On the whole, I found Durkheim’s theory on religion fascinating. This mainly stemmed from my lack of exposure to his idea. It was very interesting to see that his youth parallels some other major thinkers. I believe that Newton, Galileo and several major philosophers shared several aspects with him. I don’t remember many of the specifics, but in reading or in class, or listening to tapes on the lives of influential philosophers and scientists, there were similar themes to be found.

First of all, many were very bright youths that came from religious backgrounds. Several of them were Jewish, which considering their position in Europe I can see where they would develop a distaste for the establishment. Next they all went to good schools, but found themselves to either bored or at odds with the established methods. I think it was either Newton or Galileo that thought the Aristotelian method and ideas that the European schools were teaching was terrible and did most of his productive study on his own.

The comparisons aside, I also found his theories on the natural development of religion fascinating in the sense that they were a departure from what I had read and that they made wonderful sense in his case study. I especially liked the idea of the totem not being magical or animalistic in nature, but a social construct that served to promote the continuance of the tribe. Once he established that, his other conclusions flow easily. For instance, once the idea that the totem is a symbol of the personification of the clan is established, it is easy to see how the soul originally was seen as “fragment of the ‘clan within.’” Once one sees where the idea of the soul comes from, it is a simple inference to see that since the clan continues on through time irrespective of its members, the soul also continues on through time after the death of its member. Similarly, since the clan is immortal it is easy to see how the personification of the clan can be immortal and there are other clans with immortal personifications that are already being projected onto their totems, it is not a stretch to see how this lead to the development of gods.

However, in the course of reading about Durkheim’s theory, a few things did come up as objections or qualifications to his theory. The first one was the accuracy of the study that he used. If Spencer and Gillen had flaws in their reporting, then it would follow that Durkheim’s analysis would also be flawed. This is not to criticize his method, just his results. Next was his assumption that there is a single cause of religion. I liked that he did not try to reverse the evolution of the religions we see now, as he accused Müller and Taylor had. I liked his seemingly scientific approach to the study of his data. However, it might be the case that there are independent reasons for the rise of independent religions. There might be an answer to that question, but in the short survey I have done, I have not come across it.