Elementary Forms of Religious Life

Introduction 

Emile Durkheim, a Jewish sociologist who dedicated his life to answering theological questions that would be regarded as dealing with divinity and sacredness of the mystic world. For instance, the large part of his works was concerned with studying divinity, a phenomenon he describes as being a deftly that is set apart from any other aspect of nature, thereby evading the chances of having to give any further substantive content. But regardless of this stand, and as far as the social goes, the author makes quite some arguments that could be considered significant in the understanding of the mystic. He argues for instance that any form of religion is an expression of a given society in the natural sense, thereby depicting religion as a community's movement of reflecting on their transcendent power. Lightly this translates to faith being a sense of belonging and culture that is meant to set a community apart from other communities, no wonder various communities hold different views when it comes to issues of religious beliefs and practices. Second to this claim is the view that religion provides a form of social cohesion that serves to weave together the mechanical solidarity of a people. This can be summed up by the common phrase, "a family that prays together." In simple terms, religion, first of all, gives a community a common ground, by serving as a unifying factor, then by being united, the community of believers can stick together through having a common ground, pretty much these two views as pushed for by Durkheim are intertwined, and occur as inversions of each other (Durkheim & Swain, 2008). The family, which serves as an analogy of the society, in this case, comes together to pray, thereby has prayer as a common ground to bring them together, then by praying the family can rise above other families that either do not pray, or pray to a different deity, thereby in this regard setting this family apart from other families. This directly fosters this family's unity. Pretty much what Durkheim argues out. 

The author's concept of the sacred, as well as, his concerns with what he terms as the symbolic classification of religion mostly emphasize on the moral, setting his works apart as being hugely significant in the anthropology world, as Douglas establishes through his systematic pursuit of the Durkheimian knowledge. Though the latter does not fail in pointing out the weakness of his teacher's work; lying with the inability to address such matters as the historical changes of different forms of religion. In this regard, Douglas applauds the anthropologist Webster for being much more attuned to the history part of his research and interpretation of religion. However, the Durkheimian knowledge still supersedes the works of other renowned scholars in the same field, even with its shortcomings in highlighting these same issues in regards to a society's changing perception of a region and religious practices. This is chiefly because the Durkheimian study is known to have covered such areas that could be regarded as the simplest yet most primitive forms of religion known to humankind. He does a great job in discovering the principles of such religion and goes a step further in interpreting and explaining these principles in a manner that can be deciphered by the simplest of the classes of men who do not necessarily share in the beliefs of the religion in question, if at all this person believes in faith. Durkheim points out that a religious system on the basics can be said to be the most primitive if it meets certain conditions as being found in societies the simplicity of whose organization is not exceeded anywhere else, and if the religion is explainable without the introduction of any element from a predecessor religion. 

The Durkheimian Element 

The author Durkheim holds that religious phenomena fall into two primary categories which are belief and rites. Beliefs are states of religious opinion consisting of representations while rituals are particular modes of action. The only thing that separates these two are acts that dictate the difference from thinking and actually doing or practicing of religious beliefs. Religious rites can be separated from the common actions of human life by the fact that they are unique of their objectivity, and follow specific strict laws and regulations in their implementation. Religious beliefs, on the other hand, can be said to be profane and sacred. The world is primarily divided into two; profanity and sacredness, guided by such factors as religious thoughts. This presents a thoroughly thought through and implemented systems of beliefs, myths and dogmas which are either representations or methods of descriptions used to express the nature of sacred things in the universe, the virtues and powers attributed to these things, their history, as well as their relationship with each other in addition to their relationship with profanity. Sacredness is not merely the manner of personal beings called gods and spirits, as the author argues. He points out that holistically speaking, sanctity extends to certain natural phenomena like rocks, individual trees, a house, or any other feature a community believes represents divinity and is from the mystic world (Durkheim & Swain, 2008). This would explain why communities, especially the ancient ones had such places as the holy/evil forest in which deity was believed to be dwelling in or individual trees that were worshipped or prayed to in cases of natural calamities. 

In brief, Durkheim's argument sums up the definition of religion to reflect a unified system of religious beliefs and practices relative to sacredness and profanity. In other words, religion entails the beliefs and practices associated with things forbidden and set apart, which includes to great extent practices that are meant to unite a community into one big family called a Church; all those who adhere to these beliefs. Additionally, from a broader, almost global perspective, religion can be defined as a system of ideas which correspond to a definite object. As can be seen from these two definitions of faith, the Durkheimian definition is more restricted to the belief and worship of the personal being, regarded as the Supreme Being by Christians. However, it is important to point out that there are not only numerous religions in the world currently that not only belief in other immortal supreme beings, but there are religions, such as atheisms that do not believe in the existence of any immortal beings, but rather in living a righteous life guided by personal codes of ethics and standards. This is a religion on its own too, since it entails the belief in a higher force, though in most cases this force is the force of self. But regardless, it is a belief that corresponds to a definite object. This discussion will be dealt with deeply in the subsequent section of this paper. Rites, on the other hand, can be described as external, contingent, and physical translations of the inward states that in themselves are deemed to have intrinsic value. In other words, they hold that the real sense of religion is not to make one think about religion, but is somewhat geared towards helping the faithful act and live ethically, upright and ethical guided by these principles and doctrines. 

The Extension of the Durkheimian Syllabus 

Several scholars, theologists, and anthropologists have come forward to critique the beliefs presented by Emile Durkheim. These critics have elaborated on, diversified, and altered several texts of the syllabus to reflect the modern society of religious believers. Victor Turner, for instance, elaborates on the role of symbols in a community, where they emerge from, how they work, and what these mean to society. This is an extension and indoctrination of the Durkheimian view on rites. Turner holds that symbols are more than just things human beings attach meaning to. He goes ahead to argue that symbols are exegesis, meaning they are things religious believers talk about and explain, not only to themselves or the nonbelievers, but they use these explanations to a great instance to understand the nature of the spiritual world. It would be correct to point out that this interpretation of rites, now referred to as symbols have played a significant role in forming the foundation for farther theological and anthropological research into the mystical world in understanding and interpreting religious symbols. These symbols are used in ritual operations, and how these forms the sense of the world, also called theological position. In a nutshell, Turner expounds on religious symbols to present the things that believers talk about and use to interpret the complex nature of religion, how these interpretations are used in conducting religious rituals, and how through these rituals a society can take a stand (Turner, 1969). This is done by deriving more sense and understanding deeply not only the spiritual processes and routines, but also how these relate to the rest of the world, and how to use this to form religious stands that are at the end of the day accommodative of other believers. 

In applying the Durkheimian belief of religion to the present-day religious scenario, Max Weber points out Durkheim's definition of religion as being a unified system of beliefs and practices that are relative to sacred things. The author (Weber) points out that although Durkheim was writing about the Australian Aboriginals when he developed his theory, his ideas about symbols apply to a great extent to the contemporary societies around the world. Weber goes a step further in assessing the weaknesses of Durkheim's theory of symbols in which he points out that the argument in part holds that human beings divide the world into sacred and secular sections. Durkheim looks at the holy symbols and how revering these symbols provide cohesion on solidarity. Weber uses this aspect of Durkheim's argument to point out that the theory of symbols only works for symbols that the society can rally around and hold dear. What this implies is that a society will only consider sacred and holy the symbols, beliefs, and rights the symbols they believe in, where every other symbol, idea, or religious rights that oppose these are considered secular, ungodly even, and the society does not in any way embrace this. The spiritual world stands divided on two common grounds; what they believe in versus what the rest of the world believes in, more like perishes in. Weber points out that this is a disadvantage since members of a particular religious group or class are not open or even accommodative of other believers whose ideologies conflict theirs (Weber, 1958). This plays a significant role in dividing religious groups, evident even within one religious group, such as Christianity where there are various doctrines by various denominations, and none of these seem to be agreeing with the other. 

The third scholar to thoroughly scrutinize Durkheim's work is the anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski who through his work dubbed "Myth in Primitive Psychology holds that there exists a particular class of stories that are regarded as sacred by a community and are embodied in rituals, morals, and social organizations. The author further points out that these form an integral and primitive part of the community's culture. Contrary to popular belief, these stories are not lived by idle interests, and neither are they considered false nor true narratives, but they all the same present to the primitive society a statement of an ancient, more significant and more relevant reality. It is this reality that guides the present life, holds the fate of the community and dictates the activities of humanity in the said society. As can be seen through this argument, Malinowski builds on the Durkheimian theory of symbols by which it is argued that these symbols do not have to make much sense to members of the community. Neither does it have to bear directly a divine holding with the spiritual world in which case the members of the society would be required to understand in greater depth divinity and matters that would be considered sacred, theological even, for them to live a righteous life. This they would achieve by observing the various rituals and social organizations which in their very basic form are meant to guide the interactions of the members of the community with each other, setting the boundaries and establishing the nature of these interactions somewhat more so than just acting to develop the human relations with the divinity (Malinowski, 2004). By arguing in this manner, the author gives a deeper insight into the arguments of Durkheim, giving it a broader perspective. 

Mary Douglas, on the other hand, does a great job in applying the Durkheimian knowledge in her study of land animals by broadly categorizing these into two groups; the pure and the impure. The anthropologist is true to the Durkheimian belief by rooting her arguments on the symbolic practice as emerging from, in addition to addressing social boundaries and relations. In her work Douglas argues that those land animals that are pure are those that believe in the symbolic practices, while those that do not understand, or practice symbols can be said to be impure. In which purity refers to religious purity, the state of aligning one to religious symbols and beliefs. In other words, the author explains the rules of purity and impurity regarding logic as a whole. In this regard, she uses the Levitical classification in addressing the environmental rule which holds that the forbidden animals were species that managed to escape being classified, thereby being branded impurity. The classification was primarily done, according to this context, in forms of conducting sacrifices which were meant to protect these animals from suffering the consequences of their behavior, even if these consequences were from His (God's) just anger. In this regard, the anthropologist argues on the sanctity of blood sacrifices that were used during the biblical times of the Israelites (Douglas, 2002). The Israel community of believers performed blood sacrifices to attorn for the sins of the errand communities. By bringing into this context the Durkheimian theory to assist in her study of the functions of blood sacrifices that were performed in the Bible, Douglas argues that religious rituals played a crucial role in fighting for the forgiveness of the Lord once an errand believer sinned and fell short of His glory. 

Douglas' argument has a bearing in the New Testament stories of Jesus Christ as well. The New Testament revolves around the man of Jesus Christ, His life and ministry. This is mainly built on through the four gospel books of the Bible. After human beings had erred and fallen short of glory, so much so that animal blood sacrifices could no longer be used to attorn for the sins of humanity, it was necessary that another way be found to save the falling humanity before God would have to destroy the world. It was this adverse fall that forced Jesus Christs to present Himself as a living sacrifice to bring into the world everlasting salvation. He offered Himself as the last sacrifice, a symbol of human redemption. The story of Jesus, His ministry and teachings, and the great sacrifice that he made for humanity by accepting to die on the cross to bring the world back to the creator can mostly be argued from the Durkheimian perspective. As Durkheim holds, symbols are meant to guide the religious life and beliefs of a faithful, in which case they would have to believe in the power of the symbol. He points out that one does not have to be so knowledgeable in religious matters, but instead all they have to do is believe in the power of the symbol for it to guide their lives effectively. This is what Jesus primarily emphasized on during His ministry on earth; That He is the only and ultimate way into salvation, that no one can ever get into the Heavens unless the person believes in Him. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, it is essential to point out that Durkheim does a great job in building on religious symbols, and their power over the lives of the believers. He holds that religion is the thread that holds a community together, giving them a sense of identity and direction. His theory of belief has been used over the years to emphasize the importance of the Christian faith of a believer and the power it has over their lives. As he pointed out, and as scholars, theologians, and anthropologists of renowned fame continue to point out, symbols play a significant role in guiding the lives of religious faithful’s, provided they believe in this power. Unless one believes in the power of these symbols, they will not be saved and received eternal life. 

References 

Douglas, M. (2002). Land animals, pure and impure. A Reader in the Anthropology of Religion , 194-209. 

Durkheim, E., & Swain, J. W. (2008). The elementary forms of the religious life . Courier Corporation. 

Malinowski, B. (2014). Myth in primitive psychology . Read Books ltd. 

Turner, V. (1969). Liminality and communitas. The ritual process: Structure and anti-structure , 94 , 130. 

Weber, M. (1958). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism, trans. T. Parsons. Charles Scribner’s Sons. [SA] .