Talk:The Cultural Logic of Collective Representations (Group 5)

I know prof told us that Durkheim is a materialist, but I am actually still struggle a bit why Durkheim is a materialist? Could anyone please explain it for me.

I think we discussed how Durkheim is a materialist because of his concepts of "social facts" and "social roles". These things exist in the world as already-present facts and it is these roles (what's prescribed already in our realities) that we come into the world to assume and experience. In this way, Durkheim is more than an idealist. He is a materialist because what we experience in the world is real, material, and tangible. Our experiences are not constructed simply through our consciousness. These roles are real, material, and tangible social constructs. For example, with assuming the mother role, having a child is a material fact.

I think there is a shift on whether Durkheim is materialist or idealist. In his earlier work, he has more materialist characteristics and as time goes, he become more of a idealist. So, I don't think we can specifically categorize him as either materialist or idealist. His emphasis on collective consciousness and representations made him an idealist.

Hi Jessica, Thank you for your post, I think what you mentioned religious forces affected human forms, and give them a human force and a moral force is interesting. It is true that religious play an important role in our society, especially on human behavior and mind. Religious create a moral standard and ideal type which effects human to follow and obey. If people did something which against the religious’ restraint, they may be judge or spurn by others who believe in this kind of religious. Religious is like an ideal type for our society, sometimes it can help people and lead them to pursue a gracious life goal; some times it is a kind of constraint for human, like in some religious culture, women has to cover their body, faces, and hair in public place, they can not expose their skin and limbs in public, even in front of friends. For instance, a Moslem women who posted a picture of her muscles which she worked out so hard to get on the internet, and the police rested her for exposing her skin to the public. Some part of religion is magnificent, while some parts are constraints for people.

I agree with Weijia. It is true that religion plays a vital part in society, and helps individuals to abide by a social contract, in a sense, as it tells people to be good people. Religion also plays a huge role in the law, in the sense of trusting/ taking oaths. It also causes boundaries in society with conflict of opinion. An example for Muslim women, like Weijia used, is women's rights. People condemn Islam when it comes to women's liberty because they choose to cover. Liberty is perceived differently in society, for example, a Muslim woman's view on liberty is perceived as oppression by the other. What about the individual's who don't believe in religion? Where do they fit in for Durkheim?

Considering your question Namra, I think Durkhiem would say those who are not religious and therefore do not share the collective consciousness will be people on the fringes who don't belong to society. However, we can argue that this is from his time period where religion was a key regulator of society. In modern day the impact of religion is less than before and we can say that non-religous people form their own collective consciousness that determine how they think, act and go about their lives; in this way they would still fit into Durkheim.

Can anyone think of other forms of collective consciousness that have "deviated from the norm" to form their own set of ideals? One I can think about is the LGBT community.

I would agree with what Nicole has to say above but it could also be that even if you don't believe in religion per say that you're still influenced by that collective consciousness. In his piece, "the cultural logic of collective presentations" he says "...of reaching individual consciousness of giving them a direction and of discipling them", it could be that religion is an overarching thing that is there to kind of be our guide. While I do agree with what is said above where those are aren't religious will be alienated in this time frame, but I believe that in terms of personal ideas that they might still be influenced and they might still believe in a self consciousness. It is said that "he transformed and consequently he transforms the environment that surrounds him" so maybe it is possible that it is all just a burgeoning system. If we don't have individuals who are outliers then we would have a stagnant society in a way.

Hi WeiJia, good point! It's also interesting if you take holidays into account. Arguably, all 365 days of the year are similar, and yet because of religion or collective beliefs around a certain day, it arbitrarily becomes sacred or special, thereby demarcating it from other days of the year, which become the ordinary or profane. For instance, we all recognize that December 25th is Christmas, regardless of our religious participation. Arguably, it is seen as quite literally a holy day both normatively and in the sense of our discussion; it is set apart from other days (e.g. December 23 is nowhere as special as December 25 to the majority). However, there is very little reason for this particular day to be the one that is made sacred; even Christian/Catholic theorists differ on opinions as to when the Christ figure was born – this only adds to how arbitrarily the date is sanctified. Of course, this theory can be applied to non-religious holidays as well which still reflect a more contemporary collective belief, like New Year's, Hallowe'en, and the like. It's really intriguing how Durkheim's theory in this case is highly applicable and still relevant to everyday life.

I would like to add another aspect to Jaden's example about why Religion is significant to Durkheim's work. Not only is Religion considered to be an ideal type, moral guideline etc, but Religion possesses the power to make things 'sacred'. The fact that Religion has the power to determine what is sacred, and what is not, adds another tool for those in power to maintain hegemony. We have seen throughout history how Religion has legitimized power structures. For example, 'the divine right' was God's mandate for political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. When those in control use Religion in this way, it solidifies the sphere of consensus in power, as it creates a collective conscious for those within that sphere. Those outside the sphere are given flak, preventing them from altering it.

Hi Adriano. Yes, I completely agree with you. It is interesting that every society has their own beliefs on what is considered 'sacred' but within a society, those 'sacred' objects or virtues are shared in that most of its members seem to view them with similar significance. Even for people who are not religious are still in a way affected by these value systems because society is so deeply ingrained with it that it is virtually impossible to escape any references. However, I am also curious as to whether it is possible for societies to evolve into another religion? For example, as Canada is based on Christianity, and most of its institutions are founded upon this religion, is it possible for Canada to ever become a Buddhist-dominated society? How will our institutions change?

Jessica, I think it would be interesting to compare and contrast these societies and see the differences in how they function through their collective consciousness based on these sacred objects. I think although the specific objects may differ there would likely be many similarities in the values and morals that are evoked by the sacred objects. Due to this, I think virtues can be shared across cultures and even combined by perhaps not replaced or overthrown. For example, Canada is an example of a 'melting pot' of cultures and strives for multiculturalism. Kerry offered an important thought though about multiculturalism, where multiculturalism may be a kind of paradox in there are sacred objects in each culture so by combining them you are either removing the sense of sacredness and creating an overall collective consciousness or what I see as more plausible, they are just multiple cultures within the same place but retaining their same sacred objects and thus are never able to achieve perfect collective consciousness. For example, you may all live within the same country and speak English but some may choose to speak other languages over English in order to maintain their own personal sacred objects.

Good question Jessica. I think that our institutions will not change that much as I agree with Sarah on the part that there could be multiple cultures within the same place and that virtues do not necessarily have to be replaced or overthrown as there are similarities and values based on sacred objects. For example, some things I find are universal across all religions and cultures, such as wedding rings. We all know that if a person has a wedding band on their ring finger, we understand that this person is married and this is what Durkheim says as how we make sense of the world, through collective representations. However I also recall what Durkheim says about how society collectively decide that something exists and without society these religious forces would not exist, therefore, perhaps maybe a society could evolve into another religion if all individuals collectively decide on it. I would also like to add that I am from Japan, where I found that the Buddhism held very little meaning to many of the youth of Japan today. Our society has grown into a more westernized society where we celebrate Christmas and other Christian/Catholic holidays.

Great Point, Weijia! It's apparent that religion could be restrictions on people life especially women's life. I really like your example of a Muslim women. Religion could certain become guidance for people's morality. Although I am somewhat confused whether Durkheim's idea of "religion" could directly refer to contemporary religion.Personally, I think there are certain common moral principles, instead of religion to guide people from even different societies, such as "killing for fun is not permitted or sinful". I don't really think this kind of common principles come from any particular religious regulations (correct me if I am wrong, since I might not have enough knowledge for every religion).

I agree Bo, there are definitely common principles between Durkheim's idea of religion, and contemporary religion. Especially in the fact that for some it shapes our thought and language, thus the expression of one's collective consciousness. We all have an collective idealized reality and can use religion in helping to attain the ideal. This somewhat reminds me of Freud's theory of how attaining self-actualization was the great conquest of life. Durkheim also states that that there is no overlapping between categories between different groups, which I think is a bit overreaching on his parts. For example, all religions have placed value upon a sacred object, which at one point was just an object. They make have different names for the same object, but it is regarded in the same way.

I was wondering if anyone else drew comparisons between Durkheim and some of the symbolic interactionists such as George Herbert Mead. Mead was highly focused on how the individual's experience in relation to others is what defines the core of identity with one's "self." The main aspect of this theory was that social interaction was the only way that the symbolic, abstract world existed. Durkheim's theory followed a similar path, as we discussed earlier in class how concepts such as "time," "space," and "the universe" exist for us because we assign them meaning. For Durkheim, religion is one of the clearest examples of how profane objects become sacred due to the meaning that a society collectively believes that object to have. Due to the close similarities between these theories, can we consider Durkheim a symbolic interactionist as well as a positivist sociologist?

Hi Emily, I was also thinking about Mead and Durkheim as having somewhat similar concepts! In the same way that Mead talks about the generalized other and how that creates an idealized self (which regulates how you act / behave according to norms and values). I agree with your connection with the concepts like time, space and the universe but I was thinking that Mead's definition of the self could be seen through Durkheim's definition of mechanic and organic solidarity. What I mean is that there is an expectation to adhere to certain roles and expectations in order to retain social cohesion within a structured society. Within organic solidarity, labour has been split up so that each person has an individual role that makes it so that they would be unable to survive on their own. Therefore, each individual defines themselves in their individual roles and must play their role in accordance to prescribed expectations in order for society to function and move forwards In regards to the claims on Durkheim being a positivist, I believe a couple other students are trying to figure that out down below!