A Comparison of the Views of Max Weber and Emil Durkheim

Both Weber and Durkheim pursued the study of religion as a scientific study.

Durkheim’s “science” focused on the moral effects of religion on real life, social behaviour, and extended this, to the philosophical and even psychological realm as he studied group religious behaviour; but it is clear that Weber focused on the effects of religion on the economics aspects of life and the historical development of economic systems. Durkheim argued that repetitive religious rituals had a “conditioning” effect on the individual, which made the individual feel part of the group and behave in ways conducive to the survival of the group. As a result, religion created the moral basis of society and held society together on a fundamental level. Weber’s theories of religion were more contextual, as he analysed all of the world religions, from Judaism through Islam, whereas Durkheim’s theories were more general to mankind as a whole and were primarily based on the study of the Totemism of early Australian Aboriginal religion. He believed that the study of early religious behaviour provided the key to its social purpose.

Clearly, a major difference between Weber and Durkheim in the area of religion relates to their individualistic versus holistic theories, respectively. Weber’s ideas were centered on the personal willful action of each individual in response to the religious beliefs of the society in which that individual participated and was dependent on.

Weber’s “religious individual” acted for his own betterment in order to receive favour in the eyes of god and rewards in the afterlife, and it was his moral duty to do so. More specifically, he analysed the role of the rising Protestant ethic in shaping the modern economic system. Weber mainly asked the question “what role does religion play in

century, is rooted in the Protestant ethic and the new moral values that arose during that time. He argued that the moral duty to work hard and accumulate wealth fostered by the Calvinist style Protestantism is what effectively shaped the development of modern capitalism. He also analysed this sociological phenomenon from the perspective of both western and eastern religions. For Weber, economics was a predominant force in society. His ideas were similar to those of Marx but Weber introduced the role of religion into the economic picture. Weber didn’t believe that religion was the sole mover of economic systems, it was part of a larger complexity.

However, his empirical study of history and world religions showed that the effect of religion n economic development was clearly evident.

For Durkheim, social solidarity was the basis of his sociological study of religion.

Rather than a wilful act, Durkheim’s “religious individual” acted in an almost mechanical way to the powerful effect of group religious rituals. Durkheim supposed that the purpose of religion is not to make us think about the nature of this world or the “other world” but it is rather to tell us how to act and how to live in society, in the real world.

Through sharing common beliefs and engaging in repetitive group ritual and religious activity, the morals and restraints required for social control are maintained. It was the frenzy created by group ritual that internalized and “socialized” society’s moral being;

the individual relinquishing his self-interest for the greater social good. By participating in religious rituals, the individual feels part of the group, clan or society as a whole. So religion had a socio-psychological effect on the individual as a component part of the society. God was society and was the creation of society. This is in distinct contract to Weber’s individual and his personal relationship with his God. For Durkheim religious action was more of a mechanical reaction, for Weber, a more dynamic process.

The “group” was not essential to Weber’s study of religion. He saw that individuals created societies, whereas for Durkheim society created the individual.

Weber focused his study on the effect of religion on the development of economic and social systems, including the rise of capitalism, class structures and class conflicts. He didn’t delve into the collective religious “experience” as Durkheim did, although in his studies of eastern religions he did see the unifying nature of religion in India and China including the rejection of worldliness in Buddhism. He was interested in the

“rationalization” of society, protestant ethic and its focus on relationship between individuals and between individuals and their personal God, rather than the relationship of the individual with society as a whole. For Durkheim the very existence of society was dependent on the existence of religion. Weber studied complex historical development of world religions but Durkheim believed that religion could not be understood by looking only at complex societies. He studied simple economies, simple religions and simple religious life.

In his analysis of the sacred and the profane, Durkheim looked at some of the common theories of the day regarding primitive religions. Animism is the belief in spirits, the soul, a future state and a ghost-soul, which exists in dreams and fantasies. The divine is contrived from internal “mental experiences” of the soul and the ghost soul.

Durkheim didn’t think animism answered his questions about the distinction between the sacred and the profane. What elevates things to the level of the sacred, to form the religious beliefs? Durkheim also saw that the first “sacred” objects were external natural objects, “things” and forces of nature. This was Naturalism, the personification of these natural objects through metaphor and images. Awesome spectacles inspired religious

aboriginal Totemism. He chose this group because he felt they represented the most basic, elementary forms of religion within a culture.

There are many criticisms of Durkheim’s method and theories but that is not the focus of this chapter. An overview of Weber’s study of religion is in order. Weber examined the effect of religious ideas on social development in the context of economics and politics. Specifically, he saw the effect of religion on the rise of modern capitalism. He believed that business interests were religiously motivated and sanctioned. Whereas the Lutheran doctrine of Protestantism was contrary to the capitalist spirit, Weber argued that the Protestant ethic, with its puritanical aestheticism, encouraged the capitalist spirit. Making money was not seen as a selfish pursuit but a moral one as it meant that one was busy and productive. One participated in the moral pursuit of hard work as a service to God.

Weber also addressed the question of why capitalism developed in the West before the East. To this end, he studied Chinese, Indian and Judaic culture, the religious institutions as well as the economic and political. “Rationality” as a force in society is necessary for western style capitalism and many aspects of eastern society were “anti-rational” and therefore didn’t encourage the capitalist spirit. Weber also noted two things that influenced capitalist style economic systems, increase of precious metals, and the increase in population. He saw that both of these things were common to both East and West but it was the autonomy of cities in the West, with their independent bureaucracies that fostered the market style economy.

China did not develop an independent bourgeois class. In the East, central authority, tradition, family were still central to modern life. The difference in religious imagery between East and West also played a role. In the East, the harmony of heaven and Earth, the unseen force that pervades all was sustained in nature, tradition, family

and religion. The idea of private property was also different than the West. Further to this, eastern business people were also educated in the arts and literature, they were

“Confucian gentlemen”, and were much more cultured individuals than the typical western business person. In the East, magic (and animism) was a strong force and held a large place in the lives of people in all social classes and business persons possessed the same “magical qualities” as a priest. Eastern Confucianism was all about harmony in the world, self-control and repressed passions. All of social action was guided by this idea of harmony and this was contrary to the “every man for himself” capitalist spirit. In the West, the aesthetic Protestantism eliminated “magic” from religion and the relationship between God and men took on a different nature in regards to worldly actions.

The picture was similar in India. Capitalism didn’t develop until well into English rule. Weber believed that the principal of pacifism and the “magical mentality” of Indian religion kept this from happening. Also, the caste system was based on tradition, hindered the occupational guild mentality and was anti-rational. Further, the village artisan was the “bearer of stability” in Indian society and “fixed payment” as opposed to a “market economy” kept the Indian economic system in a “conservative” mode. Plus, Indian towns had no autonomy or self-government. Buddhism had an inherent nature of a devaluing of worldly things and putting value on meditation, otherworldliness and pacifism. Lust for gain was not encouraged. This was not conducive to the swift development of modern capitalism.

In Judaism, the world was God-directed. God determined the future of the world based on the behaviour of the people, specifically the Jews. The people attended to

was a rational one, and was based on the rewards of earthly happiness and domination over property and worldly “things”, and not on rewards in heaven. The contract between man and God was a rational one, which began with the freedom of the Jews from Egyptian bondage. “Prophecy” had an enormous effect on relations between people and shaped class relationships and conflicts. All of this served the development of modern capitalism very well.