Ist Durkheims Religionsverständnis mit dem Glauben vereinbar?

Translated title of the contribution: Is Durkheims understanding of religion compatible with believing?

Steven Lukes

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Abstract

    Does Emile Durkheim's sociology of religion pose a challenge to the faithful? Durkheim said no in debate with contemporary non-believers and believers, portraying religion not as mere illusion but as consisting in moral forces that command, comfort and strengthen the faithful, forces generated and regenerated within them by the collective effervescence of rituals. Thus empowered, the faithful imagine in symbolic form "the society of which they are members and the obscure yet intimate relations they have with it". Durkheim's answer is shown to have three components: a critique of naturist and animist "error theories" of religion; a method of "deep interpretation", uncovering the reality beneath the symbolism; and an explanation of why the meaning of religion thus interpreted should have been for so long unacknowledged by the faithful. It is argued that, in principle, they can, on certain assumptions, accommodate his sociology of religion. But this, in turn, makes key assumptions and claims that have been seriously questioned: notably, that "religion" names a unified phenomenon and that Durkheim's definition captures it. Recent revised "Durkheimian" accounts of religious thought and practice are considered, accounts that abandon these assumptions and also his "social realism", while seeking to preserve his insights. It is argued that these too need not directly challenge religious belief in the way that the cognitive science of religion does.

    Original languageGerman
    Pages (from-to)457-472
    Number of pages16
    JournalBerliner Journal fur Soziologie
    Volume22
    Issue number4
    DOIs
    StatePublished - Apr 2013

    Fingerprint

    Religion
    sociology of religion
    symbolism
    realism
    religious behavior
    interpretation
    science

    Keywords

    • Belief
    • Believer
    • Cognitive science of religion
    • Collective effervescence
    • Error theories
    • Ritual
    • Sociology of religion

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Sociology and Political Science

    Cite this

    Ist Durkheims Religionsverständnis mit dem Glauben vereinbar? / Lukes, Steven.

    In: Berliner Journal fur Soziologie, Vol. 22, No. 4, 04.2013, p. 457-472.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    @article{f98a1077b3354f3a937756dd37d5151b,
    title = "Ist Durkheims Religionsverst{\"a}ndnis mit dem Glauben vereinbar?",
    abstract = "Does Emile Durkheim's sociology of religion pose a challenge to the faithful? Durkheim said no in debate with contemporary non-believers and believers, portraying religion not as mere illusion but as consisting in moral forces that command, comfort and strengthen the faithful, forces generated and regenerated within them by the collective effervescence of rituals. Thus empowered, the faithful imagine in symbolic form {"}the society of which they are members and the obscure yet intimate relations they have with it{"}. Durkheim's answer is shown to have three components: a critique of naturist and animist {"}error theories{"} of religion; a method of {"}deep interpretation{"}, uncovering the reality beneath the symbolism; and an explanation of why the meaning of religion thus interpreted should have been for so long unacknowledged by the faithful. It is argued that, in principle, they can, on certain assumptions, accommodate his sociology of religion. But this, in turn, makes key assumptions and claims that have been seriously questioned: notably, that {"}religion{"} names a unified phenomenon and that Durkheim's definition captures it. Recent revised {"}Durkheimian{"} accounts of religious thought and practice are considered, accounts that abandon these assumptions and also his {"}social realism{"}, while seeking to preserve his insights. It is argued that these too need not directly challenge religious belief in the way that the cognitive science of religion does.",
    keywords = "Belief, Believer, Cognitive science of religion, Collective effervescence, Error theories, Ritual, Sociology of religion",
    author = "Steven Lukes",
    year = "2013",
    month = "4",
    doi = "10.1007/s11609-013-0204-9",
    language = "German",
    volume = "22",
    pages = "457--472",
    journal = "Berliner Journal fur Soziologie",
    issn = "0863-1808",
    publisher = "VS Verlag fur Sozialwissenschaften",
    number = "4",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Ist Durkheims Religionsverständnis mit dem Glauben vereinbar?

    AU - Lukes, Steven

    PY - 2013/4

    Y1 - 2013/4

    N2 - Does Emile Durkheim's sociology of religion pose a challenge to the faithful? Durkheim said no in debate with contemporary non-believers and believers, portraying religion not as mere illusion but as consisting in moral forces that command, comfort and strengthen the faithful, forces generated and regenerated within them by the collective effervescence of rituals. Thus empowered, the faithful imagine in symbolic form "the society of which they are members and the obscure yet intimate relations they have with it". Durkheim's answer is shown to have three components: a critique of naturist and animist "error theories" of religion; a method of "deep interpretation", uncovering the reality beneath the symbolism; and an explanation of why the meaning of religion thus interpreted should have been for so long unacknowledged by the faithful. It is argued that, in principle, they can, on certain assumptions, accommodate his sociology of religion. But this, in turn, makes key assumptions and claims that have been seriously questioned: notably, that "religion" names a unified phenomenon and that Durkheim's definition captures it. Recent revised "Durkheimian" accounts of religious thought and practice are considered, accounts that abandon these assumptions and also his "social realism", while seeking to preserve his insights. It is argued that these too need not directly challenge religious belief in the way that the cognitive science of religion does.

    AB - Does Emile Durkheim's sociology of religion pose a challenge to the faithful? Durkheim said no in debate with contemporary non-believers and believers, portraying religion not as mere illusion but as consisting in moral forces that command, comfort and strengthen the faithful, forces generated and regenerated within them by the collective effervescence of rituals. Thus empowered, the faithful imagine in symbolic form "the society of which they are members and the obscure yet intimate relations they have with it". Durkheim's answer is shown to have three components: a critique of naturist and animist "error theories" of religion; a method of "deep interpretation", uncovering the reality beneath the symbolism; and an explanation of why the meaning of religion thus interpreted should have been for so long unacknowledged by the faithful. It is argued that, in principle, they can, on certain assumptions, accommodate his sociology of religion. But this, in turn, makes key assumptions and claims that have been seriously questioned: notably, that "religion" names a unified phenomenon and that Durkheim's definition captures it. Recent revised "Durkheimian" accounts of religious thought and practice are considered, accounts that abandon these assumptions and also his "social realism", while seeking to preserve his insights. It is argued that these too need not directly challenge religious belief in the way that the cognitive science of religion does.

    KW - Belief

    KW - Believer

    KW - Cognitive science of religion

    KW - Collective effervescence

    KW - Error theories

    KW - Ritual

    KW - Sociology of religion

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84876254291&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84876254291&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1007/s11609-013-0204-9

    DO - 10.1007/s11609-013-0204-9

    M3 - Article

    VL - 22

    SP - 457

    EP - 472

    JO - Berliner Journal fur Soziologie

    JF - Berliner Journal fur Soziologie

    SN - 0863-1808

    IS - 4

    ER -