How compatible were Durkheim and Mauss on matters relating to religion? Some introductory remarks

Bibliographic Data

ID4372546
AuthorsW S F Pickering (corresponding author)
Year2012
Volume42
Issue1
Pages5-19
Publication date2012-01-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueReligion (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0048-721X • E-ISSN: 1096-1151
PublisherInforma UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/0048721x.2011.637313
OpenAlexW2011592533
LanguageEN
Citations received2
References cited16

Mauss's contribution to his uncle's classical study, The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, has not been widely acknowledged. It is, however, difficult to assess in the light of inadequate knowledge. This essay is an introduction to the study of the relation of nephew and uncle with regard to this problem. The difference between them as people and their achievements is first briefly considered. Then attention is turned to the way they approached the sociological study of religion. Only two aspects of religion have been selected. The first considers the problems in defining religion. Durkheim holds to the notion of the sacred and Mauss to mana as being central to a definition. The second area is ritual, where there is considerable agreement, although Mauss shows little interest in effervescence. In the final analysis, the two tend to show a complementarity in their work. Keywords: E. Durkheim The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life aims of sociology and anthropologydefinition of religion mana; ritualeffervescence Acknowledgements I warmly appreciate the comments made by N. J. Allen, J. Fish and S. Stedman Jones on this essay

Complementarity (molecular biology · Nephew and niece · Sociology of religion · Emile Durkheim and Sociology · Multiculturalism, Politics, Migration, Gender · Religion and Society Interactions

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub