Bharat Suri

Tutorial Group L
Tutor Professor Vikramendra Kumar
Semester II, MA (First Year) Sociology
Religion and Society
Discuss: In reality, then, there are no religions which are
false. All are true in their own fashion Emile Durkheim
(1912)
Whether one takes the example of a densely populated, spatially expanding
urban society, or a tight-knit, sparsely populated village or any other type
of demographic entity that qualifies as neither it is highly unlikely its
members are not acquainted with some form of what may be called
religion. Although, generalised market-relations in a quickly urbanising
geographic space, within the framework of a modern nation-state, brings
with it the processes of secularisation especially with respect to the realm
of the public but religious beliefs and rites play a vital role in the domestic
or private sphere of individuals still; religion is transmitted through familial
customs and traditions on the one hand and normalised through increasing
consumption of rapidly advancing and newer forms of media on the other.
Rites performed by the ordained on births, deaths, marriage-unions, large
purchases (vehicles or homes) are some examples of the imprint of religion
on our everyday lives for instance. At the outset then, we find, that there is
no place religion, or at the very least the very notion of it, does not exist, for
even the atheists negation, or an agnostics scepticism, is not an outright
rejection of the existence of religious beliefs and phenomena in society in
general. In my opinion, it is this ubiquity of religion, which is pertinent even
in our contemporary context a hundred years after this statement was
written that forms the essence Emile Durkheims seminal, and still widely
cited, Les formes lmentaires de la vie religieus or The Elementary Forms
of Religious Life (1912).
Appreciating and comprehending the ramifications of one of Durkheims
main contentions no religions are false from this work are especially
relevant in the todays context, in fact a stunning indictment, where news of
the rising religious fanaticism and fundamentalism, and its consequent
violent manifestations are aplenty. The violent crusade of the Islamic State
and formation of the Caliphate in the Middle-East, Zionist occupation and

oppression of Palestinians in an around Jerusalem, or closer home still the

terror in the valley of Kashmir, conversions (or reconversions) under the garb
of Hindutva, ban on entry of women to specific temples, etc are all but a
few sites where (what are exhibited in popular media as being) religious
contestations are taking place in contemporary society. If Durkheim is to be
believed no religions are false, and all are true in some fashion why are
persons being oppressed, maimed, tortured and killed in its name as we
speak? Are the popular imaginations that pit one belief against the other
really founded on sound principles?
To me, Durkheims statement signifies a fundamental insight into religion as
it really exists (its fundamental nature), as opposed to our commonplace
understandings built through our everyday experiences of it, today: that
even though religion takes multiple, variegated, at times inimical, forms,
there is a universality, an essence, that ties all these particulars together. By
revealing this essence lying at the roots of religion more generally and
tracing the evolution of its various forms in particular Durkheim attests to the
truth in all religions in his work. Further, by understanding this fundamental
truth of religions one is able to appreciate the, dare I say, farcical nature of
contemporary religious contestations. This paper is an attempt to flesh out
what could be or is common to all religious faiths that exist today, regardless
of their scale, scope or geographic location, how such essence even came
into being, and what, if anything, explains the myriad disparate, and at times
antagonistic, manifestations of this commonality. Such understanding may
allow us to demystify the received mythical notions surrounding religion, and
help transcend the fallacious distinctions and fabricated polarisations we
have all been victims to at one point in time or another.
One of the first religious notions that I experienced as a child was that of
God the almighty, supreme being that created the Universe and who, in
the very same instant, resides in one and all. The most obvious characteristic
that I, as a child, was able to ascribe to God was its 1 super-nature,
especially because of the way its abilities, which far exceeded my own, were
described to me. The idea of ghosts and ghouls, often popularised in
television programmes, soon followed. The point of import here is the
attribution of mystical qualities attached to both God (good) and ghosts
(evil), and also a clear demarcation between realm of the human as real as
1 Even though I have experienced particularly gendered (male) notions of the oneGod, at this moment in the analysis I would not like to attribute any specific gender
to this Supreme Being because I am yet to investigate its nature.

against that of the super-human, and therefore mystical. Through his thesis,
Durkheim is able to show how the categories of thought space, time,
cause/effect, etc that form the very fabric of modern reason and rationality,
which in turn allow us to distinguish the natural or the real 2 from that which
is not, are historical constructs that are themselves derived from religion.
And since that which is supernatural presupposes the existence also of a
natural order of things for something to be above and beyond natural,
the natural must, itself, first exist the very historical nature, and therefore
the reality, of this supernatural is revealed to us. That religious belief
including the notions of spirits, souls, ghosts and gods belong to the realm of
the real although imagined, but not imaginary is one of religions primary
characteristics according to Durkheim.
However, not all religious faiths are based on idea of one or many God(s).
Buddhism, for instance, is based on the Four Noble Truths, and yet we come
to understand it as a world religion today. Durkheim explains, therefore, how
it is not the idea of God or belief in a Supreme Being that is fundamental to
all religions, rather the fact that some objects in the cosmology of each
particular faith are set apart from the rest and are thus consecrated,
venerated as such. The idea of God, in fact, is itself a product of a more
fundamental principle and process at play in this instance (the process is
detailed below). So, although Buddhists do not believe in God per se, they
do, in fact, hold the Four Noble Truths as sacred, and consequently all
desire profane. All religious faiths whether primitive, contemporary,
traditional or modern make such a distinction and strictly enforce its
separation. Durkheims work is littered with examples from the simple,
primitive Australian aboriginal tribes that operate on what he calls the
totemic principle. Totems are objects usually a species of an animal or
plant that a whole clan holds sacred and worships. Strict prohibitions are
maintained with respect to the consumption of sacred objects or totems and
sacrilege is usually met with heavy punishment, or even death. Each
member of the clan belongs not just to the clan but also to the totem itself;
the whole clan is, in fact, identified by their particular totem; it is carried on
the person as an emblem, members of clans attempt to faithfully reproduce
2 Modernity brought with it the notion that only that which is explicable is in fact
real. Here both the natural and the real have been equated because a) the natural
is explicable and therefore is real in a modern society and b) they both stand
opposed to the mystical that is neither natural nor explicable in terms of what
constitutes knowledge in a modern society. The social is an example of an object
which is not natural, but real.

the outward appearance of the totemic object on their bodies and

belongings.
Consecration of objects by each religion, faith or cult is not enough to make
the claim no religions are false. What is important is to understand the
genesis of such act, or more accurately why is it that only certain objects
come to signify sacredness, what makes them so? It is sometimes mistakenly
understood that because the respected, venerated elders or ancestors of a
clan are said to reside in their totems, or because totems signify the place,
animal, or plant closest to the final resting place of such an ancestor, the
totem attains its sacredness from the ancestor. Although totemism
presupposes the consubstantiality of man and animal (or plant), and to this
extent this explanation is valid, it really only serves to transfer the
sacredness of the object onto the ancestor without explaining its emergence.
Durkheim explains the fundamental nature of totemism, and religion in
general, through the example of a ritual congregation. All the clans of
particular tribes publicly assemble at particular times festivals, summer
solstices, carnivals, harvests where the totemic being(s) are said to occupy
centre-stage. These moments of collective effervescence transport the
individuals beyond themselves, and the real power or force generated in
such assemblies comes to be thought of as residing in the totemic objects
themselves, thereby giving them their sacredness. What is essential then to
totemism, and all other religious faiths, along with objects that are sacred or
set apart from those that are mundane, is collective belief and
representation. The real (both physical and mental) experience of individual
participants at such assemblies ascribes power to sacred objects. The whole
clan and not just the individual, therefore, is able to transfigure itself in the
physical form of the totem (animal or plant); the whole clan identifies itself
by its totem, and members of other clans through theirs making such belief a
fundamentally collective or social one. Divinity, thus, gains a foothold in
collective thought and gets built into the experience of social life through
persistent, collective ritualisation and is not immanent in the objects or
ancestors. This is how sacredness achieves a real character in the
consciousness of the collective. Foundation upon collectivity is the truth or
essence of all religions.
Taking this understanding of the totemic principle and applying it to the
notion of souls one is able to explain the emergence individual totems. Souls
are thought to reside in each individual giving them their sacredness, and in
fact signify a duality of the individual self. The self manifests itself outwardly

in an individual totem and inwardly by way of the soul. In certain societies,

the soul is also said to have a shared existence between ancestors and the
members of the clan. The soul is divided and subdivided and attaches itself
to individual members of each generation of the clan. The notion of the soul
is reproduced through rites of initiation and other kinds of ritualisation. Using
Durkheims theoretical framework however, we know now that supernatural,
mystical nature is in fact the transfiguration of the whole clan, or the
collective in the physical form of (totemic) objects. It is a representation,
then, of the collective that manifests itself in the individual by way of his real
social experience; the social or the collective is individuated by members of
a clan in the shape of individual totems. The proliferation of individual totems
and their multiplicity can, therefore, be attributed to the notion of the
individuated soul; the totems are nothing but representations of what is
known soul or the collective effervescence. To be sure, the totem of a clan
does not come into being as does the totem of an individual. Although both
are based on the same totemic principle the notion of the soul, and the
collective but the formation of the former is explained through a different
process. Since each clan traces its genealogy back to a common ancestor,
and empirical evidence suggests the presence of distinct totems pertaining
to each clan. From this it is easily inferred that the ancestor of each clan is, in
fact, its totemic being that is represented in the totem of the clan.
As Durkheim and Mauss show in Primitive Classification, the category of
space and concept of relating one space to the other, in fact, emerges and
develops from an acute understanding of the physical, spatial division of
space between clans themselves. A more complex network of clans resulting
from divisions and subdivisions from phratries within a tribe leads to more
intricate understanding of geographic space in the mind of tribesman
because of the spatial location of its own clan with respect to the other. This
provides an insight into a clan members awareness of the whole tribe and its
unity. All objects and phenomena within the sphere of tribal knowledge
within the mind of the individual clan member are divided amongst all the
clans of tribe forming a unified cosmology. Further, within clans of the
Australian tribes, Durkheim found, an extant hierarchy amongst gods,
constant referencing to a higher god, or a more powerful tribal deity. These
deities are said to be ancestors that cannot be placed at par with the
ancestors of particular clans because they inspire veneration from all, not
just particular, clans of the tribe, or the whole tribe itself. This high god is
spoken of as a sort of a creator (akin to Supreme Being) and authority of
these high gods extends to other, neighbouring tribes as well

representatives of neighbouring tribes are specifically invited to local

festivals which aids the process of intermingling of beliefs, exchange of
myths and through such a process gods come to acquire an international
character and international mythologies are birthed thus.
Durkheims incredible work shows us the essence, truth or generality in
religious beliefs as well as the genesis of distinctions (of faith and belief)
emanating from within the same society. Although his work is based on the
simple societies of Australia, he uses his findings to explain phenomena of
other, more complex societies and belief-systems, hence providing ample
evidence as to the generalisability of his theoretical framework. Although he
does not categorically address conflict between faiths and the use of
religious ideas for political gain and economic profit, his work presents ample
conceptual tools such as the idea of prohibition and taboo to understand
the genesis and evolution of religious conflict along with its more
contemporary avatars.
In the final analysis then, religions exist because humans exist as social
beings; living requires moral and logical consensus without the advent of
which humanity would fail to exist; and religions form the bedrock of such
consensus. All religions, through their myriad shapes and forms, fulfill the
given conditions of human existence, and therefore are true, but because
they fulfill these conditions in a variety of ways, all religions are true in their
own fashion.

Works Cited
Durkheim, Emile. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. Translated by Karen E.
Fields. New York, New York, 1995 (1912).
Durkheim, Emile, and Marcel Mauss. "Primitive Classification." Anne Sociologique,
1903.