Durkheim and Weber both analyzed the social function of religion in their works. Durkheim viewed religion as inherent to society, arising from collective effervescence. He saw religious rituals and symbols as serving to unite individuals and reinforce social solidarity. Weber argued that Protestantism influenced the rise of capitalism by promoting the values of hard work, profit, and worldly asceticism. Though their theories differed in focus, they both saw religion as shaping social order and the individual's relationship to the collective. Durkheim emphasized religion's role in creating social cohesion while Weber explored how it could drive social and economic change.

1. Edwards 1
Adam Edwards
Student Number: 0402605
SOCI-210-A MO 9:00-10:50
March 22nd, 2010.
Comparing the Social Function of Religion
Both Emile Durkheim and Max Weber are classical sociological theorists whom discuss
the social function of religion in their works. Durkheim explains the social function of religion in
his work titled, “The Elementary Forms of Religious Life,” and Weber explains his theory of the
social faction of religion in his work titled, “The Spirit of Capitalism,” (Durkheim, 2008: 126-
139; Weber, 2008: 152-165). Both Theorists differ on some levels of their theory of the social
role of religion; however, it can be argued that they also have some similarities and comparisons
between their theories on religion (Durkheim, 2008: 126-139; Weber, 2008: 152-165). With that
said, it seems evident that the explanation for the social function of religion is comparable
between Durkheim and Weber’s perspective.
To start off, Durkheim explains the social function of religion through his work entitled,
“The Elementary Forms of Religious Life.” Durkheim sets out to explain the moral realm of
society by focusing on religion (Durkheim, 2008: 126). Durkheim claims that religious
ceremonies are in actuality, the worship of social life itself, and adds that “as long as there is
society, there is religion,” (Durkheim, 2008: 126). Social life is seen as inherently religious; a
collective and anonymous force, (Durkheim, 2008: 126). Durkheim also claims that the worship
of a God, or Gods, is the worship of a social group, and the force that the social group exerts on
each individual (Durkheim, 2008: 126). Durkheim broadly defines religion as it is not strictly a
“churchly” affair, but rather, a system of symbols and rituals for what is sacred which are
worshiped and practiced by a community of believers (Durkheim, 2008: 126). Religion focuses

2. Edwards 2
and reaffirms the groups’ feelings and ideas that hold the group together and bind participants
together to celebrate society (Durkheim, 2008: 127). Durkheim states that every society must
uphold and reaffirm at regular intervals to collective sentiments and ideas to make its unity and
personality which is done by reunions , assemblies and meetings where individuals being united
closely, reaffirm in a common way, their common sentiments (Durkheim, 2008: 127). The
communal function, or the group function, of religion is carried out by a process of ritualization
and symbolism (Durkheim, 2008: 127). Durkheim describes a ritual is a highly routinized act,
such as taking communion; which not only symbolizes a historical event of Jesus Christ, but also
symbolizes participation in togetherness among believers (Durkheim, 2008: 127). As practices,
rituals can unite a social group regardless of individual differentiation in beliefs or strength of
conflicts since the common experience focus’s and binds the participants together (Durkheim,
2008: 127). This means there is no difference between secular and religious events for
Durkheim. There is a similarity between praying and standing for the national anthem since both
are rituals that unite the individual to a social group (Durkheim, 2008: 127). Durkheim also
suggests that there is no difference between religious holidays, such as Christmas or Yom
Kippur, and secular holidays such as Independence day or Canada day, since both are collective
celebrations of identity and community, (Durkheim, 2008: 127 &128). Durkheim also explains
that symbols distinguished between the sacred or the profane (Durkheim, 2008: 128). The sacred
refers to the extraordinary which is set apart from and “above and beyond” the everyday world,
and the profane refers to objects that are of the everyday world, which is separated from that of
the extraordinary (Durkheim, 2008: 128). Objects are not themselves sacred or profane, but there
meaning or classification is continually produced and reproduced in a collective process of
ritualization and symbolization (Durkheim, 2008: 128). An example of this is how a candle can

3. Edwards 3
be simply a mundane or profane everyday object to provide light in a dark house, or it can be
used for a religious ritual such as lighting a menorah for Chanukah, therefore making it a sacred
act (Durkheim, 2008: 128). The sacred acts give us order to what would otherwise be unordered
social conduct since ritual practices transform a profane moment into a sacred moment while a
sacred site such as a church differentiates routine places to those that give attitudes of awe and
inspiration (Durkheim, 2008: 129). Therefore, religions rituals help to order and organize our
experience of the world by, moulding it into that which is sacred or special and that which is not
special or profane (Durkheim, 2008: 129).
Through further interpretation, it becomes evident how Durkheim theorized the social
function of religion. Durkheim describes between the sacred and the profane and expresses how
both descriptors contain symbolisms (Durkheim, 2008: 128-129). Durkheim also mentions an
object in religious culture known as a totem (Durkheim, 2008: 129). The totem is an object
which is an expression to a totemic principle (or God), but also that of the clan (Durkheim, 2008:
129). Durkheim points out that it is not the totem object itself that is important to the religious
community, but rather the image that the totem represents (Durkheim, 2008: 129). Durkheim
also mentions respect, which is caused without unnecessary consideration; meaning if one
commands respect; people will follow that person (Durkheim, 2008: 130). Something has respect
if it automatically causes actions, since it is the emotion we experience when we feel spiritual
pressure upon the group (Durkheim, 2008: 130). Society operates smoothly with respect,
meaning members of society collectively support ideas and rules, but if they fail as a collective
to respect, then the rules and ideas are no longer followed (Durkheim, 2008: 130). Durkheim also
mentions that what is “spiritual” is a creation of our own minds, and we act on this creation, but
don’t realize this spirituality is our own creation (Durkheim, 2008: 131-132). The religious feel

4. Edwards 4
an external force but do not know who or what it is from, so society explains this feeling by
inventing God, which allows us to act with a social purpose and function (Durkheim, 2008: 132).
Weber also explains the social function of religion in his work entitled, “The Spirit of
Capitalism.” The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism covers two subjects that
preoccupied Weber’s intellectual activities, one of which was rationalizing which was prevalent
in Western society, the other was the role of ideas in moulding this rationalization (Weber, 2008:
152). Weber argues that the religious belief system, intended to explain the path to a
transcendent eternal salvation, paradoxically started the creation of a secular world in which
“material goods have gained an increasing and finally an inexorable power over the lives of men
as at no previous period in history,” (Weber, 2008: 152). Weber’s views of religion differed from
Marx who viewed religion as “the opiate of the masses” and also Durkheim, who viewed religion
as society’s worship of itself (Weber, 2008: 152). Instead, Weber saw religion as a system of
meaning guided towards explaining the existence of suffering and evil in the world. Weber
further notes that this explanation of existence possessed by religion has a profound impact on
the actions of individuals and the broader social order which imposes a belief system that focuses
on a “mastery” of the world or mystical escape from this mastery (Weber, 2008: 152). In his
analysis of religion, Weber also mentions how Protestantism and Calvinism both demanded that
its followers act as the “instruments” of God in order to shape the world in his image; however
Eastern religion requires followers to be a “vessel” for the divine spirit (Weber, 2008: 152).
Engagement with the external secular world is required from the protestant belief system for
social change, however, for the eastern religion, spiritual awakening proves to be a socially
conservative force, and therefore, ultimately up to the choices of the individual (Weber, 2008:
152). Weber claims that there is an independent aspect of religion in shaping social order and

5. Edwards 5
economic systems, and therefore offers a powerful critique of Marxist theories of capitalism
(Weber, 2008: 152). Weber’s view of the relation between religion and capitalism is counter to
Marx’s emphasis on property relations and process of productions (Weber, 2008: 152). Weber
claims the extraordinary methodological attitude that describes Protestantism’s asceticism was
crucial to the rise and power of western capitalism (Weber, 2008: 152). Weber shows not only
“material” factors, but also “Ideal” factors can be used in social change (Weber, 2008: 153).
What Weber means by “Ideal factors” is an analytical concept that one generates through real
world examples (Weber, 2008: 153). Weber states that individualism and the protestant
reformation redefined the relationship between man and God (Weber, 2008: 153). Weber was
also influenced by Martian Luther, who said that each individual must strive to find a moral and
righteous life at all times, which is devoted to the glorification of God (Weber, 2008: 153).
Luther claims that the duty of the individual is to honour and glorify God, not to satisfy or
appease him (Weber, 2008: 153). Weber adopted an idea which was originally Luther’s, which is
“the calling”; a fate every religious individual must submit to (Weber, 2008: 153). Weber
claimed that with a “calling” the rich and poor were encouraged to accept their position in
economic terms since it was “God’s will,” (Weber, 2008: 153). Weber also builds his theory
from John Calvin and Richard Baxter who further interpreted the calling as Gods commandment
to work for his glory (Weber, 2008: 153). Under this interpretation of the calling, the individual
had the power to determine their eternal fate based on their own economic success and profits,
since both were seen to define ones divine state of grace in Western Protestantism (Weber, 2008:
153). Weber claims that profits and economic pursuits were seen as rational planning, and doing
God’s work, since it would seem irrational for a man to not save and invest wealth, therefore
meaning he was not as spiritual either (Weber, 2008: 153). Weber states that an ethical

6. Edwards 6
imperative to save and invest wealth gives way to the spiritual foundation for the spread
capitalism (Weber, 2008: 153). Weber proposes that because of this relation between spirituality
and economic pursuits, modern humanity is left to live in a disenchanted “iron cage” which lacks
the magical possibilities of life (Weber, 2008: 153).
With this said, it seems notable that there are some comparisons that can be made
between Durkheim and Weber’s theories on a sociological analysis of religion. Both Durkheim
and Weber mention that religion has a social function, but their theories for this social function
of religion differ. Weber’s theory seems to contrast with Durkheim’s theory in the sense that
Weber believed that Protestantism, a form of religion, was responsible for a social change which
resulted in the dominance of capitalism (Weber, 2008: 153). This differs from Durkheim’s view
that religion is an inherent by-product of society and social life (Durkheim, 2008: 126). Weber
also goes a more in-depth than Durkheim with his interpretation of the social function of religion
by giving a theory of how religion impacted the growth of capitalism in western society (Weber,
2008: 153). A similarity could be made between Durkheim’s concept of respect in religion and
Weber’s concept of the calling (Durkheim, 2008: 130 & Weber, 2008: 156-160). It seems that
both Durkheim’s concept of respect and Weber’s concept of the calling reveal how the individual
is overpowered by the collective religious ideals and rules. With Weber, the calling is a rule of
God in which all must work and accumulate economic success, whether they are rich or poor,
and not just for personal financial gain, but because it is Gods will that we work, and stray from
idleness, since it leads to the temptation of sinful enjoyment (Weber, 2008: 160). This can be
related to Durkheim’s concept of respect since work, a usual activity of life, is manipulated in a
way without consideration, in which religious participants will simply work to feel a part of the
religious community to do God’s will, or as Durkheim may say, to do the capitalist society’s will

7. Edwards 7
(Durkheim, 2008: 130 & Weber, 2008: 160). It seems that Durkheim and Weber’s theories of the
social function of religion are relatable in the fact that they both mention the concept of respect,
but it could be argued that Durkheim’s view of the social function of religion is to worship
society, while Weber’s is to worship capitalism (Durkheim, 2008: 130 & Weber, 2008: 160).
With Weber, it seems that a capitalist society runs more smoothly and efficiently when the
dominate religion issues the rule that to be saved by God you must do Gods work, and to do
Gods work you must find your calling, a job, and stick to it as much as you can (Durkheim,
2008: 130 & Weber, 2008: 162). Durkheim’s mention of symbolism in religion is also relatable
to Weber’s theory of the social function of religion in a way (Durkheim, 2008: 129-137 &
Weber, 2008: 160). Durkheim believed the importance of symbols was that they could allow
individual consciousness to be open to the collective, in shared meaning among the group
(Durkheim, 2008: 137). This can be loosely connected to Weber in the fact that having a job is
seen in Protestantism as a symbol for doing God’s work (Weber, 2008: 162). Protestants who
have jobs, especially high ranking jobs, will be proud to carry their symbol of hard work, but
also, for others to know how much time these people devote to their job, for the good of God
(Weber, 2008: 160). Conversely, a poor and jobless Protestant, or a Protestant who does not
work as much as they could, will be looked down upon because they will not hold the occupied
time, capital, and wealth that a Protestant with the symbol of the calling will hold (Weber, 2008:
160). Capital could also be viewed as a totem in Weber’s theory since money itself is not seen as
a representation of spirituality and Gods work, but rather, the methods of developing capital, and
making capital only for the sake of doing God’s work (Durkheim, 2008: 129 & Weber, 2008:
160). Therefore, it seems evident that Durkheim and Weber’s view of the social function of
religion can be compared and contrasted.

8. Edwards 8
With that said, both Durkheim and Weber cover the theme of the social function of
religion in their theoretical works. Durkheim’s explanation of the social function of religion
seems to be that of a broader macro scale of sociology, whereas Weber’s explanation for the
social function of religion looks more specifically at the micro social phenomenon of capitalisms
relation with religion (Durkheim, 2008: 126-139; Weber, 2008: 152-165). Though both theorists
explain the social function in different themes, there are ways in which their theories can relate
to explain the basic social function of religion.

9. Edwards 9
References
Durkheim, E (2008). “The Elementary Forms of Religious Life”, Chapter 3, pp 126-139 in
Applerouth, S. and Desfor Edles, L. (eds) 2008 – Classical and Contemporary
Sociological Theory. Thousand Oaks, California: Pine Forge Press.
Weber, M (2008). “The Protestant Ethics and the Spirit of Capitalism”, Chapter 4, pp 152-165 in
Applerouth, S. and Desfor Edles, L. (eds) 2008 – Classical and Contemporary
Sociological Theory. Thousand Oaks, California: Pine Forge Press.