Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim: A Comparison of Veiws on Religion

 This essay intends to explicitly compare Karl Marx and Emile David Durkheim ideas on religion from a sociological and functionalist perspective. Functionalists’ belief that religion is beneficial for both the community and its members e.g. it unifies the society which in turn gives each individual member a source of support when they need it. It will begin with their brief historical backgrounds, definition of religion as well as their similarities and differences in studying it.

Karl Marx

Marx was born in Prussia on May 5, 1818. He began exploring sociopolitical theories at university among the Young Hegelians. He became a journalist, and his socialist writings would get him expelled from Germany and France. In 1848, he published The Communist Manifesto with Friedrich Engels and was exiled to London, where he wrote the first volume of Das Kapital and lived the remainder of his life (Engels, 1869). Marx is considered as one of the founders of economic history and sociology.

Emile Durkheim

According to Jones (1986) “David Emile Durkheim was born in France, on April 15, 1857 and raised in a Jewish family with his father as a rabbi. Emile was, thus destined for the rabbinate, and a part of his early education was spent in a rabbinical school” (p.12). Durkheim is considered the father of modern sociology and well known for his work on Division of Labour in 1912.

Definition of Religion

Both Marx and Durkheim have rather contrasting definitions of what religion is with the former describing it basically as the opium of the masses whilst the latter sees it as a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden, beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called church and all those who adhere to them (Bois, 1916).

According to Litchmann (1968) in (Kessel, 1983) Marx summarizes the basic function of religion as to preserve and maintain human life over and against the actual denial of it, man’s recognition of his own essence and destiny. It is also an ideal solace for the denial of his own nature in the miseries and frustrations to which social conditions subject him whereas Durkheim proposes that religion provides social cohesion to help maintain social solidarity through shared beliefs, social control to enforce religious morals and norms to help maintain social conformity while giving answers to meaning and purpose of life www.boundless.com.  The implication that can be drawn from the above summarized functions of religion is that both of them acknowledge its existence in our societies and that it has a purpose to serve, hence, their functionalist perspective and objective approach to studying it.

Likenesses of views on Religion

Although their views on religion differ in some aspects, they however have concurring views on the subject of religion especially on their point of departure when discussing its origins. According to (Berger, 1967, Schwartz, 1960, Glock, 1976, Stark & Bainbridge, 1980) in Giddens, Duneire & Applebaum (2006) these theorists in their respective times, emphasized the social nature of man and the effect of him justifying their study of society as they tried to pose alternatives to the abstract and individualistic view of man. They were both influenced by the idea that religion is a projection of man’s hope and desires and were both agnostics, as such their works are based on similar epistemological assumptions about religion. They were thus concerned with the human rather than the divine nature of religion.

The sociological traditions of Marx and Durkheim view religion totally different, yet they agree that religion and religious institutions play a powerful role in influencing a society and the lives of its members (Olson, 2000). It is against this backdrop that they both discuss religion from a functionalist point of view as their departure mark when objectively studying of religion. They, at least at this initial stage of comparing their theories, share the same sentiments that religion has a function to play in the society and appreciating its existence. Unfortunately, they hold rather divergent views as their theories unfold with Marx arguing that religion oppresses the people whilst Durkheim states that it unites the society.

Both theorists do not belief in the existence of god(s). They were in fact not religious people themselves. In his opinion, Marx relegates religion to a state of ideas that are irrational, disillusioned and hypocritical because it emphasis the worship of appearances that avoids recognition (Giddens et al, 2006). It is also very hard to single out situations where Durkheim explicitly mentions god(s) in his literature even though he talks greatly about rituals and their sacredness. In short, Townsley (2009) has it that Marx sees god as idealization of human nature while Durkheim beliefs god is the society itself.

Pulambo and Scott (2005) assert that the two theorist’s belief religion is socially constructed man created religion and religion did not create man. The society created religion in order to meet certain needs of its members. But then again, it is imperative to mention that Marx is of the opinion that religion was created by man to comfort him from the humiliation of the earth that he is faced with whereas Durkheim antithesis is that religion is basically for social cohesion. However, this point shall also be extensively discussed under their differing perceptions of religion herein.

The last issue on which they agree upon as laid down by Giddens et al (2006) is that “they all belief religion would become less and less significant in modern times” (p.325). Needless to say, this disappearance will be as a consequence of modernization, secularism and globalization of the interconnected world.

Differing views on Religion

Despite the similarities discussed supra, they both have very contrasting opinions on religion. Marx argues that religion like other social institutions is dependent upon the material and economic realities of the society. To him “the religious world is but the reflex of the real world” www.izquotes.com. This implies that religion is the result of what man is doing in the society. He is in this case referring to the capitalists who are oppressing the workers who as such turn to religion for solace.  On the one hand Durkheim belief that religion started with totenism, where expressions of societal values are eulogized and sanctified. He identifies the division between the sacred and profane as the defining characteristic of any religion (O’Connell, 2012). What is sacred or profane is determined by the society and transcends man himself whereas for Marx the capitalist is the one with power and control.

Kessel (1983) highlights that, in Marx position, religion was not an accident or mistake, but rather, the logical result of man’s inability to realize himself concretely in his actual existence. Religion embodies the true essence of man, but in an illusory form. Durkheim on the contrary posits that it is unthinkable that systems of ideals like religion could be mere fabrics of an illusion. Religious phenomena are partially independent of material relations, but also that religious beliefs and rites are the roots of scientific thinking and practice in reference to totenism of Australian Abrinogens. It must be realized that Marx came before Durkheim and as such, more often than not the ideas of the latter are bound to be an antithesis of the former.

According to Olson (2013) Marx point out that religion is used to justify and preserve the class system, as well as to ensure the status quo of the dominant ideology of the society while on the opposite Bois (1916) states “Durkheim sees something in it for the ordinary man, he observed that in all religions, the worshippers seek and find a greater force, feelings of comfort and strength for which he prays for his divinity” (p.459). At this juncture it can be realized that Marx had strong words of condemnation for religion while his compatriot appreciated religion.

With reference to man’s religiosity in his society, Marx states that man is an active, not a passive being in social life, crafts history individually and collectively. Thus if man is to unfold himself, he must start by recognizing and acknowledging that he has no recourse to an outside source for solace or help (Kessell, 1983). Opposing this stance, Durkheim beliefs that for man to achieve his consciousness, he needs other members of the community. To him rituals are integral for this purpose, for there is no community which does not feel the need of upholding and affirming its collective ideas. Implicit in this comparison is the datum that Marx had so much disdain for religion and god. This is confirmed in his adopted motto of “I hate all gods, they do not recognize man self-consciousness as the highest divinity” (Kutty, 2012) while Durkheim sees the strength of man individually as weak compared to when he is in a group.

The last point on which they differ is on the obliteration of religion by Marx. According to Dhurf (2006) Marx contend that the abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness and the demand to give up a condition which needs illusion. This does not, however, exist in the books of Durkheim who does not see society functioning well if it was to give up religion even though he acknowledges that it will ultimately disappear. Cuff, Shatrock and Francis (1992) caution that to disregard religion is to disregard the social facts which are determined by the community or external forces and later internalized by man. In other words, religion is the power or reflection of the community. Hence shying away from religion as espoused by Marx in pursuit for real happiness is tantamount to destabilizing and devaluing the community.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it goes without saying that the two theorists have made significant contributions to Sociology of Religion as a discipline and they continue to be acknowledged even today. Needless to say, they do hold similar and differing positions in their study of religion. They both subscribe to studying religion scientifically and objectively (Townsley, 2009). Marx argues that religion is that which is used to oppress the people whilst Durkheim classifies it as glue that binds the society. It is amazing and intriguing that the two of them were not religious yet spent so much of their time writing about the subject.

 

References

Bois, H. (1916). A Sociological Veiw of Religion. The International Review of Missions. Vol 5                                (3). p.449-460.

Cuff, E., Shatrock, W. & Francis, D.W. (1992). Perspectives on Sociology. 3^rd Ed. London.          Routledge. HM66P361984.

Dhurf, J. (2006). Socialist Humanism with a Human Face. An Examination of Politics,     Economics, Religion, Ethics and Culture. http//:www.secularhumanism.blogspot.com. Accessed 19/3/2014.

Engels. (1869). Marx-Engels Biography. Karl Marx. Die     Gartenlaube. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/bio/marx/eng-1869.html.

Giddens, A., Duneire, M. & Applebaum, R.P. (2006). Essentials of Sociology. New York.            Norton & Co, Inc.

http://izquotes.com/quote/251064. Accessed 26/3/2014.

http//:www.boundless.com/sociology/religion.html. Accessed 14/3/2014. 

Jones, R.A (1986). Emile Durkheim: An Introduction to Four Major Works. Beverly Hills, CA:   Sage Publications, Inc. http://durkheim.uchicago.edu/Biography.html.

Kessel, D.H. (1983). Marx: Religion and Sociology. www.angelfire.com/or/socioloy/msor/html. Accessed 3/14/2014.

Kutty, M.P.K. (2012). Jesus and Marx: Comparing the Human and Devine. Christian Today         India. http//:www.christian.com.inc/html. Accessed 19/3/2014.

O’Connell, A. (2012). A Critical Comparison of Marx and Durkheim’s Theories of Religion.                                       http//:www.scribd.com/doc/A-Critical-Comparison-of-Marx-Durkheim-    theories-of-Religion.html. Accessed 18/3/2014.

Olson, E. (2013). Marx vs. Durkheim: Religion. http//:www.studymode.com/38986129.   Accessed 14/3/2014.

Olson, E. (2000). Marx vs. Durkheim: Religion. http//:www.erinolson.com/mar.pdf. Accessed     19/3/2014.

Pulambo, A and Scott, A. (2005). Classical Social Theory. Marx and Durkheim. London. Oxford             University Press.

Townsley, J. (2009). Marx, Weber and Durkheim on Religion.        http//:www.jeramy.org/papers/sociology-of-religion. Accessed 18/3/2014.