This essay explores the works of Sigmund Freud and Emile Durkheim focusing mainly on religion. It emphasizes on Freud and Durkheim's views on religion as serving a fundamental role in the society, especially human culture. Specifically, the paper concentrates on how both theorists perceive individuals flawed' based on their religious beliefs. Freud and Durkheim’s works are mainly concerned with the study of individuals’ behavior. As observed, the approach taken by Freud follows a psychological tradition whereas Durkheim centers his views on a sociological approach. Freud argues that human behavior is mostly driven by intangible and inborn factors that operate on the subconscious. On the other hand, Durkheim’s approach mainly uses direct empirical observation of a social phenomenon that seeks to account for the impetus behind individuals' and group behavior (Clarke, 2002). As such, Freud is mainly concerned with intangible or rather obscure phenomena whereas Durkheim is mainly concerned with tangible and overt external event. Therefore, from the analysis of the work of both theorists, it is evident that the critical question is the degree of the divide that exists between the internal and external motivations.
Durkheim argues that there is a direct correlation between environmental variables in the manner in which different groups interact with such variables and the manner in which such interactions are viewed by members of a given group. This means that there is a mode of cyclical reflexivity with regards to the dynamics (Kelly, 2014). Therefore, when individuals stay together in a given society, they generate rules that are felt by any the members of the group and act on them externally. Further, these also have a force where individuals may feel as constraining as well as uplifting. Durkheim considers such forces as an externalization of the conventions that are strange to the group; hence are regarded as exogenous but in a real sense are internal or endogenous. Further, Durkheim argues that the tendency to externalize emerges from a natural desire to attribute meaning to experience (Kelly, 2014). Therefore, religion offers an externalized object into a collective emotion that can easily be projected. As such, this can be perceived to be ultimately reflective because the process of externalization represents the people. This is the reason why Durkheim's religious experiences can be observed to serve and strengthen group cohesion as well as bonding. Thus, the understanding of religion, according to Freud is considered to be rather judgmental.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
According to Freud’s views, the relationship between abnormal psychological conditions and religion expanded due to the study of obsessive acts and religious practices. As such, he portrayed a relationship between psychological abnormality and religious practice. On the other hand, he perceived religion as symptomatic of deep-seated psychological issues (Gain, 2010). Further, he also observed religion as a common neurotic symptom that emerges as a defense mechanism against the feelings of helplessness. In this regard, there is need to have a cosmic figure and palliates of the religious subject with conciliatory conditions. In simple terms, both theorists support quiet distinctive explanations about religion. Nevertheless, while the theories that are held by both theorists are not overtly complementary, they are not mutually exclusive. Both theorists argue that religion is a fundamental factor to achieve community cohesion. Also, the theorists support the notion that religion is key to any of the cultural analysis (Gain, 2010). These are similarities that are substantial and are perceived as the principal basis of religious beliefs that are contrary to what the believers understand.
According to Durkheim, the actual driving force behind religion is considered as social cohesion. However, Freud contends that the drive is a psychological basis of religious convictions. Hence social unity and mental well-being differ slightly with regards to conceptual reasons. From this perspective, it can be suggested that both theorists share a significant overarching view of religion. On the same note, it might hold a significantly dissimilar structural perspective on why religion functions in various societies. Freud is mainly concerned with the psychological structures whereas Durkheim emphasizes on the sociological structures. Consequently, Freud believes that religion works best to console believers from the ultimate anxiety of a meaningless cosmos. One can also argue that Durkheim observes religion as an aspect that offers a canvas on which social phenomena can easily be perceived as an external entity. Further, both theorists argue that modes of individual behavior work to achieve the same purpose, which is basically to instill a sense of meaning in individual’s life. At this stage, it can be suggested that the Freudian theory can be used to compensate for the failures in Durkheim’s work. For instance, it has been noted that Durkheim provides minimal insight into the religious processes. His understanding of religion can be observed as a unified system of beliefs and practices that are relative to sacred objects.
The contribution of Durkheim and Freud can be compared in the realms of psychological and sociological processes. However, their contributions to the understanding of religion have certain limitations. Durkheim's work can be criticized as being very simplistic since his perception of the social structures is not adequate to account for the daily aspect of religion. In overall, religion is very complicated just as Freud believes that religion derives its strength from individuals' inner desires that are controlled by instincts.
References
Clarke, P. J. (2002). Explaining Philosophy and Ethics . Cheltenham: Nelson Thomas.
Gain, M. (2010). On Durkheim’s Rules of Sociological Method (Routledge Revivals). New York: Routledge.
Kelly, J., D. (2014). The elementary forms of moral life: Journal of Ethnography Theory. Retrieved from https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.14318/hau4.1.024
