Religion's Effects

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.