Durkheim’s last major work in 1912, “The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life”, sought to uncover the causes and functions of religion. Durkheim had been preoccupied with religion throughout basic years, but it was not until 1912 that he pulled his ideas together into a synthetic statement. Durkheim’s lifelong interest in religion can be traced to his moral concern with bringing social order to society. Religion had been throughout human history one of the “great regulating functions of society.” Therefore, if he could uncover why and how religion provided integration, then it might be possible to use this knowledge to integrate his own society.

Durkheim considered religion as a reflection of man’s relation with society and nature. Religion cannot be reduced to belief in God. Because there are religions without an apparent God. For example Buddhism denied the existence of God. Further, in all religions there are vital elements, which belong to the day-to-day life like food, drink, body, physical environment etc. which are in no way linked to a deity. The social basis of religion and the religious basis of society are explained by Durkheim.

At one level Durkheim considered the idea of sacred along with communal as the basis of his interpretation of the character of religion. The division of the world into two domains, the one containing all that is sacred, the other all that is profane is the distinctive trait of religious thought. The beliefs, myths, dogmas and regents are systems of representations, which express the nature of virtues and powers of sacred things. They also represent the relations between sacred and profane things.

Durkheim’s initial concern has been to establish religion as a social fact. No doubt, as sociology studies only social facts. In order to prove this, besides the notion of sacred, Durkheim noted the obligatory character of the religious beliefs lying behind religious practices. There was a pressure exercised by a society upon its members to prevent them from deviating from the common religious faith. Thus religious phenomena consist of organized systems and collections of obligatory beliefs united with definite practices, which relate to the objects given in the beliefs. Religion is obligatory in nature and what is obligatory has its origins in ‘social’. A social fact. The individual’s conformity to religion involves his/her deference to the moral power of society. Thus it is society, which prescribes to the believer the beliefs, and rites, which he/she must observe. Hence the rites and beliefs are society’s creation. The determining causes of religious phenomena lie in the nature of society. The change and evolution in religious beliefs and practices etc. in different forms results due to transformations taking place in the social organisation of a society in the course of history.

The true nature of religion, Durkheim held, can be revealed by observing the ‘conditions of collective existence’. Religious representations must be seen as work of the nature of collective conscience. They help in the formation of ideas and developing deeper interest in collective representations in social life.

Durkheim defines religion as “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 unit into one single moral community called a church, all those who adhere to them”. The second element, which thus finds a place in our definition, is no less essential than the first; for by showing that the idea of religion is inseparable from that of the Church, it makes it clear that religion should be an eminently collective thing

In the first part of the definition, Durkheim defined religious phenomena as consisting of

•         Beliefs about a supernatural and sacred realm, and
•         Rites and rituals directed toward this realm.

He then turned to the detailed, analysis of religion among Australian aboriginals, most particularly the Arunta people. He chose these people because in his view no human society could be more simply structured and, therefore, their religions could not be explained as the result of earlier religious forms Durkheim, this believed that the aboriginals represented a pristine “case study of the first human societies. This was a classical exhibition of the use of his method of Single case Experiment. Durkheim’s analysis of religion focused on its “elementary forms” for a simple reason: By looking at religion in its simplest form, many of the distracting complexities of religion in developed societies could be eliminated. This strategy followed from a critical assumption: Religion in all societies, both simple and advanced, serves the same function, and therefore, this function could more easily be determined in a simple than in a complex society. Durkheim recognized that while religion greatly increases in its complexity with societal development, it nevertheless serves essentially the same function. As he noted, “All religions serve the same needs..., the different   totems of the tribe fulfill exactly the same functions that will later fall upon the divine personalities.” Durkheim’s description of the social structure of the aboriginal tribes led him to note that all the tribes have certain common features. Each tribe divided into a number of clans or large kinship networks. Each of the clans that together form a tribe has its own taken, with associated rituals; and each totem reveals sacred symbols, particularly a special plant or animal, which is represented in an emblem Durkheim, thus saw the aboriginals as divided into clans, with each clan revealing a totem symbolized by sacred objects.

Students of American totemism had already known for a long time that this form of religion was most intimately united to a determined social organisation, that its basis is the division of the social group into clans. In 1877, in his Ancient Society, Lewis H. Morgan undertook to make a study of it, to determine its distinctive characteristics, and at the same time to point out its generality among the Indian tribes of North and Central America. At nearly the same moment, and even following the direct suggestion of Morgan, Fison and Howitt established the existence of the same social system in Australia, as well as its relations with totemism. They have a system of rituals for preserving their totem symbol. In this way the totem of a clan outwardly is an expression of totemic principle i.e. a superior power. However it is also the symbol of the determined society i.e. the clan. It is the flag of the clan. It is the sign by which the clan distinguishes itself from other clans. It is the visible mark of the personality of the clan. So it is at once the symbol of the supernatural and of the society. The god of the clan, the totemic principle, is therefore, the clan itself. The clan gets personified and represented to the imagination under the visible form of the animal or plant, which serves as the totem. The idea of religion originates, perpetuates in and through collective representations of beliefs, ideas, values and religious thoughts and practiced through cults and rituals by the community of believers (also called Church in a wider sense).

In other words, totemism is the religion, not of such and such animals or men or images, but of an anonymous and impersonal force, found in each of these beings but not to be confounded with any of them.

Durkhiem quotes The definition given by Codrington : “There is a belief in force altogether distinct from physical power, which acts in all ways for good and evil; and which it is of the greatest advantage to possess or control. This is Mana. I think I know what our people mean by it. - It is a power or influence, not physical and in a way supernatural; but it shows itself in physical force, or in any kind of power or excellence which a man possesses.

Thus the totem is before all a symbol, a material expression of something else .

He then set out to discover what causes the emergence of this elementary form and what its functions are for the aboriginal tribes.

Causal explanation

Durkheim believed  that presocial humans wandered over their territories occasionally coming together. During such gatherings a kind of crowd behavior occurred in which the contact with others produced heightened stimulation, or in his words, “awaked passions.  During this state, people become sensitize to each of the totem, the totemic emblem is like the visible body of god.”This was, at the time and perhaps even today, a startling conclusion. Religious beliefs symbolize society; and ritual directed toward the sacred entities that are contained in these beliefs represents the worship of society itself. Therefore according to Durkhiem, Religion is a consecration of society. Religion at bottom represents man’s respect for society, which is expressed through a high degree of symbolic intensity. Religion is a reflection of society, more specifically of collective representations.

It is at this juncture  that we  should  note how the functional and causal analysis become confounded. As the hidden worship of society itself, religion provides its members with a common set of ideas, which commits them to the society.

It thus serves integrative functions, or meets the “need for” social solidarity. We can now ask, as Durkheim explicitly did, what causes aroused collectives who “feel the presence of mana” to create totems? Durkheim’s message was clear. The need for social solidarity causes emotionally aroused  collectivities of  humans  to  create  totems. Here again there is the possibility of an illegitimate teleology the end result the need for social solidarity-causes the event-religion - that meets this end. Without more precise statements as to how, why, and through what specific processes this need causes religion, the causal argument becomes an illegitimate teleology.

Function

What is this, function? For Durkheim, the answer is predictable: religion provides a basis for the integration of society. It unites people into a common system of ideas, which then regulates their affairs. It is thus with this conclusion about the functions of religion, and with the strategy of focusing on the simplest or “elementary” of its forms; that Durkheim began his analysis of religion.

Religion and science

Durkheim considered the relationship of man, society and nature. He noted that the study of nature had increasingly been taken over by science. Thus the extension of science reduced the sphere of religion. Earlier religion represented all forms of knowledge-sacred and secular. With the growth of science, the sphere of the secular increased. Earlier morality was considered as religious duty. In the modern times secular morality would, according to him, provide the basis for the moral order in society.

Durkheim maintains that scientific thought has its origins in religious thought. Both religion and science reflect on nature, human beings and society. Both attempt to classify things, relate them to one another and explain them. Scientific thought is a more developed and refined form of religious thought. The terms used in modern science like force and power have a religious origin. Durkheim writes that religious thought will ultimately give way to he advance of scientific thought. Both religious and scientific thought contribute to the collective representations of society. There cannot be any conflict between the two because both are directed towards seeking universal principles. Thus the goal of both systems of thought is to help human beings rise above the limitations of private, individual nature and lead a life which is both, individual and social. Individuals need society in order to be truly human, and religion and science both contribute to unifying individuals with society .

Critical Evaluation

Durkheim’s perspective has had in tremendous impact on sociologists and social anthropologists, particularly those is England and France. His nephew, Marcel Mauss was one of the leading social anthropologists who followed in the Durkheimiam tradition.

His theory has been criticized on several grounds. Durkheim is of the view that excitement in crowd is the birthplace of religion, which is not scientifically correct. The birthplace of religion can be something much more than mere group excitement. It is wrong to believe that society and God are one as Durkheim makes us believe. His theory is also one sided because he has given importance to social aspect alone and forgotten every other aspect. According to Durkheim religion is an attempt to adjust social forces, but he has forgotten that religion has also much to do with physical factors. Alexander Golden Weiser has said about the theory that, “It must be regarded as extremely one sided and psychologically inadmissible”. He further says that,  “Society of course, finds in religion a useful helpmate, and religion in turn heavily leans upon society. But this is another story. “

Durkheim was strongly criticized for his much emphasis on functional character of religion. Religion can be dysfunctional for the society, as it can become the criteria of ethnic stratification in society as in Sri Lanka. Thereby it leads to disintegration in the society.

Religion emphasizes the traditional subordinate position of woman in society due to which women get exploited.

His argument that the occasional gathering of primitive people generates a positive feeling which generates an illegitimate teleology of deducing cause from a pre conceived function of a religion.

Criticizing his absolute distinction between sacred and profane, many subsequent sociologists have suggested a third category that of “’mundane’, which, according to him should came between the sacred and the profane. This third category, according to him, minimizes the absolute distinction as suggested by Durkheim. Also, Edmund Leach insisted that actions fall in between the two extremes on a continuous scale. At one extreme are actions, which are entirely profane; at the other are actions, which are entirely sacred. Between the two extremes fall the majority of social actions.

His analysis about totem is contradictory with anthropologists view. He did not say about personalized totem. 

His assumption of complete objectivity did not apply in his explanation, which is routed in ethnographies.

Durkheim could not prevent his theory from psychological aspect when he gave more emphasis to sentiments in his study of religion.

With reference to course of religion, Marx contradicts Durkheim by saying that religion is the outcome of exploitation present in the society.

But inspite of all these drawbacks of the theory it can’t be denied that Durkheim made a bold attempt in studying religion on scientific lines. He established a very close link between religion and society, which was either altogether missing or which had not properly been appreciated or accepted. It was felt that religion and society were two separate things, but credit goes to Durkheim for bringing both closer and nearer to each other.