The Elementary Forms of Religious Life
- Downloads：1638
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2022-10-30 05:52:19
- Update Date：2025-09-06
- Status：finish
- Author：Émile Durkheim
- ISBN：0199540128
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
In The Elementary Forms of Religious Life （1912）， Emile Durkheim set himself the task of discovering the enduring source of human social identity。 He investigated what he considered to be the simplest form of documented religion - totemism among the Aborigines of Australia。 Aboriginal religion was an avenue 'to yield an understanding of the religious nature of man， by showing us an essential and permanent aspect of humanity'。 The need and capacity of men and women to relate socially lies at the heart of Durkheim's exploration， in which religion embodies the beliefs that shape our moral universe。
Reviews
Harry Gardner
，
This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers。 To view it， click here。 An interesting book that posits religion in its first instance as a social creation （result of individuals codifying/objectifying the forces they themselves generated in action） through the test case of Aboriginal Australian religion。 While the book's analysis of Aboriginal research seems to have fared poorly， the overall argument that rite and ritual is more fundamental to religion than speculative thought is fairly convincing。 Beyond faiths that have emerged during civilizational memory （such An interesting book that posits religion in its first instance as a social creation （result of individuals codifying/objectifying the forces they themselves generated in action） through the test case of Aboriginal Australian religion。 While the book's analysis of Aboriginal research seems to have fared poorly， the overall argument that rite and ritual is more fundamental to religion than speculative thought is fairly convincing。 Beyond faiths that have emerged during civilizational memory （such as Christianity） where the speculative case of different practices emerged prior to the practices （at least those practices original to Christianity）， there is something very compelling about this。 A few lines of thought based off this idea。 We （as a group） mourn the loss of someone beloved in a community。 In this period of time， our responses feed off of each other， the feeling of aloneness and separation that sadness may engender （when it is just us） is avoided， and instead we become palpably aware that in this emotion we are participating with something greater。 However， it may be the case that we are not aware that this is what we are feeling--the sheer sense of shared feeling and community with others in this feeling--but we are aware that is powerful。 So in this way， we ascribe it to something sacred。 。。。more
Lucy
，
idk？
Rick Sam
，
An Average Tamil， call him， "Raja"， could conjure up this on Religion。 Let's see some responses， invented to control people， therefore false。 Well， it doesn't hold up to scrutiny。 Let's see another response， to manage fear of death， therefore false。 Well， it doesn't hold up to scrutiny。Create a Hypothesis， and then， see if answers match up to， Why Religion？ Ad-hoc explanation。 Durkheim says， Religion is unified system of beliefs， practices relative to sacred things， things set apart and forbidde An Average Tamil， call him， "Raja"， could conjure up this on Religion。 Let's see some responses， invented to control people， therefore false。 Well， it doesn't hold up to scrutiny。 Let's see another response， to manage fear of death， therefore false。 Well， it doesn't hold up to scrutiny。Create a Hypothesis， and then， see if answers match up to， Why Religion？ Ad-hoc explanation。 Durkheim says， Religion is unified system of beliefs， practices relative to sacred things， things set apart and forbidden， beliefs & practices unite together as community。 Well， I don't see how Hinduism falls into Durkheim's definition The problem with many of the explanations might be， Genetic fallacy of some sort。Besides， peal away details of religious tradition of all forms， what do we get？ Abstraction Abstraction applied into religious tradition of all forms， what do we get？ Sacredness So， at least we have one way of looking into Sociology of Religion， rather than nothing。 Deus Vult Gottfried 。。。more
Individualfrog
，
I am very glad to at last put down this book， which I have been reading for over three months， because it is nearly impenetrable and extremely boring; on the other hand， I am very glad to have read it， because it is also extremely fascinating and fertile and even life-affirming/optimistic。 Although its nominal aim is to explain the origins of religion， its real object is to affirm the value of sociology， almost to make it the queen of the sciences。It is so tedious， partly perhaps because of a ba I am very glad to at last put down this book， which I have been reading for over three months， because it is nearly impenetrable and extremely boring; on the other hand， I am very glad to have read it， because it is also extremely fascinating and fertile and even life-affirming/optimistic。 Although its nominal aim is to explain the origins of religion， its real object is to affirm the value of sociology， almost to make it the queen of the sciences。It is so tedious， partly perhaps because of a bad translation or simple bad， impenetrable writing， but also because the method is pretty terrible。 First Durkheim sets out some of the theories of his predecessors and contemporaries on the origins of religion， and in the manner of a philosopher， attacks and refutes them。 This part sucks because the theories are so patently ludicrous， absurd just-so stories straight out of high school stoner thought patterns -- whoa， man， what if we got the idea of the soul because， like， we dream sometimes？ and in dreams we go somewhere else？？ and then we wake up and we're like， dude， I was just somewhere else and now I'm back here again， wtf is going on！ I must be some kind of immaterial being！ -- and it's almost incomprehensible that anyone would ever take them seriously。 Then he sets out to examine what he calls the "most primitive" form of religion， the totemism of indigenous Australians， who， he says， live at the lowest level of civilization ever seen， and therefore closest to the most ancient beginnings of Man， etc。 This part sucks for many obvious reasons。 The idea that anyone living in the present is somehow the same as someone living 100，000 years ago has no basis， as silly as the idea that any animal is "less evolved" than another; time has passed the exact same amount for everyone。 The idea that Australian societies are "primitive" and "simple" is plainly racist and also， frankly refuted by the very contents of the book， which explains in great detail the almost incomprehensibly complicated systems of kinship that Durkheim's sources （he never went to Australia， of course） documented。 As in the boringest parts of The Golden Bough there is inexhaustible detail which you can't possibly take for granted as accurate， coming from 19th Century colonialist anthropologists whose work， even if done with the best of intent and practice of the time， must by now be obsolete。So what's the good part？ It's the part that doesn't depend on any of this silliness， Durkheim's main theme and justification of sociology: that religion， and in fact almost every part of human thought， is the product of society。 （I kept thinking of Borges: "The composition of vast books is a laborious and impoverishing extravagance。 To go on for five hundred pages developing an idea whose perfect oral exposition is possible in a few minutes！"） God， if I may use that word to simplify Durkheim's argument， is not imaginary: it is simply another name， a sort of concretization， of society。 Because society is real， and social pressures are real; the invigoration we feel when we come together in society （for example， in church） is real， and the strictures of morality are the real， demonstrable， though not material， effect of society on the individual。 There really is something， which is not you， and immaterial， but absolutely real， which has created you -- because a human outside of society is no human， Durkheim would say a mere animal， but I would say not even an animal but a sort of biological object -- and which comforts and supports you and makes life possible for you， and which demands your obedience to its moral order: it is society。 It is undeniable that it has a power to compel， despite the fact that it can't be measured by any instrument or directly perceived by any of our senses。It is the fact that thinkers have always taken the individual in isolation， since Decartes and Daniel Defoe， as the basis for thinking about things， that we have not grasped this， says Durkheim， and I have been thinking so many similar thoughts about individualism， but still this book really pushed me farther in that direction。 And if it was a little disheartening to have it confirmed to my satisfaction that solitary religion is no religion at all -- that the essence of religion is getting togeher with other people and feeling the powerful influence of the group -- it was on the other hand good to be reminded that art and parties and funerals etc are， deep down， also religious， all the same kind of thing。 And that the experience of communion with one's fellow man is that religious experience which， as Jung says， is much more important than 'faith'。 。。。more
Francisco Gamboa
，
Indudablemente la obra de maestra de Émile Durkheim。 No sólo su pensamiento es bastante más maduro y abierto que en obras anteriores， sino que el tema y la manera en que lo trata es exquisito。 El clásico de clásicos de unos de los padres de la sociología。
Taylor FK
，
This one is really good imo
Max Ingersoll
，
mind blowing: definitely need more totems in my life
Kayla
，
def the most intriguing book I've read for SOSC so far def the most intriguing book I've read for SOSC so far 。。。more
Aykut Karabay
，
Durkheim çığır açan bu kitabında Din düşüncesini yapısöküme uğratıyor ve dini inancın nasıl oluştuğunu zamanımızdakiilkel toplulukları araştırarak sosyolojik veriler ışığında ortaya koyuyor。 Durkheim Sosyolojik metodun kurallarına uyarak toplumsal bir olayın sebebinin yine toplumsal bir olay olduğunu， dolayısıyla kutsallığın toplumdan kaynaklandığını vurgular。 Kutsal olan olmayan （Helal-Haram） ile ilgili uygulamaların da yine toplumun genel kabullerine dayandırır。 Kısacası din toplumdan çıkmıştı Durkheim çığır açan bu kitabında Din düşüncesini yapısöküme uğratıyor ve dini inancın nasıl oluştuğunu zamanımızdakiilkel toplulukları araştırarak sosyolojik veriler ışığında ortaya koyuyor。 Durkheim Sosyolojik metodun kurallarına uyarak toplumsal bir olayın sebebinin yine toplumsal bir olay olduğunu， dolayısıyla kutsallığın toplumdan kaynaklandığını vurgular。 Kutsal olan olmayan （Helal-Haram） ile ilgili uygulamaların da yine toplumun genel kabullerine dayandırır。 Kısacası din toplumdan çıkmıştır。 Yaptığı incelemede totemizmin ilk din olduğunu bulmuştur。 Yani kitabın genel tezi; Dinin sosyal bir gerçek olmasıdır。 Dini düşünceler sosyal realiteleri ifade eden ortak düşüncelerdir。 Ayinler; sosyal grupların içinden doğan， bu gruplarda ortak zihni durumları meydana getirmeye， sürdürmeye ve canlandırmaya yarayan hareket tarzlarıdır。 Eğer aklın kategorileri dini kaynaklı ise， bütün dini olaylar sosyal- kolektif düşüncenin ürünüdür。 Durkheim’a göre insan toplumlarında önce birliği sağlamak İçin kolektif ibadet gelişmiştir。 Kişisel din， ancak kolektif dinin görünümünü temsil eden tamamlayıcı bir parçasıdır。 Hem tarihte， hem günümüzde toplum kutsiyetin parçalarını meydana getirmiştir。 Bir takım insanları， eşyayı， fikirleri kutsallaştırır。 Toplum o inanca dokunmayı， inkar veya kabul etmeyi， eleştirmeyi yasaklar。 Yani dini inancın kaynakları bizzat toplumdadır。 Din sosyal organizasyonu sağlayan bir yapıdır。 Bunun kökeni de ilkel toplumların Totemizm inancındadır。 Bu nedenle dini inancı incelemek pozitif sosyal bilimlere， tarihe， Antropolojiye， psikolojiye ve tabiat bilimlerine dayanmak zorundadır。 Durkheim’da bizzat bu kitapta bu yöntemi uygulamış。 Tavsiye ederim。 。。。more
Alan
，
Durkheim sets out to create a science of society， using Aboriginal Australian religion as a sort of 'model system'。 I don't think he succeeds in this ambitious project， but I do see how the large number of interesting ideas discussed and proposed may have had so profound an impact on sociology that the discipline treats Durkheim as one of its founders。 The book starts strong with a rigorous argument for the project， but then gets bogged down in citing ethnographic reports of Australian spiritual Durkheim sets out to create a science of society， using Aboriginal Australian religion as a sort of 'model system'。 I don't think he succeeds in this ambitious project， but I do see how the large number of interesting ideas discussed and proposed may have had so profound an impact on sociology that the discipline treats Durkheim as one of its founders。 The book starts strong with a rigorous argument for the project， but then gets bogged down in citing ethnographic reports of Australian spiritual practices。 One gets the distinct feeling that Durkheim is hand-picking his cases as they support this or that part of his argument。 He even uses Pacific Islander and Native American examples， despite stating earlier that these societies are not 'primitive' enough to serve as models the way Australians supposedly do。 Fortunately， the book ends with a strong finish， articulating his big idea that religion is an epiphenomenon of human sociability， anticipating the post-modern concept of a 'social construct' （though he does not use the term）。 He then suggests that other human activities， such as science itself， are such constructs。 Finally， all human ideas and abstraction， even concepts of space， time， and causality， are constructs。 Strong stuff。 Not scientific， but certainly provocative。 。。。more
Honza Pohl
，
Přečtený závěr a úvod do univerzitního předmětu。
José Angel Hernández
，
I thought the book was OK ONLY。 His study on SUICIDE was much more revealing and insightful。 My only reason for picking up this book was in order to appreciate a bit more of the nuance in another book that supposedly employed some of his concepts。 Ranajit Guha's book， "The Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India" is perhaps one of the BEST books on social history ever written--far better than anything EP Thompson， EJ Hobsbawm， Rude， or Durkheim ever wrote。 Given the date of pu I thought the book was OK ONLY。 His study on SUICIDE was much more revealing and insightful。 My only reason for picking up this book was in order to appreciate a bit more of the nuance in another book that supposedly employed some of his concepts。 Ranajit Guha's book， "The Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India" is perhaps one of the BEST books on social history ever written--far better than anything EP Thompson， EJ Hobsbawm， Rude， or Durkheim ever wrote。 Given the date of publication， much of what Durkheim says is obviously outdated， but the notion that religions originated in totem/animal/forest spirits seems like his major contribution when the book was published。 Folks interested in the elementary forms of religious life might be better off reading Mircea Eliade or Bruce Lincoln， IMHO。。。。 。。。more
Kevin Dingess
，
A Foundational Sociology of Religion ClassicEmile Durkheim is one of my favorite sociologists of all-time。 His work on religion and on suicide stands the tests of time。 Arguably， he has written the greatest book on understanding why people are religious ever。 In this must-read， he defines religion。 He also describes and explains the most primitive religions known to man， which include: animism， naturism， and totemism。 In this masterpiece， he describes their nature， causes， and consequences。 This A Foundational Sociology of Religion ClassicEmile Durkheim is one of my favorite sociologists of all-time。 His work on religion and on suicide stands the tests of time。 Arguably， he has written the greatest book on understanding why people are religious ever。 In this must-read， he defines religion。 He also describes and explains the most primitive religions known to man， which include: animism， naturism， and totemism。 In this masterpiece， he describes their nature， causes， and consequences。 This is must read for anyone interested in religion or sociological theory！ 。。。more
Elari
，
Enjoyed this very much， for no good reason。 My favorite fallacy: “Surely， it ought to be a principle for the science of religions that religion expresses nothing that is not in nature: There is no science except science of natural phenomena。 […] What sort of science is it whose principal discovery is to make the very object it treats disappear？”
Socrate
，
Ce judecăți se pot emite astăzi despre teoria durkheimiană asupra religiei ？ În lucrarea sa， Prades își propune， după cum arată subtitlul， să-l actualizeze pe Durkheim pentru a regândi modernitatea （J。 Prades， 1987）。 Această perspectivă este justificată， după Prades， de faptul că autorul căuta să fondeze Ón Forme。。。 o nouă manieră de a explica omul， și nu de a studia totemismul sau religia în ele însele。 Este deci necesar să punem problema locului pe care îl ocupă societatea în explicarea naturi Ce judecăți se pot emite astăzi despre teoria durkheimiană asupra religiei ？ În lucrarea sa， Prades își propune， după cum arată subtitlul， să-l actualizeze pe Durkheim pentru a regândi modernitatea （J。 Prades， 1987）。 Această perspectivă este justificată， după Prades， de faptul că autorul căuta să fondeze Ón Forme。。。 o nouă manieră de a explica omul， și nu de a studia totemismul sau religia în ele însele。 Este deci necesar să punem problema locului pe care îl ocupă societatea în explicarea naturii umane。 。。。more
aa
，
Durkheim's ideas about religion seem accurate and useful。 I find myself thinking about them quite often， and I read this book months ago。 That said， the second half of the book dragged on a bit。 Durkheim argues that philosophy and science originated in religion。 Religion is social， meaning the idea at the root of our understanding， like number， space， time， and causation， are understood socially。 For example， while one doesn’t need the concept of time to remember one’s past， the idea of one pass Durkheim's ideas about religion seem accurate and useful。 I find myself thinking about them quite often， and I read this book months ago。 That said， the second half of the book dragged on a bit。 Durkheim argues that philosophy and science originated in religion。 Religion is social， meaning the idea at the root of our understanding， like number， space， time， and causation， are understood socially。 For example， while one doesn’t need the concept of time to remember one’s past， the idea of one passageway that represents a sequence of events is “rich in social elements” as Durkheim carefully puts it， since it’s the same of everybody。 He points to the calendar to backup his point， arguing that it divides time by regular units like years and weeks， in accordance to ritual rites， feasts， and public ceremonies。” To be clear， he’s not arguing that the categories are pure social constructions。 Rather， social life shines light on the categories and makes them vivid。 They were always laws of the objective world， we just notice them due to social life。In the book’s first section， Durkheim critiques contemporary theories of religion at the time。 He dispels notions that religion is of the supernatural or divine。 The former fails because “primitives” didn’t see religious beliefs as mysterious or unnatural， but instead as totally simple and normal。 “Divinity” assumes spiritual beings with superior powers， but major religions like Buddhism have nothing like this。Durkheim believes that separating the world into the profane and sacred is one “distinctive trait of religious thought，” the “first criterion of religious belief。” This isn’t necessarily a hierarchical relationship。 In one religion， humans throw pebbles at Gods to wake them up， for example。 The sacred and profane are primarily characterized by just how different they are。 Things like good and bad may seem opposite， but both share the trait of being moral categories。 This belief in the sacred and profane leads to religious rites， which he defines as rules of conduct when in presence of the sacred。Religion is very hostile to magic， and magicians often profane sacred things。 He believes the main difference between the two is that religion implies a group， while magic doesn’t bind people together。 There’s no church of magic。 Hence why the magician’s use of sacred objects is seen as blasphemous。Durkheim’s definition of religion is “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。” <47>Durkheim wants to know why humanity splits the world into sacred and profane。 He critiques ideas by his contemporaries that the sacred comes from the delusion。 Some say that experiencing oneself as double creates the notion of the soul， or that our being overwhelmed by nature leads us to create the idea of the sacred。 But nature is regular and everywhere， so it couldn’t have led to this bifurcation。 He also argues that dreams wouldn’t necessarily lead to the idea of a double， it could also mean that the body changes during sleep。 But your peers seeing you asleep would negate this possibility， which maybe fits into Durkheim’s insistence that sociality is ultimately behind religion。No， humanity doesn’t get idea of the sacred from dreams or nature， we get it from what he calls totemism。 He uses anthropology about Australian tribes which is now over a hundred years old to tease out his ideas。 Unfortunately， much of this is predictably racist。According to this anthropology， a tribe is made up of clans。 Each clan considers others kin because they share a name and totem。 The totem is usually of animals or plants， but occasionally inanimate objects like the wind or sun。 Members of these clans often paint their totem on house ornaments and shields， or imprint them on their flesh。 Oftentime this representation isn’t very accurate， only they would know what it is。What the totem represents is treated as sacred。 It’s forbidden to eat， and members of the clan see themselves as part of that species， and therefore also sacred。 They have myths and stories which explain why they are related to the totem。 This makes totemic religion explicitly not animal worship， since clan members worship themselves too。 The totem unifies them。So， where did this notion of the sacred come from？ Durkheim believes it comes from the notion of mana， the first instance of the concept of “force。” In this case， a physical force with a moral character which demands the duty of respect。 It’s seen as powerful and carries with it the duty of respect。 The totem is a material expression of the clan and how its different than others。And where do we get this idea of mana？ From society。 Society is like God， it’s a thing we feel dependent on， that has power over us， which demands our aid。 It trumps our individual desire， but also gives us a sense of power and strength in the world， which trumps our desires and inclinations。 。。。more
Wiley
，
Durkheim presents very interesting arguments about the basic definition of religion， including "primitive religion" that is centered around native populations。 While some of the logic is based unfortunately based on a gendered and colonialist mindset， it still remains quite relevant to our view of religion and its purposes today。 Though I'm not sure why most of the book is focused so heavily on JUST totemism。 There are so many more types of religion that don't rely on totemism， and are equally d Durkheim presents very interesting arguments about the basic definition of religion， including "primitive religion" that is centered around native populations。 While some of the logic is based unfortunately based on a gendered and colonialist mindset， it still remains quite relevant to our view of religion and its purposes today。 Though I'm not sure why most of the book is focused so heavily on JUST totemism。 There are so many more types of religion that don't rely on totemism， and are equally different from religion we saw flourishing in Europe at the time。 。。。more
mo
，
foundational text that's been deemed essential but so so racist。 i read this three or four times start to finish in undergrad and honestly a critical review and summary would have probably been a better assignment and taken a fraction of the time。 foundational text that's been deemed essential but so so racist。 i read this three or four times start to finish in undergrad and honestly a critical review and summary would have probably been a better assignment and taken a fraction of the time。 。。。more
C A
，
tout l’essentiel du bouddhisme tient dans quatre propositions que les fidèles appellent les quatre nobles vérités。 La première pose l’existence de la douleur comme liée au perpétuel écoulement des choses ; la seconde montre dans le désir la cause de la douleur ; la troisième fait de la suppression du désir le seul moyen de supprimer la douleur ; la quatrième énumère les trois étapes par lesquelles il faut passer pour parvenir à cette suppression : c’est la droiture， la méditation， enfin la sages tout l’essentiel du bouddhisme tient dans quatre propositions que les fidèles appellent les quatre nobles vérités。 La première pose l’existence de la douleur comme liée au perpétuel écoulement des choses ; la seconde montre dans le désir la cause de la douleur ; la troisième fait de la suppression du désir le seul moyen de supprimer la douleur ; la quatrième énumère les trois étapes par lesquelles il faut passer pour parvenir à cette suppression : c’est la droiture， la méditation， enfin la sagesse， la pleine possession de la doctrine。 Ces trois étapes traversées， on arrive au terme du chemin， à la délivrance， au salut par le Nirvana。Une religion est un système solidaire de croyances et de pratiques relatives à des choses sacrées， c’est-à-dire séparées， interdites， croyances et pratiques qui unissent en une même communauté morale， appelée Église， tous ceux qui y adhèrent。Le croyant vit donc， comme le délirant， dans un milieu peuplé d’êtres et de choses qui n’ont qu’une existence verbale。 C’est， d’ailleurs， ce que reconnaît Max Müller lui-même， puisqu’il voit dans les mythes le produit d’une maladie de la pensée。Les rites sont， en partie， des moyens destinés à lui permettre d’imposer ses volontés au monde。 Loin donc qu’elles soient dues au sentiment que l’homme aurait de sa petitesse en face de l’univers， les religions s’inspirent plutôt du sentiment contraire。 Même les plus élevées et les plus idéalistes ont pour effet de rassurer l’homme dans sa lutte avec les choses : elles professent que la foi est， par elle-même， capable « de soulever les montagnes »， c’est-à-dire de dominer les forces de la nature。> Qu’on retire à l’homme le langage， les sciences， les arts， les croyances de la morale， et il tombe au rang de l’animalité。 Les attributs caractéristiques de la nature humaine nous viennent donc de la société。 Mais d’un autre côté， la société n’existe et ne vit que dans et par les individus。 Que l’idée de la société s’éteigne dans les esprits individuels， que les croyances， les traditions， les aspirations de la collectivité cessent d’être senties et partagées par les particuliers， et la société mourra。 On peut donc répéter d’elle ce qui était dit plus haut de la divinité : elle n’a de réalité que dans la mesure où elle tient de la place dans les consciences humaines， et cette place， c’est nous qui la lui faisons。> Le fidèle qui a communié avec son dieu n’est pas seulement un homme qui voit des vérités nouvelles que l’incroyant ignore ; c’est un homme qui peut davantage。 Il sent en lui plus de force soit pour supporter les difficultés de l’existence soit pour les vaincre。 Il est comme élevé au-dessus des misères humaines parce qu’il est élevé au-dessus de sa condition d’homme ; il se croit sauvé du mal， sous quelque forme， d’ailleurs， qu’il conçoive le mal。 Le premier article de toute foi， c’est la croyance au salut par la foi。> la philosophie peut bien s’élaborer dans le silence de la méditation intérieure， mais non une foi。 Car une foi est， avant tout， chaleur， vie， enthousiasme， exaltation de toute l’activité mentale， transport de l’individu au-dessus de lui-même。 Or， comment pourrait-il， sans sortir de soi， ajouter aux énergies qu’il possède ？ Comment pourrait-il se dépasser par ses seules forces ？ Le seul foyer de chaleur auquel nous puissions nous réchauffer moralement est celui que forme la société de nos semblables ; les seules forces morales dont nous puissions sustenter et accroître les nôtres sont celles que nous prête autrui。 。。。more
Aayush Raj
，
"Everything depends upon the circumstances which lead the sentiment creating religious ideas to establish itself here or there， upon this point or upon that one。 Therefore， the sacred character assumed by an object if not implied in the intrinsic properties of this latter: it is added to them。 The world of religious things is not one particular aspect of empirical nature; it is superimposed upon it。"This is a monumental work and throughout the book one fundamental concept iterates - At the found "Everything depends upon the circumstances which lead the sentiment creating religious ideas to establish itself here or there， upon this point or upon that one。 Therefore， the sacred character assumed by an object if not implied in the intrinsic properties of this latter: it is added to them。 The world of religious things is not one particular aspect of empirical nature; it is superimposed upon it。"This is a monumental work and throughout the book one fundamental concept iterates - At the foundation of all the religious practices and ceremonies lies the collective consceince。 There are limited elementary religious forms which are discussed in this book， but nevertheless the analysis therein is extensive and the deductions more convincing。 A gender-biasedness may appear to wrought this treatise， but in the context of the elementary religions under the lens， that only seems inevitable; not from the perspective of the researcher but from the perspective of that being researched。 It is interesting that in his research， Durkheim accepts his limitations and tries to discard them for this work， when he says - 'But in reasoning thus we substitute our European ideas for those which th primitive has of man and society。'The explanations provided for in the book is lucid and can be grasped easily by any reader。 The intensity of the book is in the fact of explanation of the details。 Further， this book does not leave associated aspects to the whims of the readers and thus， apart from the fundamental basis of religion it also showcases how collective identity， in its varied forms， is also the basis of many ideas associated with metaphysical world。This book knits the sacred with the profane and in doing so it characterises the sacredness held by each being。 This is a reiteration of the idea posited by Leibniz in his Discourse on Metaphysics where he says - 'It can indeed be said that each substance bears in some sort the character of God's infinite wisdom and omnipotence and imitates him as much as he is able to:。。。' It is the capability of Durkheim that sets him apart through this treatise and very beautifully showcases his ability as a sociologist。There is another idea which I find inscribed in this book which the author sets at the outset when he writes - 'All are religious equally， just as all living beings are equally alive， from the most humble plastids to man。' It is further that he argues that very many religions are not a hinderance to human spiritual realisation and rather a beneficence to the mortals。 This same idea is iterated by Swami Vivekananda in his book Premyoga where he respects and invites multiple notions and ideas of religion， as it suits to any individual。 But the fundamental basis still is attributable to the collective representation of social edict。This book， for me， was unputdownable and for those who want to study the religious basis， this book is a must。 。。。more
Taliarochminska
，
interesting concept of sacrum being a foundation bonding people into society
Lorraine
，
Published in 1915 by Durkheim， father of anthropology and sociology， the Elementary Forms of the Religious Life is 496 pages of dazzling intellectual brilliance。 Relying on the published accounts of Spencer and Gillen， Carl Strehlow， and almost everyone who had researched Australian Aborigines up to that point in time， Durkheim took totemism to be the most elementary form of 'religious' activity （you have to read the cultural relativism and notions of developmental hierarchies in their historica Published in 1915 by Durkheim， father of anthropology and sociology， the Elementary Forms of the Religious Life is 496 pages of dazzling intellectual brilliance。 Relying on the published accounts of Spencer and Gillen， Carl Strehlow， and almost everyone who had researched Australian Aborigines up to that point in time， Durkheim took totemism to be the most elementary form of 'religious' activity （you have to read the cultural relativism and notions of developmental hierarchies in their historical context） and through applying the forensic techniques of classical logic， he proves his thesis that religion is a product of society and that the individual soul is only a portion of the collective soul （p 299）。 In totemism， he found "all the great ideas and the principal ritual attitudes which are the basis of [all] religions: the division of things into sacred and profane， the notions of the soul， of spirits， of mythical personalities， and of a national and even international divinity" etc。 p462。 Of particular currency are his observations about society: " society cannot make its influence felt unless it is in action， and it is not in action unless the individuals who compose it are assembled together and act in common" （p 465）。 What are the implications then of COVID lockdowns？ What will be the long-term consequences？ 。。。more
Jie
，
The division of profane and sacred not only explains religious beliefs， but also other social norms that bifurcate behaviours。 The book seems to rely heavily on the previous studies of Australian first nations。 Chinese Book of Rites provides another example of how rites are used as forms of beliefs on the face。 From the functional perspective， these rites and rituals are glues for social identity and social solidarity。
Ermina
，
Konačno završeno。 Divim se ovolikoj količini informacija o jednoj širokoj temi kao što je totemizam。 Preporučujem kao nadopunu Frojdu， a možda i Frejzeru。
Kevin Riley
，
The basic ideas may be somewhat dated， but this remains one of the classic texts on the study of religion。 The basics of totemism may have been misunderstood， and the 'primitiveness' of 'primitive' religion over-rated， but this text still provides much food for thought。 The basic ideas may be somewhat dated， but this remains one of the classic texts on the study of religion。 The basics of totemism may have been misunderstood， and the 'primitiveness' of 'primitive' religion over-rated， but this text still provides much food for thought。 。。。more
Fernando Valderrama
，
This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers。 To view it， click here。 Qué maravillosa obra， era un libro que lo tenía pendiente desde mi periodo universitario。 Confieso que durante la lectura se me resolvieron muchas dudas sobre los aspectos más básicos de la religión， antes sólo pensaba que era una pura invención con utilidades políticas， pero eso es algo que si bien puede ser muy cierto no explica el por qué existe la religión desde que existen sociedades o colectividades y cómo nace。 Creo que es el objetivo fundamental de este mamotreto。 Sus numerosas páginas d Qué maravillosa obra， era un libro que lo tenía pendiente desde mi periodo universitario。 Confieso que durante la lectura se me resolvieron muchas dudas sobre los aspectos más básicos de la religión， antes sólo pensaba que era una pura invención con utilidades políticas， pero eso es algo que si bien puede ser muy cierto no explica el por qué existe la religión desde que existen sociedades o colectividades y cómo nace。 Creo que es el objetivo fundamental de este mamotreto。 Sus numerosas páginas demuestran el por qué la religión es un fenómeno sociológico， pero además se propone explicar sus orígenes y desacreditar otras explicaciones que la califican como pura deformación del lenguaje， producto de los sueños （animismo ） o temor a la naturaleza （naturismo）。 Es muy interesante cómo Durkheim analiza obras etnográficas sobre culturas primitivas sin confundir el método sociológico con los de esta disciplina。 Fiel a su método， Durkheim parte explicando lo que la religión no es， para luego explicar sus características y finalmente dar una definición sucinta pero sólida， es una definición proporcionada por la literatura de la época y de los expertos en el tema detallados en sus numerosas citas al pie de página。 Para finalmente comprobar este concepto con las realidades estudiadas。 Me ha gustado mucho cómo aborda los textos etnográficos sobre las tribus australianas y las de Norteamérica， sin caer en la simple reproducción de esos textos ， busca en ellas similitudes y diferencias， aunque tanto en unas como en otras hay una especie de desfase de tiempo o de "desarrollo" en la línea de tiempo histórica， de hecho toda su escritura esta impregnada de una especie de "evolucionismo social" y por eso trata a estas tribus como sociedades inferiores， groseras o primitivas， era el lenguaje de la época。 Pero lo esencial es el punto de comparación entre estas tribus y el refinamiento del pensamiento religioso。 Los conceptos centrales en la religión como sistemas de creencias que clasifican el mundo entre lo profano y lo sagrado， los cultos， los ritos， las divinidades el concepto de alma， todas ellas vienen a explicar que el pensamiento religioso sólo surge a medida que los individuos se congregan， se asientan en un territorio y dejan el nomadismo。 Sólo en la vida colectiva puede surgir la religión， pero además ella viene a explicar el mundo， por qué ocurren las regularidades o las catástrofes， las muertes o los nacimientos。 El pensamiento religioso nace de la vida colectiva porque el individuo en sociedad sabe que hay una fuerza superior a la suya， y es nada menos que la sociedad。 Me resulta impactante cuando Durkheim nos dice que la sociedad finalmente es Dios reflejada en los totems o en cualquier divinidad， pero es muy evidente como para no verlo， todos los preceptos morales， todas las exigencias， todos los sacrificios que pide， los cultos todos estas prácticas y creencias están destinadas a mantener la vida de grupo a que el sujeto se entregue al grupo， esto es así en las culturas primitivas como en las más avanzadas y es muy nítido， con la diferencia que la religión lo abarca todo en las primeras， los rituales son fantásticos， los sacrificios son aterradores porque en nombre de la sociedad o de la colectividad estas prácticas quieren producir un efecto en la naturaleza entre otras cosas y los mantiene unidos antes las adversidades o bonanzas。 Son muchos los desarrollos conceptuales en esta obra que tendré que leer nuevamente y creo que es obra de base para cualquier interesado en explicarse o entender por qué existe la religión o cómo nació。 Esta es una obra elemental y de carácter universalista que pretende dar una explicación genérica de un fenómeno tan complejo como lo es la religión， tiene esa pretensión y desde mi punto de vista creo que lo es。 Este libro es de 1912， por eso encuentro una soberana estupidez criticar al autor por sus supuestas "equivocaciones， "olvidos， o "arbitrariedades"， es obvio que el conocimiento ha avanzado， y puede que muchos descubrimientos en el campo etnográfico complementen o hasta contradigan parte de lo concluido por Durkheim， pero creo que es lo mínimo y no cambia lo fundamental de esta obra。 Por otro lado， también se le critica su lenguaje "sexista" o "racista"， nada más lejos de la realidad， si fuese así habría que criticar a las culturas primitivas por "sexistas" y eso es una tontera porque además choca con los principios del relativismo cultural que profesan quienes formulan estas objeciones。 No es al autor a quien hay que criticar sino la realidad a la que describe， y eso es otra cosa。 Es cierto que tratar a las tribus como "primitivos" puede no gustar， pero ese era el lenguaje de la época ， que hoy seamos más quisquillosos para utilizar los términos bueno es otro tema pero no cambia en nada lo esencial del asunto。Finalmente añadir que en cada obra de Durkheim hay una intención evidente y hasta explícito de dar a la sociología su objeto de estudio， de darle su carácter de ciencia， de diferenciarla de otras disciplinas， de demostrarnos porque es necesaria una ciencia de las sociedades y por qué debe existir。 De hecho creo que la segunda mitad de este libro tiene ese objetivo， demostrarnos como los hechos sociales sólo pueden ser estudiados por la sociología porque la religión como hecho social es objeto de estudio de esta disciplina。 En los tiempos que escribe Durkheim la sociología era una disciplina joven， aún lo es por eso este monumental esfuerzo del autor por decirnos inifinidad de veces que para comprender la sociedad es necesaria una ciencia de ella que es la sociología。 Sin duda es un libro que recomiendo。 。。。more
Georga Hackworth
，
Read this as source material for a project for one of my religion classes in university。 Interesting read， however Durkheim is a bit hard to understand sometimes。 Not something I would recommend to read just for fun， you need to have a true curiosity of the theory of religion as presented from a sociology view point to get through this because it is dry reading。
Kara
，
read for class， so i'm sure my view is skewed since it's not my main interest。 important etc。 but not my thing。 sorry bout it ¯\_（ツ）_/¯ read for class， so i'm sure my view is skewed since it's not my main interest。 important etc。 but not my thing。 sorry bout it ¯\_（ツ）_/¯ 。。。more
Christopher Byram
，
I first discovered Émile Durkheim when I was studying sociology before I went to university， and then possibly during one or two modules during my time at university。 I discovered his work "The Elementary Forms of Religious Life" when it featured in a list of "Oxford World's Classics" on the final couple of pages of James George Frazer's "The Golden Bough"。 I first discovered Émile Durkheim when I was studying sociology before I went to university， and then possibly during one or two modules during my time at university。 I discovered his work "The Elementary Forms of Religious Life" when it featured in a list of "Oxford World's Classics" on the final couple of pages of James George Frazer's "The Golden Bough"。 。。。more
Paul
，