Editing Émile Durkheim (section)

==Durkheim and theory==
Throughout his career, Durkheim was concerned primarily with three goals. First, to establish sociology as a new academic discipline.<ref name="Calhoun2002-105" /> Second, to analyse how societies could maintain their integrity and coherence in the modern era, when things such as shared religious and ethnic background could no longer be assumed. To that end he wrote much about the effect of laws, religion, education and similar forces on society and [[social integration]].<ref name="Calhoun2002-105" /><ref name="Allan_102">{{harvp|Allan|2005|p=102}}</ref> Lastly, Durkheim was concerned with the practical implications of [[scientific knowledge]].<ref name="Calhoun2002-105" /> The importance of social integration is expressed throughout Durkheim's work:<ref>{{harvp|Allan|2005|p=136}}</ref><ref>Durkheim, Emile. 2011 [1925]. ''Moral Education'', translated by E. K. Wilson and H. Schnurer. Mineola, NY: [[Dover Publications]]. {{ISBN|9780486424989}}. [https://books.google.com/books?id=JJooAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA102 p. 102].</ref>

{{Blockquote|For if society lacks the unity that derives from the fact that the relationships between its parts are exactly regulated, that unity resulting from the harmonious articulation of its various functions assured by effective discipline and if, in addition, society lacks the unity based upon the commitment of men's wills to a common objective, then it is no more than a pile of sand that the least jolt or the slightest puff will suffice to scatter.|title=|source=''Moral Education'' (1925)|author=}}

===Establishing sociology===
Durkheim authored some of the most programmatic statements on what sociology is and how it should be practiced.<ref name="Calhoun2002-103"/> His concern was to establish sociology as a science.<ref>{{harvp|Popolo|2011|loc=[https://books.google.com/books?id=vMALg_p5zHsC&pg=PA97 pp. 97–]}}</ref> Arguing for a place for sociology among other sciences, he wrote, "sociology is, then, not an auxiliary of any other science; it is itself a distinct and autonomous science."<ref>{{harvp|Brinton|Nee|2001|loc=[https://books.google.com/books?id=71e_jsQpzg0C&pg=PR11 pp. 11–]}}</ref>

To give sociology a place in the academic world and to ensure that it is a legitimate science, it must have an object that is clear and distinct from philosophy or psychology, and its own [[methodology]].<ref name="Calhoun2002-105"/> He argued that "there is in every society a certain group of phenomena which may be differentiated from those studied by the other natural sciences."<ref name="AppelrouthEdles2007">[[#CITEREFDurkheim2007|Durkheim, Émile. 2007 [1895]]]. "[https://books.google.com/books?id=EUQT47IqVdgC&pg=PA101 The Rules of Sociological Method]." Pp. 95–102 in ''[[iarchive:classicalcontemp0000appe/page/95|Classical and Contemporary Sociological Theory: Text and Readings]]'', edited by S. Appelrouth and L. D. Edles. Thousand Oaks, CA: [[SAGE Publishing|Pine Forge Press]]. {{ISBN|978-0-7619-2793-8}}.</ref>{{Rp|95}}

In the [[Tarde-Durkheim debate]] of 1903, the "anthropological view" of [[Gabriel Tarde]] was ridiculed and hastily dismissed.{{Citation needed|date=July 2022}}

A fundamental aim of sociology is to discover structural "[[social fact]]s".<ref name="Calhoun2002-105"/><ref name="socialfact">Durkheim, Émile. 1938 [1895]. ''[[The Rules of Sociological Method]]'', translated by S. A. Solovay and J. H. Mueller, edited by G. E. G. Catlin.</ref>{{Rp|13}} The establishment of sociology as an independent, recognized academic discipline is among Durkheim's largest and most lasting legacies.<ref name="Calhoun2002-107" /> Within sociology, his work has significantly influenced structuralism or [[structural functionalism]].<ref name="Calhoun2002-107" /><ref name="Allan_103">{{harvp|Allan|2005|p=103}}</ref>

===Social facts===
{{Main|Social fact}}

{{blockquote|A social fact is every way of acting, fixed or not, capable of exercising on the individual an external constraint; or again, every way of acting which is general throughout a given society, while at the same time existing in its own right independent of its individual manifestations.|''The Rules of Sociological Method''<ref name="socialfact" />|title=|source=}}

Durkheim's work revolved around the study of social facts, a term he coined to describe phenomena that have an existence in and of themselves, are not bound to the actions of individuals, but have a coercive influence upon them.<ref>{{harvp|Allan|2005|pp=105-06}}</ref> Durkheim argued that social facts have, ''[[sui generis]]'', an independent existence greater and more objective than the actions of the individuals that compose society.<ref name="Allan_106">{{harvp|Allan|2005|p=106}}</ref> Only such social facts can explain the observed social phenomena.<ref name="Calhoun2002-103"/> Being exterior to the individual person, social facts may thus also exercise [[Social control|coercive power]] on the various people composing society, as it can sometimes be observed in the case of formal laws and regulations, but also in situations implying the presence of informal rules, such as religious rituals or family norms.<ref name="socialfact" /><ref name="Durkheim_1994_433">Durkheim, Émile. 1994 [1895]. "Social facts." Pp. 433–40 in ''Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science'', edited by M. Martin and [[Lee C. McIntyre|L. C. McIntyre]]. Boston: [[MIT Press]]. {{ISBN|978-0-262-13296-1}}. p. 433–34.</ref> Unlike the facts studied in [[natural science]]s, a ''social'' fact thus refers to a specific category of phenomena: "the determining cause of a social fact must be sought among the antecedent social facts and not among the states of the individual consciousness."{{citation needed|date=May 2020}}

Such facts are endowed with a power of coercion, by reason of which they may control individual behaviors.<ref name="Durkheim_1994_433"/> According to Durkheim, these phenomena cannot be reduced to [[biology|biological]] or [[psychology|psychological]] grounds.<ref name="Durkheim_1994_433" /> Social facts can be material (i.e. physical objects ) or immaterial (i.e. meanings, sentiments, etc.).<ref name="Allan_106"/> Though the latter cannot be seen or touched, they are external and coercive, thus becoming real and gaining "[[facticity]]".<ref name="Allan_106"/> Physical objects, too, can represent both material and immaterial social facts. For example, a flag is a physical social fact that is often ingrained with various immaterial social facts (e.g. its meaning and importance).<ref name="Allan_106"/>

Many social facts, however, have no material form.<ref name="Allan_106"/> Even the most "individualistic" or "subjective" phenomena, such as love, freedom, or suicide, were regarded by Durkheim as ''objective'' social facts.<ref name="Allan_106"/> Individuals composing society do not directly cause suicide: suicide, as a social fact, exists independently in society, and is caused by other social facts—such as rules governing [[behavior]] and group attachment—whether an individual likes it or not.<ref name="Allan_106"/><ref>{{harvp|Allan|2005|p=107}}</ref> Whether a person "leaves" a society does not alter the ''fact'' that this society will ''still contain'' suicides. Suicide, like other immaterial social facts, exists independently of the will of an individual, cannot be eliminated, and is as influential—coercive—as physical laws like gravity.<ref name="Allan_106"/> Sociology's task therefore consists of discovering the qualities and characteristics of such social facts, which can be discovered through a [[Quantitative research|quantitative]] or experimental approach (Durkheim extensively relied on [[Social statistics|statistics]]).<ref group="lower-roman">{{harvp|Hassard|1995|loc=[https://books.google.com/books?id=EjI6Rd-NreYC&dq=Durkheim+suicide+sociological+positivism&pg=PA15 p. 15]}}: "Suicide…is indeed the paradigm case of Durkheim's positivism: it remains the exemplar of the sociological application of statistics."</ref>

===Society, collective consciousness, and culture===
[[File:Emile Durkheim, Division du travail social maitrier.jpg|thumb|right|Cover of the French edition of ''The Division of Labour in Society]]Regarding the society itself, like [[social institution]]s in general, Durkheim saw it as a set of social facts.{{citation needed|date=May 2020}} Even more than "what society is," Durkheim was interested in answering "how is a society created" and "what holds a society together." In ''[[The Division of Labour in Society]]'', Durkheim attempts to answer the latter question.<ref name="Calhoun2002-10632">{{harvp|Calhoun|2002|loc=[https://books.google.com/books?id=6mq-H3EcUx8C&pg=PA106 p. 106]}}</ref>

==== Collective consciousness ====
Durkheim assumes that humans are inherently [[Egotism|egoistic]], while "[[collective consciousness]]" (i.e. [[Norm (sociology)|norms]], [[belief]]s, and [[Value (ethics)|values]]) forms the moral basis of the society, resulting in [[social integration]].<ref>Kim, Sung Ho. 2007. "[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/weber/ Max Weber]." ''[[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]''. Retrieved 17 February 2010.</ref> ''Collective consciousness'' is therefore of key importance to the society; its requisite function without which the society cannot survive.<ref name="Allan_1083">{{harvp|Allan|2005|p=108}}</ref> This consciousness produces the society and holds it together, while, at the same time, individuals produce collective consciousness through their interactions.<ref name=":0" /> Through collective consciousness human beings become aware of one another as social beings, not just animals.<ref name="Allan_1083" /><blockquote>The totality of beliefs and sentiments common to the average members of a society forms a determinate system with a life of its own. It can be termed the collective or common consciousness.<ref name="AllanAllan2005-108">{{cite book|author1=Kenneth Allan|author2=Kenneth D. Allan|title=Explorations in Classical Sociological Theory: Seeing the Social World|date=2 November 2005|publisher=Pine Forge Press|isbn=978-1-4129-0572-5|page=[https://archive.org/details/explorationsincl00alla/page/108 108]|url=https://archive.org/details/explorationsincl00alla/page/108}}</ref></blockquote>In particular, the [[emotion]]al part of the collective consciousness overrides our [[egoism]]: as we are emotionally bound to [[culture]], we act socially because we recognize it is the responsible, moral way to act.<ref name="Allan_109">{{harvp|Allan|2005|p=109}}</ref> A key to forming society is [[social interaction]], and Durkheim believes that human beings, when in a group, will inevitably act in such a way that a society is formed.<ref name="Allan_109"/><ref>{{cite journal | url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/09767479211057745 | doi=10.1177/09767479211057745 | title=An Open Letter to Emile Durkheim | journal=Journal of the Anthropological Survey of India | date=December 2021 | volume=70 | issue=2 | pages=256–263 | last1=Guha | first1=Abhijit | s2cid=245132986 }}</ref>

==== Culture ====
Groups, when interacting, create their own culture and attach powerful emotions to it, thus making ''[[culture]]'' another key social fact.<ref name="Allan_110">{{harvp|Allan|2005|p=110}}</ref> Durkheim was one of the first scholars to consider the question of culture so intensely.<ref name="Allan_103" /> Durkheim was interested in [[cultural diversity]], and how the existence of diversity nonetheless fails to destroy a society. To that, Durkheim answered that any apparent cultural diversity is overridden by a larger, common, and more generalized cultural system, and the [[law]].<ref>{{harvp|Allan|2005|pp=111, 127}}</ref>

In a [[Sociocultural evolution|socio-evolutionary]] approach, Durkheim described the evolution of societies from [[mechanical solidarity]] to [[organic solidarity]] (one rising from mutual need).<ref name="Allan_103" /><ref name="Calhoun2002-10632" /><ref name="psz500">{{harvp|Sztompka|2002|p=500}}</ref><ref name="Allan_125">{{harvp|Allan|2005|p=125}}</ref> As societies become more complex, evolving from mechanical to organic solidarity, the [[division of labour]] is counteracting and replacing to collective consciousness.<ref name="Calhoun2002-10632" /><ref name="Allan_137">{{harvp|Allan|2005|p=137}}</ref> In the simpler societies, people are connected to others due to personal ties and traditions; in the larger, modern society they are connected due to increased reliance on others with regard to them performing their specialized tasks needed for the modern, highly complex society to survive.<ref name="Calhoun2002-10632" /> In mechanical solidarity, people are self-sufficient, there is little integration, and thus there is the need for use of force and repression to keep society together.<ref name="psz500"/>{{Citation needed|date=July 2023|reason=Provided source does not appear to actually suggest that Durkheim considered societies of 'mechanical' solidarity less integrated - in fact Durkheim implies the opposite. Sztompka also does not seem to express such a view here, but this could be my reading.}} Also, in such societies, people have much fewer options in life.<ref name="Allan_123">{{harvp|Allan|2005|p=123}}</ref>{{Clarify|date=July 2023}} In organic solidarity, people are much more integrated and interdependent, and specialization and cooperation are extensive.<ref name="psz500" />{{Citation needed|date=July 2023|reason=See reason given in "citation needed" tag two sentences prior.}} Progress from mechanical to organic solidarity is based first on [[population growth]] and increasing [[population density]], second on increasing "morality density" (development of more complex [[social interaction]]s) and thirdly, on the increasing specialization in workplace.<ref name="psz500" /> One of the ways mechanical and organic societies differ is the function of law: in mechanical society the law is focused on its [[punishment|punitive]] aspect, and aims to reinforce the cohesion of the community, often by making the punishment public and extreme; whereas in the organic society the law focuses on repairing the damage done and is more focused on individuals than the community.<ref>{{harvp|Allan|2005|pp=123–24}}</ref>

One of the main features of the modern, organic society is the importance, [[sacredness]] even, given to the concept—social fact—of the [[individual]].<ref name="Allan_132-133">{{harvp|Allan|2005|pp=132–33}}</ref> The individual, rather than the collective, becomes the focus of rights and responsibilities, the center of public and private rituals holding the society together—a function once performed by the religion.<ref name="Allan_132-133" /> To stress the importance of this concept, Durkheim talked of the "cult of the individual":<ref name=":1">Durkheim, Émile. 1974 [1953]. ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=oCBNzbCG2N0C&q=editions:7biAPRA5u8AC Sociology and Philosophy]'', translated by [[David Francis Pocock|D. F. Pocock]], with introduction by J. G. Peristiany. Toronto: [[Free Press (publisher)|Free Press]]. {{ISBN|978-0-02-908580-6}}. {{LCCN|74-19680}}.</ref><blockquote>Thus very far from there being the antagonism between the individual and society which is often claimed, moral individualism, the cult of the individual, is in fact the product of society itself. It is society that instituted it and made of man the god whose servant it is.</blockquote>Durkheim saw the [[population density]] and [[population growth|growth]] as key factors in the evolution of the societies and advent of [[modernity]].<ref>{{harvp|Allan|2005|pp=125, 134}}</ref> As the number of people in a given area increase, so does the number of interactions, and the society becomes more complex.<ref name="Allan_125" /> Growing [[competition]] between the more numerous people also leads to further division of labour.<ref name="Allan_125" /> In time, the importance of the state, the law and the individual increases, while that of the religion and moral solidarity decreases.<ref name="Allan_134">{{harvp|Allan|2005|p=134}}</ref>

In another example of evolution of culture, Durkheim pointed to [[fashion]], although in this case he noted a more [[social cycle|cyclical]] phenomenon.<ref name="Allan_113">{{harvp|Allan|2005|p=113}}</ref> According to Durkheim, fashion serves to differentiate between [[Working class|lower classes]] and [[upper class]]es, but because lower classes want to look like the upper classes, they will eventually adapt the upper class fashion, depreciating it, and forcing the upper class to adopt a new fashion.<ref name="Allan_113"/>

===Social pathology and crime===
{{Criminology and penology|Major theorists}}
As the society, Durkheim noted there are several possible [[pathology|pathologies]] that could lead to a breakdown of [[social integration]] and disintegration of the society: the two most important ones are ''[[anomie]]'' and ''forced division of labour''; lesser ones include the lack of coordination and suicide.<ref>{{harvp|Allan|2005|pp=128, 130}}</ref> To Durkheim, ''anomie'' refers to a lack of social norms; where too rapid of population growth reduces the amount of interaction between various groups, which in turn leads to a breakdown of understanding (i.e. norms, values, etc.).<ref>{{harvp|Allan|2005|p=128, 129, 137}}</ref> ''Forced division of labour'', on the other hand, refers to a situation in which those who hold power, driven by their desire for [[Profit (economics)|profit]], which can result in [[greed]], results in people doing work that they are unsuited for.<ref name="Allan_129">{{harvp|Allan|2005|p=129}}</ref> Such people are unhappy, and their desire to change the system can destabilize the society.<ref name="Allan_129"/>

Durkheim's views on crime were a departure from conventional notions. He believed that crime is "bound up with the fundamental conditions of all [[social relation|social life]]" and serves a social function.<ref name="AppelrouthEdles2007" />{{Rp|101}} He states that crime implies "not only that the way remains open to necessary changes but that in certain cases it directly prepares these changes."<ref name="AppelrouthEdles2007" />{{Rp|101}} Examining the [[trial of Socrates]], he argues that "his crime, namely, the independence of his thought, rendered a service not only to humanity but to his country" as "it served to prepare a new morality and faith that the Athenians needed."<ref name="AppelrouthEdles2007" />{{Rp|101}} As such, his crime "was a useful prelude to reforms."<ref name="AppelrouthEdles2007" />{{Rp|102}} In this sense, he saw crime as being able to release certain social tensions and so have a cleansing or purging effect in society.<ref name="AppelrouthEdles2007" />{{Rp|101}}  <blockquote>

The authority which the moral conscience enjoys must not be excessive; otherwise, no-one would dare to criticize it, and it would too easily congeal into an immutable form. To make progress, individual originality must be able to express itself…[even] the originality of the criminal…shall also be possible. </blockquote>

==== Deviance ====
Durkheim thought [[Deviance (sociology)#Deviance|deviance]] to be an essential component of a functional society.<ref name="Textbook">{{cite book|url=https://openstax.org/details/books/introduction-sociology-2e|title=Introduction to Sociology|publisher=OpenStax|isbn=978-1-947172-11-1|edition=2|pages=138|access-date=7 April 2018}}</ref> He believed that deviance had three possible effects on society:<ref name="Textbook" /><ref>"[https://open.lib.umn.edu/sociology/chapter/7-2-explaining-deviance/ 7.2 Explaining Deviance]." ''Sociology: Understanding and Changing the Social World''. [[University of Minnesota Libraries]] (2016). {{ISBN|978-1-946135-24-7}}.</ref>

# Deviance challenges the perspective and thoughts of the general population, leading to social change by pointing out a flaw in society.
# Deviant acts may support existing social norms and beliefs by evoking the population to discipline the actors.
# Reactions to deviant activity could increase camaraderie and social support among the population affected by the activity.

Durkheim's thoughts on deviance contributed to [[Strain theory (sociology)#Merton's theory|Robert Merton's Strain Theory]].<ref name="Textbook" />

====Suicide====
{{main|Suicide (Durkheim book)}}

In ''Suicide'' (1897), Durkheim explores the differing suicide rates among Protestants and Roman Catholics, arguing that stronger [[social control]] among Roman Catholics results in lower suicide rates. According to Durkheim, Roman Catholic society has normal levels of [[social integration|integration]] while Protestant society has low levels. Overall, Durkheim treated [[suicide]] as a [[social fact]], explaining variations in its rate on a macro level, considering society-scale phenomena such as lack of connections between people (group attachment) and lack of regulations of behavior, rather than individuals' feelings and motivations.<ref name="Calhoun2002-10632" /><ref>{{harvp|Allan|2005|p=131}}</ref>

Durkheim believed there was more to suicide than extremely personal individual life circumstances such as loss of a job, divorce, or bankruptcy. Instead, Durkheim explained suicide as a symptom of collective social deviance, like alcoholism or homicide.<ref name=":3">{{Cite journal |last1=Mueller |first1=Anna S. |last2=Abrutyn |first2=Seth |last3=Pescosolido |first3=Bernice |last4=Diefendorf |first4=Sarah |date=2021 |title=The Social Roots of Suicide: Theorizing How the External Social World Matters to Suicide and Suicide Prevention |journal=Frontiers in Psychology |volume=12 |pages=621569 |doi=10.3389/fpsyg.2021.621569 |issn=1664-1078 |pmc=8044307 |pmid=33868089 |doi-access=free }}</ref>

He created a [[Normative statement|normative theory]] of suicide focusing on the conditions of group life. Proposing four different types of suicide, which include [[Egoism|''egoistic'']], [[Altruism|''altruistic'']], [[Anomie|''anomic'']], and [[Fatalism|''fatalistic'']], Durkheim began his theory by plotting social regulation on the x-axis of his chart, and social integration on the y-axis:<ref name=":3" />

* ''Egoistic suicide'' corresponds to a low level of social integration. When one is not well integrated into a social group it can lead to a feeling that they have not made a difference in anyone's lives. 
* ''Altruistic suicide'' corresponds to too much social integration. This occurs when a group dominates the life of an individual to a degree where they feel meaningless to society. 
* ''Anomic suicide'' occurs when one has an insufficient amount of social regulation. This stems from the sociological term ''anomie'', meaning a sense of aimlessness or despair that arises from the inability to reasonably expect life to be predictable. 
* ''Fatalistic suicide'' results from too much social regulation. An example of this would be when one follows the same routine day after day. This leads to a belief that there is nothing good to look forward to. Durkheim suggested this was the most popular form of suicide for prisoners.

This study has been extensively discussed by later scholars and several major criticisms have emerged. First, Durkheim took most of his data from earlier researchers, notably [[Adolph Wagner]] and [[Henry Morselli]],<ref>{{harvp|Stark|Bainbridge|1996|loc=[https://books.google.com/books?id=lm0DLM_T8zsC&pg=PA32 p. 32]}}</ref> who were much more careful in generalizing from their own data. Second, later researchers found that the Protestant–Catholic differences in suicide seemed to be limited to [[German-speaking Europe]] and thus may have always been the [[Spurious relationship|spurious reflection]] of other factors.<ref>{{harvp|Pope|Danigelis|1981}}</ref> Durkheim's study of suicide has been criticized as an example of the [[Fallacy|logical error]] termed the [[ecological fallacy]].<ref>Freedman, David A. 2002. ''[https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~census/ecofall.txt The Ecological Fallacy]''. Berkeley: Dept. of Statistics, [[University of California, Berkeley|University of California]].</ref><ref>{{harvp|Selvin|1965}}</ref> However, diverging views have contested whether Durkheim's work really contained an ecological fallacy.<ref>{{harvp|van Poppel|Day|1996|p=500}}</ref> More recent authors such as Berk (2006) have also questioned the [[Structure and agency|micro–macro relations]] underlying Durkheim's work.<ref>{{harvp|Berk|2006|pp=78–79}}</ref> Some, such as [[Alex Inkeles|Inkeles]] (1959),<ref>{{harvp|Inkeles|1959}}</ref> Johnson (1965),<ref>{{harvp|Johnson|1965}}</ref> and Gibbs (1968),<ref>{{harvp|Gibbs|Martin|1958}}</ref> have claimed that Durkheim's only intent was to explain suicide ''sociologically'' within a [[holism|holistic]] perspective, emphasizing that "he intended his theory to explain variation among [[social environment]]s in the incidence of suicide, not the suicides of particular individuals."<ref>{{harvp|Berk|2006|p=60}}</ref>

Despite its limitations, Durkheim's work on suicide has influenced proponents of [[Control theory (sociology)|control theory]], and is often mentioned as a classic sociological study. The book pioneered modern [[social research]] and served to distinguish social science from [[psychology]] and [[political philosophy]].<ref name="Poggi_1" />{{Rp||at=ch.1}}

===Religion===
In ''[[The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life]]'' (1912), Durkheim's first purpose was to identify the social origin and function of religion as he felt that religion was a source of camaraderie and solidarity.<ref name="Calhoun2002-10632" /> His second purpose was to identify links between certain religions in different cultures, finding a common denominator. He wanted to understand the empirical, social aspect of religion that is common to all religions and goes beyond the concepts of [[spirituality]] and [[God]].<ref name="Allan_1152">{{harvp|Allan|2005|pp=112-15}}</ref>

Durkheim defined ''religion'' as:<ref>Durkheim, Emile. 1964 [1915]. ''[http://www.gutenberg.org/files/41360/41360-h/41360-h.htm#Page_427 The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life]'', translated by J. W. Swain. London: [[George Allen & Unwin]]. – via [[Project Gutenberg]] (2012). [http://www.gutenberg.org/files/41360/41360-h/41360-h.htm#Page_47 p. 47].</ref> <blockquote>"a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, i.e., things set apart and forbidden—beliefs and practices which unite in one single [[moral community]] called a [[Church body|Church]], all those who adhere to them."</blockquote>In this definition, Durkheim avoids references to [[supernatural]] or God.<ref name="Allan_115">{{harvp|Allan|2005|p=115}}</ref> Durkheim rejected earlier definitions by Tylor that religion was "belief in supernatural beings," finding that primitive societies such as the Australian aborigines (following the ethnologies of Spencer and Gillen, largely discredited later) did not divide reality into "natural" vs. "supernatural" realms, but rather into realms of the "sacred" and the "profane," which were not moral categories, since both could include what was good or evil.<ref>{{harvp|Pals|2006|pp=95-100, 112, 113}}</ref> Durkheim argues we are left with the following three concepts:<ref>{{harvp|Allan|2005|pp=116, 118, 120, 137}}</ref>

* The [[sacred]]: ideas and sentiments kindled by the spectacle of society and which inspire awe, spiritual devotion or respect;
* The [[belief]]s & [[ritual|practices]]: creating an emotional state of ''[[collective effervescence]]'', investing symbols with sacred importance;
* The [[moral community]]: a group of people sharing a common moral philosophy.

Out of those three concepts, Durkheim focused on the sacred,<ref name="Allan_116">{{harvp|Allan|2005|p=116}}</ref><ref>{{harvp|Lukes|1985|p=25}}</ref> noting that it is at the very core of a religion:<ref name=":2">Durkheim, Emile. 1964 [1915]. ''[https://www.gutenberg.org/files/41360/41360-h/41360-h.htm The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life]'', translated by J. W. Swain. London: [[George Allen & Unwin]]. – via [[Project Gutenberg]] (2012).</ref>{{Rp|322}}<blockquote>They are only collective forces [[Hypostasis (philosophy and religion)|hypostasized]], that is to say, moral forces; they are made up of the ideas and sentiments awakened in us by the spectacle of society, and not of sensations coming from the physical world.<ref group="lower-roman">Durkheim 1915, [https://www.gutenberg.org/files/41360/41360-h/41360-h.htm#Page_322 p. 322]: "They are not homogeneous with the visible things among which we place them. They may well take from these things the outward and material forms in which they are represented, but they owe none of their efficacy to them. They are not united by external bonds to the different supports upon which they alight; they have no roots there; according to an expression we have already used and which serves best for characterizing them, ''they are added to them''. So there are no objects which are predestined to receive them, to the exclusion of all others; even the most insignificant and vulgar may do so; accidental circumstances decide which are the chosen ones."</ref></blockquote>Durkheim saw religion as the most fundamental [[social institution]] of humankind, and one that gave rise to other social forms.<ref>{{harvp|Allan|2005|pp=112-13}}</ref> It was religion that gave humanity the strongest sense of [[collective consciousness]].<ref name="Allan_114">{{harvp|Allan|2005|p=114}}</ref> Durkheim saw religion as a force that emerged in the early [[hunter-gatherer]] societies, as the emotions collective effervescence run high in the growing groups, forcing them to act in a new ways, and giving them a sense of some hidden force driving them.<ref name="Allan_137" /> Over time, as emotions became symbolized and interactions ritualized, religion became more organized, giving a rise to the division between the sacred and the profane.<ref name="Allan_137" /> However, Durkheim also believed that [[religion]] was becoming less important, as it was being gradually superseded by [[science]] and the cult of an individual.<ref name="Allan_132-133" /><ref name="Allan_112">{{harvp|Allan|2005|p=112}}</ref><blockquote>Thus there is something eternal in religion which is destined to survive all the particular symbols in which religious thought has successively enveloped itself.<ref name=":2" />{{Rp|427}}</blockquote>However, even if the religion was losing its importance for Durkheim, it still laid the foundation of modern society and the interactions that governed it.<ref name="Allan_114" /> And despite the advent of alternative forces, Durkheim argued that no replacement for the force of religion had yet been created. He expressed his doubt about modernity, seeing the modern times as "a period of transition and moral mediocrity."<ref name="Allan_134" />

Durkheim also argued that our primary categories for understanding the world have their origins in religion.<ref name="Allan_113"/> It is religion, Durkheim writes, that gave rise to most if not all other social constructs, including the larger society.<ref name="Allan_114"/> Durkheim argued that categories are produced by the society, and thus are collective creations.<ref name="Calhoun2002-10632" /> Thus as people create societies, they also create categories, but at the same time, they do so unconsciously, and the categories are prior to any individual's experience.<ref name="Calhoun2002-10632" /> In this way Durkheim attempted to bridge the divide between seeing [[category of being|categories]] as constructed out of human experience and as logically prior to that experience.<ref name="Calhoun2002-10632" /><ref>{{harvp|McKinnon|2014}}</ref> Our understanding of the world is shaped by [[social fact]]s; for example the notion of [[time]] is defined by being measured through a [[calendar]], which in turn was created to allow us to keep track of our social gatherings and rituals; those in turn on their most basic level originated from religion.<ref name="Allan_114"/> In the end, even the most logical and rational pursuit of science can trace its origins to religion.<ref name="Allan_114"/> Durkheim states that, "Religion gave birth to all that is essential in the society."<ref name="Allan_114"/>

In his work, Durkheim focused on ''[[totem]]ism'', the religion of the [[Aboriginal Australians]] and [[Indigenous peoples of the Americas|Native American]]s. Durkheim saw this religion as the most ancient religion, and focused on it as he believed its simplicity would ease the discussion of the essential elements of religion.<ref name="Calhoun2002-10632" /><ref name="Allan_115"/> As such, he wrote:<ref name=":2" />{{Rp|220}}<blockquote>Now the totem is the flag of the clan. It is therefore natural that the impressions aroused by the clan in individual minds—impressions of dependence and of increased vitality—should fix themselves to the idea of the totem rather than that of the clan: for the clan is too complex a reality to be represented clearly in all its complex unity by such rudimentary intelligences.</blockquote>Durkheim's work on religion was criticized on both empirical and theoretical grounds by specialists in the field. The most important critique came from Durkheim's contemporary, [[Arnold van Gennep]], an expert on religion and ritual, and also on Australian belief systems. Van Gennep argued that Durkheim's views of primitive peoples and simple societies were "entirely erroneous". Van Gennep further argued that Durkheim demonstrated a lack of critical stance towards his sources, collected by traders and priests, naively accepting their veracity, and that Durkheim interpreted freely from dubious data. At the conceptual level, van Gennep pointed out Durkheim's tendency to press ethnography into a prefabricated theoretical scheme.<ref>{{harvp|Thomassen|2012}}</ref>

Despite such critiques, Durkheim's work on religion has been widely praised for its theoretical insight and whose arguments and propositions, according to Robert Alun Jones, "have stimulated the interest and excitement of several generations of sociologists irrespective of theoretical 'school' or field of specialization."<ref>Jones, Robert Alun. 1986. "[http://durkheim.uchicago.edu/Summaries/forms.html The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (1912)]." Pp. 115–55 in ''Emile Durkheim: An Introduction to Four Major Works''. Beverly Hills, CA: [[SAGE Publishing|SAGE Publications]]. – via ''The Durkheim Pages'', [[University of Chicago]].  [http://durkheim.uchicago.edu/Summaries/forms.html#pgfId=5658 s. 7 "Critical Remarks"].</ref>

===Sociology of knowledge===

While Durkheim's work deals with a number of subjects, including suicide, [[Sociology of the family|the family]], [[social structure]]s, and [[Institution|social institutions]], a large part of his work deals with the [[sociology of knowledge]].

While publishing short articles on the subject earlier in his career,<ref group="lower-roman">For example, the essay ''De quelques formes primitives de classification'' (1902), written with [[Marcel Mauss]].</ref> Durkheim's definitive statement concerning the sociology of knowledge comes in his 1912 ''magnum opus'', ''[[The Elementary Forms of Religious Life]]''. This book has as its goal not only the elucidation of the social origins and function of religion, but also the social origins and impact of society on language and logical thought. Durkheim worked largely out of a Kantian framework and sought to understand how the concepts and categories of logical thought could arise out of social life. He argued, for example, that the categories of space and time were not [[A priori and a posteriori|''a priori'']]. Rather, the category of space depends on a society's social grouping and geographical use of space, and a group's social rhythm that determines our understanding of time.<ref>Durkheim, Emile. 2003 [1912]. ''Les formes élémentaires de la vie religieuse'' (5th ed.). [[Presses Universitaires de France]]. {{p.|628}}.</ref> In this Durkheim sought to combine elements of [[rationalism]] and [[empiricism]], arguing that certain aspects of logical thought common to all humans did exist, but that they were products of collective life (thus contradicting the ''[[tabula rasa]]'' empiricist understanding whereby categories are acquired by individual experience alone), and that they were not universal [[A priori and a posteriori|''a'' ''prioris'']] (as [[Kant]] argued) since the content of the categories differed from society to society.<ref group="lower-roman">See Durkheim (1912)  p. [https://www.gutenberg.org/files/41360/41360-h/41360-h.htm#Page_14 14–17], [https://www.gutenberg.org/files/41360/41360-h/41360-h.htm#Page_19 19–22].</ref>

==== Collective representations ====
Another key elements to Durkheim's theory of knowledge outlined in ''Elementary Forms'' is the concept of {{Langx|fr|représentations collectives|label=none}} ("[[collective representations]]"). ''{{Langx|fr|Représentations collectives|label=none}}'' are the symbols and images that come to represent the ideas, beliefs, and values elaborated by a collectivity and are not reducible to individual constituents. They can include words, slogans, ideas, or any number of material items that can serve as a symbol, such as a cross, a rock, a temple, a feather etc. As Durkheim elaborates, ''{{Langx|fr|représentations collectives|label=none}}'' are created through intense social interaction and are products of collective activity. As such, these representations have the particular, and somewhat contradictory, aspect that they exist externally to the individual—since they are created and controlled not by the individual but by society as a whole—yet, simultaneously within each individual of the society, by virtue of that individual's participation within society.<ref name="Durkheim, Emile 1964">Durkheim, Emile. (1964). ''The elementary forms of the religious life.'' London: Allen & Unwin.</ref>

Arguably the most important "{{Langx|fr|représentations collectives|label=none}}" is [[language]], which according to Durkheim is a product of collective action. And because language is a collective action, language contains within it a history of accumulated knowledge and experience that no individual would be capable of creating on their own:<ref name=":2" />{{Rp|435}}<blockquote>If concepts were only general ideas, they would not enrich knowledge a great deal, for, as we have already pointed out, the general contains nothing more than the particular. But if before all else they are collective representations, they add to that which we can learn by our own personal experience all that wisdom and science which the group has accumulated in the course of centuries. Thinking by concepts, is not merely seeing reality on its most general side, but it is projecting a light upon the sensation which illuminates it, penetrates it and transforms it.</blockquote>As such, language, as a social product, literally structures and shapes our experience of reality. This discursive approach to language and society was developed by later French philosophers, such as [[Michel Foucault]].

=== Morality ===
{{Quote frame |quote=How many times, indeed, it [crime] is only an anticipation of future morality - a step toward what will be! |author=Émile Durkheim |source=''[[The Division of Labour in Society#DivisionofLabourinSociety|''Division of Labour in Society'']]''<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Jones|first1=T. Anthony|title=Durkheim, Deviance and Development: Opportunities Lost and Regained|journal=Social Forces|date=June 1981|volume=59|issue=Special Issue|pages=1009–1024|doi=10.2307/2577978|jstor=2577978}}</ref>|align=right|1|width=240px}}

Durkheim defines morality as "a system of rules for conduct".<ref>Durkheim, Émile. 2004. ''Sociologie et Philosophie''. Paris: [[Presses Universitaires de France]]. {{p.|50}}.</ref> His analysis of morality is influenced by [[Immanuel Kant]] and his notion of duty. While Durkheim was influenced by Kant, he was critical of aspects of the latter's moral theory and developed his own positions.

Durkheim agrees with Kant that within morality, there is an element of obligation, "a moral authority which, by manifesting itself in certain precepts particularly important to it, confers upon [moral rules] an obligatory character."<ref name=":1" />{{Rp|38}} Morality tells us how to act from a position of superiority. There exists a certain, pre-established moral norm to which we must conform. It is through this view that Durkheim makes a first critique of Kant in saying that moral duties originate in society, and are not to be found in some universal moral concept such as the [[categorical imperative]]. Durkheim also argues that morality is characterized not just by this obligation, but is also something that is desired by the individual. The individual believes that by adhering to morality, they are serving the common [[Summum bonum|Good]], and for this reason, the individual submits voluntarily to the moral commandment.<ref name=":1" />{{Rp|54}}

However, in order to accomplish its aims, morality must be legitimate in the eyes of those to whom it speaks. As Durkheim argues, this moral authority is primarily to be located in religion, which is why in any religion one finds a code of morality. For Durkheim, it is only society that has the resources, the respect, and the power to cultivate within an individual both the obligatory and the desirous aspects of morality.<ref name=":1" />{{Rp|73}}