Critique and Notes
Historian and philosopher Mircea Eliade developed a distinct perspective on religion. Eliade's definition of the concept of sacred diverges from the opinion of 19th century French sociologist David Émile Durkheim. Through exploring and elaborating each scholar's interpretation we will understand their distinctive worldview. To better understand each philosophical position we will also discuss the key ways the two theories come into conflict.
Mircea Eliade and Durkheim explore the divergent perspectives on religion.
Mircea Eliade argues that a profane world is a world that has been desacralized, in which transcendent spiritual meaning has been stripped from the cosmos and therefore has no meaning to it other than what can be seen in its plain natural form. The western wall, for example, would be no different to the wall President Trump wants to build on the southern border of the United States. However, a sacred object or place contains holiness while still retaining the original physical qualities of its natural form. For this reason Eliade argues that sacred is the opposite of profane. If the natural world did not have the ability to manifest the divine through nature then there would be nothing more to the natural world that we could see. Without the understanding of sacred as transcendent to the profane religion would be irrational and opposite to nature.
Eliade points out that whether a person is religious or not, one needs to consider the bigger role played by the cosmos in order to occupy a space. With this understanding of sacred, our physical world is symbolic, It serves as a parallel for the spiritual experiences each person experiences in their effort to create a connection with god. Elaide coined the term spiritual hierophany to describe the ability to connect to a higher spiritual plane through the mundane. Therefore spiritual rituals are repeated and high value is given to sacred spaces. Eliade primarily draws examples from the three monotheistic faiths; Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, because in these religions there are many cosmological rituals and many places consecrated as a sacred space.
The Torah scroll in the Jewish religion is covered every moment in which it is not actively being used for worship, and a covering is gracefully placed on top even during the five minute break in the reading during which blessings are recited. These ritualistic behaviors reinforce the idea of dignity through concealment. In accordance with the same concept of modesty, the human body isn’t covered because it is ugly, rather to retain dignity; so too the scroll isn’t ugly, and it is not that the Jewish people don’t want to share the beauty of the Torah. The mission is to keep the Torah meaningful and holy. If the Torah were to be paraded on the streets it will degrade the value that is inherent in it. This is a very abstract idea of privacy, therefore these rituals are practiced to make them concrete. Even though scroll is just animal skin written with ink it holds an enormous value because it is the written word of God, the physical symbol of the sacred the gift that God gave the Jewish people on Mount Sinai.
Durkheim argues that religion is about security and people take spiritual action in pursuit of security , which seems to be “sacred”. These collective rituals develop an emotional association that expresses itself through religious devotion. Considering the dependency on religious symbolism for a sense of stability, whatever is holy is protected in society by a taboo. What society holds to be sacred is that which was deemed to be special, therefore it should be treated with respect. An example of this superstition is a Churinga. A Churinga is an object that- is protected and should only be seen by men; women and children are excluded from the viewing experience. It is not inherently sacred only acquires status as “sacred” when surrounded by taboo. A Churinga becomes holy by carrying the totem that bears the family name. Durkheim argues that religion is about social order and only exists to turn individuals into a group; it is a way people commit themselves to become part of a group. In Durkheim's worldview a deity is not a necessary component of religion. Although Durkheim relates a cynical perspective of religion he does concede that religion gives people a sense of order to the world. Religion teaches people how to look at the world, therefore, he opines, religious doctrines discuss their belief regarding the beginning of the world as this relates to the origin of ceremony and tradition of belief itself.
Most things we come across in life are quite ordinary. The everyday things people do in their everyday life such as drive a car, go to work and check their email. The routine aspects of our day to day existence can easily be distinguished from the sacred. As Durkheim states, these things are profane. However, we consider some things to be sacred. These are things we set apart as extraordinary and worthy of inspiring awe and reverence. Building a Sukkah for the Feast of Tabernacles, reading the Torah, and paying respect as the gravestone of a great sage are all considered to be sacred. Religion in this case is a social institution involving beliefs and practices based on recognizing the sacred. Equally important, as part of the social institution of religion, are the rituals that are considered formal ceremonial activities that center on recognizing the sacred.
Eliade and Durkheim agree that a sacred object retains an essence of the original quality of physical reality in a natural world. However, the key difference between the two philosophies is that Eliade argues that sacred means the physical transcended its nature while retaining its physical characteristic whereas Durkheim believes that no value is added other than a social construct fictionalized by a superstitious society.
No comments:
Post a Comment