Karl Marx is a renown scholar in the field of sociology. His opinion on the problems that faces society shaped thinking of many scholars and sociologists. His views on religion rubbed many believers the wrong way because of its negative connotation. On the other hand, 'Emile Durkheim took a different stand. He views religion from a view of many different religions and takes it upon himself to give it a universal definition.
According Cimino and Smith (2016), Marx was passionate about the welfare of the average person. He was concerned with the level of injustice in society and the role that this played in religion. This is what formed his opinion on the role of religion. According to Marx, the essence of true religion is that man makes religion. He was opposed to the idea that a person should conform to religion. Instead, he was convinced that the man should transform religion into his own suitable form of worship. He saw religion as a man's consciousness as he sought to find his way through life. In as much as Marx's view in regards to religion was inclined towards self expression, he was also convinced of its sedative effect. He referred to religion as the opium of life, in a statement that described its numbing effect. Cimino and Smith (2016) argues that people used religion as a tool to make them forget the real world. It was an escape from the world of real problems and struggles. It gave hope to a future unseen world where everything would be all right. This was the ultimate tool of submission that the oppressors used to control their subjects.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Durkheim's definition of religion is similar to Marx as he sees religion as a product of management kind. This is implies that he does not view religion as a divinely inspired concept with supernatural origins. Instead, he sees religion as a creation of the human mind. Couldry (2016 ) argues that religion is therefore, a man made concept designed to fulfill some needs that cannot be fulfilled through other means. His definition was slightly different from Marx's definition in that he saw religion as a social construct instead of a governance initiated the idea. He explains that people join the different religions because they identify with the ideals represented therein. By joining a group of individuals with similar beliefs, the specific individual enhances his ideals or purpose. Couldry (2016) further explains that group is then able to advance their norms and practices by standing on the solidarity of numbers or masses. According to Durkheim, religion provided society with a moral compass to navigate through life. His assertions were drawn from an in depth analysis of the basic driving force that fuels religion. Religion could then be defined as the practices and beliefs that unite a community through moral adherence.
Marx explains that religion has two distinct effects. In his first arguments, Marx states that religion is the man's way of creating his best self. It is an internal mechanism of self-expression that brings out one’s inner strength and purpose. This was the definition of religion that Marx wanted his followers to live by. The second aspect is that religion is used to perpetuate oppression. This was the effect of religion that he opposed due to its demeaning results. These two aspects are similar to Durkheim's two explanations about the purposes of religion. Durkheim's separates the effect of religion into sacred or profane. Durkheim describes the sacred aspect of religion as the distinct extra ordinary rites and rituals that a community observed or restricted themselves from so as to fulfill religious duties. This is similar to Marx's assertion of religion as a mechanism of self-expression. Durkheim's second definition is profanity. To him, the distortion of religion away from its sacred duty is what defines profanity. This can be related to Marx's definition of religion as a tool of oppression (Couldry, 2016).
Marxism differs from Durkheim's opinion because Marxism does not support the role of organized religion. According to Marx, all organized religions are a form of oppression. The leaders of these religions manipulate their followers into submission through enforcing rites and rituals. According to Alexander (2014), the essence of organized religion is control and censorship through deities. Religion's interdependence on other secular institutions therefore limits its ability to be autonomous and individually fulfilling. However, Durkheim believes that for religion to succeed, there must be a correlation between the sacred and the profane. He believes that the profane ordinary and materialistic things support the sacred aspect of religion. This is for say that human being has to experience ordinary things that are not supernatural in order to develop an appreciation for the extraordinary things that make up religion. Durkheim believes that true religion can only exist in the midst of the profane (Alexander, 2014).
The writings of Marxism are centred on the sedative role of religion in numbing economic injustice. Marx does not acknowledge the role that organized religion plays in the morality of society. His argument is invalidated because most religions advocate for hard work, just compensation and equitable distribution of wealth. His ideals do not apply in the context of modern society. Durkheim's views are easier to assimilate. They acknowledge that religion is composed of beliefs and practices that guide forms of worship. He also acknowledges that some aspects of religion are positive while others are negative. Finally, he explains that the piacular aspect of religion exists. Durkheim's definition and summary on the effects of religion are more applicable to modern society.
References
Alexander, J. C. (2014). The Antinomies of Classical Thought: Marx and Durkheim (Theoretical Logic in Sociology) (Vol. 2). Routledge.
Cimino, R., " Smith, C. (2016). Atheism, Class, and the Ghost of Karl Marx. Annual Review of the Sociology of Religion: Sociology of Atheism , 36.
Couldry, N. (2016). Media rituals: from Durkheim on religion to Jade Goody on religious toleration. In Exploring Religion and the Sacred in a Media Age (pp. 57-68). Routledge.
