E. Durkheim’s concept of sacredness

E. Durkheim’s concept of sacredness as formulated in The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life aims at explaining why and how an aggregate of people becomes ‘a single whole’ and reproduces itself. This concept is the logical foundation of Durkheim’s ‘sociological holism’ for it focuses, according t...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: A. E. Kapishin
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University) 2022-09-01
Series:RUDN journal of Sociology
Subjects:
Online Access:https://journals.rudn.ru/sociology/article/viewFile/32034/21090
_version_ 1811205893840175104
author A. E. Kapishin
author_facet A. E. Kapishin
author_sort A. E. Kapishin
collection DOAJ
description E. Durkheim’s concept of sacredness as formulated in The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life aims at explaining why and how an aggregate of people becomes ‘a single whole’ and reproduces itself. This concept is the logical foundation of Durkheim’s ‘sociological holism’ for it focuses, according to T. Parsons, on ‘the core of the social system’. The principles of this concept are opposite to the principles of ‘methodological nominalism and individualism’ of the British social anthropology as expressed in the theory of animism. Durkheim defines the sacred as an ‘impersonal force’, impersonal ‘collective being’, ‘collective soul’ created and reproduced on the religious cults. The individual principle is reduced by Durkheim to the animal and wild which can be understood only as a part of the ‘collective being’ in primitive societies. In defining the nature of religious rituals, Durkheim relied on the concept of ritual by W. Robertson-Smith, which defines the main meaning of cults as the ‘union’ of adepts with the deity and each other. By removing the deity as a transcendental principle, Durkheim reduced the meaning of religious rituals to the reproduction of social unity, solidarity. Durkheim’s theory of sacredness, like its opposite - the theory of animism, is based on the concepts of the philosophy of the Modern Time, which determined the anthropomorphization of consciousness and confusion of terms ‘person’ and ‘individuality’. The significance of Durkheim’s concept should not be identified in the positivist perspective - as an explanation of facts unexplained by alternative theories. In such an interpretation, this concept was criticized and rejected by most scholars. However, it is important as a part of ‘social engineering’ which changed the intellectual environment, including the scientific community, in a specific, ideologically leftist direction.
first_indexed 2024-04-12T03:39:05Z
format Article
id doaj.art-809dee9198e0443dadd92bcf417db805
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2313-2272
2408-8897
language English
last_indexed 2024-04-12T03:39:05Z
publishDate 2022-09-01
publisher Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University)
record_format Article
series RUDN journal of Sociology
spelling doaj.art-809dee9198e0443dadd92bcf417db8052022-12-22T03:49:21ZengPeoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University)RUDN journal of Sociology2313-22722408-88972022-09-0122348950210.22363/2313-2272-2022-22-3-489-50221056E. Durkheim’s concept of sacrednessA. E. Kapishin0RUDN UniversityE. Durkheim’s concept of sacredness as formulated in The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life aims at explaining why and how an aggregate of people becomes ‘a single whole’ and reproduces itself. This concept is the logical foundation of Durkheim’s ‘sociological holism’ for it focuses, according to T. Parsons, on ‘the core of the social system’. The principles of this concept are opposite to the principles of ‘methodological nominalism and individualism’ of the British social anthropology as expressed in the theory of animism. Durkheim defines the sacred as an ‘impersonal force’, impersonal ‘collective being’, ‘collective soul’ created and reproduced on the religious cults. The individual principle is reduced by Durkheim to the animal and wild which can be understood only as a part of the ‘collective being’ in primitive societies. In defining the nature of religious rituals, Durkheim relied on the concept of ritual by W. Robertson-Smith, which defines the main meaning of cults as the ‘union’ of adepts with the deity and each other. By removing the deity as a transcendental principle, Durkheim reduced the meaning of religious rituals to the reproduction of social unity, solidarity. Durkheim’s theory of sacredness, like its opposite - the theory of animism, is based on the concepts of the philosophy of the Modern Time, which determined the anthropomorphization of consciousness and confusion of terms ‘person’ and ‘individuality’. The significance of Durkheim’s concept should not be identified in the positivist perspective - as an explanation of facts unexplained by alternative theories. In such an interpretation, this concept was criticized and rejected by most scholars. However, it is important as a part of ‘social engineering’ which changed the intellectual environment, including the scientific community, in a specific, ideologically leftist direction.https://journals.rudn.ru/sociology/article/viewFile/32034/21090sacrednessreligionsocietyconsciousnesstotemismanimismholismnominalismcult
spellingShingle A. E. Kapishin
E. Durkheim’s concept of sacredness
RUDN journal of Sociology
sacredness
religion
society
consciousness
totemism
animism
holism
nominalism
cult
title E. Durkheim’s concept of sacredness
title_full E. Durkheim’s concept of sacredness
title_fullStr E. Durkheim’s concept of sacredness
title_full_unstemmed E. Durkheim’s concept of sacredness
title_short E. Durkheim’s concept of sacredness
title_sort e durkheim s concept of sacredness
topic sacredness
religion
society
consciousness
totemism
animism
holism
nominalism
cult
url https://journals.rudn.ru/sociology/article/viewFile/32034/21090
work_keys_str_mv AT aekapishin edurkheimsconceptofsacredness