from http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/dec/10/emile-durkheim-analysis-of-moral-life
By Gordon Lynch
In the same way that Sigmund Freud created a way of making sense of the dynamics and passions of the human psyche, the pioneering French sociologist,
Emile Durkheim, created a language for understanding our collective moral passions.
Like Freud, Durkheim was a secular Jew, committed to what he understood to be scientific methods of enquiry. Like Freud as well, Durkheim's "science" of moral life was intended not merely to generate abstract knowledge but had a broadly therapeutic intent. For Durkheim, the sociology of moral life played an important role in diagnosing social life, which for him carried over into his influential work in developing a curriculum for a secular moral education across the French school system. Working in the spirit of this Durkheimian project, the Yale cultural sociologist
Jeffrey Alexander has referred to this as a "cultural psychoanalysis" through which we might become more aware of the myths and values that move our lives, for good and for ill.
Durkheim's first key move in
analysing moral life was to locate it not in the private inner conscience of the superego, but in collective life. He understood the fundamental beliefs which shaped human life as essentially social phenomena. In his classic study,
The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, published 100 years ago this year, Durkheim wrote that individuals who make up a social group "'feel bound to one another because of their common beliefs". Belief, as he argued, was not a matter of personal opinion or private religious experience, but "belongs to the group and unites it". For our highly individualised, post-reformation culture, in which we naturally think of belief in terms of deep inner conviction, Durkheim's perspective can be challenging. It draws us away from thinking about the inner authenticity of a person's beliefs to thinking about belief as a form of social practice. It opens up the possibility that, rather than being like a piece of software code that runs consistently in the mind of the individual, belief may be an intense but sporadic social experience dependent on particular kinds of group activity.
The second key move in his analysis of moral life was to argue that the most fundamental structure for human belief was the distinction between the sacred and the profane. A decade before completing The Elementary Forms, Durkheim had published a short book on Primitive Classification with his nephew, Marcel Mauss. In the conclusion, they argued that all early attempts by human cultures to categorise the world were ultimately organised in relation to a fundamental category of sacred things. Moreover, this human tendency to regard particular things as sacred persisted, albeit often in less obvious ways, in modern, scientific modes of thinking.
In The Elementary Forms, Durkheim developed this understanding of the sacred much further. Rather than simply being a particular way of making sense of the world, the sacred was something that evoked deep emotions in people, giving them a deep sense of moral energy and conviction. It was something experienced through special forms of collective action that drew groups together around a sacred object in ways that deepened people's sense of group identity and morality. Durkheim's sacred was not some kind of abstract reference to God, or a universal mystical presence. It was a living social reality, dependent on social interaction to charge it up as a powerful force, but which when energised could release a powerful, structuring influence on social life.
Why does this matter? Arguably, it is because Durkheim's work on the sacred offers the starting point for a public language for thinking about that which people take to be fundamental moral realities which exert an unquestionable claim over society. The concept of the profane can similarly help us to think about the role of symbolic representations of evil in social life. But to think about moral realities, such as deep convictions that one should not abuse a child or violate fundamental human rights, as norms produced through social practice can induce a particular kind of moral nausea. It seems to leave us prey to an empty moral relativism in which our deepest moral sentiments are reduced to transient social constructions.
Durkheim was no postmodern ironist, though, overturning the tapestry of social life simply to see how it had been threaded together. As we shall see in later posts in this series, he was a committed social and political activist, who believed that it was necessary to understand the deep moral forces of social life precisely so that these could be harnessed in constructive ways. The past century has given ample testimony of the power of these forces, inspiring not only civil rights protests and the global humanitarian movement, but also being used to legitimise totalitarian government and systematic genocide. By taking up Durkheim's intellectual project, we may begin to develop clearer ways of understanding the roots and forms of these powerful moral forces, as well as their enduring power in our lives today.
Chapter 12 – 4/27/2010 updated 11/29/12
Family
unites people in cooperative, caring
groups of kinship.
Marriage – legal/religious
relationship, usually involving economic, sexual, and child-rearing
activity.
There is a trend towards more open
definitions of marriage, but much of the law and the 2000 Census
(Defense of Marriage Act) uses the "traditional"
definition, so many committed couples are just now (2010) finally
being counted as married. Shift from definitional FORM to FUNCTION.
If it works like a family, it's a family.
Found in all societies, however not in
all categories: slaves were often prevented from families
Variations
extended family
industrialization leads to "nuclear"
family that follows work
recession leads back to extended,
with kin moving in together and college kids returning home
terms on p. 375 – endogamy, exogamy,
monogamy, polygamy
patterns of residence – do you stay
near mother's family or father's, or neither (neolocality)
patterns of descent – matri- vs.
Patrilineal vs. Bilateral
FUNCTIONS
Socialization – learn culture
Regulate sex
Incest Taboo – reasons?
Prevent mutations, but then why are
humans the only ones with this taboo?
Limits sexual competition in
families,
limit kinship confusion over rights
and obligations
incentive to widen social network,
and create ties to rest of the world
Social placement – pass on
traditions, capital, and social identity
material and emotional security
DYSFUNCTOINS?
Violence, abuse, patriarchy power
relations – next to police and military, family is the most violent
social institution
CONFLICT
perpetuates inequality
women long taught to see marraige as
key to happy life, but in fact men traditionally benefit with longer
lives, better mental health, and happier, whereas women are less
happy, poorer mental helath, and more passive attitudes.
Engels traced origins of marriage to
men's need to identify heirs, thus families concentrate wealth –
to know their heirs, men must control wives' sexuality, thus wives
were considered property for millenia. Even 100 years ago, women's
money belonged to husbands. Today women still bear most
responsibility for childrearing and domestic labor.
Endogamous marriage supports racial
and ethnic inequality by maintaining those genetic patterns.
SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM
sharing activites and trust builds
emotional bonds.
Social exchange views marriage as a
negotiated activity – before it was negotiated by families in
advance, now dating allows people to assess strengths and weaknesses,
people rationally shop around for the best deal. Traiditonally, men
bring wealth/power, women bring beauty, which explains importance of
beauty to girls. But as women are getting stronger in the labor
force, this may be shifting. (gender anomie?)
Then it's a continuous negotiation as
a marriage settles in, and you realize reality is not the same as
your ideal image.
Children – we symbolically value our
children, but what about reality? Chlidren have shifted from an
asset to a liability. Most people want 2, a couple centuries ago it
was 8. We have tax incentives for having kids, yes, but greater tax
incentives for breeding horses. We slash school budgets and deny
working parents the right to spend even a few weeks with newborns.
We spend 23% of the federal budget on the elderly, but less than 5%
on children.
Race/Class/Gender on p. 383-385
Lillian Rubin's study of "What
Women Want" correlates with class
Indian families fuzzy boundary with
tribe, Hispanics large extended, Blacks many single-mothers
Divorce – increasing, factors on p.
386
can cause "blended"
families
Is it a culture of divorce instead of
committment? (Popenoe article on p. 390)
Alternative family forms (The Modern
Family)(Shift from FORM to FUNCTION)
3:00 - Attendance, collect Term Paper Rough Draft (only for students who have elected to write a paper as their Final Project)
x:05 - Discuss Religion
Note first that sociologists who study religion today have NOTHING TO SAY about the truth or validity of any religion. Whether a particular belief is true is not relevant to our cause; we seek merely to describe and understand how people behave, especially when in religious groups.
A good place to start is by figuring out how to tell just how religious people are.
Sociologists use a concept called religiosity to measure this, sometimes referred to as "The 3 B's"
- Religiosity = Belief + Behavior + Belonging
How could we measure each of these 3 dimensions of religiousness?
magic vs. religion – no community?
Durkheim on The Elementary Forms of Religious Life
sacred/profane, animism, totemism... a totem symbolizes the power of collective life over the individual. (Find a bonfire gif or video for explaning totems)
Structural-Functionalism
Primary functions of religion are: cohesion, control, and meaning/purpose (p.357)
Durkheim thought that society itself is godlike, shaping shaping our lives and thoughts in ways we not conscious of, and we project that sense of something greater than ourselves onto the cosmos and call it God.
Religion strengthens institutions (like marriage) by giving them ultimate meaning.
This approach downplays dysfunctions
Symbolic Interactionism
Religion is important to study because for many people it gives meaning to everyday life.
(why is the world trade center site spoken of as sacred? - symbolic interactionism),
The Social Conflict Approach
Here we emphasize the use of religion as a justification for war, crusades, inquisitions, terrorism, and other atrocities. This has happened over and over throughout history.
Religion is often tied to the state, as in England, Pakistan, and Iran (394). Where there is an official "State Church," the laws and leaders of a government enjoy divine legitimization - people are more likely to view their power as authority. After all, if God wants society to be this way, and I break the law or resist the government, then I am in effect going against God.
Karl Marx famously said that "religion is the opiate of the masses" – why?
Here's the whole quote:
The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower.
So religion is seen as something that serves the interests of the powerful - it allows oppressed people to accept reality rather than trying to change it, thinking they will be rewarded in an afterlife if they are meek and obedient.
But, this perspective overlooks the often important role that religion takes in creating change...
Civil rights?
Helping the poor?
"Liberation theology" – combining faith with activism?
Fundamentalist revival?
Green stewardship?
Terrorism?
"Evangelism" literally means "spreading the good news," so evangelical religions see bringing your faith out into the secular world as a moral obligation
religion and politics? Pew infographic series...
look at the religious make of up democrats and republicans... relationship to including the word "God" in republican party platform?
Religious Organizations
Traditions { Religions { denominations { congregations
Church – well integrated (get along well with mainstream society), highly routinized, stable, long-term survival
Sect – splits off from a pre-existing church, and stands apart from society (e.g. the Amish are basically Mennonites who split off from the Anabaptists around the year 1700. They stand apart from society due to their reluctance to use technology).
Cult
– has an original belief system and way of life (in other words, not the result of a schism in a pre-existing religion), started by an individual with charismatic authority. Popular when society is under high levels of stress. The term "cult" has negative connotations in popular usage, but this
is unfair since all religions began as cults. As a result, sociologists actually prefer the term New Religious Movement, or simply NRM.
Commitment & conversion
Jehova's Witnesses lose 2/3 of kids, yet are a GROWING church!
On evangelicalism and, more importantly, boundaries and group identity: "“When
faith becomes religion, people on the inside of the group begin to
focus their attention on the perimeter, patrolling the boundaries to
regulate who is in and who is out. They develop visible boundary
markers, demarcations of holiness, which become important signs of group
identity” (Bruxy Cavey, "The End Of Religion" p. 212)."
The "Rational Choice" Approach is a theoretical perspective borrowed from economics.
free-riders...
costs lead to value...
Pluralism - the Establishment Clause (separation of church and state) and America's cultural value of "freedom of religion" + America's cultural emphasis on individualism leaves us in a somewhat unique position of having a "religious marketplace" where denominations, sects, and NRMs proliferate and have to compete for members and other resources. Thus, American religions tend to prostrate themselves to the desires of individuals. We have this way of looking at religion as something that is "for" the individual, to help the individual find spiritual fulfillment or even personal wealth (as in the prosperity gospel). Most other cultures view religion as being "for" the community or society as a whole...
Secularization
are millenials bucking the trend of stable religiosity? A recent Pew survey suggests so...
Civil religion
Shielaism and New age seekers (non-organized, spiritual but not religious)
Revivals – result of anomie? Return to traditional roots and fundamentalism.
Biblical Literalism:
So basically you buy into the revisionist history and theology of fundamentalist Christians, lock stock and barrel?
For starters, there's not one "Bible" which was put together at one point in time, and even when they were creating the various canons, they weren't complete literalists. The early church father Origen (who created his own canon) was excommunicated outright for taking Matthew 19:12 literally and castrating himself. Another church father, Saint Augustine was quite clear on the fact that Genesis was not a literally true story, and the same sentiment was repeated by later theological heavyweights like Thomas Aquinas.
The Catholic Church never held the Bible to be the verbatim literal truth. On the contrary, it was something that took a lot of education and insight to interpret 'correctly' - the correct interpretation being that of the Church, of course. The Church got into a fight with Galileo not because his cosmology was at odds with that of the Old Testament (which holds that the Earth is flat and rests on four pillars), but because it was at odds with that ofAristotle, whose ideas they'd embraced during the Middle Ages.
It was Martin Luther who rejected church authority and replaced that with the word of the Bible (while having his own ideas about which books were canonical and not). But since there's simply no such thing as a single 'literal' interpretation in the first place, Protestantism immediately splintered in a whole bunch of schisms, some being more literal than others. And even then, Christian Fundamentalism didn't come about until the 19th century, as a counter-reaction of sorts to the Enlightenment.
On the scientific side, the idea that the world was 6000 years old was discredited during the 18th century, well before Darwin was even born. It was the fact that there was an open contemporary debate on the age of the Earth where people argued the possibility of the Earth being millions or billions of years old, which allowed Darwin to come up with his Theory of Evolution. It wasn't evolution that convinced people how old the Earth was, but the age of the Earth that convinced Darwin that evolution-by-natural-selection was a viable explanation.
Whether you're a fundie or not, you're definitely echoing their fictional version of history here: Fundamentalism is the true and original form of Christianity, and everyone would 'still' be following it, if it hadn't been for that evil Darwin guy and all those evil atheist scientists. Millions of people claim to be fundamentalists, few of them actually dobelieve everything in the Bible literally. More importantly, they're not the majority of Christians and never have been.
People seem to want it, and this limits secularization.
As CHURCHES become more secular and worldly, people leave for more distinctive sects
Does science threaten religion? What is the relationship?
Note that your final homework assignment (other than the Final Project) is a group presentation on a religion due on December 12th...
EXPLAIN ASSIGNMENT
FOR NEXT TIME :
Read pp. 374-387
