The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life by Émile Durkheim

First published:Les Formes elementaires de la vie religieuse: Le Systeme totemique en Australie, 1912 (English translation, 1915)

Type of work: Sociology/cultural anthropology

Form and Content

Émile Durkheim, one of the founding fathers of the modern discipline of sociology, was fascinated with religion in the same way that Karl Marx was fascinated by economic forces. In The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life his goal was to present a sociological theory of the origins and functions of religious institutions, writing that he wanted “to study the most primitive and the simplest religion which is presently known, to make an analysis of it, and to attempt an explanation of it.” He chose to concentrate on the religion of the Australian aborigines because at that time their culture was considered the most ancient in existence, and with his lineal conception of cultural evolution, Durkheim assumed that the study of the earliest known religion would provide insight into the essence of all other religions. Although an atheist, Durkheim believed that social organizations were based on religious foundations; therefore, he expected that this examination of Australian religion would make an important contribution to understanding the dynamics of human society and toward revealing “an essential and permanent aspect of humanity.”

Durkheim used a broad definition of the concept of “religion,” a definition based upon a division of society into two realms, the sacred and the profane:

A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden; these beliefs and practices unify the adherents into one moral community which is called a church.

More important for the study of Australia, Durkheim classified totemism (the belief that social groups had descended from a common animal or plant) as a form of religion. He did not classify magic as a religion, however, for he concluded that magical practices did not include an attitude of sacred reverence of worship, meaning there was no magical church. Since he assumed that religion was a social institution before anything else, Durkheim emphasized the role of the church and also the importance of ceremonies and rituals (to which he referred as “cults”).

The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life is a large, impressive volume which is organized into an introduction, three major divisions (which are called books), and a conclusion. Book 1, which includes four chapters, is devoted to the definitions and fundamental concepts of religion. Book 2, which contains nine chapters, emphasizes the nature of totemic beliefs and practices, and there are also chapters which examine Australian beliefs about spirits, gods, and the human soul. Book 3, containing five chapters, concentrates on the rituals and ceremonies of the aborigines, with an analysis of the social functions of these cult practices. As one would expect, the conclusion provides a summary of the major ideas and theoretical implications of the study.

Durkheim never had any personal contact with either the Australian aborigines or any other nonliterate, simple society. His account of the Australian beliefs and practices, therefore, depended entirely upon the limited firsthand accounts and ethnographic materials which were available early in the century. Durkheim’s notes make it obvious that he made much use of The Native Tribes of Central Australia (1899), by Sir Baldwin Spencer and Francis Gillen, a book that he had earlier reviewed in his scholarly journal L’Annee sociologique. This meant that much of Durkheim’s analysis was based on the beliefs and practices of the Arunta tribe, but he also made use of the anthropological works of A. W. Howitt and Brough Smyth. In general, Durkheim did not attempt a comparative approach, but he assumed that a careful study of one culture—one “crucial experiment”—would lead to valid generalizations about all human cultures.

Critical Context

The ethnographic information about the Australian aborigines is the weakest aspect of The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. Certainly this was not entirely Durkheim’s fault, because at the time of writing the firsthand examination of the aborigines was somewhat limited. In spite of his views on science, however, Durkheim did not hesitate to make speculative generalizations that went considerably beyond his evidence, and some of his theories can neither be confirmed nor falsified. Many of his major conclusions are based on the logical deductions of his premises rather than empirically based observations. For this reason social anthropologists such as Edward Evans-Pritchard tend to be more critical of Durkheim’s book than are sociologists who tend to be primarily interested in abstract theories. Among anthropologists, in fact, it is common to describe the book as an exercise in armchair speculation, especially when Durkheim is compared with his anthropological contemporaries such as Franz Boaz. Yet, many anthropologists have found that Durkheim did formulate provocative hypotheses which are helpful in field research.

Durkheim’s other writings definitely add much perspective to any evaluation of The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. In all of his works, Durkheim tended to express a view of social determinism, with a relatively limited place for individual freedom. In his earlier Le Suicide (1897; Suicide, 1951), for example, he argued that hyperindividualism tended to lead to a condition of anomie and result in self-destructive behavior. Durkheim was a critic of modern industrial society, especially the tendency for people to lose the sense of belonging to an integrated community. In all of his works, moreover, he maintained that explanations based on individual psychology were inadequate as a cause of social life, insisting that social facts must be explained by other social facts.

There were, however, real differences among his earlier and his later writings. In his earlier works Durkheim was more of a positivist who emphasized quantitative data and generally avoided reference to the subjective experiences of other people. He had insisted that social facts were to be treated as “things,” and this appeared to mean that sociologists should deal only with objective data which could be directly observed and measured. In later writings such as The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, in contrast, Durkheim was much less hesitant to make generalizations about subjective experiences—including the motivations for religious practices—which could not be empirically verified. In his later works he appeared to be much less interested in the use of statistical data; in these works Durkheim often practiced a method to which many social scientists refer as verstehende sociology (the attempt to use empathy in understanding the behavior and motives of other people).

Readers should treat many of Durkheim’s generalizations with appropriate skepticism. Anthropological research has cast considerable doubt on the assumption that the Australian aborigines have the most archaic culture in existence, and more important, anthropologists have learned to question whether the simplest technology and social arrangements will always be accompanied by the simplest religion. In most instances it is not that Durkheim was necessarily wrong, but rather the problem is that he was a philosopher trying to investigate ambitious questions which are often not susceptible to the scientific method. In comparing Durkheim’s theories with those of Tylor and Muller, for example, it is not necessary to assume that only one of the theories is correct, but it appears more reasonable to look for the valid insight in each of the theories.

Whatever the weaknesses of Durkheim’s sociology of religion, he did formulate a provocative, coherent theory which deserves to be treated seriously—a theory which has been tremendously influential in the literature of sociology and cultural anthropology. Most social scientists would not completely endorse or reject Durkheim’s theory in its entirety, but it does appear to contain a core which is valid. Religion is a social activity which does promote social cohesion, especially in tribal, homogeneous societies, and there is considerable evidence that religious beliefs and practices have often had an impact on the development of other cultural institutions. Although there are some unsupported exaggerations in The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, without these exaggerations it is doubtful that the book would have had its great influence on later social scientists.

Bibliography

La Capra, Dominick. Émile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher, 1972.

Lukes, Steven. Émile Durkheim: His Life and Work, 1972.

Nisbet, Robert. The Sociology of Émile Durkheim, 1974.

Pickering, W. S. F. Durkheim’s Sociology of Religion: Themes and Theories, 1974.

Wolff, Kurt, ed. Émile Durkheim, 1858-1917: A Collection of Essays with a Bibliography, 1960.