Religion According to Emile Durkheim

Our purpose here is to see how Emile Durkheim defines religion.  To begin with he says, “It is necessary to begin by freeing the mind of every preconceived idea” (Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, 2nd ed., p. 23).  His point is that in defining religion we start not from our prejudices, nor from our passions of habits but from reality itself (p. 24).  He says that the most current definitions of religion in which these prejudices are commonly expressed in the following (p. 27-28):

1.  Supernatural as characteristic of all that is religious.

“It’s science and not religion which has taught men that things are complex and difficult to understand.”  Miracles for a primitive man are simply “beautiful, rare or terrible spectacles, or causes of surprise and marvel…; but they never saw in them glimpses of a mysterious world into which the reason cannot penetrate.”  These things are not mysterious, unknowable, un-understandable.  “The supernatural can’t be reduced to the unforeseen.”

“For religious conceptions have as their object, before everything else, to express and explain, not that which is exceptional and abnormal in things, but on the contrary, that which is constant and regular.  Very frequently, the gods serve less to account for the monstrosities, fantasies and anomalies than for the regular march of the universe, for the movement of the stars, the rhythm of the seasons, the annual growth of vegetation, the perpetuation of species, etc.”

Hence the idea of mystery for Durkheim is not of primitive origin.

2.  Idea of divinity attempting to define religion.

If we think that religion is always an idea of divinity, then other tribes may be excluded.  Why can’t we just say that religion is the belief in spiritual beings (p. 29)?  This suffices for Durkheim.  Example, Buddhism doesn’t have divinities.  The Buddha never claims to be a god.  Buddhism only has four noble truths.  Religion then for Durkheim, “is more than the idea of gods of spirits, and consequently cannot be defined exclusively in relation to these latter” (p. 35).  

And so then, what truly are religious phenomena?

There are two fundamental categories for Durkheim: beliefs - states of opinion, consist in representations/thoughts/actions; rites - determined modes of action.  However, we can only characterize rite itself by way of characterizing its object (belief).  We can only defined rite after looking into what belief is.  For Durkheim, every religious belief, simple or complex, has one common characteristic: two classes or opposed groups - profane and sacred (p. 37).

Now the first criterion of religious beliefs is that ”they always suppose a bipartite division of the whole universe known and knowable, into two classes.  And yet this definition of religion is not complete which embraces all that exists, but which radically exclude each other.”  He continues saying that, “Sacred things are those which the interdictions protect and isolate; profane things, those to which these interdictions are applied and which must remain at a distance from the first” (p. 40-41). 

Durkheim distinguishes magic from religion as the second criterion of religious beliefs.  “Magic, too, is made up of beliefs and rites” (p. 42).  But can we say that magic is also a kind of religion?  For Durkheim, it is not this way.  Religious beliefs are always communal - one common faith.  They’re common to an identified group of people.  Magic on its part is not.  In magic we cannot speak of a Church (p. 44).  But every religion for Durkheim has a church, even those private cults for they are still founded on a definite group.  The magician is alone.  He doesn’t need to assemble or unite his fellows in practicing his art.  Religion then cannot be separated from the idea of a church.  “A Church is not a fraternity of priest; it is a moral community formed by all the believers in a single faith, laymen as well as priests.  But magic lacks any such community” (p. 45).

Religion, therefore for Durkheim, means “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” (p. 47).

- jose conrado a. estafia 

Is a Postmodernist entitled to use “true” and “good”? If he is, how does he use these? If he cannot, are Ethics and other claims to truth no longer possible?

I prefer to answer that a postmodern man is entitled to use “true” and “good”.  However, such assertion must be qualified.  He uses these only within the limits of his own narrative (his own story).  “True” and “good” for a postmodern man are no longer totalizing terms.  In this new paradigm, there are no more grand narratives.  Hegel believes that the “Truth is the Whole” (Das wahre ist das Ganze).  But this contention no longer applies to a postmodern man.  The universal and the particular are no longer within the whole organism.  The signifier (one’s story) and the signified (the world-out-there) are no longer the same.  The reality out there no longer conforms to what one upholds to be true and good.  It is already a defiance of another famous Hegelian maxim: “Whatever is real is rational, whatever is rational is real.”

In using “true” and “good”, the postmodern man is not placing himself on a privileged ground over and above all others.  Nobody owns now the master key to what truth is.  As Derrida puts it, “…what we would know if it were simply a question here of something to know, is that there has never been, never will be, a unique word, a master-name” (”Differance,” in Margins of Philosophy, trans. Alan Bass [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982], 27).  One can use “true” and “good” only for himself.  He can never impose these on anyone.  Everyone is now entitled to his own story.  Subordinating the individual’s narrative to the grand narrative of the whole is a form of oppression.  A postmodern man only allows himself to share his version of truth with others - in a dialogue of some sort.  In other words, he is open to what others believe to be true and good.  As Salman Rushdie in his novel The Ground Beneath Her Feet puts it, “Your songs are your planets.  Live on them but make no home there.  What you write about, you lose.  What you sing, leaves you on the wings of song.”  The postmodern man only constructs what he believes in.  He only interprets the world-out-there.  Whatever that be is for him and him alone.  Thus Rushdie continues, “Freedom to uphold is dangerous.”

- jose conrado a. estafia

Why is Popular Religion different from the Religion of the Experts (Philosophers and Theologians)?

Before we answer this question, we need to define terms first.  Our first consideration is regarding popular religiosity.  Fr. Anscar J. Chupungco (1992, p. 100) in defining it cites Sartore saying that popular religiosity is “a set of spiritual attitudes and cultic expressions which are variedly connected with the liturgy.”  Moreover, Fr. Chupungco says that Evenou defined it as “a collection of behaviors and ritual practices that are more or less in harmony with the prescriptions of the hierarchic authorities” (pp. 100-101).

Religiosity, states Fr. Chupungco, is “a concrete form of genuine religion, even if its expressions are at times found lacking in sound doctrine and ecclesiastical discipline” (p. 101).  Popular would mean “an appellation whereby religiosity is distinguished from the liturgy or official form of worship” (p. 101).  It is popular because it is appealing to the common people or to the people in general.  However, such popular appeal would vary from one region to another.

The Catholic Church encourages popular devotions.  Vatican II puts it: “Popular devotions of the Christian people, provided they conform to the laws and norms of the Church, are to be highly recommended, especially where they are ordered by the Apostolic See” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 13).  We can point out some popular devotions in the Philippines approved by the Church, to wit: visits to the Blessed Sacrament, Holy Hour devotions, novenas, the Angelus, recitation of the rosary; seasonl devotions like stations of the Cross, visita de iglesia, prayer before the Blessed Sacrament on the night of Holy Thursday and the greater part of Good Friday, and pilgimages to Marian shrines in May.  We can also mention Pasyon (chanting before home altar during Lent).  Furthermore, we have processions and fiestas in honor of particular saints.  We have Black Nazarene in Quiapo and Santo Nino, which is not just found in Cebu but throughout the Visayas, Luzon and Mindanao (Mercado 1992, p. 91-103).

Above, we preoccupied ourselves with popular religion.  Our next task is to know, just a little, what do we mean by the religion of the experts.  This is the religion of philosophers and theologians, or better yet, the God of philosophers and theologians.  The West mostly influences the philosophy or theology we have.  Concerning Western Rational Theology, Emmanuel Levinas (1978, p. 130) observes, “God is said to exist eminently or par excellence.”  Maybe we can recall the God of Descartes.  It is, for Levinas, a transcendent God, a God “borrowed from the dimension of the sky over our heads” (p. 130).  In a word, the God of the philosophers and theologians is a transcendent one.  It may be the “Good” of Plato.  It is a God beyond our ordinary experiences.  No wonder when we talk to people about a God like this - infinite, transcendent, beyond human comprehension -  we don’t make an appeal to them.  That is why it is understandable why Mike Velarde is more popular than most of the Filipino theologians.

Clearly we can now draw an answer to the problem posed at the outset.  Popular religion is different from the religion of the experts because it is near to the experiences of the people.  One can easily relate to the God of popular religion.  In the words of Fr. Mercado concerning the devotion to the Black Nazarene, “In a country where most of the people are poor, where people are oppressed, and where earthquakes, typhoons and floods are common, being in empathy with the Suffering Christ gives the devotees the courage to go on living” (1992, p. 96).

- jose conrado a. estafia

References:

Chupungco, Anscar J.  Liturgical Inculturation: Sacramentals, Religiosity, and Catechesis.  Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1992.

Levinas, Emmanuel.  “God and Philosophy” in Philosophy Today, vol. 22/2-4 (1978).  

Mercado, Leonardo N.  “The Filipino Face of Christ” in Philippiniana Sacra, vol. XXVII, num. 79 (1992).

Vatican II.  Sacrosanctum Concilium.

Parallelism Between Christianity and Hinduism

Our aim is to show the similarities between Christianity and Hinduism.  The details of how the two religions differ will not be included in our short presentation.  Indeed, we can find many parallel things between the two religions.  However, we mention only ten.  Here are the following:

1. MOKSA, an escape from the impermanence of our mundane existence.  In Christianity we also have what we call FUGA MUNDI.

2. PRATIMA, murti, the worship of God in the form of an icon, or image.  This is seen also in Christianity.

3. PRASADA, in Hindi, prasad, meaning “grace.”  It reflects the recognition that when human beings make offerings to deities, the initiative is not really theirs.  In Christianity, it is also grace that makes us go to God and do our offerings.

4. BHAKTI, devotion.  In Christianity we have a lot of devotions.

5. Brahmins, the priestly class.  The brahmins have relgious powers.  They are the bearers and teachers of the Vedas.  How similar is it to Christianity’s ordained ministers.

6. Doctrine of Atman-Brahman, belief in the uncreated, eternal, infinite, transcendental principle.  This is the search of the One.  It is indeed a kind of a monotheistic religion.  This is evident also in Christianity.  Christianity believes in One, Eternal God.

7. TRIMURTI, the Hindu Trinity: Brahma, the creator, Vishnu, the preserver, and Shiva, the destroyer.  Nevertheless, they are three but the supreme power is singular with the plurality of gods addressed in daily worship.  In Christianity, we have the one God in three persons.

8. Pilgrimages to holy places are remarkable in Hinduism.  This is also importantly found in Christianity. 

9. Another important parallelism is the acceptance of the Hindus of the ethical teachings of the Gospels, particularly the Sermon on the Mount.

10. The Christian conception of love is also regarded in the Hindu religion.

The ten points above are not enumerated according to the degree of importance but only at random.

- jose conrado a. estafia

Source: Doniger, Wendy, ed.  Merriam-Webster’s Encyclopedia of World Religions.  Springfield, Massachusetts, 1999.