Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim Theories of Religion - Essay Example

Running Head: KARL MARX AND EMILE DURKHEIM THEORIES OF RELIGION Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim theories of religion Name Institution Date Introduction There have been many issues in the existence of man that have been clouded with many uncertainties and ambiguities, but none of them have raised much controversy and debate than religion. Religion is the fundamental belief that has caused sharp differences and unresolved crisis such as those being experienced in the Middle East. Nevertheless, it is important to recognize some of the contributions that have been brought about by religion. Religion plays a crucial role in every ones daily life. Many theories have been advanced by different personalities concerning origin of religion. Among them, Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim theory of religion are outstanding. Comparing Emile Durkheim and Karl Marx theory of religion Emile Durkheim earlier on based his focus on social regulation which was merely outside locus of control with a special concern with legal regulation that he pursued further consequently arguing generally in law books and avoiding narrowing on an individual. Later on he was compelled to pay attention to forces of influence that existed in and individual’s consciousness. He was persuaded that societal values had to be exhibited within an individual. He focussed to examine religion as one of the influence that created a sense of duty in an individual to submit to the societal demands. According to Herbert (2003), Karl Marx similarly portrays that the study of religion focuses on the society and more so societal values are reflected in religion. He is not argumentative about the logic frame work of religion being viewed as a collection of beliefs. He was of the opinion that people were oblivious of their interest and the aim of religion to perpetuate the affairs of people with authority which was the ruling class. People had socially meant to believe whatever knowledge they possessed was the entire truth and hence oblivious of oppression. The people interests were not reflected in the religion but in stead it was meant to perpetuate the agenda and interest of the class that was in authority. In short like Emile, Karl Marx elaborated on the teaching about submission to authority while promising enjoyment in the future by means of salvation. Emile Durkheim was so much concerned about the sociological aspect of religion. This was compounded by the perspective of logic that was internal in his system. Fundamental to the theory advance by him was the emphasis on the phenomena of religion being a communally shared aspect and not individual. He saw religion as a system of practises and beliefs that was unified that had a bearing on sacred things that united into one moral community that was referred to as the church and required every body to observe the said beliefs. He did not narrow down to a range of individuals’ experiences of religion but was concerned with activity of the community and communal ties that resulted in participating in activities that were religious (Dylan, 1999). Milbank (2005) notes that Karl Marx compared or referred to region as a social institution the heavily depended on economic and material realties in a particular society. Religion had no history of its on self but it was a creation of forces concerned with production. Religion, he asserts, is a reflection of the actual world. Religion can only be better understood by relating it to the society’s economic structures and other systems of society. Economics was majorly what religion depended on and nothing more to an extent that the real doctrines of region are rendered almost irrelevant. This is the functioning discernment of religion that explains that religion depends on the social purpose it serves as opposed to what it contains in terms of beliefs. Karl Marx views religion as a mirage created and which provides substantial excuses and reasons to maintain the status quo of the functioning of the society to the expense of the minority. He compared it to capitalism that utilized productive labour of people and diverted their attention away its importance, in the same way took the highest aspirations and ideals and detached them from people directing their interest to an unknowable and foreign being referred to as god. Marx and Emile views on religion being not an individual or personal thing is highlighted in both cases in their respective theories (Fromm, Marx & Bottomore, 2004). Emile Durkheim questions what will happen what will happen when the unifying factor which is religion comes to an end owing to its inclination to disintegrate most of the time. What if it died? It is at this juncture that Durkheim had a break through to make his more daring analytical assertion. He argued that religion was not merely a creation of society but was society made divine. He postulated that the deities who were worshipped by men were in real sense society’s power projected. Region was majorly social, that is, it occurred in a context that was social and particularly during celebration of sacred objects but they unknowingly celebrated the power projected by their society. This power preceded their own existence and in order for them to perceive it they had to accord it sacred importance (Wallwork, 1985). To Karl Max the ideas propagated by the ruling class become the ruling ideas in many aspects. The class that ruled that ruled the societal material force mutually ruled the intellectual force. The class that possessed material production means had control over mental production means those who lacked mental production means by default became enslaved by the ruling class. And therefore as explained by Durkheim religion it was about power and the enslavement of the minds of the people subjected to the oppressive rule of the dominant class that influenced economic production and generating of intellectual ideas (Marx & Engels 2008). Contrasting Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim theory of religion Emile Durkheim asserts that the community believers put value to sacred activities not as an end in itself but for the reason that a community that is religious has attached meaning on them forming part of its worship. Separation of spheres thought to profane and sacred are commonly arrived at by groups who coagulate themselves together into a cult and are synchronised by same object and symbols of worship. Consequently religion is a thing that is carried out collectively. It unites men as testified by its etymology. Where as Karl Marx concurring with the suggestion of religion being accomplished collectively, he does not, however, entertain the idea of it being sacred. Besides it departs from the dignity of human beings making them helpless and only in a position to accept the prevailing situation without protesting against it. In his dissertation of doctorate he took as his motto the words of Prometheus-the Greek hero who dared the gods to send fire to humanity. He said that he hated gods because they did not acknowledge self consciousness of a man as the divinity that was highest. Here we can see that Karl Marx does not see the gods as sacred to an extent of detesting them and he does not see it to profanity (Durkheim & Fields 1995). In his further assertions Durkheim said that if at all society’s power was embedded in religion consequently the non-existence of traditional religion gave a sign of an end to society. Whatever was needed was the realisation of dependency of society on religion by modern men and whose representation was through it. The substitutes of religion which are rational must be discovered to avert the dependency of society on religion as the only vehicle through which moral ideas that are essential are perceived. Society is father to every one and subsequently it is to it gratitude should be directed and thereafter to gods (Durkheim & Fields 1995). In his perspective Karl Max had harsh criticism concerning the role of religion in society. He did not see it at a pillar of society but a means of oppression of the poor and the disadvantaged. Marx portrayed religion as being hypocritical. Religion took sides with the oppressor despite of it professing valuable principles. Whereas Christ set an example of assisting the poor, the Roman state united together with the Christian church involving itself in the slavery of people for a long time. Protestantism, he argued, was produced as new economic forces similar to how to the development of early capitalism. The better theory that explain the natural phenomena of religion and the reason behind it Emile Durkheim theory of religion is the better theory explaining the natural phenomena of religion. Durkheim assertion that religion comes into being when there is separation between sacred and profane is very natural. In the natural religious setting there is setting apart of certain things that become a taboo to be touched or they are simply consecrated for a special purpose. More so Durkheim observation that religion is the foundation of the society is very true. Dylan, (1999) notes that the society is kept going by the beliefs and the longings or the expectation that people have vested in religion. These aspects are the ones that keep the society going. More importantly Durkheim has mentioned that the aligning of people around an object of worship could sometime give rise to a cult. This is a very natural act of religion and is applicable even today. Durkheim points out that religion will sustain the existence of the society. Conclusion Regardless of what one believes in, it should be understood a belief in a certain religion had an ignition beginning that was pivoted by certain set of principles. It is the belief in religion that has resulted into cults and occults. Durkheim and Marx have fronted their theories of religion that we have analyzed in this case. Apart from these two, others may crop up with a similar or slight twist added on the theory. All in all whether an atheist or not, the belief in supernatural is almost inevitable. References Durkheim É. Fields K. E. (1995). "Durkheim's 'Elementary Forms of religious life." In The Future of the Sociological Classics, pp. 114-35. Edited by Buford Rhea. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1995. http://books.google.co.ke/books?id=oeRxqlTiAmsC&pg=PR20&lpg=PR20&dq=Durkheim%27s+%27Elementary+Forms%27+as+%27Revelation%27&source=bl&ots=JBIWTCWJh&sig=tVPXw_61uZfyFq5aoWQWEHN6NSQ&hl=en&ei=WtLxTJDPEtCwhQemJXADA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false Wallwork, Ernest. (1985). "Durkheim's Early Sociology of Religion." Sociological Analysis 46 (1985): 201-218 http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/content/46/3/201.full.pdf Herbert,D. (2003). Religion and civil society: rethinking public religion in the contemporary world. New York: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Read More