CHALLENGING THE DICHOTOMY: A CRITICAL INSPECTION OF DURKHEIM’S SACRED-PROFANE BINARY

Abstract

Emile Durkheim remains one of the greatest towering figures in the study of Sociology till date. Not only sociology of religion, his concept of the sacred-profane binary as the fundamental element of religion remains part of the curriculum of sociological theory itself in many places. His conception of sacred things as those set apart and forbidden and the profane being the mundane, utilitarian, and objects universally being fundamentally segregated between the realm of the two has gained much influence but has not been without continuous critique from sociologists and anthropologists alike. Following works of seminal thinkers like E. E. Evans-Pritchard, A. A. Goldenweiser and others and incorporating located realities in the Indian context, the paper advocates for the continued relevance of Durkheim’s work while arguing for a much-needed reconceptualization and reimagination of his produced dichotomy. Rather than a radical rejection of ideas, the paper emphasizes the need for context-specific revaluation and redefinition of fundamental concepts, offering a more productive path forward.

Keywords: Emile Durkheim, Sacred-Profane Binary, Sociology of Religion, Indian Context, Classical Sociological Theory, E E Evans-Pritchard, Fundamental Concepts, Reconceptualization, Anthropology, Empirical Reality, Hinduism

________________________________________________________________________

Introduction

According to Anthony Giddens (2009), “Sociologists define religion as a cultural system of commonly shared beliefs and rituals that provides a sense of ultimate meaning and purpose by creating an idea of reality that is sacred, all-encompassing and supernatural” (p-677). Like in most spheres of Sociology, in religion also, the contributions of the three classical thinkers- Marx, Durkheim and Weber, remain extremely important. Of these, Durkheim provided a functionalist analysis of religion and tried to link it with the workings of the major institutions in society.

Durkheim in his famous work “The Elementary Forms of Religious Life” defines religion as “A Religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden – beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them.” (1912, p-44)

Durkheim’s principal purpose, according to Kenneth Allan (2013), was to explain the origins of religion. He wanted to find out the most general features that are shared by all forms of religion across the world, and for this he studies what he considers to be the most ancient form of religion- totemism.

For Durkheim, at the heart of all religions lies the concept of what he calls the Sacred or Sacre (in French). Along with the sacred two other fundamental constituents of any religion that emerge, are beliefs and practices. Durkheim unlike what common-sensical notions may suggest, continuously upholds the idea that it is the practices that eventually create the beliefs and not the other way round.

Although Durkheim sees the sacred as the key to understanding religion, the sacred does not exist by itself, it exists in constant opposition to another category- the profane. According to Durkheim, the entire world can be divided into these two and that these are universal and also the first classification from which all others have been created. All the other classifications are created through social relations but are not empirically valid like the first category according to Durkheim.

Meaning of ‘Sacred’

According to Pickering (1984), Durkheim used the term sacred in the sense of it being something which is consecrated or holy, something that is set apart and is fundamentally distinct from the mundane world. They are things that are said to be imbued with a particular dignity that raises them above the mundane worldly concerns of humans and turns them into things that are not to be challenged or desecrated. Sacredness, as Allan (2013) points out, is not something that Durkheim considered to be a natural property of objects, rather he saw it as something established through association, as something placed upon an object by the society.

In his study of the Australian Aborigines, he reached the conclusion that totems served as symbols of the sacred in their society, and at the same time, totems also represented the clan and formed social bonds, that is, represented the society at large. Therefore, since totems stood for both society and the sacred, the society and the sacred must be one and the same. The sacred is simply the representation of a collectively adopted ideal.

Since, sacredness itself is social and not natural, what is considered to be sacred varies temporally and spatially. The sacred is relative. For example, while the Cross may be holy for Christians, to the Sentinelese, it may just be two sticks crossed together, devoid of any divine properties. However, although what constitutes the sacred may be relative, according to Durkheim, the idea of the sacred itself is universal.

Durkheim sees the sacred as something sui generis, a thing in itself, something that cannot be reduced to its constituent parts. It is a social fact. It is related to the collective conscience and exists outside the individual psyche. It is this notion of the sacred that leads to the formation of ideas about God or the supernatural. This is clearly visible in cases of nontheistic religions like Buddhism, Jainism etc. which while possessing a clear notion of the sacred, do not show a belief in deities. Therefore, as Pickering (1984) says, for Durkheim. “A god is not more ‘sacred’ than the ‘sacred’.” (Pickering, W. S. F., 1984, p- 153). The sacred is also something that is not just limited to itself, it is contagious and can affect any object that it comes in contact with.

The sacred interestingly for Durkheim is not only something holy, rather, it has an internal differentiation. The sacred is anything that is extraordinary, this may be either positive or negative. Hence the sacred can point to both benevolent and malevolent forces, for example, Satan is equally sacred as God.

Meaning of ‘Profane’

As mentioned earlier, although Durkheim places most emphasis on the sacred, he does not conceptualize it in isolation, he always places it in a contradiction to what he calls the profane. However, from Durkheim’s stepmotherly attitude towards the profane, it remains clear that it is only a residual category, and the real emphasis lies with the sacred. While he views sacred to stand for all that is social and collective, the profane he attaches with the individual aspects.

According to Ritzer (2011), anything that is not sacred is the profane. It is the mundane, the utilitarian and the commonplace aspects of people’s lives. It however does not refer to things that are neutral or secular, what it points to are things that are ritually polluted. Just as the sacred is contagious, so is the profane and thus arises the need to ritually separate them.

Also, just as the sacred is relative, so is the profane. What may be profane in one period may adopt characters of the sacred in another. For example, if we look at another classical theorist Max Weber and his ground-breaking work on the Protestant ethic and its affinity with the capitalist structure, we realize that something as mundane and everyday as work, takes on an almost sacred character through the ideas of calling and predestination. Working hard is seen as a virtue and a divine duty of the individual.

The Sacred-Profane dichotomy

Durkheim sees these two categories as inherently contradictory and completely separate from each other. These are the original categories of classification according to him and are

universally found. He states “…it is absolute. In the history of human thought there exists no other example of two categories of things so fundamentally differentiated and so radically contrasted to each other.” (Durkheim, E, 1912, p- 44).

This antagonistic relation and the resulting distance are maintained through what Durkheim considers one of the most important components of religion- rituals, particularly negative rites like taboo, prohibition etc. These rituals create a line of safety around the sacred objects so that they do not get contaminated and therefore desacralized by the profane. For example, In India, especially in Hindu households, the practice of keeping a separate room for ‘puja’ or worship and not entering it while wearing shoes (since shoes are profane objects and are seen as polluting) etc.

In his study of totemism among the Australian aborigines, Durkheim realized that these people lived their lives in two distinct phases- one the world of the profane with mundane activities generally performed individually or in small groups and the other being the world of the sacred, constituted by larger groups coming together for ritualistic activities and experiencing a moral force greater than the individual- the sacred force- the force of the society.

For Durkheim, the sacred and profane could never coexist at the same time in one place, however there are ways according to him through which people can temporarily leave the world of the profane and enter into the sacred domain. Here he gives the example of priests, shamans etc., who using ritual powers can transcend the earthly world and come in contact with the sacred and act as a channel between the two realms. Therefore, although the two never come in direct contact, some indirect, temporary links can be created between them.

Durkheim views this dichotomy as parts of the whole of human experience, all human thoughts and actions can be neatly divided between the two spheres. They are completely opposed to each other and are strictly divided into two separate compartments. Although there is a difference in importance given between the two, neither can survive without the other, they are meaningful only through their contradiction.

Critique of the duality

While Durkheim’s theory of religion has been one of the most influential ones in the sociological study of religion, it has also been one of the most frequently critiqued. While thinkers like Malinowski, Eliade, Parsons etc. seem to be in agreement with his division of the world into two distinct, separate realms, others have not shown such sympathy.

Alfred Loisy, who did critical review of his book, states that no such empirical dualism exists in reality, the sacred is a modality of religion but not a condition of it. Belot expressed his opposition to the absoluteness of the dichotomy which according to him could not be maintained in empirical practice. Goody, Granet, Lowie, all in their separate studies reached the same conclusion that the dichotomy may not hold in reality and especially is not something that is universal.

Most prominent anthropological criticisms:

E.E. Evans-Pritchard

One of the most vigorous critiques of the dichotomy was put forward by the British Anthropologist E. E. Evans-Pritchard. Pritchard in his study of the Azande came to a conclusion almost opposite to that of Durkheim. He argued that the sacred and profane far from being strictly compartmentalized, were so intimately intertwined that they become inseparable. The Azande according to him made no virtual distinction between the natural and supernatural, the ideas of sacred and profane remain intertwined in their practice of witchcraft. He calls the dichotomy only a theoretical one and not empirical. He writes that since Durkheim believed almost everything among the aboriginals to be sacred to some degree, it becomes extremely difficult to neatly carve out the profane. Evans-Pritchard clearly states his stance when he writes that the dichotomy between ‘sacred’ and ‘profane’ itself is a false one and that he has never found value for it in his field work (emphasis mine).

A. A. Goldenweiser

Another anthropologist A. A. Goldenweiser was also severely critical of Durkheim’s dichotomous view. Goldenweiser (1917) writes, although according to Durkheim almost anything may be stamped with the mark of the sacred, this is only a theoretical truth. In empirical contexts, the sacred no longer remains a psychologically homogeneous phenomenon. For example, in our society, the sacredness of the national flag is not the same as the law nor is it the same as the sacredness of the family. The sacred therefore is psychologically as heterogeneous as the profane. Therefore, trying to delineate life into two neat spheres is to create artificial boundaries and represents a failed attempt to establish a “presumption in favor of an interpretation of the sacred through some one general principle, a pitfall which Professor Durkheim has not succeeded in evading” (Goldenweiser, A. A.,1917, p-119).

W. E. H. Stanner

Australian anthropologist W. E. H. Stanner worked on the social life of the Australian aborigines. He argues that their conceptual universe is not divided into two distinct classes. Although dualisms may exist, they are not as rigid as Durkheim had claimed them to be.

He points out that certain objects do not really fit into Durkheim’s scheme, they seem to occupy an intermediate position between the two. The Australian aborigines he studied had certain objects which could not be placed into either. When these came into contact with the sacred, no change occurred, they did not contaminate the sacred, nor did they get contaminated. Thus, they were completely neutral. Due to this, Stanner argues for the creation of a third category which will represent the mundane, the everyday, the neutral. While Stanner acknowledges that Durkheim placed the mundane within the profane, but the neutrality of these then perhaps point to a differentiation within the profane itself and transforms the sacred-profane from a dichotomy to a continuum. However, since Durkheim took an extremely adamant stand on the notion of duality, presence of the idea of continuum in his thought is not really plausible, hence Stanner’s ideas can be seen as a valid critique of the binary.

Contemporary Contestations:

Mahmoud Ezzamel

Mahmoud Ezzamel (2005) in his study of the accounting practices in ancient Egypt notes that these practices, which generally are seen as parts of the profane world, were not so easily separable from the sacred in the ancient Egyptian system.

Drawing on original historical material from ancient Egypt, he tries to question this supposed dichotomy, or clear demarcation, between the sacred and the profane, and the taken-for-granted assumption that accounting practices have no role to play in the domain of the sacred.

In the ancient temples the scribes had the task of accounting. Through accounting a check was kept on what damages were occurring to the temple structures, why they occurred and how they were being fixed, it was also used to keep track of the numerous intricate relations of redistribution that existed between the temples and also between the people and the temple. Accounting also determined what was to be allocated to whom within the temple itself.

While such activities may be easily dismissed as administrative, profane work, Ezzamel suggests that the boundary of sacred and profane in ancient Egypt in this case was a little fuzzy. The act of redistribution was not seen just as an administrative obligation, rather it had sacred elements built into its very nature since, these were seen as ritual rather than economic obligations. Also, given how much emphasis was placed on the afterlife, the temple architecture and its maintenance was part of the religious duty and so was keeping a meticulous account of it. However, the scribes were not the priests and hence were not seen as solely religious beings.

Thus, accounting in ancient Egyptian funerary temples seemed to simultaneously belong to both the sacred and profane domains and this goes against Durkheim’s idea of the strict binary.

Veronique Cova and Diego Rinallo

Cova and Rinallo (2017) show the overlap of the sacred and the profane through their analysis of pilgrimage. They compare the pilgrimage site at Lourdes and the Camino de Santiago to show how the boundaries between the sacred and the profane are differently maintained in different places.

While in Lourdes, outside the sanctuary many religious items are sold, inside the shrine, no such commercial activity is allowed. Whatever is sold outside can be acquired for free inside. Interestingly, the holy water is not sold even outside the shrine, while containers to carry it may be for sale, the water itself is not sold anywhere. In this way the sacred is protected from being desacralized by the profane market forces.

In contrast to this, in the Camino de Santiago, pilgrimage is repackaged as heritage tourism. While some still prefer to walk and endure all the hardships to reach the site, many tour operators now offer a hyper-real, glamorous experience of the Camino, in exchange of a hefty price. Here pilgrimage exists in symbiosis with the market. Those who opt for the market regulated experience do not see it as any less holy than the others. The consumer accepts and promotes the marketization of the holy pilgrimage and thus blurs the line between the sacred and the profane.

Karen L. Mallia

Mallia (2009) talks of the rising use of religious themes and characters in the media, particularly for advertising. She points out that in the recent years there has been a change in the nature and intensity of religious symbols and stories being used to sell secular or in other words, profane products.

For example, in 1995, a leaflet for the British Safety Council showed a picture of Pope John Paul II in a safety helmet promoting condom use. The headline read, “Eleventh commandment: Thou shalt always wear a condom.” The UK’s Advertising Standards Board received 1,192 complaints.

In 1996, Benetton shocked the world with their infamous ad featuring a priest and nun kissing.

A 2003 fashion ad with religious symbolism also elicited complaints. It featured a procession of Hare Krishna followers with the headline: “If I wasn’t a chanting, cymbal banging, easily- led nutcase who’d been brainwashed by some looney religious sect, I could be wearing Linea Direction’s extra fine merino sweater and linen jeans” etc.

All of these show a curious intermixing of the holy and the mundane. While the product may be profane, the sacredness of the religious symbols used is not lost since it still is able to arouse such hostile reactions from the community of believers. Hence, this again shows an arena where the line between the two gets somewhat blurred.

Contemporary examples in the Indian context of everyday practices that challenge the binary

Moving away from the ‘Western’ context, a few contemporary examples from India, here only contained to a select few examples mostly drawn from Hinduism, show the tensions and contradictions that easily arise with the neat dichotomy’s contact with empirical reality. In Hinduism, unlike other religions like Christianity, the creator and the creation are not seen as separate. Thus, it is believed that every being has God residing within them, in this sense every being is sacred. Yet, if we look at scriptural and religious prescriptions of Hinduism, the body itself is generally viewed as something impure, one that needs to be thoroughly cleansed through rituals to be allowed even in the proximity of the sacred. This is clearly a mark of profanity which due to its contaminating ability needs to be purified through rituals. Hence, an inherent contradiction arises whether one can place the body in the sphere of the sacred or the profane in the Hindu faith.

Similarly, certain parts of the body are seen as more polluting than others in Hinduism. For example, the feet. They are generally seen to be so polluting that one is not supposed to sleep in a fashion where their feet may be directed towards any sacred object like an idol or temple etc. However, Hindus also follow the custom of touching people’s feet to get blessings. It is seen as a mark of humility and respect. Hence, the same part that is seen as inherently polluted is also shown as a way of getting blessings, something integrally related to the sacred. The question also arises, how, if the body itself is polluted and profane, can even be in a position to give blessings.

Certain objects which are generally seen as profane become sacred only when certain very specific events occur. For example, among Hindus, books are generally considered to be profane but if someone’s feet (considered to be a polluting object) touches a book, one is expected to touch the book to their heads to show respect to the sacred. However, that does not mean the book itself transcends the profane world to turn into something purely sacred, it for a temporary time acquires a space between the two.

As Stanner pointed out certain objects exist which although considered to be profane, do not possess a polluting ability. For example, if someone touches a book or a spectacle to an idol in a Hindu household, it may be an unusual occurrence but not necessarily a polluting action requiring ritualistic purification. These objects do not hence, fall strictly into the two categories Durkheim talked of.

Conclusion

On empirical grounds, although Durkheim’s ideas regarding the universality of the concepts of sacred and profane may be true, the strict dichotomy and separation does not necessarily hold. Although his theorization of the basic structure of religious life has been met with vehement criticism over the years, it still remains one of the most fundamental and important sociological accounts of religion ever produced. While we need not radically reject this seminal contribution, we do indeed need to be cautious and imaginative in re-defining and re-conceptualizing it in the contemporary.

____________________________________________________________________________________

REFERENCES

• Allan, K. (2013). The Social Lens: An Invitation to Social and Sociological Theory.

Sage Publications.

• Applerouth, S. and Edles, L. (2008) Classical and Contemporary Sociological Theory. Pine Forge Press.
• Cova, V., & Rinallo, D. (2017). Revisiting the separation between sacred and profane: Boundary-work in pilgrimage experiences. [Workshop]. 8th Workshop on Interpretive Consumer Research, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
• Evans-Pritchard, E. E. (n.d.). Evans-Pritchard on Durkheim. Journal of the Anthropological Society of Oxford, 150-164.
• Giddens, A. (2009). Sociology (6^th ed.). Polity Press.
• Goldenweiser, A. A. (1917). Religion and Society: A Critique of Émile Durkheim’s Theory of the Origin and Nature of Religion. The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods, 14 (5),113-124.
• Mahmoud, E. (2005). Accounting for the Activities of Funerary Temples: The Intertwining of the Scared and the Profane. Accounting and Business Research, 35 (1), 25-51.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2005.9729661
• Mallia, K. L. (2009). From the Sacred to the Profane: A Critical Analysis of the Changing Nature of Religious Imagery in Advertising. Journal of Media and Religion, 8 (3), 172-190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15348420903091162
• Pickering, W. S. F. (1984). Durkheim’s Sociology of Religion: Themes and Theories

(1st ed.). The Lutterworth Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1cgf6sv

• Rawls, A. (2005). Sacred and Profane: The First Classification. In Epistemology and Practice: Durkheim’s The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (pp. 108-138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511488849.004
• Ritzer, G. (2011). Sociological Theory (8^th ed.). The Mc-Graw-Hill Company.