In contemporary society, debate on the topic of religion occupies a significant part of public opinion, becoming a source of social and political conflict. For many, religion functions as an outdated thought process at best and as a lifestyle that impedes the progress of science at worst, but this viewpoint ignores the process by which religion gained its dominant position originally. In spite of the apparent significance of the rise of religion, many people, including sociologists and philosophers alike, have called this significance into question. Among those who have called the significance of religion into question is Emile Durkheim; using totemic religious models as his primary example, Durkheim explains religion as a complex manifestation of the adherence to social values, best demonstrated through the use of a particular totem selected by the conscious group. In The Elementary Forms, Durkheim works to explain and analyze the most primitive religion practiced by man, that of the totemic belief structure. Durkheim believed that all modern religions could not be understood without first understanding the most primitive, and thus it was to the most primitive he turned for his explanation.
Totemic beliefs are one of the simplest forms of religious beliefs; they are uncomplicated by numerous offshoots and reflections and it is for this reason that Durkheim focuses his analysis on these totemic beliefs, allowing him to get to the heart of the matter in the most expedient fashion possible (Durkheim, 48). Durkheim believed that at the foundation of all beliefs, even the most simplistic, there would be a certain number of necessary and fundamental representations or attitudes which would have the same essence, significance, and function as in all religions, but in order to determine these foundational beliefs, the individual must locate them in the most simplistic religion first. In this manner, Durkheim is able to bypass the complexities found in Christianity and Islam, and the focus on the basic premise of totemism as the belief structure of many Native American tribes is familiar to most people on a basic level. The concept of the totem or totemic figure revolves around the process of creating a figure in the shape of the animal or plant that it is designed to represent, presenting as a form of fetishism. Durkheim challenges any misconceptions that may be present in this base concept by reminding his readers that totemism is not the worship of a particular animal, but is a combination of the animal’s symbol, the animal itself, and of man (Durkheim, 139). In other words, as the group worships the totem it is, in actuality, worshiping itself, creating a form of social cohesion and a sense of identity, as defined through the totem itself. In making this distinction, Durkheim is not only able to redefine the function and definition of religion, but hint at another source of supposedly divine source.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Analysis of Religion".
In place of an animal as a controlling force, Durkheim suggests that the power of religion comes from the will and the view of the society, allowing for a physical manifestation of the views and morals of the society during the time at which the religion was created and/or popular. Durkheim believed that religion was not an indivisible whole, but rather a complex system of interlocking parts and by dividing those parts into various rites it would be possible to determine the underlying causalities for each of the different aspects, as in the case of the totem or fetish itself. In totemism, the animal symbol or totem does not serve as the source of power, but represents the emotion or experience of the religion (Durkheim, 220). It is based on this idea that another force has already been acknowledged as controlling life and other aspects of the world. Instead of focusing on the physical source of this force, the point of religion centers on a psychosocial one. For Durkheim, the cause of religious beliefs and actions are present within the societal morals and beliefs that unite a given group of people both mentally and emotionally (Durkheim, 208). The extent of these beliefs and morals often translates into an intense psychological and emotional effect, different from that which may be found in their normal or profane lives. By connecting these experiences to a totem, each group of people is able to relive that effect felt by the given tribe.
The psychological effect extends beyond the creation of an identity through the definition of time and location. As Mircea Eliade, philosopher, stated, religious believers define their locations as the “center of the world” in order to be closer to the heavens, marking a difference between sacred and profane events using time (Eliade, 39,70). This thought process works to change the perception of the world by providing it with something to compare other events and locations; as such, religion becomes not only a product of societies, but a way of defining existence. Durkheim goes further by relating these ideas to their sociological impact. For totemic tribes, the defined locations for storing relics, known as ertnatulunga or churinga respectively, had great spiritual value for the clan; due to their value, there were certain clans who believed these could only be accessed by men of a certain age (Durkheim, 120-121). These forms of classification work to separate the land from the area of the profane and could even be used as a means of defining other spaces, just as age and time defined the ability and maturity levels of an individual. This definition places emphasis on an idea central to Durkheim’s definition of religion, the existence of a community or church. The separation of the locations for relic storage worked to not only create a cohesive society, with each member playing their own vital part, depending on the different ages or roles that they were assigned within the tribe, allowing for the intertwining of all society members based on their positions therein.
The idea of the overachieving purpose of the church brought down criticism upon Durkheim, most notably from the anthropologist Malinowski. To Malinowski, all forms of religion, including totemism, centered on man’s desire to control his surroundings, which are in turn controlled by a divine force (Malinowski, 20). For Malinowski, totemism was a form of magical thinking and practice, something that was fashionable to discuss during the time. Malinowski did not consider totemism to be superfluous, nor as easily solvable as Durkheim made it out to be, as a result of the magical aspects thereof. This definition focuses only on the actions of the belief system, however, ignoring the driving social and psychological contexts thereof; it becomes a method of coping with the world, as opposed to defining it. Malinowski defines totemism as a religion designed to control the availability of a given resource, such as a plant or animal, and criticizes Durkheim for attempting to make more of the concept than that (Malinowski, 20). He considered it to be about man’s relationship or union with an animal, a plant, or inanimate object, and not as a means of creating a cohesive society. While this becomes an effect of totemism, the actual power and focus rests not on the animal, but on the item which bears the image of the animal. In short, the clan or social group places a greater emphasis on the preservation of the relic than the animal, which they will consume as needed.
The story of Lame Deer demonstrates the effect of Durkheim’s theory on a single person. Durkheim explains that many young men of American Indian tribes often undergo grueling vision quests in order to determine their individual totem and patron, one that is separate from their clan’s totem (Durkheim, 161-162). This process fully incorporates the men in the tribe into a community by having them embrace the social customs of the tribe to the point of both mental and physical exhaustion. The figure that the individual sees becomes his totem, tied into these intense emotions. For Lame Deer, the process concludes in a slightly different manner, however. Instead of seeing his specific totem and namesake, he sees his great grandfather in his vision state, interpreting it as a sign that the elder wished his descendent to take his name (Deer & Erodes, 6). While this does not link the young man to his animal totem directly, it does conjure an image of the animal through the name of the individual. In addition, by choosing this animal, Lame Deer is able to develop an underlying connection with this ancestor and the expectations of the tribe by choosing a strong totem. In this manner, Lame Deer is not only able to connect with the society of which he is a part, but with the tribe’s history as well. In completing the vision quest, Lame Deer was participating in the rituals of the tribe, becoming a part of the society. In taking his ancestor’s name he was tying himself to the tribe’s history, and in taking that ancestor’s specific name, it was as though he had selected an animal as well, working to further bond himself to the rituals of the society in which he lived. In essence, his choice is able to demonstrate the social connection with the tribe through the quest. It may be seen that Lame Deer’s tale actually works to reinforce the analysis created by Durkheim in regards to the totemic belief structure and practices thereof.
For many, religious beliefs are at the center of their lives, a notion which Durkheim takes a step further by suggesting that religious beliefs combined with the will of the group that creates them are what defines that ability to interpret and understand life. He explains this theory through his analysis of totemism, a system in which a clan places value on a particular totem due to the associated feelings generated by following the will of the group, showing that the religion itself works to provide the backbone of the society in which the individual resides. This understanding directly contradicts the arguments of professionals, like Malinowski, who posit that religion is more than a tool utilized by a group of people. Experiences such as those of the Sioux medicine man, Lame Deer, emphasize the importance of religion in the formation of the identity of the individual, and the connection of the individual to the social group of which they are a part. Perhaps if similar analyses were conducted utilizing more complex religions, like Christianity or Islam, working off of the basic premises identified by Durkheim in his analysis of totemism, it may become possible to find the true origin and function of religion, though an undertaking of such immense magnitude would be difficult at best, requiring decades of analysis and research.
