EmileDurkheim:TheSocialasSacred f Freudis the nanrethat comesfirst to mind asthe architectof psychoanf Ialytic psychology,sornethingsimilar can be said of his Frenchcontemporary,Ernile Durkheim, a figure pivotal to the rise of scientilicsocioiogy. Durkheim (1858-1917)championedthe key role of societyin shaping everydimensionof human thought and behavior.His unique acirievement arisesfrom a determinationto examineail eiementsof human life-work and leisure,crime and punisl-rment, languageand logic, the selfand others, education,politics,the arts, and most especiallythe rituals and beliefsof religion-as inescapablysocialendeavors. The stresson societyand its influenceis famiiiar enoughtoday,when termslike "sociaimobility" and "socialreform'appeal in everyone's conversation.But that familiarifyitselfis a tributeto Durkl.reim.In his day,accolints of human belief and behaviortendedby defaultto be stronglyindividualistic.Durkheim disagreed.For him, humansdo not just exist;they belong. From the beginningof life, they are bound to communities:to a fan-rilyor clan,a town, a church,or a politicalparry.He sawthesesocialten-rplates and ties as so important that they need nothing lessthar-ra professionaldiscipline-sociology-specifically comrnittedto understar-iding ther-n. Durkheim wasborn in 1B5Bat Epinal,near Strasbourg in northeastern France.The son ofa rabbi, he was raised,like Freud,asa lew in a predominantly Roman Catholic city and nation. He was a brilliant student, who won a placeat the prestigior"rs EcoleNormale Superieurin Parisand later took a professorialappointmentat the Universityof Bordeaux,where a position was createdfor him. 'Ihere he pursuedan ambitiousprogram of sociologicalresearch,writing articlesand reviews,creatinga new scholarly journal, IiAneeSociologique, and publishing tl'rreebooks: TheDivision of (1897), Labor (1893),TheRulesof Sociological Method ( 1895),and StLicide the last an intriguing exploration of the social pressuresaffecting this deeplypersonalact ofdespair. 100 IntroducingReligion Durkheim's scientific sociologywas new but not without roots. He had read Tyior and Frazer,and took inspiration from his own teacher, Numa Denys Fustel de Coulanges,whose acclaimedstudy, The Ancient City (I86a), stressedthe roie of religion in Greek and Roman communities. He aiso drew on earlier Frer-rchthinkers: Baron de Montesquieu frorn the ageof Enlightenment,the socialistSt. Simon, and the positivist AugusteComte.Frorntheir writings and others,Durkheim concludedthat the modern Westernworld is set apart from other,earliersocietiesby two nlomentolrsevents-the politicalearthquakeof tl-reFrenchRevolutionand the economictidal wave of the industrial revolution. In 1902Durkheim was appointedProfessorat the Universityof Paris, achievingthe pinnacleof academicprestigein France.While in that post, he devotedhis inquiries more directly to the theme of religion.The result, after ten yearsof labor, was the masterworkof his career:TheElementary Formsof theReligiousLife, publishedin 1912.The selectionsprovidedhere are taken frorn this book-now a classictext ir.rthe theory of religion. The title of TheElementaryFormsdisclosesits theme.Durkheim seeks to uncovercertainfundamentalunits,or building blocks,of religion-what he describesasits "everpresentcauses"in all placesand times.He doesnot believethat tl'resecausescan be found through the comparativemethod practicedby Tylor and Frazer,who drew on too many examplesfrom too many placesand cultures.Far better,he felt, to fix atter-rtionon just one primitive culture and draw from the on-scenereportsof peoplewho have taken time actuallyto immerse themselvesin its life. Suchaccountswere in fact availablein the carefulfield studiesthat had been preparedby two Englishanthropologists,Baldwin Spencerand F.j. Gillen, and otherswho had lived amongthe remoteAborgine peoplesof Australia.For Durkheim, one such "well made experiment" ofiered more value to sociologicalsciencethan all the tomes of Tylor and Frazercombined. Durkheirn departedfrom the Victorians,and from Freud,in another way.For irim the defining essentialof reiigion was not belief in spiritual, or supernatural,beings,but the distinction that all societiesmake between things sacredand things profane.The sacredis the realm of important matters,the greatconcernsthat affectthe life of the entirecommunity; the profane,in contrast,is the realm of things personaland private,the daily minor needsof the individual.Religionis the systemof beliefsand practicesrelatedto sacredthings, the vital issuesof the community; it should be distinguishedclearlyfrom an enterpriselike magic,whosemain interest is the rninor,petty interestsar-rdailmentsof ir-rdividuals. Durkheim noticed that at the centerof Aborigir-rereligion standsthe very thing that so fascinatedFreud: worship of the totem. Each of the EnileDurkheint:.[heSocial asSacretl l0l Australian clans centersits rituals on a singre sacredfigure-'sualry an animal,occasiona'ya pla't-to wrrichit is eicl'sively attlched.rrr. iot.image standsat the centerof all its assernblies a'd governsalr aspectsof clanlife.It is surror-r'decr witl-rtaboos.whire ail othcranimarsca'be killed and eateir'the cra.'stotem may not-except o' special,sacredoccasrons whe' it is ritually sacrificed,and all .o.,r*'" rt ir a cerebratoryfeast.In simple terms we could say that an Aborigine clar.rworsl-rips it, tot",,-',t ut the.trutl.ris actuailymore sr-rbtle. For it i!'ot re:rllytlie toterl itserf-trre cockatielor frog or crow' seenas a divinity-that drawsthe worship of the clan. It is rather wrrat Dr-rrr<heim callsthe "toten.ricprircipie,,-a' impcr sonalforcewithin and ber-ri'dthe totem.what ca, this be?He arswers: "The god of the cla', tl.retotemic pri.ciple, can trrereforebe nothing else than the.dan itself,personifiedanctrepresented to the imagi'atio' r-inder the visible form of the animaror vegetiiblewhicrr ser.ves as totem.,,In worship of this tote'i crivi'ity, trre clariworshipsitscrf esse'tially,arcl craims the l oyal tyand l i vesoFit sm em ber s. once this fiurcrar,er.rtal fact-trrat worship of god is worship of the cla'-has been recognizecl,saysDr-rrkheim, the rer,lrainingpi"..i u, ,1 . puzzle of primitive society fit natura'y into place. tt'r. Iot.,o symbol, carvedi'wood or stone,conveys're permanerce of the socialcolnn-rurity; totemismprovidessystemso1'orderar.rcl classification, co'recti'g personsto clans ancl dividing clars fror.r.r each other; totemism .*plnin, both the idea and immortarity of the sour; the sor-rlis "the cra' within., eachindividual, calling for the denial of the bo<iy'.s serfishpiiysicala"rrr". to promote the welf,ireof the group; tr-reim'rortality of the soul is simpry an altrrmation that whiie individuals die, the clar-rliveson. over time the ancestralsoulsbecometl-reclant guardia' spirits, and astl-reygrow ir.rbotl.r powerand prestige,they becomegods. In the lastpart of his discussionDu'kheinl tllrns from beriei's to riLuals' Rituals in his view are more centrarto rerigio' trran beriefs,whicr.r invariably changefiom one tirne or place to tlie next. Rituals ;,-" ;".formed i' two main typesof cult-trre positive arcr r.regative-plusa tirird calledpiacular.Taboos,or prohibitior.rs, arethe crriefiristance.orr,,.gnii* ritr-ral'They stressthe importanceof self-sacrifice over ,"lf i,-rd,,d;;.", placir-rg the good of the clan first,the interestsof sclfseco'd Th. ;;;;*" cult is illustratedi' the greatintichiur?rd ceremony,wrrerereligioussentiment rllns deepand e'rotions high, and individu.ls r-enew their cornmitment to the life a'rd l.realthof the cl:r.. Simirarly, o'the solenrnoccasion of piacularrites,l-reldat times of c'isis o, death, t. j;; private act. Its purpose is to grieve the loss,and 'rou'ring ";; " repair tlie"in;ury, io ihe coinmunity. t02 lntroducingReligion in the end, saysDurkheim, all of the truly "elementaryforms" of reltgion can be found on displayin the totemismof Australianprimitive culture: the separationof sacredfrom profane,the social aim and purpose of worship, the ideas of the soui, conscienqe,and immortality, belief in r. ancestralspiritsand gods,and the basicforms of ritual. In and through all of theseaspects,it is apparentthat the entire tapestryof religion is in its essencesocial.Its real nature is not to make claimsabout the existenceof gods,forgivenessof sins,or life afterdeath.For all of thesearesimply sym- i, bolic representations of profoundly sociaineedsand sentiments.Religion's true role is not to bring peopleto a god or offer them salvationin a realm beyond;it is rather to anchor them, hereand now in the clan,the commu- : nitythat shapesand sustainstheir lives. The originality of this argumentasDurkheim patientlydevelopsit in TheElementaryForms lies not just in its inventiveaccountof religion as both mirror and templateof a primitive society,but in the unusuallyvarious and fertile applicationsit offers for discerningthe role of religion in societiesof other placesand times,includingour own. DefiningReligion:TheSacredandthe Profane Thefollowing seriesof selectionstracesthe architectureof Durkheim'sargument, beginningfromhis distinctivedef.nitionof religionin termsof thesacredandprofane and continuingthroughhis selectionof Aboriginecultureas his testcase,his discussion of the soul, immortality, and asceticism,his accountof the rise of thegods,and finally his addressto the importanceof rituals:positive,negative,and piacular. f) eiigiousphenomenaare naturailyarrangedin two fundamentalcategories: and rites. The first are statesof opinion, and consistin representaAb"li.fr of tions; the secondare determinedmodesof action.Betweenthesetwo classes factsthere is all the differencewhich separates thought from action. The rites can be defined and distinguishedfrom other human practices, moral practices,for example,only by the specialnatureof their object.A moral ir rule prescribescertain mannersof actingto us,just asa rite does,but which are addressedto a differentclassof objects.So it is the objectof the rite which must , be characterized,if we are to characterizethe rite itself.Now it is in the beliefs it is possibleto definethe ritel that the specialnature qfthis objectis expressed. only afterwe havedeflnedthe belief. i pnou: TfreElementary Forms of the Religiouslfe. Translatedby Ioseph Ward Swain. London:GeorgeAllen & Unwinn Ltd., [1912]1915. l EmileDurkheim: TheSocialas Sacred 103 AII known religiousberiefs,wirether simpleor comprex, presentone common characteristic:they presupposea crassificationor an the things, rear a'd ideal,of which men think, into two classesor opposed groups,g.n.".uttya.rig_ natedby two distinct terms which are translatei w"ll .riough b/tlr" *ora, profane and sacred(profane,sacre?).This division of the worli inio two domains, the one containing all that is sacred,the otrrer all that is profane,is the distinctivetrait of religiousthought; the beliefs,my,ths, dogmasand iegendsare eitherrepresentations or systemsof representationswhiih expresstte of sacredthings,the virtues and powerswhich are attributed to trrem,or'ature trreir relationswith each other and with profane things. But by sacredthings or:re must not understandsimpry those personal beings which are called gods or spirits;a rock, a tree,a spring, a pebble,a pieceof wood, a house,i'I word, an)'thingcan be sacred.A rite can havethis character; in fact,the rite doesnot existwhich does haveit to a certain degree....The circle of sacredobjects 'ot cannotbe determined, then, once for ail. Its extentvariesinf itery,according to the differentreligions.That is how Buddhism is a religion: in crefaurtof gods, it admitsthe existenceof sacredthings, namely,the four noble truths and the practicesderivedfrom them. up to the presentwe have confined ourservesto enumerating a certaln numberof sacredthings asexampres: we rrrustnow show by what ge"neral characteristics they areto be distinguishedfrom profanethings. One might be tempted,first of all, to define th"m Ly the .,, place they are I generallyassignedin the hierarchy of things. They are naturaily considered superiorin dignity and power to profanethings,and particularly to man, when he is only a man and has nothing sacredabo'uthim. one thinks of himserfas occupyingan inferior and dependentposition in relatio' to them; and surely thisconceptionis not without sometruth. onry there is nothing in it whicrr is reallycharacteristicof the sacred. on the other hand, it must not be lost to view tl-ratthereare sacredthings i" . o1."...{ degree,and that therearesomein rerationto which a man feelsrrimserf relativelyat his ease.An amulet has a sacreclcharacter, yet the respectwhich t exceprionat.Even before1-lis gods,a man is ,rot always,n l.iTlt::::l,"lftlg i such a n-iarkedstateof inferiority; for it very frequentlyhappens that he exer_ i cisesa.veritablephysicarconstraintupon them to obtain what he desires.He beatsthe fetich with which he is not contented,but onry to reconcirehimserf with it again,if in the end it showsitselfrnore dociieto the wishesof its aclorer. i'To haverain, he throws stones-intothe spring or sacredrakewhere trregod of rainis thought to resrcre; he beiievesthaiuy rii, rre forceshim to come out and show himself. Moreover, if it is true that-.un, , man depe'ds upo' his gods, 'this dependenceis reciprocal.The gods also have need of man; without offer_ ,rlingsand sacrificestheywould die. we shall even have occasion to showthat 104 IntroducingReligion this dependenceof the gods upon their worshippersis maintainedevenin the most idealisticreligions. But if a purely hier.archicdistinction is a criterium at oncetoo generaland too imprecise,there is nothing left with wliich to characterizethe sacredin its However,this heterogeneity relation to the profaneexcepttheir heterogeneity. this classificationof things and to distinguishit from is sufficientto ciraracterize all others,becauseit is very particular:it is absolute.Inall the history of human of thingsso profoundly thought thereexistsno othel exampleof two categories differentiatedor so radically opposedto or-reanother.The traditional opposition of good and bad is notl-ringbesidethis; for tl-regood and bad are only two narnelymorals.' . . of the samec1ass, opposedspecies The two worlds are not only conceivedof as separate,but as evenhostile and jealousrivals of eachother. Sincemen cannotfully belongto one excepton condition of leavingthe other completely,they areexhortedto witl.rdrawthemselvescompletelyfrom the profaneworld, in order to lead an exclusivelyreligiouslife.Hencecomesthe monasticismwhich is artiliciallyorganizedoutside of and apartfrom the natural environmentin whicl-rthe ordinary n.ranleadsthe life of this world, in a different one, closedto the first, ar-rdnearly its cot.rtrary. Hence comesthe mystic asceticismwhose object is to root out from man all the attachmentfor the profaneworld that remainsir-rhin-r.Fron'rthat corneall the forrns of religioussuicide,the logicalworking-out of this asceticism;for the only manner of fully escapingthe profanelife is, after all, to forsakeall life. manifestsitselfoutwardlywith a visiblel The oppositionof thesetwo classes wherever ' sign by which we can easilyrecognizethis very specialclassification, separatedfrom , it exists.Sincethe idea of the sacredis alwaysand every'where the idea of the profanein the thought of men, and sincewe picture a sort of ; logical chasmbetweenthe two, the mind irresistiblyrefusesto allow tl-retwo thingsto be confounded,or evento be merelyput in contactwith correspronding eachother;for sucha promiscuity,or eventoo direct a contiguity,would contradict too violently the dissociationof theseideasin the mind. The sacredthingis that which the profaneshould not touch, and cannottouch with I par excellence impunity. To be sure,this interdiction cannot go so far as to make all cornmunication betweenthe two worlds impossible;for if the profanecould in no way enter into relationswith the sacred,this lattercould be good for nothing.But'in addition to the fact that this estabiishmentof relationsis alwaysa delicateopera-, tion in itself,demandinggreatprecautionsand a more or lesscomplicatedinitiation, it is quite impossible,unlessthe profaneis to loseits specificcharacteristics and becomesacredaftera fashion and to a certaindegreeitself.The two classes ' cannot evenapproacheachother and keeptheir own natureat the sametime. Thuswe arrive at the first criterium of religiousbeliefs.Undoubtedlythere are secondaryspecieswithin these two fundamental classeswhich, in their EntileDurkheim:TheSocial as Sacred i05 ' turn,are rnore or lessincompatiblewith eachother. But the real characte.stic of religiousphenome'a is that they alwayssupposea bipartite division of the wholeuniverse,known and i<nowabre, into two classeswhich embraceall that I exists, but which radicallyexcludeeachother.sacredthingsarethosewhich the interdictionsprotect and isolate;profanethings,thosc to-whiclrthcse rnterdic. tionsare applieda'd which milst remain at a distancefron-rthe first. Religious beliefsare the representationswhich expressthe nature of sacred things and therelationswhich they sustain,either with ei.rchother or with profa.e i.rir.,gr. rinally,rites are the rules of cor-rduct which prescribehow ir'an should co^porthimselfin the presence of thesesacredobjects.... However,tl-risdefiniLionis ror yct cornplete,for it is cqr-rallyapplicable to two sortsof factswl-rich,while being relatedto eachothcr,must t . airti,.,_ guishednevertheless: theseare magicand religion. Magic'too, is rnadeup of beriefsand rites.Like religion,it has its rnyths andits dogrnas;or.rlytl.reyare n-ioreelementary,u'croubtecllybecause, seekingtechnicaland utilitarianends,it doesnot wasteits^timein pure specula_ tion.It has its ceremor"ries, sacrifices, lustratior-rs, prayers,chants.'d dances asw el l .... Here is how a line of den'rarcation can be traced betweenthese two domains. i; , P. really religious beiiefs are always co"rrorl to a cletermir.red gror-rp, which.mli<esprcifmsior-r of adheringto thern and of practisi'g the rites co'' nectedwith thern.Theyarenot merelyreceiveclindiviciuallyby ill the members of this group;they are somethingbelo'ging to the group,aird they'ake its unity.Thei'dividuals whicl-rcomposeit feelthernselves,.,nit..l to eachother by :thesimplefact that they have a commor-rfaith. A societywhosemernbersarc unitedby the fact that they think in the sameway in regardto tl.re sacredworlci andits relationswith the profaneworld, and by the factlhat they translate tl-rese colmon i{eas into common practices,is what is calleda church. I' all history, ,: ' wedo not find a singlereligionwithout a Church.... It is quite another matter with magic. To be sure, tire belief ir.r '' is 'ragic alwalsmore or-lessgeneral;it is very freque'tly dirfusedin largemasses of the , p o p u l a t i o n ,a n d I h e r e a r e e ve n p e o p l e sw l i e r e i t h a s a s r r r a r r y r - .l l r e r .e r ratss tl r e ' realreligion. But it does not result ir.rbinding together those wi.ro adhere to rt, norin uniting them i'to a group leadinga comrror life. Thereis no clturclt of magic.Betwee'the magicianand the individualswho consultl.rirn,asbetwee' theseindividuals themselves,the'e are no la.stingbor.rdswhich m:rl<ethe'.r of the same m_oralcom'ru'ity, cor.nparable $y;mernbers to that formeclby the in the samesld o1 the observersof the samecurr.The magician i-ras i'bt]:".*, 1 clienteleand not a cl'rr-rrch,and it is very possibletl-rathis client! h,rver.ro otherrelatior.rs betweeneachother, or even do not kr.roweacl-rother; even thc 106 IntroducingReligion : Enile Durkheim: Tlte Socialas Sacrerl 107 relationswhich they havewith him are generallyaccidentalancitransient;they i car be called upon equarlywell. It is tr'e tirat they prefer tl-remore , Peolfes are just like thoseof a sick man with his physician.. . . ;j wel arnong rhe n.iosr.rv,rir.a it is f ."pres, fll,T'jjlljlll]T l,b',;, ,.q""11y Therestill remain thosecontemporaryaspirationstowardsa religionwhich I,i rl,but naturaltheyroost"routd beca,ect., .'ir"..3*. t",r*o;:;;;i';;u'*'tr" would consist entirely in internal and subjectivestates,and which wor_rld ,i pass be as bei ng not too far rel rov e,.l frnrn rh^ i ..-- r ,. frorntheo ^-;,-;,-^ ri u ni .h1 u,.,. ..,,,f.,s s ec lrly y constructedfreelyby eachof us. But howsoeverreal theseaspirationsn-raybe, i i lumped ilT::: ?::?#,,:":1":. :,::::1,imp.eJ.."ftrt.gins, togetherunder the.ath"r "a or st:Lttnges,are plrt o, trre they car.rnotalfectour definition, for this is to be appliedonly to factsalready,t same pla'e a'd co's'lted indifferently.Since from this poi't of view factshavc realized,and not to uncertain possibilities.One can define religions suchas i i-an.lnterestor-rlyi' proportior-rto their generality,they co.side. t},.-r.tu., they are,or such as they havebeen,but not such as they more or lessvaguely, lrobligedto collectaslargea number as poisible of tl-rem;tl-recircle or.or'p.r,tend to become.It is possiblethat this religiousindividualism is destinedto I irsons couldnot become"to.[arse. be realizedin facts;but before we can sayjust how far this may be the case, i Our methodw i l l not be sucha onc. . . . we must lirst know what religion is, of what elementsit is made up, from what ,' 1r [w]e proposeto our researchto Australiansocieties....Tlr"y arc pcrcausesit results,and what function it fulfils-all questionswhosesolutioncan- I 'i'it it ispossibre todistinguish varieries arnc,ng rhenr, not be foreseen beforethe thresholdof our studyl-ras ilf:|1l;*::l'llTi:ilTugh beenpassed.It is onlyat they belong toonecommon gpe....Aiso,a.rrr"rt"?, i1'' al1 ioi;;;';;;;.i"ril: the closeof this study that we can attemptto anticipatethe future. ourdocuments , ii yttSh aretrre'rostco'-rprete.... [T]hat.,'r'i.r-, ," f.,rfor.'io,,uau Thus we arrive at the following definition:A religionis a unifed system of ,,!, i, t's wo'k is the mostprimitiveand simplererrgion which it is possibleto ffi:ri l beliefsand practicesrelativeto sacredthings,that is to say,things setapart and ;:'l, l'' ls isIneretore therefor-e naturaltrrat naturar that to discover di.scove, ir we .nr"adciresi ,J,l,o"-"ourserves it, ^,,,--^,,.^^ to societiesassrightry practices and which unite into one single moral community Jbrbidden-beliefs for.it il,eldentlytherethatwehavettre chance of sreatest ilillf,::.t?ii]b]:t calleda Church,all thosewho adhereto them.The secondelementwhich thus anci.studying it we'.Nowthereareno,".;;;;.,rt;il.l,;il;::n". !dl1s.it finds a placein our definition is no lessessentialthan the first; for by showing acteristicto a l-righerdegreethanAustrarianones.Not or-rry is their civirizationthe that the idea of religion is inseparablefrom that of the church, it makesit clear mostrudimentary-the housear.rdeventhe hut arestiil ur-rra,rown_but alsotl.reir that religion should be an eminentlycollectivething. organization is the most pri'ritive anclsimpiewhich rs actuariyknol,v.. /-=!t Sinceneither man nor nature haveof themselvesa sacredcharacter,they n-lustget it from another source.Aside from the human individual ar"rdthe psychicalworld, there shouldbe someother reality,in relationto which...all religion . . . has a significanceand objectivevalue.In other words,beyondthose which we havecalledanimistic and naturistic,there should be anothersortof : cult, more fundamentaland more primitive, of which the first are only derived,. forms or particular aspects. ,;i In fhct, this cult does exist:it is the one to which ethnologistshavegiven the name of totemism. ru II]t is clearthat Australiais the most favourablefield for the studyof totemisrn,and thereforewe shallrnakeit the principalareaof our observations. ,.. li' In hts 'fotemism Frazer sought especially to collect all the traces of totem-li,i TheTotemasNameand asEmblem to its.nature,our stucly includetwo parts.Sinceevery rcligio, is 'viil conceptionsand rituat praoices, we nlusr clealsuc_ i ff::^r,,.fwith :,l,ltl:.tt:.:y.] thebelief: wl.richcornposethe tote'ri. ..tigt.,,,.1,.r. $::tjt]:]y i"O.l::r of th,ereligioi-rs life are too closely connecredwith cacli orher [l::,,1:-.::r tttgt of ar.ryradical separation.In principle, [1i1t tl-recr-rltis deriveclfror' rhe ti.rem;.the ; f;;;e'tly *ocletectafter tt.rcrire i' Ti:.lf accoLu.rt :lreacts'pon -,,i-' its senseis ro for it, especially when 1,.'lderto lo'ger appare't. o' the i9:* .,.-. are.r"".rf - which ontythrough it|'|it-r::.1"it^11e therires ,' *t':l^ -""uested Sothese rwo parts of our anatysis cannotfailio overlap. ;l:::::y::::rhern. f":1, areso dillerer.rt that it is indispens"bte to :f :#::;:jtl::""j::,:,:*: separately. Andsince ism which could be found in history or ethnography.He wastl-u-rs led to include: it isimpossible ;;;;;.;;;;J*ffi'"u"r, llu:l1lhem in his study societiesthe nature and degreeof whose cultures differs most withtheideasuponwhichit resrs, wen.rusr scek lr,{:9::lJli:,I":.?*ll,ed widely.. . . This manner of procedureis not at all surprisingfor a discipleof theri to becomeacquaintedwith theselatter first of ail. anthropologicalschool.For this schooldoesnot seekto locatereligionsin the;iiu i' But it is r-iotour intention to retrace al the specurationsir.rtowhicrr the social environmentsof which they are a part. . .. For researches of this sort.all u ieligiousthought, even of trre Australian. utor-r.,ho, run. The trrirgs we wish l0 B lntroducing Religion to reachare the elementarynotions at the basisof the reiigion,but there is no needof following then-rthrough all the development,sometimesvery confused, which the mythologicalimagination of thesepeopleshas giventhem. We shall make useof my.thswhen they enableus to understandthesefundamentalideas'1' better,but we shall not make my'thologyitselfthe subjectof our studies.In so far as this is a work of art, it doesnot faIl within the jurisdiction of the simple scienceof religions.Also, the intellectualevolution from which it resultsis of , too greata complexityto be studiedindirectly and from a foreignpoint of view. It c;nstitutesa very difficult problem whicl-rrnustbe treatedby itself,for itself and with a method peculiar to itself. Among the beiiefs upon which totemism rests,the most important are naturally thoseconcerningthe totern;it is with thesethat we must begin. At the basisof neariy all the Australiantribes we find a grouPwhich holds a preponderatingplacein the collectivelife: this is the clan.Two essentialtraits characterizeit. In the first place, the individuals who compose it consider themselves united by a bond of kinship, but one which is of a very specialnature.This reiationshipdoes not come from the fact that they have definite blood connectionswith one another; they are relativesfrom the mere fact that they have the samename.They are not fathersapd mothers,sonsor daughters,unclesor nephewsof one another in the sensewhich we now give thesewords;yet they think of themselvesasforn-iinga singlefamily,which is largeor smallaccording to the dimensionsof the clan, rnerelybecausethey are collectivelydesignated by the sameword. . . . The speciesof things which servesto designatetl.reclan collectivelyis called its totem. The totem of the clan is also that of eachof its liii l,1l rnembers. Each clan has its totem, which belongsto it alone;two differentclansof the sametribe cannot have the same.In fact,one is a member of a clan merely becausehe has a certain name. All who bear this namc are metnbersof it for that very reason;in whatevermanner they may be spreadover the tribal territory, they all havethe samerelationsof kinship with one another.. . . In regardto the word totem, we may saythat it is the one ernployedby the Ojibway,an Algonquin tribe, to designatethe sort of thing whosenametireclan bears.Although this expressionis not at all Australian,and is found only in one singlesocietyin America, ethnographershavedefinitelyadoptedit, and useit to denote,in a generalway,the systemwhich we aredescribing.... [Nlormaliy the totem is not an individual, but a speciesor a variety:it is not such and such a kangaroo or cro4 but the kangarooor crow in general, Sometimes,howevet it is a particular object. EmileDurkheim: TheSocialas Sacrcd 109 r, [T]he totem is not merelya name;it is an emblem,a veritablecoat-of-arms whose analogieswith the arms of heraldry have often been remarkecl.... Tl-rus ,'' ,' whenthe Indiansenteredinto relationswith the Europeansand contractswere formed between thern, it was with its totem that each clar-rsealed the treatres thus corrcluded. ' The nobles of the feudal period carved,engravedand designedin every r:waytheircoats-of-armsupon the walls of tl-reircastles,tl-reirarms, and every . sortof objectthat belongedto them; the blacksof Australiaand the Indians of NorthAmericado the samething with their totems.... But toternicimagesarenot placedor-rlyupon the walls of tlreir houses.the ' sidesof their canoes,their arms, their utensilsand their tombs; they are also foundon the bodies of the men. They do not put their coat-of-armsmerely uponthe thingswhich they possess, but they put it upon their personslthey imprint it upon their flesh,it becomesa part of them, and this world of representations is evenby far the more important one. Thesetotemic decorations seethat the totem is not merely a "nuUil,o nameand an emblem.It is in the courseof the religiousceremonies that they areemployed;they are a part of the liturgy; so while the totem is a collective label,it also has a religiouscharacter.In fact, it is in connectionwith it, that thingsareclassified as sacredor prolane.It is the very t)?e of sacredthilg. The tribes of Cer-rtral Australia,especiallytl-reArunta, the Loritja, tl-reKaitrsh,the Unrnatjera,and tl.reIlpirra, rnakeconstantuse of certair.rinstrurnclts in their riteswhich are calledtl.rechuringa... .Th.y arepiecesof wood or bits of poiishedstone....Uponeachof theseis engraveda clesigr.r representing the totemof this samegroup.A certainnumber of the churingahavea hole at one end,through which goesa thread.. . . By n-reans of the thread by which they are suspended, they are whirled rapidly it.rthe air in such a way as to produce a sortof humrning... . Thesesortsof churingaare...bull roarersIsacredsoundmakingdevices:ed.].... In fact, every churinga, for whatever purpose it may be erlployetl, is countedamongthe eminent[ysacredthings;there are none which surpassit in religiousdignity. This is indicatedevenby the word which is used to desigr-rate thern.It is not only a sr-rbstantive but alsoan acljective meaningsacred.... Chu, ringa,when usedsubstantively, thereforedesignatesthe thing whose essential characteristic is sacredness. Profar-re persons,that is to say,women and young mennot yet initiated into the religior.rs life, may not touch or evenseethe churinga;they are only allowedto look at it from a distance,and eventhis is only on rare occasions. 1 10 IntroducingReligion EmileDurkheim: TheSocialas Sacred of Thought SocietyFramesOur Categories Theidea of classis an instrumentof thought which has obviouslybeen structedby men. But in constructingit, we have at least had of 'eed model;for how could this idea ever have been born, if there i'rad bee' tnothingeither in us or arourd us whicir was capableof suggesting it to r.rs? ,l t.pry tnat lt was given to tts a priori is r.rotto reply at all; this lazy man,s i solutionis, as hasbeensaid,the deathof analysis.But it is hard to see where wecouldhavefound tl-risindispensable model exceptin tl-respectacleof the iollectivelife' in fact, a classis not an ideai,but a clearlycreh'edgroup of thingsbetweenwhich internal relationshipsexist, sirnilar to those of kinNow tire only groups of this sort know' from experie'ce are those 1dred. by men in associati'g themselves. rrformed . . .In a1l probability,rve wourd We arebeginningto seethat totemismis a much more cornplexreligionthan of thlngs it first appearedto be. we havealreadydistinguishedthree classes which it recognizesas sacred,in varying degrees:tl-retotemic emblem,the, animal or plant whose appearancethis emblem reproduces,and the members of the clan. However,this list is not yet complete.In fact, a religionis not merely a collectionof fragmentarybeliefsin regardto specialobjects', like thosewe havejust been discussing.To a greateroi lessextent,all knownl havebeensystemsof ideaswhich tend to ernbracethe universality religior-rs of things, and to give us a completerepresentationof the world. If totem-ir ism is to be consideredas a religion cornparableto the others,it too should" offer us a conceptionof the universe.As a matter of fact, it doessatisfythis c ondit ion. aru [w]e haveshown what light thesefactsthrow upon tl-reway in which the idea of a kind or classwas formed in humanity.In fact,thesesystematic[totem:i are the first we meet with in history, and we havejust seen ed.l classifications that they are modeled upon tl-resocial organizatiou,or ratl'terthat they have' taken the folns of society as their framework..:.It is becausemen wereorganized that they have been ableto organizethings, fbr in classifyingtheselatter, they limited themselvesto giving them placesin the groups they formed 'r, themselves.And if theSedifferent classesof things are not merely put nextto social eachother,but are arrangedaccordingto a unified plan, it is becausethe groups with which they commingle themselvesare unified and, through their', union, form an organic whole, the tribe. The unity of thesefirst logicalsys,' tems merely reproducesthe unity of the society.Thus we havean occasiontor verifying the proposition which we laid down at the commencementof this , " *ork, ar-tdfor assuringourselvesthat the fundamentalnotions of the intellect, The the essentialcategoriesof thought, may be the product of social factors. above-mentionedfactsshow clearlythat this is the casewith the very notionof 111 have tirought of uniting the beings of the u'ivcrse inr.o honroqerrecius ,,never .groups,called classes,if we had r-rotthe examplc of lru'en societie! before oureyes.. . But these pri'ritive ciassifications have a no less direct interest fcrr the orig i n so l r e l i g i o u s t h o u g h r . . . . men of the cla^ and the thir-rgswhich areclassifiedin it fo.'by their li,',' [T]he a solid system,ail of wl-roseparts are ur-ritedar-rdvibratesy'rpatl-retically. !'yion ; Thi sorgani zati on, w hi ch a t f ir st nr aylr aveappear ed t o us. . p. . , r . iylogical,is at the saure time moral. A si'gle pri'ciple anirnatesit and rnakesits unrry: ; i thisis the totern.lust as a man who belongsto tl-recrow clan has within him of this animal,so the rain, sinceit is of the sameclan anclbelo'gs ;something s,ametotem, is also necessarily co'sideredas being "the sa'e thing Is ;tothe !ia crow";for the same reason,the rnoon is a black cocl<aioo,the su, a white cockatoo, everyblack-'ut tree a pelica', etc.Ali tl'rebeingsarrangedi' a si'gle clan,whether men, animals,plants or inanimateobjecti ure,n!.eiy fomrs of thetoternicbeing... $, But we also.k'ow that the toternicanimalis a sacredbei'g. Al1the things illhatareclassifiedin the clan of which it is the emblen'rhavethislame character. rn one sense,they areanimalsof the samespecies, just as the man is. irDecause 'lhey, too, aresacred,and the classifications wllich locatetherl in relationto the otherthings ofthe universe,by that very act give them a placein the religrous world.For this reason,the animals or piants alnong theie miry'ot be laten fieelyby the human membersof the clar-r. categoryitself. However,it is not our intention to deny that the individual intellecthas betweenthe differentobjectsof of itself the power of perceivingresemblances which it is conscious.Quite on the contrary,it is clearthat eventhe most primi-,,; presupPosethis faculty.the Australiandoesnot tive and simple classifications TheTotemasSymbolof the Clanand Its God placethings in the sameclan or in differentclansat random. For him asfbr us, ii*ilu. imagesattract one another,while opposedonesrepelone another,and the sincetotemisn-ris everywheredominated by the idea of a quasi-clivi'e it is on the basisof thesefeelingsof affinity or of repulsionthat he classifies prin'ciple, imminent in certaincategories of men and thingsand thoughtof ,nd.. c or r es pon d i nigh i rrg si n o n e p l a c eo r a n o ther. ' '. tt2 Introducing Religion the form of an animal or vegetable,the explanationof this religion is essentially the expianationof this belief;to arrive at this, we must seekto learn how men have been led to constructthis idea and out of what materialsthey havecon. structedit. . .. It is the figurativerepresentationof this plant or animal and the emblemsand symbolsof every sort,which havethe greatestsanctity;so it is iil them that is found the sourceof that religiousnature,of which the real objects representedby theseemblemsreceiveonly a reflection. Thus the totem is before all a symbol,a materialexpressionof something else.BuLof what? From the analysisto which we havebeengiving our attention,it is evidentI and symbolizestwo differentsortsof things. In the first place, that it expresses it is the outward and visible form of what we havecalledthe totemic principle or god. But it is also the symbol of the determinedsocietycalledthe clan.It is its flag;it is the sign by which eachclan distinguishesitselffrorr the others,the visible mark of its personality,a mark borne by everythingwhich is a part of the clan under any title whatsoever,men, beastsor things. So if it is at once symboi of the god and of the society,is that not becausethe god and the society are only one?How could the emblem of the group have been able to become the figure of this quasi-divinity, if the group and the divinity were tvvo distinct realities?The god of the clan, the totemic principle, can thereforebe nothing else than the clan itself,personifiedand representedto the imaginationunder the visible form of the animal or vegetablewhich servesas totem. '1 But how has this apotheosisbeenpossible,and how did it happento take olacein this fashion? In a generalway,it is unquestionablethat a sociefyhasall that is necessary to arousethe sensationof the divine in minds, merelyby the power that it has over them; for to its members it is what a god is to his worshippers.In fact,a and' god is, first of all, a being whom men think of as superior to themselves, upon whom they feel that they depend.Whether it be a consciouspersonality, such as Zeus or |ahveh, or merely abstractforcessuch as those in play in totemism, the worshipper,in the one caseas in the other,believeshimselfheld to certain mannersof acting which areimposedupon him by the natureof the sacredprinciple with which he feelsthat he is in communion.Now societyalso gives us the sensationof a perpetualdependence.Sinceit has a nature which is peculiar to itself and different from our individual nature, it pursuesends' *hi.ll ur" iikewise speciaito it; but, as it cannot attain them exceptthrough our intermediacy;it imperiously demandsour aid. It requiresthat, forgetfulof our own interests,we make ourselvesits servitors,and it submits us to every sort of inconvenience,privation and sacrifice,without which sociallife would be impossible.It is becauseof this that at everyinstantwe areobligedto submit EmileDurkheim: TheSocialas Sacred r13 rselves to rules of conduct and of thought which we have r.reitl-rer made nor ired, and which are sometimeseven contrary to our most fundarnental i ncl i nati ons and i nsti ncts. .. . Now the ways of action to which societyis strongly enough attachedto them upon its members,are,by that very fact,n-rarkedwitl-ra distinctive signprovocativeof respect.Sincethey are elaboratedin cornrnon,the vigour withwhich they have been thought of by eachparticular mind is retained in allthe other minds, and reciprocally.The representatior-rs wl-richexpressthem withineachof us havean intensitywhich no purelyprivate statesof conscrousnesscould ever attain; for they have the strength of the innumerableindividual representations which have served to form eacl-rof them. It is society speaksthrough the mouths of those who affirrn them in our presence; is societywhom we hear in hearingthem; and the voice of all has an accenr whichthat of one alone could never have. The very violence with which society by way of blame or material suppression,againstevery attemptecldisidence,contributesto strengtheningits empire by manifestingthe common through this burst of ardor.In a word, when somethingis the object ,,c.onviction 'ofsucha stateof opinion, the representationwhich each individual has of it ins a power of action from its origins and tl-recondltions in which it was born,which even those feel who do not submit themselvesto it. It tends to which contradict it, and it keepsthem at a distance; frepeithe representations ontheother hand, it comrnandsthoseactswhich will realizeit, and it doesso, by a materialcoercionor by the perspectiveof somethingof tl-rissort, br-rt bythe simple radiation of the mental energywhich it contains.It l-rasan efficacycoming solelyfrom its psychicalproperties,and it is by just this sign that al authority is recognized.So opinion, prirnarily a socialthing, is a source ofauthority,and it might evenbe asl<ed whether all authority is not the daughterof opinion.It may be objectedthat scienceis oftenthe antagonistof opinion, whose errorsit combatsand rectifies.But it cannotsucceedin this task ifit does nothavesufficientauthority,and I can obtain this authority only from opinion itself.If a peopledid not havefaith in science,all the scientificdemonstiations ,intheworld would be without any influencewhatsoeverover their minds. Even today,if sciencehappenedto resista very strong current of public opinion, it |rlqeuld115klosing its credit there. ; i Sinceit is in spirituai waysthat sociaipressureexercisesitseif,it could not ,failto givemen the idea that outsidethemselvesthereexistone or severalpowers,both moral and, at the same time, efficacious,upon which they depend. ..[heymust think of thesepowers, at least in part, as outside thernselves,for i'theseaddressthem in a tone of command and sometimeseven order them to do violence to their most natural inclinations.It is undoubtedlytrue that if they were able to see that these influenceswhich they feel emanatefrom lntroducingReligion society,then the m1'thologicalsystemof interpretationswould neverbe born. But socialactionfollowswaysthat aretoo circuitousand obscure,and employs psychicalmechanismsthat are too complexto allow the ordinary observert0 see whence it comes.As long as scientificanalysisdoes not come to teachit, to them, men know well that they must invent by themselvesthe idea of these powers with which they feel themseivesin connection,and from that, we arer able to catch a glimpse of the way by which they were led to representthemi under forms that are really foreign to their nature and to transfigurethemli by thought. But a god is not merely an authority upon whom we depend;it is a force upon which our strengthrelies.The man who has obeyedhis god and who, for the world with confidence this reasoh,believesthe god is with him, approaches and with the feeling of an increasedenergy.Likewise,social action doesnot confine itself to demanding sacrifices,privations and efforts from us. For the collectiveforceis not entireiy outsideof us; it doesnot act upon us wholly from without; but rather,sincesocietycannot existexceptin and through individual this force must also penetrateus and organizeitself within consciousnesses, us; it thus becomesan integral part of our being and by that very fact this is elevatedand masnified. Thereare occasionswhen this strengtheningand vivifying action of society is especiallyapparent.In the midst of an assemblyanimatedby common passion,we becomesusceptibleof actsand sentimentsof which we areincapable when reduced to our own forces;and when the assemblyis dissolved and when, finding ourselvesalone again,we fall back to our ordinary level, we are then able to measurethe heisht to which we have been raised above ourselves.History abounds in examplesof this sort. It is enough to think of the night of the Fourth of August, 1789,when ar-rassemblywas suddenlyled to an act of sacrificeand abnegationwhich each of its membershad refused the day before,and at which they were all surprisedthe day after.This is why all parties,political, economic,or confessional,are careful to haveperiodical reunions where their membersmay revivify their common faith by manifesting it in common. To strengthenthose sentimentswhich, if left to themselves, would soon weaken, it is sufficient to bring those who hold them togetherr and to put them into closer and more activerelationswith one another.This is the explanationof the particular attitude of a man speakingto a crowd,at , Ieastif he has succeededin enteringinto communion with it. His language has a grandiioquencethat would be ridiculous in ordinary circumstances; , his gesturesshow a certain domination; his very thought is impatient of all rules, and easily falls into all sorts of excesses.It is becausehe feelswithin him an abnormal over-supplyof force which overflowsand tries to burst out f r om him . . . . EmileDurkheim: The Socialas Sacred 115 ir ' But it is.not only in exceptionalcircumstancesthat this sti*.-rrating . r actionof society makes itself felt; there is not, so to speak, a moment in our lives when some current of energy does not come to us from without. .Theman who has done his duty finds, in the manifestationsof every sort expre.ssing-the sympathy,esteemor affectionwhich his fellowsha,uefoi him, a feelingof comfort, of which he doesnot ordinariry take account,but wrricrr sustains him, the less.The sentimentswhich societyhas for him raise 'one ne.sentlments which he has for himself. Becausehe is in moral harmony r'with.hiscomrades,he has more confidence,courageand boldnessin action, justlike the believerwho thinks that he feers the regardof his god turned graciously towardshim. It thus produces,as it were,a perpetuar sustenance for our moral nature.Sincethis varieswith a multitude of externalcircumstances,as our relations with the groups about us are more or less actrve andas these groups themselves,rnry,*. cannot fail to feer that this moral supportdependsupon an externalcause;but we do not perceive where this cause is nor what it is. so we ordinarirythink of it ,r'der ihe form of a m.rar powerwhich, though immanent in us, representswithin us somethingnot ourselves: this is the morarconscience, of whicrr,by the way,men havenever madeeven a slightly distinct representationexceptby the aid of religrous symbols. In addition to thesefree forceswhich are constantlycoming to renew our own,there are others which are fixed in the methods and traditionswhich we employwe speaka languagethat we did not make;we use instrumentsthat we didnot invent;we invorcerights that we did not found; a treasuryof knowredge istransmittedto eachgenerati^on th-atit did not gatrreritself,etc.It is to society thatwe owe thesevaried be'efits of civilization,l'd if we do not ordi'arily see ;, thesourcefrom wl-richwe get them, we at leastknow that they arenot our own i T.'l *"llt is thesethingsthatgiveman his own placeamongthings;u is amanonly becausehe is civilized.Sohe could not escapetn. -un r.Il.,g tiut outside ofhim thereareactivecausesfrom which he getsthe characteristic"attributes of hisnatureand which, as benevorentpowers,issist him, protectrrim and assure him of a privilegedfate.And of coursehe must attribute to thesepowersa dignitycorrespondingto the greatvarueof the good thingshe attribuiesto them. Thus the environment in which we rive seemsto us to r, be peopled witrr fo.ttr-rthat are at once imperious and herpful,augustand gracious,and witrr ll iwhich we haverelations.Sincethey exerciseover us a pressureofwhich we are we areforcedto localizethem outsideourselves, aswe 'r conscious, do for the lust objectivecausesof our sensations. .. . If... ta society] happensto fan in love with a man and if it thinks it has . foundin him the principal aspirationsthat move it, as weil as the means of satis4/ing them, this man will be raisedabovethe othersand,asit were, deified. rruJ rv! rrt lt 116 lntroducingReligion ' Opinion will investhim with a majestyexactlyanalogousto that protectingthe : gods.This is what has happenedto so many sovereignsin whom their agehad faith: if they werenot made gods,they wereat leastregardedasdirect representativesof the deity.And the fact that it is societyalonewhich is the authorof ; thesevarietiesofapotheosis,is evidentsinceit frequentlychancesto consecrate rnen thus who haveno right to it from their ovrn merit. The simple cleference inspired by men investedwith high social functions is not different in nature from religiousrespect....In Melanesiaand Polynesia,for example,it is saidthat an influential man has mana, and that his influenceis due to this mana.How-. ever,it is evidentthat his situation is due solelyto the importanceattributedto him by publi co p i n i o n .... This aptitudeofsociety for settingitselfup asa god or for creatinggodswas At never more apparenttlian during the first yearsof tl-reFrench Revolutior.r. this time, in fact, under the influenceof the generalenthusiasm,things pr'rrely laical by nature were transformedby public opinion into sacredthings:these were the Fatherland,Liberty, Reason.A religion tendedto becomeestablished which had its dogmas,symbols,aitars and feasts.It was to thesespontaneous aspirationsthat the cult of Reasonand the SupremeBeing atternptedto give , a sort of official satisfaction.It is true that this religiousrenovationhad only , an ephemeralduration. But that was becausethe patriotic enthusiasmwhich at first transportedthe massessoon relaxed.The causebeing gone,the eft-ect could not remain. But this experirnent,though short-lived,keepsall its sociological interest.It remainstrue that in one determinedcasewe haveseensociety and its essentialideasbecome,directly and with no transfigurationof any sort, the objectofa veritable cult. AII thesefactsallow us to catchglirnpsesof how the clanwasableto awaken within its membersthe idea that outsideof them thereexistforceswhich dominate thern and at tire same time sustainthem, that is to say in fine, religious forces:it is becausethere is no societywith which the primitive is more directly and closelyconnected.The bonds uniting him to the tribe are much more lax and more feeblyfelt. Although this is not at all strangeor foreign to him, it is with the people of his own clan that he has the greatestnumber of thingsin common; it is the action of this group that he feelsthe most directly; so it is ' this also which, in preferenceto all others, should expressitself in religious symbols. But this first explanationhasbeen too general,for it is applicableto every sort of societyindifferently,and consequentlyto every sort of religion. Let us attempt to determine exactly what form this collectiveaction takesin the clan there.For thereis no placewhere and how it arousesthe sensationofsacredness it is more easilyobservableor more apparentin its results. EmileDurkheim: TheSocialas Sacred I17 ThePowerof SacredCeremonies [l]t is in the midst of . . . effervescent socialenvironmentsand out of this efrervescence itselfthat the religiousideaseemsto be born. The theory that ti-risis really i : itsorigin is confirmedby the fact that in Australiathe reallyreligior-rs actrvity is almoster-rtirely confinedto the momentswhen theseassernblies areheld.. .. The religiouslife of the Australian passesthrough successivephasesof con.rplete lull and of super-excitation,and sociallife oscillatesin the samerhythm. This putsclearlyinto evidencethe bond ur-ritingthem to one another... . By concentratingitself almost entirelyin certaindeterminedmoments,the coliective life hasbeen ableto attair-rits greatestir.rtensityand ellicacy,and consequently to glvemen a more activesentimentof the double existencethey lead and of tl-re doublenature in which they participate. But this explanationis still incon-rplete. we rraveshown how the cla', by _ themannerin whicir it actsupon its mernbers,awakenswithi'the'.r the idea of externalforceswhich dominatethem and exaltthem; but we must still demand howit happensthat theseforcesare thought of unclertl"refo'n of totems, that isto say,in the shapeof an animal or plant. It is becausethis a'imal or pla't has given its name to the clan and serves it asemblem.In fact, it is a well-known law that the sentimentsaroused in *s bysomethingspontaneouslyattachtl-remselves to the syn.rbolwhich represents them.For us,blackis a sig'of mour'ing; it alsosuggests sadimpressio'sand I ideas.This transferenceof sentimentscomessimply fiom the faci that the idea , ofa thing and the idea of its symbol are closeryunited in our minds; the result ' isthat the emotionsprovokedby the one extendcontagiouslyto the other.Br-rt thiscontagion,which takesplacein everycaseto a certaindegree,is much more completeand more markedwhe'the syrnbolis somethingsimple,defirite and easrly representable. ... For we are unableto consideran abstractentity,which ,,wecanrepresentonly laboriouslyand confusedly,the sourceof the stro'g sentimentswhich we feel.we cannotexplainthem to ourselvesexceptby connect_ 'ingthem to someconcreteobjectof whoserealitywe arevividly aware....Itis thiswhich is loved, feared,respected;it is to this that we are grateful;it is for thisthat we sacrificeourselves.The soldier who dies for l.risflae, dies for his country;but as a matter of fact, in his own consciousness. it is tlre flag that has thefi rstpi ace.... Now the totem is the flag of the clan.It is thereforenaturalthat the impres_ sionsarousedby the clan in individuarrrinds-irnpressions of dependence and ofincreasedvitality-shouid fix themseivesto the idea of the totem rather tl.ran thatof the clan: for the clan is too complexa reality to be represented clearly in all its complex unity by such rudirnentary intelligences.More than that, theprimitive doesnot even seethat theseimpressionscome to him from the INTRODUCING RELIGION Readingsfrom the ClassicTheorists Daniel L. Pals New York Oxford OXFORDUNIVERSITYPRESS 2009