Comparison of the Theories of Sigmund Freud and Emile Durkheim on Religion

AbstractThis paper examines the bets of Sigmund Freud and Emile Durkheim on pietism, looking at how some(prenominal) theorists primally viewed trust as serving an implicit in(p) role in human culture. In particular, this essay knock all overs how both theorist consider ghostlike believers to be misidentify in their ontological beliefs, and the keen causes for this.Introduction plot both Sigmund Freud and Emile Durkheim atomic number 18 come to with the subscribe to of human doings as it relates to culture, each(prenominal) does so from within distinct traditions. In terms of piety, Freuds approach belongs to the mental tradition, while Durkheim puts forward a sociological approach. In the Freudian view, human behaviour is largely driven by intrinsic and intangible drives, working in the unconscious mind. much(prenominal) phenomena are non directly observable, that is, they are non- observational they must accompanyingly be inferred, and as much(prenominal) a re conjectural. Durkheims sociological method, on the other(a) hand, utilises direct empirical observations of amicable phenomena (rites, rituals, customs, et cetera), looking to government note for the urge behind and affair of group behaviour. thereof Freud is concerned with obscure, intangible internal phenomena, whereas Durkheim is concerned with overt and tangible outdoor(a) phenomena. Evidently, the supposititious positions in question to a mark divide amidst internal and external motivations.Different Routes to the Core of a fraudDurkheim posits a direct tie-in in the midst of environmental variables, the appearance groups interact with such variables, and how this interaction is perceived by undivided members of said group. There is a means of cyclical reflexivity in this high-power this means people living together in society generate rules which are felt by any exclusive member as acting on him from outside, as having a force which he feels as both uplif ting and bound (Scharf 1970, 151). This force, Durkheim argues, is an externalisation of conventions peculiar to the group that are perceived as exogenous barely which are in fact endogenous. This inclination of an orbit to externalise, Durkheim suggests, derives from the natural human desire to put meaning to date, to seek a exemplification in the natural consecrate. Thus, as Kunin states, faith likewise is an externalisation of society and its order and speaks to the dialectic relationship between the somebody and society (2003, 82). pietism, then, provides for an externalised object onto which collective sense bed be projected this is crowning(prenominal)ly reflexive because the externalisation at root system represents the people themselves. As a result, to comply ghostly custom is indirectly to watch over the group. This is why for Durkheim religious experience serves to uphold group coherence and bonding. Freuds thought of virtuousity is somewhat pejorativ e. Connolly observes that Freud noticed the connection between abnormal psychological conditions and devotion (1991, 146) which observation he expanded upon in his regard Obsessive acts and apparitional Practices (1907). As the papers title suggests, Freud pull a connection between psychological abnormality and religious practice, noting a proportion between what are called obsessive acts in neurotics and those religious observances by means of which the devoted give expression to their piety (17). In turn, Freud perceived pietism, like neuroticism, as characteristic of deep-seated psychological issues. In the voice communication of Gallucci, Freud saw worship as a collective neurotic symptom, an obsessional neurosis (2001, 76). This neurosis, according to psychoanalytic scheme, comes somewhat as a defence machine against feelings of helplessness which obtain in a dispassionate cosmos. Hence the need for a cosmic father body-build, who, as a parent comforts the child, palliates the religious compositors case with conciliatory notions (about purpose, meaning, boundaries, rewards, and so on). This entire high-powered apparently stems from Oedipal anxieties, where each person grows up with a sense of foreboding toward a father figure who is both feared and love this, it follows, becomes the base for the cosmic father figure, who offers rampart and salvation but in the interim needs to be appeased by subjection and sacrifice (Clarke 2002, 43). In Freuds mind, godliness therefore constitutes a surrogate parent. On the surface, Freud and Durkheim proffer two seemingly instead diametric explanations for godliness. Importantly, while these theories are not overtly complementary, nor are they mutually exclusive. Indeed, crucial parallels may be drawn between each approach. For example, both both theorists argued that trust is an important factor in partnership cohesion (Scharf 1970, 155) both agree that religion is central to any cultural ep itome (Ginsburg and Pardes 2006, 220) and, thus, both hold that that the cognitive grow of religious belief are to be found in social experience (Spiro 1987, 202). These similarities are square and, more thanover, point to unrivaled common determinant that the underlying basis of religious convictions are contrary to what believers suppose. For Durkheim, the literal driving force behind religion is social cohesion for Freud, the impetus is psychological assuagement. In either case, social hotshot and mental wellbeing obtain, that for passably different conceptual reasons. From the above, one exponent argue that Freud and Durkheim share significant overarching perspectives on religion while holding markedly different structural viewpoints on how and why religion functions. Freud is concerned with psychological structures Durkheim with sociological structures. Freud believes religion workings to console believers from the ultimate anxiety of a meaningless cosmos. Durkheim be lieves religion provides for a canvas on which social phenomena can be externalised and then re-accommodated as an exogenous entity. Again, both modes of behaviour essentially work to the same purpose add a sense of meaning in human life. At this stage, one susceptibility consider the ways in which Freudian theory could compensate for shortfalls in the work of Durkheim and vice versa. For instance, Durkheim offers inadequate in the way of early psychological developmental insights, into the religious process yet there is no reason that early anxiety (of an Oedipal nature) could not cohere with Durkheimian ideas. Indeed, such anxiety and the consequent potential for neurosis could suggest an veritable(a) greater need for group cohesion as a way of reifying the hallucination through consensus, thus alleviating the anxiety. Again, this would chime with Durkheims understanding that religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things . . . which commin gle in one single moral community called a Church (cited in Gain 2010, 39). By the same token, Freuds limitations could perhaps be overcome with rootage to some of Durkheims insights. Scharf notes a flunk of Freudian theory in that it does little to explain the variety in articulations of authorship and fraternity within religious discourse, advising that, here, Durkheims structural approach has more evaluate (1970, 154). Accordingly we see that a subtraction of theoretical approaches may not only be possible but highly advantageous.ConclusionFreud and Durkheim take in truth different roads to arrive at more or less the same destination. For this reason, significant and consistent core elements may be identified between their works. These include the fundamental belief that religion serves an explicable, material, social purpose which is essentially external to theological concerns that religious believers are at base mistaken in their beliefs (insomuch as these beliefs are ma chine-accessible to cosmic phenomena beyond the rationally explicable) that, it follows, religion is the irrational articulation of an ultimately rational cause (anxiety or clan behaviour) that religion can function as a surrogate or projection of military man reformed with divine auspices and that, finally, religion is an integral element of human culture. What is basically different in these two authors is their methodological priorities. Each man comes from a very distinct tradition. Put simply, Freud and Durkheim were engaged in different disciplines as a result, their pursuits were orientated differently The reason Freud and Durkheims works are compared at all is that the realms of the sociological and of the psychological possess mutual ground the grounds of culture. Both theorists arrest their limitations. Durkheim can be accused of being over reductive and simplistic. Social structure may not be enough to account for every aspect of religion. Psychological, cognitive a nd other inborn factors may also have a large part to play. Freud, on the other hand, may place besides much onus on the unconscious drives in dictating religious experience. After all, religion is so varied and complex, it might be argued, to defy any wholesale theory to explain it away. What, for example, do we make of religions in which there is no father figure proper or religions which proclaim no deity at allClearly there are un decideed questions on both sides of the aisle. perhaps a hybrid methodology that follow a syncretic approach to the study of religion might help answer these questions. After all, it seems to be the case that both Freud and Durkheim arrived at crucial insights into the social and psychological determinants that drive religion.ReferencesClarke, P. J. (2002) Explaining Philosophy and Ethics. Cheltenham Nelson Thomas.Connolly, P. (1991) Psychological Approaches. In Connolly, P. ed. Approaches to the Study of Religion. New York Continuum, pp. 135-193.Du rkheim, E. (1912). The Elementary Forms of spiritual Life. (J. Swain, Trans.) New York The Free Press.Freud, S. (1907) Obsessive Acts and Religious Practices. In J Strachey (ed. and trans.) Standard version of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud. capital of the United Kingdom Hogarth Press.Gain, M., 2010. On Durkheims Rules of Sociological method acting (Routledge Revivals). New York Routledge.Gallucci, G. M., 2001. Plato and Freud Statesmen of the Soul. Philadelphia Xlibris.Ginsburg, R. & Pardes, L., 2006. New Perspectives on Freuds Moses and Monotheism. Tubingen Niemeyer.Kunin, S. D., 2003. Religion The Modern Theories. Edinburgh Edinburgh University Press.Scharf, B. R., 1970. Durkheimian and Freudian Theories of Religion The Case of Judaism, The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 21. 2 (June), pp. 151-163.Spiro, M. E., 1987. Culture and Human Nature. New Brunswick, NJ Transaction.