Elementary Forms of the Religious Life by Emile Durkheim
O.K., the first thing that you have to know about this book is that it was first published in 1912 (in French, 1915 in English). Therefore it’s very ethnocentric and thinks that white people are the bee’s knees and everyone else is less evolved.
I mean, just look at the title. Look at the guy on the cover!
However, this is still one of the seminole works in the study of religion. And with good reason.
For one thing, it’s ordering is impeccable. It’s divided into three books. Book one is called “Preliminary Questions”, which is then divided up into four chapters, which are further divided into various sections.
This is all outlined in the table of contents, which gives abstracts of each section.
For example, the first chapter in book one is called “Definition of Religious Phenomena and of Religion” and is listed in the table of contents like this:
1. Definition of of Religious Phenomena and of Religion
Usefulness of a preliminary definition of of relgion; method to be folled in seeking this definition–Why the usual definitions should be examined first
1. Religion defined by the supernatural and mysterious–Criticism: the notion of mystery is not primitive
2. Religion defined in connection with the idea of God or a spiritual being–Religions without gods–Rites in deistic religions which imply no idea of divinity
3. Search for a positive definition–Distinction between beliefs and rites–Definition of beliefs–First characteristic: division of things between sacred and profane–Distinctive characteristics of this definition–Definition of rites in relation to beliefs–Definition of religion
4. Necessity of another characteristic to distinguish magic from religion–The idea of the Church–Do individualistic religions exclude the idea of a Church?
And seriously, that only covers the first 60 pages of the book.
For the heart of the matter, the principles of so-called elementary religions (which I guess you could translate into less degrading terminology and define elementary religions as not being bureaucratic), Durkheim focusses on Australian Aborigines, as he considered them to have a prime example of totemistic religion, which was what he meant by elementary.
Book two centers mostly on what totem means, what it’s function is–which is wide. Book three expands on these concepts, focussing on rites of all kinds, and how the ideology behind totemism factors into that.
Of course, there’s a lot wrong with Durkheim. For one thing, as far as I know, he never went to Australia. Primarily he’s known as the father of Sociology, and so most of his work involved industrial societies.
And besides, he’s less debunked than say, Freud. And even Freud had some seeds of wisdom buried in there somewhere.
Buy The Elementary Forms of Religious Life on Amazon
If you like this book/author, you might like:
(my reviews in blue)
The Portable Jung by Carl Gustav Jung
The Sacred and The Profane: The Nature of Religion by Mircea Eliade
The Sociology of Religion by Max Weber
The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion
Magic, Science and Religion and Other Essays by Bronislaw Malinowski
The Future of An Illusion by Sigmund Freud
Totem and Taboo; Resemblances Between the Psychic Lives of Savages and Neurotics by Sigmund Freud
The Interpretation Of Cultures by Clifford Geertz
Totemism by Claude Levi-Strauss
The Nuer: A Description of the Modes of Livelihood and Political Institutions of a Nilotic People by EE Evans-Prtichard
Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic among the Azande by EE Evans-Pritchard
Emile Durkheim: Sociologist of Modernity by Mustafa Emirbayer (editor)
Emile Durkheim: His Life and Work: A Historical and Critical Study by Steven Lukes
Other works by Emile Durkheim:
Rules of Sociological Method
Emile Durkheim: Selected Writings
Emile Durkheim on Morality and Society
Suicide
The Division of Labor in Society
Tags: anthropology, Australia, French authors, religion
This entry was posted on Friday, December 4th, 2009 at 4:27 pm and is filed under Nonfiction. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Not that white Australians are much better when it comes to treatment/talking about our indigenous population, but the fact that he referred to their religion as ‘totemistic’ suggests to me that his observations are shallow at best.
The one sociology class I took in uni was pretty interesting – my angry man-hating lesbian tutor referred to it as “what we’ve learned about ourselves according to dead white males”.