CEVAP:

Durkheim’s sociology of religion was met with criticism. In the more empirically oriented critiques, questions were asked about the validity of Durkheim’s work, especially related to his book on the elementary forms of the religious life. In this book, Durkheim based his analyses on collected ethnographic material on totemism in Australia, material that is considered insufficient by today’s standards. What is more, the material he was criticized for was probably untypical Australian case. Questions have also been raised if it is possible to extend the definition of the function of religion in a pre-modern society in Australia to the function of religion everywhere else in the world, and at all times. The theoretical critique has primarily been directed against Durkheim’s theory of society. Durkheim was influenced by his contemporaries’ view of society as an organism. According to this idea, society was perceived as an organic system where each part has functions that contribute to the maintenance of the system. It is difficult to explain such functions without including a conscious purpose. In this way, Durkheim’s theory ends in teleology, where he presumes the existence of some form of higher intelligence that creates aspects of society, which serve some purposes. Durkheim’s functionalist analysis contends that religion represents the collective life of a society. The major weakness of this approach, however, is its tendency to downplay religion’s dysfunctions especially the capacity of strongly held beliefs to generate social conflict.