Theories of Religion by Mircea Eliade and Emile Durkheim

Theories of Religion by Mircea Eliade and Emile Durkheim
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Theories of Religion by Mircea Eliade and Emile Durkheim
Introduction
Perhaps religion is the most common denominator in all aspects human life. The theoretical study of religion is one of the most advanced fields of study. Several researchers and theorists have sought to explain the different phenomenon surrounding religion. Religion as a social phenomenon is one the branches of religious studies. Other branches of study include economic and political views of religion. Under each of these studies, there are in-depth conversations and theories developed by significant scholars in history. Ludwig Feuerbach and Karl Marx share economic perspectives of religion. The two scholars describe religion as a projection of human’s wants and needs (Stusberg, 2010, p. 224). There are however several instances that the scholars strongly differ in their positions on religion. Mircea Eliade and Emilie Durkheim are two early scholars in the field of religion. Each of the two scholars established a series of books and journals detailing their views on religion. Durkheim is popularly known for his structural theory that seeks to explain the history of religion. The latter is just one of the several arguments and explanations developed by Durkheim, with the view of determining the truth about humanity's obsession with religion. Mircea Eliade, a writer and philosopher, is described as one of the leading interpreter and theorist of religious experience. Mircea Eliade is credited for insightful contribution to the field of religion through theories like Eternal Return, Hierophanies, and several other books. Both theorists have made significant contributions to religious studies. Consequently, their views have increased the rift of understanding on religious explanations. This research aims to explore religious theories by Mircea Eliade and Emile Durkheim, and present a comparison of the views expressed.
Description
According to Durkheim, a religious system is best described as primitive if it exists in a society that lacks the simplest form of organization, and explaining the religious system does not require any further reference from previous forms of religion. Durkheim maintains that religious studies should commence from the basics since such an approach offers an opportunity to learn more about humanity and gaining insight into the religious nature of man (Pals, 2000, p. 49).
By arguing that religion is a manifestation of mankind, Durkheim indicates that religion is a social form of expression. Fundamentally, he establishes that religion is made of two primary things; rituals and beliefs. When these two things are accepted in society and used to create harmonious living in the best version of it, they also reshape one's mentality. Durkheim states that mankind assumes two forms as religious beings. As an individual, man represents a being whose foundation is grounded in his body and his possible activities restrained within a particular circle of provision (Pals, 2000, p. 128). As a social being, man is a manifestation of intellect and morality in the society. From a religious perspective, Durkheim is convincing by indicating that society is the most advanced representation of nature. Arriving to his most famous view that religion is the utmost expression of society. The society needs religion as a means to anchor together, indicates Han (2016, p. 23). Eliade’s definition of religion and its background does not exclusively differ from Durkheim’s views. Eliade is credited for assuming philosophical approaches that saved the field of religious studies from depleting theories like Karl Marx’s economic outlook on religion. Eliade explains that religion should be exclusively studied from its point and not seeking to link it with another existing disciplinary like psychology (Stusberg, 2010, p. 237). With this single blow, Eliade has sought to deconstruct and question the integrity of some of the earliest works performed in the field of religion. In his view, religion should not be intoxicated because he finds it rather a sacred subject of study.
Eliade’s analysis of religion assumes a major assumption. He argues that religion is based on the practice of humanity to glorify and worship an existing object; the sacred (Eliade, 1987, p. 100). He develops the argument that the sacred is the primary source of power, significance, and value. With such a stand, Eliade primarily differs with Durkheim on the role of religion in the life of a human being. Durkheim expresses that human kinds do not need a god of a higher power; hence religion does not seek to fulfill a non-existing requirement (Durkheim, 2010, p. 23). On the other hand, Eliade acknowledges that there is a higher power that mankind views as the fountain of nourishment in life. This kind of indifference is just found on the surface of the larger debate surrounding religious studies in this field.
Durkheim’s definition of religion is fundamentally an opposing ideology as compared to Eliade’s view of religion. He begins by stating out clearly that supernatural capabilities cannot be used to describe religion. According to him, religion seeks to explain every happening or event that happens in nature and society. Durkheim's views that the ideology surrounding linkage of religion to the supernatural powers is not a primitive outlook on religion. He argues that science has sought to develop a religion by imposing the narrative of a supernatural being at the center of the religious phenomenon.
Durkheim proceeds to note that all religious practices do not necessarily involve the worship of a higher power. Hence, religious powers do not flow from a central fountain of divinity as indicated in Renni (2007, p. 330). On the contrary, there is a religion that affirmatively stresses on the individual’s outlook, as opposed to worshipping a particular elevated form of power. Durkheim grounds his arguments on the practice of Buddhism. In the case of Buddhism, religious practices are marked by attainment of salvation to the individual and not the glorification of Buddha. Durkheim and Eliade’s definition of religion marks the beginning of sharp contradictions supported by numerous theories and understandings by the two scholars and others that hold similar or supportive views on the religious subject.
Discussion
Throughout most sets of religion theories, there is a tendency of scholars to adopt specific classifications. The process of classifying the field of religion is undoubtedly vital in tackling and comprehending the extremely vast area of knowledge and uncertainties. Durkheim classifies religion into two fundamental categories: belief and rules (Durkheim, 2010, p. 54). He defines beliefs as a statement of opinion and rules a predetermined mode of conduct imposed or practiced by members of a particular religious following. The classification breaks down beliefs into two: profane and sacred.
According to Durkheim, sacred is extraordinary, and it manifests in every aspect of existence. It is potentially dangerous, mesmerizing, provokes fear and inspires people. The sacred being has extraordinary powers that only apply to the community of believers. Hence, anything can be sacred, either living or dead. These include a person, rock, moon, tree, bird and so forth. The aspect of being sacred is attained by the community, recognizing a particular identity or a thing as a religious exhalation of power. Once identified as a sacred entity, sacred entities become part and parcel of a community’s day to day routine. Sacred objects become symbols. For instance, if it is a tree, the tree will gain a totemic stature, hence no one is expected to cause any kind of injury or harm to the sacred tree.
The other branch of belief is profane. Profane describes the realm of experience which interacts with the experimental logic experience. In a clearer logic, profane are the ideas that ordinary persons embrace, and they become part and parcel of their position in the organization (Rafiabadi, 2003, p. 29). The profane represents the opposite of the sacred. Hence, at no point should profane interact with the sacred. Profane is an indirect way of denying the existence of religious powers and significance of the sacred. Hence, profane is surrounded by intimidating negative emotions and condemned through community taboos and moral standings. Profane is a point in religion that human kinds render themselves less critical as compared to the sacred. The paradox of this stunt is realized because of the interdependent relationship between the sacred and profane. Man requires a god to continue living, and on the other hand, the gods need sacrif...