Comparison Of Two Philosophers Emile Durkheim And Karl Marx

Jonathan Z. Smith argues “religion is imposed from the outside” while the term itself is “created by scholars for their intellectual purposes” (Smith, 269). Two philosophers; Emile Durkheim and Karl Marx’s work can be applied to religion as a functional aspect of human life, describing its role in the presence of blood.

The purpose of religion in times of distress is described by French philosopher Emile Durkheim as an uplifting force. His work emphasizes religion as “an essential and permanent aspect of humanity” (Durkheim, 2). Pointing out that “(a religion’s) essential task is to maintain, in a positive manner, the normal course of life” (Durkheim, 29). Blood is generally visible when one has been wounded. Searching for the cause and deep-rooted meaning of such agony often leads to retaliatory conflict between people. In his writing Elementary Forms of Religious Life, Durkheim considers Buddhism’s four noble truths; “the first states the existence of suffering as the accompaniment to the perpetual change of things” (Durkheim, 30). Durkheim interprets religion as a positive force that allows humanity to accept blood as inevitable in life and overcome pain as opposed to dwelling on the associated negativity. The death of Jesus Christ in Christianity acts as an example of blood as a sacred sacrifice, rather than a profane severance of skin.

In contrast to Durkheim’s interpretation, Marx takes a similar, but additionally political standpoint. Marx famously once said “if the worker’s activity is torment for him, it must be pleasure and a joy of life for another” (Marx, 142). Religion has the potential to allow the working class to function in poor economic conditions with little to no uproar that would affect the bourgeoisie. Among capitalist politicians’ worst fears are low class workers banding together to fight wealth distribution and demand change. With the existence of religion, the lower class lacks hatred to fuel a revolutionary fire, and all remains calm. It is for this reason Marx describes religion as the “opium of the people” (A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right).

Durkheim’s argument ties blood to religion itself, transforming a profane bodily fluid to a sacred, sacrificial symbol, while Marx’s studies the social function religion could have on a mistreated population.

• Emile Durkheim. The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. Trans. Joseph Ward Swain. Mineola: Dover Publications, 2008. Introduction – Subject of our Study (1-20); Definition of Religious Phenomena and of Religion (23-35)
• Jonathan Z. Smith “Religion, Religions, Religious.” Critical Terms for Religious Studies. Edited by Mark C. Taylor. University of Chicago Press, 2004. 269-284
• Karl Marx. The Portable Karl Marx. Ed. Eugene Kamenka. New York: Penguin Press, 1983. “Economico-Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 –Alienated Labor” (131-146)
• Marx, Karl. “A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right.” Marxists.org, www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm.