assemblies of the clans; where the ordinary "profane" life of the Australians was in separate family groups searching for food, the periodic assemblies were a very different type of experience, and thus became "sacred". The feeling of sacredness of the clan became attached first to its name and emblem, then secondarily to the totem species which the name and emblem represented. The totem, and other entities related to it, became considered as a part of the clan. The sacredness of the totem and the clan became considered as a special, impersonal power -- "mana" -- which was distributed in varying intensities to all the clan members, totem animals, and symbolic items, or in short to everything which was considered sacred. The portion of the "mana" in the individual gave rise to the notion of the soul; the idea of ancestral souls gave rise to spirits; the spirits tended to become spirits of various topological features which were sacred to the clan; and these local spirits, having powers over various natural phenomena, were then generalized into gods. In other words, the stages in Australia -- and presumably everywhere else -- were totemism, pre-animism, animism, "higher religion." He does state that these were logical rather than chronological stages and probably the belief in souls was not later than totemism but merely logically derived from it. In all this evolution, the real essence of the sacred was society itself, the power of the group considered under the various forms of totems, souls, and spirits, because it was a power which was outside the individual. In the second part of the book, he discusses various rituals and explains them on the basis of this theory, including the origins of sacrifice in the double form of communion and oblation.
It is easy to see why this book had such influence. Its major thesis is that religion originated, not from misunderstandings of psychic or cosmic phenomena as others had theorized, but from social structures; that in fact religion was, and still is, a social construct reflecting the organization of a given society. Leaving aside the methodological problems, and the particular theory of the various "stages", this is certainly a major insight into the nature of religion. Of course others, in particular Karl Marx, had much earlier considered religion, like all intellectual activity, as a superstructure based on socio-economic relations, but Durkheim and his "sociological" school were among the first to introduce the idea that religion is a reflection of social categories into academic sociology and try to establish it in detail. One might have expected from his thesis that he, like Marx, would have developed a materialist analysis, but in fact he explicitly defines his theory as "idealist" and claims that it refutes materialism. Essentially, rather than going on to consider the origin of the social order itself, he sometimes claims in circular fashion that it is derived from the totemist beliefs themselves, but more often he treats it simply as a given absolute, which is independent of the conditions which gave rise to it; he then emphasizes that the rites and behaviors of the clan members is determined by the "idea" of the totem and related "ideas". However, when he's not trying to philosophize -- and justify religion rather than exlain it -- he emphasizes just the opposite point, that the ideas or beliefs of religion are secondary to the rituals themselves, which is another concept that has become influential in later theories of religion.
There is much of interest in the book; I was especially impressed by his discussion of early systems of classification, which classify all phenomena into categories based on phratries and clans on the criterion of opposition; i.e. if a black cockatoo belongs to one group, a white cockatoo has to be in the other. This to me cast a new light on the similar classifications in the Presocratic philosophers, which always seemed to me to be totally random. He suggests that a modern survival of this classification system is to be found in the languages which have grammatical gender. His explanation of taboo and asceticism as basically ways of isolating the sacred from the profane is also interesting. He doesn't consider in this book the marriage system and thus deliberately excludes sexual taboos, which might be difficult to explain on this theory; or perhaps the origins could be explained, but they certainly serve other social purposes as well.
Obviously, however, a more than a century-old book is mainly of interest for understanding the later theories and books which it influenced, and that is the purpose for which I am reading it and would recommend it.
August 27, 2012
[return][return][return]I should stop readng the classic works on religion and culture, because I always end up disappointed. In this classic anthropological analysis from the first years of the twentieth century, Durkheim generalises from studies of the totem cults of Australia to conclude that pretty much all intellectual concepts, including scientific theories as well as notions of God and religion, can be examined as socially constructed phenomena. While sympathetic to the conclusion (having studied the history and philosophy of science in a past life) I was not terribly excited by the journey Durkheim takes to get there. His methodology straddles what today would be fairly clearly demarcated territory between philosophy and anthropology, and I found this mixture of concepts frustrating. More specifically, the Australian worshippers (particularly the women) are never given their own voice; we hear only what white anthropologists think of them. A pioneering work, perhaps, but I rather hope that things have moved on in the last century.
July 29, 2023
Even today this book is compelling and Durkheim is well worth reading.
Durkheim argues that the foundational and elemental constituents of the primal religions, the aboriginal Australians and the North American Indians鈥� totem clans are key for understanding all future superstitions and cults. Totems and clans are the building blocks for all that followed religiously and are key to understanding present-day religions. From the particular to the general to the universal and their self-realization of their spirit becoming aware of itself, at least Durkheim will lay out that case.
I use 鈥榩rimal鈥� only because Durkheim does and for me all superstitious beliefs seem to be the same, and for example, as Durkheim was talking about totems and banners (flags) superstitiously entrapping his primitives, I was reminded how my clan, the American people, rally around the flag and people lose their common-sense when somebody doesn鈥檛 rise for the national anthem and so on. All superstitions seem stupid to me.
Durkheim never mentions Hegel, but he clearly fits into Hegel鈥檚 paradigm. He does mention Kant at the very end of his story, and mentions that Kant divides the world into the synthetic and analytic, or similarly the moral from Reason, or the individual separate from their clan. Durkheim clearly understands the importance that the society has in shaping the individual and the individual鈥檚 Will is formed by forces beyond themselves. For Durkheim, force and power are elemental and need to be deconvolved from all other interactions in order to grasp the key characteristics explaining the phenomena.
Durkheim says will-to-the-divine is a will-to-power. I鈥檒l say that a will-to-power is when one actively engages interpretation such that the individual harmonizes the outside world with themselves, and the search for the divine is just as fundamental as the will-to-exist for existing within a society, without others participating with us our world would atrophy away and we would be as Avicenna鈥檚 floating man without a sense of a self. Durkheim requires a 鈥榙ivine鈥�, Nietzsche would not.
Durkheim quotes frequently from Frazier鈥檚 Golden Bough and harmonizes Frazier鈥檚 various religious approaches into how Durkheim perceives the foundational and elemental building blocks within his primitive religions. Freud clearly leveraged Durkheim when he fabricated a connection between primitive religions and neurotics in his book Totems and Taboos. Durkheim wisely stays away from psychoanalysis, both books were published within a year of each other.
Durkheim does predate some of the themes from Mary Douglas鈥檚 Purity and Danger. Similarly, Durkheim has an acknowledgement of order in a chaotic world determining how the world is constructed. Durkheim does falter when he sees the religious (moral) and the scientific (reason) as two separate orthogonal worlds (magisterial), but at least he never gets in to the mumbo-jumbo of psychoanalysis as Mary Douglas did.
There are a lot of big things that Durkheim gets right and are just as relevant today as when he first published this book. I think Durkheim is wrong in his conclusions, but how he gets there makes for a highly relevant book worth reading today. For example, Max Weber (frequently quoted in this book) does not while Durkheim gives the reader more than enough to satisfy.
Durkheim argues that the foundational and elemental constituents of the primal religions, the aboriginal Australians and the North American Indians鈥� totem clans are key for understanding all future superstitions and cults. Totems and clans are the building blocks for all that followed religiously and are key to understanding present-day religions. From the particular to the general to the universal and their self-realization of their spirit becoming aware of itself, at least Durkheim will lay out that case.
I use 鈥榩rimal鈥� only because Durkheim does and for me all superstitious beliefs seem to be the same, and for example, as Durkheim was talking about totems and banners (flags) superstitiously entrapping his primitives, I was reminded how my clan, the American people, rally around the flag and people lose their common-sense when somebody doesn鈥檛 rise for the national anthem and so on. All superstitions seem stupid to me.
Durkheim never mentions Hegel, but he clearly fits into Hegel鈥檚 paradigm. He does mention Kant at the very end of his story, and mentions that Kant divides the world into the synthetic and analytic, or similarly the moral from Reason, or the individual separate from their clan. Durkheim clearly understands the importance that the society has in shaping the individual and the individual鈥檚 Will is formed by forces beyond themselves. For Durkheim, force and power are elemental and need to be deconvolved from all other interactions in order to grasp the key characteristics explaining the phenomena.
Durkheim says will-to-the-divine is a will-to-power. I鈥檒l say that a will-to-power is when one actively engages interpretation such that the individual harmonizes the outside world with themselves, and the search for the divine is just as fundamental as the will-to-exist for existing within a society, without others participating with us our world would atrophy away and we would be as Avicenna鈥檚 floating man without a sense of a self. Durkheim requires a 鈥榙ivine鈥�, Nietzsche would not.
Durkheim quotes frequently from Frazier鈥檚 Golden Bough and harmonizes Frazier鈥檚 various religious approaches into how Durkheim perceives the foundational and elemental building blocks within his primitive religions. Freud clearly leveraged Durkheim when he fabricated a connection between primitive religions and neurotics in his book Totems and Taboos. Durkheim wisely stays away from psychoanalysis, both books were published within a year of each other.
Durkheim does predate some of the themes from Mary Douglas鈥檚 Purity and Danger. Similarly, Durkheim has an acknowledgement of order in a chaotic world determining how the world is constructed. Durkheim does falter when he sees the religious (moral) and the scientific (reason) as two separate orthogonal worlds (magisterial), but at least he never gets in to the mumbo-jumbo of psychoanalysis as Mary Douglas did.
There are a lot of big things that Durkheim gets right and are just as relevant today as when he first published this book. I think Durkheim is wrong in his conclusions, but how he gets there makes for a highly relevant book worth reading today. For example, Max Weber (frequently quoted in this book) does not while Durkheim gives the reader more than enough to satisfy.
March 30, 2018
Third time through this masterpiece. Durkheim shows, through a combination of research, rigorous thought and sociological imagination that the basis for humankind believing in religion is a belief in and understanding of mankind itself.
"If we have taken primitive religion as the subject of our research it is because it has seemed to us better adapted than any other to lead to an understanding of the religious nature of man, that is to say, to show us an essential and permanent aspect of humanity."
"A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden -- beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them."
The symbols through which this reality is expressed, of course, may seem absurd; but Durkheim insists that we must know how to go beneath the symbol, to uncover the reality which it represents, and which gives it its meaning. The most ambitious of Durkheim's claims is that the most basic categories of human thought have their origin in social experience with no Kantian a priori categories.
A brilliant book as much for its method than its conclusions.
"If we have taken primitive religion as the subject of our research it is because it has seemed to us better adapted than any other to lead to an understanding of the religious nature of man, that is to say, to show us an essential and permanent aspect of humanity."
"A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden -- beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them."
The symbols through which this reality is expressed, of course, may seem absurd; but Durkheim insists that we must know how to go beneath the symbol, to uncover the reality which it represents, and which gives it its meaning. The most ambitious of Durkheim's claims is that the most basic categories of human thought have their origin in social experience with no Kantian a priori categories.
A brilliant book as much for its method than its conclusions.
Read
September 5, 2010OK, I recognize that it's a classic of sociology, but Durkheim's methodology is wrong. It's not a method I disagree with, not a method I consider to be flawed, but just straight up wrong in more ways than I can count. What we get is a text that, despite its search for universality, is almost comically out of date. No wonder no one reads it anymore. Like Eliade, he searches for religious meaning through primitive (read: Westerners think it's a "timeless" culture) religious ritual, and thinks that we're all tragic and fallen and shit. Screw that.
With all of that said, I have to respect the man. Much like his contemporaries Freud and William James, he sketches out a beautiful argument with a truly open mind. Unfortunately, his starting point is so far off the mark that his argument amounts to little.
With all of that said, I have to respect the man. Much like his contemporaries Freud and William James, he sketches out a beautiful argument with a truly open mind. Unfortunately, his starting point is so far off the mark that his argument amounts to little.
October 17, 2010
To give one of the founders of my new discipline some credit, I can't imagine it was fun and games trying to provide a sociological theory of religion and a religious theory of society 100 years ago.
But, while I think some parts of the reasoning are sound, most of the facts upon which he bases his arguments are historically and archaeologically invalid, not to mention racist and sexist. If Durkheim had access to all of our current knowledge of the era circa 10,000-15,000 BC in the Near East, his conclusions may have been the same (or even amplified!), but his reasoning and analysis would have been radically different.
Further, he makes some outlandish conclusions for which he neither provides logical proofs nor attempts to do so.
Oh, the joys of reading sociological theory published in 1912! Never imagined myself yearning for Foucault.
But, while I think some parts of the reasoning are sound, most of the facts upon which he bases his arguments are historically and archaeologically invalid, not to mention racist and sexist. If Durkheim had access to all of our current knowledge of the era circa 10,000-15,000 BC in the Near East, his conclusions may have been the same (or even amplified!), but his reasoning and analysis would have been radically different.
Further, he makes some outlandish conclusions for which he neither provides logical proofs nor attempts to do so.
Oh, the joys of reading sociological theory published in 1912! Never imagined myself yearning for Foucault.
August 13, 2010
This book put so many pieces together for me and helped me make sense of life on a pretty personal level. The ideas he puts forth play a significant role in my general philosophy now, and I continue to think about this book in daily life years after reading it. I love Durkheim for this book, even with all its methodological flaws.
July 24, 2011
READ MAR 2010
Exhaustive treatment of the foundation of religious forms and practices. Not an easy read, but interesting. Best quote, "Really and truly human thought is not a primitive fact; it is the product of history; it is the ideal limit towards which we are constantly approaching, but which in all probability we shall never succeed in reaching" (p. 493).
Exhaustive treatment of the foundation of religious forms and practices. Not an easy read, but interesting. Best quote, "Really and truly human thought is not a primitive fact; it is the product of history; it is the ideal limit towards which we are constantly approaching, but which in all probability we shall never succeed in reaching" (p. 493).
July 2, 2013
One of the first and foremost anthropologists to really bring a sense of critical thinking into the field. Read a lot of works before Durkheim and they're all speculations based on what "seems obvious." Granted there's plenty of archaic ideas here (e.g., some cultures being more "advanced." Advancing to what?) Still, great milestone for anthropology as a systematic science/practice.
May 22, 2020
Can't bring myself to review this book - has nothing to do with the book. Interesting take on religion, especially the study of functions of religion in its most primitive appearances. I don't know how much of Durkheim's theses still hold today - perhaps one can bend them some to fit into an evolutionary framework.
Lovely read!
Lovely read!
October 5, 2023
bro didn鈥檛 even go to australia
July 13, 2019
Durkheim's grounding axiom is that groups arise naturally, and studying them and their dynamics is scientific (i.e. sociology). People, meanwhile, exist not only as individuals but also as groups. Religion, therefore, must serve a group need (perhaps for order) in addition to individual needs (perhaps for awe).
He distinguishes the sacred from the profane and suggests that rites are meant to control conduct and understanding of the sacred. Because magic and magicians can make similar claims, but are not religions, Durkheim adds that religions are used to form groups. Durkheim therefore defines a religion as: 鈥渁 unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden鈥攂eliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them.鈥� Durkheim studies the Australian aborigines to learn how religious totems help to order groups.
It鈥檚 easy to criticize this book, which was published in 1912. Today, we are taught to resist generalization; because Durkheim is attempting to tease out general religious structures, his attempt will grate a contemporary reader鈥檚 preferences. He uses words like 鈥榩rimitive鈥� and 鈥榗rude鈥� to describe anyone or anything not from Europe, and it鈥檚 difficult to read his condescending treatment of aboriginals. He uses Christian language (e.g. church, salvation) to describe the practices of groups that do not use these Christian terms to describe their practices. Readers will need to prepare for Eurocentrism either erasing or wearing away the unique characteristics of other cultures. Even if readers begin this book ready to look past its publication date, the irritation is not to be underestimated.
(Having said that, I often felt that there was another implied axiom: no one in Europe will be comfortable with treating Christianity as a system that serves group needs. To solve this problem, Durkheim studies a religion that isn鈥檛 Christianity and one that I suspect few Christians at the time cared very much about. Sometimes I couldn't help reading Elementary Forms as satire.)
It鈥檚 also easy to find originality and enduring insight in this work. Here鈥檚 Durkheim鈥檚 definition of religion once more: 鈥渁 unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden鈥攂eliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them.鈥� It's worth noting that this is not a book about "God's teachings," and I further note that we now use something like this analysis to study groups all the time. Durkheim's definition is easily adapted to a variety of institutions we use to form groups if we start with a 鈥渟ystem of beliefs and practices 鈥� which unite into one single moral community 鈥� all those who adhere to them.鈥� How far removed from this definition are those commentators who observe that football is America's religion? In Sapiens, Harari argues that homo sapiens survived their rivals because of their ability to form groups around shared 鈥渇ictions.鈥�
I don鈥檛 hear people discussing this book very often. When I look for sociologist books on goodreads listopia, the top writers are economists and Malcolm Gladwell. Yes, Durkheim's anthropological analysis of the aborigines is grating, but we should think about Durkheim and group needs a little more. Durkheim鈥檚 key insight is that people organize into groups and they will not only need food but also organizing structures. Isn鈥檛 this what we obsess over more than anything else as we think about the "other," populism, and nationalism? How far removed from Durkheim's notions are we when we discuss working to expand our "circle of empathy?" When we look at online communities and how they isolate from one another, it occurs to me that we should return our attention to this study of how religion exists to form community.
A final note: Durkheim uses 'apostrophizes' -- not a word one encounters every day.
He distinguishes the sacred from the profane and suggests that rites are meant to control conduct and understanding of the sacred. Because magic and magicians can make similar claims, but are not religions, Durkheim adds that religions are used to form groups. Durkheim therefore defines a religion as: 鈥渁 unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden鈥攂eliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them.鈥� Durkheim studies the Australian aborigines to learn how religious totems help to order groups.
It鈥檚 easy to criticize this book, which was published in 1912. Today, we are taught to resist generalization; because Durkheim is attempting to tease out general religious structures, his attempt will grate a contemporary reader鈥檚 preferences. He uses words like 鈥榩rimitive鈥� and 鈥榗rude鈥� to describe anyone or anything not from Europe, and it鈥檚 difficult to read his condescending treatment of aboriginals. He uses Christian language (e.g. church, salvation) to describe the practices of groups that do not use these Christian terms to describe their practices. Readers will need to prepare for Eurocentrism either erasing or wearing away the unique characteristics of other cultures. Even if readers begin this book ready to look past its publication date, the irritation is not to be underestimated.
(Having said that, I often felt that there was another implied axiom: no one in Europe will be comfortable with treating Christianity as a system that serves group needs. To solve this problem, Durkheim studies a religion that isn鈥檛 Christianity and one that I suspect few Christians at the time cared very much about. Sometimes I couldn't help reading Elementary Forms as satire.)
It鈥檚 also easy to find originality and enduring insight in this work. Here鈥檚 Durkheim鈥檚 definition of religion once more: 鈥渁 unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden鈥攂eliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them.鈥� It's worth noting that this is not a book about "God's teachings," and I further note that we now use something like this analysis to study groups all the time. Durkheim's definition is easily adapted to a variety of institutions we use to form groups if we start with a 鈥渟ystem of beliefs and practices 鈥� which unite into one single moral community 鈥� all those who adhere to them.鈥� How far removed from this definition are those commentators who observe that football is America's religion? In Sapiens, Harari argues that homo sapiens survived their rivals because of their ability to form groups around shared 鈥渇ictions.鈥�
I don鈥檛 hear people discussing this book very often. When I look for sociologist books on goodreads listopia, the top writers are economists and Malcolm Gladwell. Yes, Durkheim's anthropological analysis of the aborigines is grating, but we should think about Durkheim and group needs a little more. Durkheim鈥檚 key insight is that people organize into groups and they will not only need food but also organizing structures. Isn鈥檛 this what we obsess over more than anything else as we think about the "other," populism, and nationalism? How far removed from Durkheim's notions are we when we discuss working to expand our "circle of empathy?" When we look at online communities and how they isolate from one another, it occurs to me that we should return our attention to this study of how religion exists to form community.
A final note: Durkheim uses 'apostrophizes' -- not a word one encounters every day.
January 10, 2015
"Les formes 茅l茅mentaires de la vie religieuse: Le syst猫me tot茅mique en Australie" est clairement une grande oeuvre d'un grand penseur mais elle difficile a classer et a evaluer. Emile Durkheim est considere comme un pioniner de la sociologie mais il a eu une formation universitaire en philosophie et son style de raisoner ressemble beaucoup a son ami le philosophe Henri Bergson. Dans "Les formes 茅l茅mentaires de la vie religieuse: Le syst猫me tot茅mique en Australie" Durkheim nous livre une theorie sur la religion base sur des recherches effectuees par des ethnologues anglophones aupres des aborigines de l'Australie. Je suis tres mal a l'aise avec une theorie qui provient d'un savant qui n'a fait aucune recherche de terrain. Par contre le modele propose par Durkheim est tres puissant.
D'apres Durkheim la religion est a l'origine la pratique generalise dans une communaute de classer des choses dans deux categories: le sacre et le profane. Ce systeme permet aux membres de la collectivite a se recconnaitre comme etant des membres du meme groupe. La force religieuse est la force des membres anonymes de collectivite. Le but des rites religieux est de rappeller aux membres qu"ils sont membres de la collectivite et de leur transmetter de l'energie de la collectivite.
Au debut, les religions n'avait pas forcement de Dieu omniscient et la religion ne promettait pas une vie dans l'au-dela. La religion a ete seulement la collectivite. Les actes magiques sont venus apres le developpement de la religion. La doctrine d"un Dieu tout puisant qui offrait la compensation d'une vie eternelle au paradis pour les justes et qui menacait les pecheurs avec une vie eternelle en enfer est arrive tres tard dans le developpment de la religion.
D'apres Durkheim c'est la religion qui a cree la civilisation humaine et non la civilisation qui a cree la religion. Pourtant, au debut du vingtieme siecle la civilisation humaine etait tellement bien etabii que Durkheim croyait qu'elle n'avait peut-etre plus besoin de la religion. Dans ce scenario, la religion risquait de disparaitre.
"Les formes 茅l茅mentaires de la vie religieuse: Le syst猫me tot茅mique en Australie" est certainement tres riches en idees et nous eclaircit beaucoup sur les origines de la religion. Ce livre a sans doutes ses limites mais je ne suis pas helas en mesure de vous dire ou elles sont.
D'apres Durkheim la religion est a l'origine la pratique generalise dans une communaute de classer des choses dans deux categories: le sacre et le profane. Ce systeme permet aux membres de la collectivite a se recconnaitre comme etant des membres du meme groupe. La force religieuse est la force des membres anonymes de collectivite. Le but des rites religieux est de rappeller aux membres qu"ils sont membres de la collectivite et de leur transmetter de l'energie de la collectivite.
Au debut, les religions n'avait pas forcement de Dieu omniscient et la religion ne promettait pas une vie dans l'au-dela. La religion a ete seulement la collectivite. Les actes magiques sont venus apres le developpement de la religion. La doctrine d"un Dieu tout puisant qui offrait la compensation d'une vie eternelle au paradis pour les justes et qui menacait les pecheurs avec une vie eternelle en enfer est arrive tres tard dans le developpment de la religion.
D'apres Durkheim c'est la religion qui a cree la civilisation humaine et non la civilisation qui a cree la religion. Pourtant, au debut du vingtieme siecle la civilisation humaine etait tellement bien etabii que Durkheim croyait qu'elle n'avait peut-etre plus besoin de la religion. Dans ce scenario, la religion risquait de disparaitre.
"Les formes 茅l茅mentaires de la vie religieuse: Le syst猫me tot茅mique en Australie" est certainement tres riches en idees et nous eclaircit beaucoup sur les origines de la religion. Ce livre a sans doutes ses limites mais je ne suis pas helas en mesure de vous dire ou elles sont.
January 15, 2014
Emile Durkheim is often considered the father of sociology, and this is a fantastic look at his theory of the origins of religion as well as its function today. He looks at the Aborigine tribes in Australia as well as other examples from America and Asia, believing them to be the most primitive examples of religion available for study. As such, he hopes to derive the essence of religion in general from their religion, which he refers to as "totemism." What I find most interesting about his theory is that it revolves around the social categorization of the sacred (things set apart) and the profane (normal things). For him, this is the essence of religion. He addresses how gods and spiritual beings came to be perceived, but they are a mere side effect to the true function religion has previously and currently maintains. This particular edition (Oxford's World Classics) is extremely convenient in that it is abridged, cutting out about 25% of the original text, since it is often repetitive in its examples and case studies. Despite this, it still weighs in at about 340 pages, and it is no light read. While many critiques have emerged in regards to Durkheim's arguments and the ethnographies he cites (this was written in 1912, give him a break), this is still worth reading as a classic insight into the early days of the field of Comparative Religions.
August 31, 2016
As contemporary readers going through the arduously intellectual labor Durkheim has put together, we enjoy the benefits of being a later-comer rather than a pioneer, namely, the advantages of easily jumping off so much details of the terrains that Durkheim once trudges like an ant on the ground. It is based on this later-comer status that one comes to realize Durkheim's exceptional originality in thinking through all these matters. When he starts to talk about the social origins of a priori categories, he is really probing as deep as Kant into the problem of categories (completely not on the same level as concrete concepts), and compels us, i.e., whoever voluntarily to think with him, to ask with him, "where does the compulsory force that the a priori categories entail come from?" First-rate sociologist, and loyal disciple of Empirical Science, Durkheim offers us so much original insights into the "creative source" of the powers (I add this modifier so as to caution against some habitually cynical and skeptical reading of the term "power") of religious life. One must fail to appreciate Durkheim's true intelligence and profound sensitivity if one has not yet read this masterpiece.
November 3, 2013
Considered from the milieu in which he developed his ideas, he was hecka advanced for his time, or ours. Levi-Strauss and contemporary structuralism has its roots in Durkheim's work. Yes it is a laborious read. And it is fascinating in terms of the history of western consciousness. This work has earned its place as an undeniable milestone in the development of thought whether, or not one discovers the wisdom therein. And, if it had not been required reading, we would have missed the pleasure.
Compare to James' Variety of Religious Experience, or any of Radcliffe-Brown's studies in the social function of religion. We just don't value this kind of scholarship anymore. Sociology, Anthropology, and Psychology were intellectual equals for a time. Now, unless you teach a University level social science, one is lucky to bring forth any of Durkheim, or his intellectual progeny into an economically viable profession. Managed care psychotherapy to social work is more about contemporary politics than the quest for knowledge reflected in works like this.
Compare to James' Variety of Religious Experience, or any of Radcliffe-Brown's studies in the social function of religion. We just don't value this kind of scholarship anymore. Sociology, Anthropology, and Psychology were intellectual equals for a time. Now, unless you teach a University level social science, one is lucky to bring forth any of Durkheim, or his intellectual progeny into an economically viable profession. Managed care psychotherapy to social work is more about contemporary politics than the quest for knowledge reflected in works like this.
October 31, 2012
I can see how this was foundational, but Durkheim is a terrible writer. I'm not going to start in on his claims (their lack of foundation; the problems with, in my view, a universalist view of religion in general), except to say that if you're planning on reading this whole book to understand his ideas, do yourself a favor and read the introduction and the conclusion. A brief review of Emile's thinking on religious life by a scholar in the field will do you more good than slogging through this.
If you just can't help yourself and have to read this, don't get bogged down in the details. His writing is so twisted, repetitive, and self-referential that you're going to want to claw out your eyes. Again, a brief review of this will help you more than the book in getting what he's saying. My writing is the worse for having read this, I'm afraid.
If you just can't help yourself and have to read this, don't get bogged down in the details. His writing is so twisted, repetitive, and self-referential that you're going to want to claw out your eyes. Again, a brief review of this will help you more than the book in getting what he's saying. My writing is the worse for having read this, I'm afraid.
December 19, 2015
讴鬲丕亘 亘爻蹖丕乇 毓丕賱蹖 賵 噩匕丕亘蹖 亘賵丿.
鬲氐賵乇蹖 讴賴 亘乇 丕孬乇 禺賵賳丿賳賽 讴鬲丕亘鈥屬囏й� 丿乇爻蹖 丕夭 丿賵乇讴蹖賲 丿乇 匕賴賳賽 丿丕賳卮噩賵蹖丕賳 卮讴賱 賲蹖鈥屭屫辟� 亘賳馗乇賲 亘丕 禺賵賳丿賳 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 丕夭 賲蹖丕賳 賲蹖鈥屫辟�. 鬲賵 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 丿賵乇讴蹖賲 賳卮賵賳 賲蹖鈥屫� 丕氐賱丕 蹖賴 讴丕乇讴乇丿诏乇丕蹖 爻賮鬲鈥屬堌池� 賳蹖爻鬲 賵 亘丕 乇賵卮鈥屬囏й� 蹖讴爻賵蹖賴鈥屰� 倬賵夭蹖鬲蹖賵蹖爻鬲蹖 賵 丌賲丕乇蹖 讴丕乇 賳賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁囏� 亘賱讴賴 趩賴 亘爻丕 亘賴鈥屫з嗀ж操団€屰� 賵亘乇 丕夭 芦鬲賮賴賲禄 賵 乇賵卮鈥屬囏й� 讴蹖賮蹖賽 丿蹖诏賴 丿乇 鬲丨賱蹖賱 賵 賳賯丿 賵 亘乇乇爻蹖 倬丿蹖丿賴鈥屬囏� 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁�.
賴賲趩賳蹖賳 亘賳馗乇賲 丌賯丕蹖 亘丕賯乇 倬乇賴丕賲 賴賲 鬲乇噩賲賴鈥屰� 賲賮賴賵賲 賵 乇賵丕賳蹖 丕夭 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 丕乇丕卅賴 丿丕丿賴.
禺賵賳丿賳賽 讴鬲丕亘 芦讴丕乇讴乇丿賴丕蹖 匕賴賳蹖 丿乇 噩賵丕賲毓 毓賯亘鈥屬呚з嗀嚶� 丕夭 賱賵爻蹖賳 賱賵蹖-亘乇賵賱 乇賵 賴賲 丿乇 讴賳丕乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 亘賴 賴賲賴 鬲賵氐蹖賴 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁�.
亘賳馗乇賲 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 乇賵 蹖讴蹖 丕夭 賲賴賲鬲乇蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘鈥屬囏й� 丿賵乇讴蹖賲 亘丕蹖丿 亘賴鈥屫促呚ж� 丌賵乇丿. 丕蹖賳噩丕 亘胤賵乇 賲卮禺氐 鬲兀孬蹖乇 噩丕賲毓賴 亘乇 卮讴賱鈥屭屫臂� 賲賯賵賱丕鬲 賮丕賴賲賴 乇賵 亘蹖丕賳 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁� 賵 丕夭 賲賳馗乇 芦噩丕賲毓賴鈥屫促嗀ж驰� 賲毓乇賮鬲禄 賴賲 讴鬲丕亘蹖 讴賱丕爻蹖讴 賲蹖鈥屫堎嗁� 亘賴鈥屫促呚ж� 亘蹖丕丿.
鬲氐賵乇蹖 讴賴 亘乇 丕孬乇 禺賵賳丿賳賽 讴鬲丕亘鈥屬囏й� 丿乇爻蹖 丕夭 丿賵乇讴蹖賲 丿乇 匕賴賳賽 丿丕賳卮噩賵蹖丕賳 卮讴賱 賲蹖鈥屭屫辟� 亘賳馗乇賲 亘丕 禺賵賳丿賳 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 丕夭 賲蹖丕賳 賲蹖鈥屫辟�. 鬲賵 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 丿賵乇讴蹖賲 賳卮賵賳 賲蹖鈥屫� 丕氐賱丕 蹖賴 讴丕乇讴乇丿诏乇丕蹖 爻賮鬲鈥屬堌池� 賳蹖爻鬲 賵 亘丕 乇賵卮鈥屬囏й� 蹖讴爻賵蹖賴鈥屰� 倬賵夭蹖鬲蹖賵蹖爻鬲蹖 賵 丌賲丕乇蹖 讴丕乇 賳賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁囏� 亘賱讴賴 趩賴 亘爻丕 亘賴鈥屫з嗀ж操団€屰� 賵亘乇 丕夭 芦鬲賮賴賲禄 賵 乇賵卮鈥屬囏й� 讴蹖賮蹖賽 丿蹖诏賴 丿乇 鬲丨賱蹖賱 賵 賳賯丿 賵 亘乇乇爻蹖 倬丿蹖丿賴鈥屬囏� 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁�.
賴賲趩賳蹖賳 亘賳馗乇賲 丌賯丕蹖 亘丕賯乇 倬乇賴丕賲 賴賲 鬲乇噩賲賴鈥屰� 賲賮賴賵賲 賵 乇賵丕賳蹖 丕夭 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 丕乇丕卅賴 丿丕丿賴.
禺賵賳丿賳賽 讴鬲丕亘 芦讴丕乇讴乇丿賴丕蹖 匕賴賳蹖 丿乇 噩賵丕賲毓 毓賯亘鈥屬呚з嗀嚶� 丕夭 賱賵爻蹖賳 賱賵蹖-亘乇賵賱 乇賵 賴賲 丿乇 讴賳丕乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 亘賴 賴賲賴 鬲賵氐蹖賴 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁�.
亘賳馗乇賲 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 乇賵 蹖讴蹖 丕夭 賲賴賲鬲乇蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘鈥屬囏й� 丿賵乇讴蹖賲 亘丕蹖丿 亘賴鈥屫促呚ж� 丌賵乇丿. 丕蹖賳噩丕 亘胤賵乇 賲卮禺氐 鬲兀孬蹖乇 噩丕賲毓賴 亘乇 卮讴賱鈥屭屫臂� 賲賯賵賱丕鬲 賮丕賴賲賴 乇賵 亘蹖丕賳 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁� 賵 丕夭 賲賳馗乇 芦噩丕賲毓賴鈥屫促嗀ж驰� 賲毓乇賮鬲禄 賴賲 讴鬲丕亘蹖 讴賱丕爻蹖讴 賲蹖鈥屫堎嗁� 亘賴鈥屫促呚ж� 亘蹖丕丿.
August 7, 2007
Hahah, yes, I'm adding a book I had to read from soc. I was just thinking about it recently when I was discussing with someone how "Anthropology" seems to be the study of brown people while "Sociology" is the study of white people. (think about it...)
I have to admit that I was offended by Durkheims evaluations and theories about "elementary" forms of religion based on aboriginal and Native American cultures. Maybe I'm just too sensitive to issues of race and ethnicity. ps. Durkheim never actually saw any of the aboriginal tribes that he goes on and on about.
I have to admit that I was offended by Durkheims evaluations and theories about "elementary" forms of religion based on aboriginal and Native American cultures. Maybe I'm just too sensitive to issues of race and ethnicity. ps. Durkheim never actually saw any of the aboriginal tribes that he goes on and on about.
Read
January 2, 2023丕賷賳 賰賴 鬲賵賱賷丿 賲賮賴賵賲 禺丿丕 丿乇 匕賴賳 亘卮乇 亘乇丌賲丿賴 丕夭 鬲兀孬賷乇丕鬲 噩丕賲毓賴 亘乇 丌賳 丕爻鬲貙 丨乇賮 亘爻賷丕乇 毓噩賷亘 賵 噩丕賱亘賷 亘賵丿. 丕賷賳 賰鬲丕亘 乇丕 賲賷 鬲賵丕賳 禺賵丕賳丿貙 賵 賲賷 鬲賵丕賳 丿乇 丌賳 睾乇賯 卮丿. 卮丕賷丿 賰賲乇賳诏 鬲乇賷賳 賲囟賲賵賳 丕賷賳 賰鬲丕亘貙 倬丕爻禺 亘賴 丕賷賳 爻賵丕賱 亘丕卮丿: "噩丕賲毓賴 趩賷爻鬲貙 賵 趩乇丕 卮賳丕禺鬲賳 丌賳 毓賱賲 丕爻鬲". 丿丕乇賲 賮賰乇 賲賷 賰賳賲 賰賴 趩诏賵賳賴 匕賴賳 鬲丨賱賷賱 诏乇 丕賳爻丕賳 賲賷 鬲賵丕賳丿 亘賴 丕賷賳 噩丕賷賷 賰賴 匕賴賳 丕賲賷賱 丿賵乇賰賷賲 乇爻賷丿賴貙 亘乇爻丿
November 8, 2009
I learned so much from this 1912 classic sociological treatment of religion; as the excellent introduction explains, some of the data Durkheim used - about Australian totemism - is no longer considered reliable, but his analysis of the nature and the meaning of religious belief and practice is still illuminating.
January 31, 2009
Critically important book in the history of sociology and religious studies. Sure, there are lots of errors and misconceptions to critique, but it is mind boggling to think of the innovations Durkheim introduced into thinking about social interactions in a religious context.
January 18, 2010
I just love how all Durkheim can be applied to everything ever ever. Ok exaggeration. But really, how does his theory on totemism NOT apply to modern society in so many more ways than just religion...
February 20, 2012
Emile Durkheim was basically gifted in understanding the cause of an event not basically putting it on the individual but first trying to understand why and how society affects it
April 18, 2022
I am very glad to at last put down this book, which I have been reading for over three months, because it is nearly impenetrable and extremely boring; on the other hand, I am very glad to have read it, because it is also extremely fascinating and fertile and even life-affirming/optimistic. Although its nominal aim is to explain the origins of religion, its real object is to affirm the value of sociology, almost to make it the queen of the sciences.
It is so tedious, partly perhaps because of a bad translation or simple bad, impenetrable writing, but also because the method is pretty terrible. First Durkheim sets out some of the theories of his predecessors and contemporaries on the origins of religion, and in the manner of a philosopher, attacks and refutes them. This part sucks because the theories are so patently ludicrous, absurd just-so stories straight out of high school stoner thought patterns -- whoa, man, what if we got the idea of the soul because, like, we dream sometimes? and in dreams we go somewhere else?? and then we wake up and we're like, dude, I was just somewhere else and now I'm back here again, wtf is going on! I must be some kind of immaterial being! -- and it's almost incomprehensible that anyone would ever take them seriously. Then he sets out to examine what he calls the "most primitive" form of religion, the totemism of indigenous Australians, who, he says, live at the lowest level of civilization ever seen, and therefore closest to the most ancient beginnings of Man, etc. This part sucks for many obvious reasons. The idea that anyone living in the present is somehow the same as someone living 100,000 years ago has no basis, as silly as the idea that any animal is "less evolved" than another; time has passed the exact same amount for everyone. The idea that Australian societies are "primitive" and "simple" is plainly racist and also, frankly refuted by the very contents of the book, which explains in great detail the almost incomprehensibly complicated systems of kinship that Durkheim's sources (he never went to Australia, of course) documented. As in the boringest parts of there is inexhaustible detail which you can't possibly take for granted as accurate, coming from 19th Century colonialist anthropologists whose work, even if done with the best of intent and practice of the time, must by now be obsolete.
So what's the good part? It's the part that doesn't depend on any of this silliness, Durkheim's main theme and justification of sociology: that religion, and in fact almost every part of human thought, is the product of society. (I kept thinking of Borges: "The composition of vast books is a laborious and impoverishing extravagance. To go on for five hundred pages developing an idea whose perfect oral exposition is possible in a few minutes!") God, if I may use that word to simplify Durkheim's argument, is not imaginary: it is simply another name, a sort of concretization, of society. Because society is real, and social pressures are real; the invigoration we feel when we come together in society (for example, in church) is real, and the strictures of morality are the real, demonstrable, though not material, effect of society on the individual. There really is something, which is not you, and immaterial, but absolutely real, which has created you -- because a human outside of society is no human, Durkheim would say a mere animal, but I would say not even an animal but a sort of biological object -- and which comforts and supports you and makes life possible for you, and which demands your obedience to its moral order: it is society. It is undeniable that it has a power to compel, despite the fact that it can't be measured by any instrument or directly perceived by any of our senses.
It is the fact that thinkers have always taken the individual in isolation, since Decartes and Daniel Defoe, as the basis for thinking about things, that we have not grasped this, says Durkheim, and I have been thinking so many similar thoughts about individualism, but still this book really pushed me farther in that direction. And if it was a little disheartening to have it confirmed to my satisfaction that solitary religion is no religion at all -- that the essence of religion is getting togeher with other people and feeling the powerful influence of the group -- it was on the other hand good to be reminded that art and parties and funerals etc are, deep down, also religious, all the same kind of thing. And that the experience of communion with one's fellow man is that religious experience which, as Jung says, is much more important than 'faith'.
It is so tedious, partly perhaps because of a bad translation or simple bad, impenetrable writing, but also because the method is pretty terrible. First Durkheim sets out some of the theories of his predecessors and contemporaries on the origins of religion, and in the manner of a philosopher, attacks and refutes them. This part sucks because the theories are so patently ludicrous, absurd just-so stories straight out of high school stoner thought patterns -- whoa, man, what if we got the idea of the soul because, like, we dream sometimes? and in dreams we go somewhere else?? and then we wake up and we're like, dude, I was just somewhere else and now I'm back here again, wtf is going on! I must be some kind of immaterial being! -- and it's almost incomprehensible that anyone would ever take them seriously. Then he sets out to examine what he calls the "most primitive" form of religion, the totemism of indigenous Australians, who, he says, live at the lowest level of civilization ever seen, and therefore closest to the most ancient beginnings of Man, etc. This part sucks for many obvious reasons. The idea that anyone living in the present is somehow the same as someone living 100,000 years ago has no basis, as silly as the idea that any animal is "less evolved" than another; time has passed the exact same amount for everyone. The idea that Australian societies are "primitive" and "simple" is plainly racist and also, frankly refuted by the very contents of the book, which explains in great detail the almost incomprehensibly complicated systems of kinship that Durkheim's sources (he never went to Australia, of course) documented. As in the boringest parts of there is inexhaustible detail which you can't possibly take for granted as accurate, coming from 19th Century colonialist anthropologists whose work, even if done with the best of intent and practice of the time, must by now be obsolete.
So what's the good part? It's the part that doesn't depend on any of this silliness, Durkheim's main theme and justification of sociology: that religion, and in fact almost every part of human thought, is the product of society. (I kept thinking of Borges: "The composition of vast books is a laborious and impoverishing extravagance. To go on for five hundred pages developing an idea whose perfect oral exposition is possible in a few minutes!") God, if I may use that word to simplify Durkheim's argument, is not imaginary: it is simply another name, a sort of concretization, of society. Because society is real, and social pressures are real; the invigoration we feel when we come together in society (for example, in church) is real, and the strictures of morality are the real, demonstrable, though not material, effect of society on the individual. There really is something, which is not you, and immaterial, but absolutely real, which has created you -- because a human outside of society is no human, Durkheim would say a mere animal, but I would say not even an animal but a sort of biological object -- and which comforts and supports you and makes life possible for you, and which demands your obedience to its moral order: it is society. It is undeniable that it has a power to compel, despite the fact that it can't be measured by any instrument or directly perceived by any of our senses.
It is the fact that thinkers have always taken the individual in isolation, since Decartes and Daniel Defoe, as the basis for thinking about things, that we have not grasped this, says Durkheim, and I have been thinking so many similar thoughts about individualism, but still this book really pushed me farther in that direction. And if it was a little disheartening to have it confirmed to my satisfaction that solitary religion is no religion at all -- that the essence of religion is getting togeher with other people and feeling the powerful influence of the group -- it was on the other hand good to be reminded that art and parties and funerals etc are, deep down, also religious, all the same kind of thing. And that the experience of communion with one's fellow man is that religious experience which, as Jung says, is much more important than 'faith'.
March 14, 2019
The sociology in this text is remarkable and well-worth studying, especially for understanding the cliched yet true statement that humans are fundamentally religious creatures. Read as part of my thesis, so I ignored the enormous anthropoligical discussion throughout.
"A philosophy may well be elaborated in the silence of the interior imagination, but not so a faith. For before all else, a faith is warmth, life, enthusiasm, the exaltation of the whole mental life, the raising of the individual above himself. Now how could he add to the energies which he possesses without going outside himself? How could he surpass himself merely by his own forces? The only source of life at which we can morally reanimate ourselves is that formed by the society of our fellow beings; the only moral forces with which we can sustain and increase our own are those which we get from others." (pp. 473)
"A philosophy may well be elaborated in the silence of the interior imagination, but not so a faith. For before all else, a faith is warmth, life, enthusiasm, the exaltation of the whole mental life, the raising of the individual above himself. Now how could he add to the energies which he possesses without going outside himself? How could he surpass himself merely by his own forces? The only source of life at which we can morally reanimate ourselves is that formed by the society of our fellow beings; the only moral forces with which we can sustain and increase our own are those which we get from others." (pp. 473)
Displaying 1 - 30 of 167 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.