Malinowski, Collins, and the Social Nature of Religion

Malinowski, Collins, and the Social Nature of Religion
In the sociological pursuit to find the basic reasons for the existence of religion in all societies, the question of the social force’s influence compared to that of the individual is very important. Emile Durkheim, a major figure in sociology, claimed that society’s influence in religion reached far beyond that of the spiritual appeal of religion. One of his adherents, Randall Collins, agrees with this conception, and explores it in his book, Sociological Insight. He claims that society is actually a symbolization of God. This view can be evaluated further if we explore the opposing view of Bronislaw Malinowski that the individual’s role in religion makes Durkheim and Collin’s view of religion obsolete.

Randall Collins held to Durkheim’s belief that the sociological inquiry into religion must focus on the rituals of religions instead of the belief systems. He realized that modern sociologists view religion as “an irrational superstition about things that don’t exist.” (Collins, 1992: 30) However, he uses Durkheim’s ritual focus to overlook the validity of religious claims in order to investigate the group mentality present in religion. Malinowski, while differing on his final conclusions about the singularity of social importance, follows the same approach and focuses on rituals of both the individual and the group.

A fundamental reason for the area of religion being studied so often by sociologists lies in its function in modern society. While in the past centuries, religion has had much more of a hold on the morality of society, Collins shows how it has been losing its power in the current age. With education, technology, and further enlightenment, many have strayed from faith in the church. Collins finds it interesting that religion has not lost its power completely, and the peculiarity of this phenomenon acts as an impetus for his investigation of the power that drives religion. He also finds the inquiry applicable and important to other areas as well:
The analysis of religion, moreover, leads us to a very important general theory that enables us to understand social rituals and the way in which they create both moral feelings and symbolic ideas. This theory has applications far removed from the realm of religion itself. It helps us to explain politics and political ideologies, and the dynamics of solidarity that make conflicts possible among social groups. (Collins, 1992: 32)
Thus, Collins found that the area of research into religion was broadened from the appearance of its original scope of relevance to that of all social rituals.

In his essay, “The Public and Individual Character of Religion,” Malinowski assessed that religious activity was oriented in a social nature as well, and also realized its importance to society:

The festive and public character of the ceremonies of cult is a conspicuous feature of religion in general....Religion needs the community as a whole so that its members may worship in common its sacred things and its divinities, and society needs religion for the maintenance of moral law and order. (Malinowski, 1969: 144)
Yet Collins went beyond this assertion to find the explanation for origin of the creation of the gods in religions. Because the presence of gods, or superhumans in religion reveals its focus on power, he decided that the force that religion represented “must be something much more powerful than the individual.” (Collins, 1992: 33) He then went on to claim that this power was something that was both inside and outside the individual, and decided that this force must be society. For society shapes the individual through his experiences, learning, and language, and thus it is within him while he can also be separate from it.

This preceding concept is the one on which Malinowski differs the most. He uses the example of religion’s influence in the individual experience to point out some of its faults:

Everyone who has experienced religion deeply and sincerely knows that the strongest religious moments come in solitude, in turning away from the world, in concentration and in mental detachment, and not in the distraction of a crowd. (Malinowski, 1969: 145)
However, Malinowski doesn’t explore the question that the extreme emotion of a solitary religious experience could be the result of a recreation of the intensity of the social religious experience. Because society is so internalized, it is necessary to consider this criticism, which doesn’t take it into account, to be somewhat fragmentary. Yet, because Malinowski doesn’t rest his argument on this solitary subjective point, it is necessary to uncover the other areas of contention.

Malinowski stated that “the belief in immortality cannot be explained without the consideration of the religious frame of mind of the individual.” (Malinowski, 1969: 145) While this argument raises doubt to the completeness of Durkheim’s social theory, it doesn’t completely discredit it. He also refers to the individual when he claims that “the essence of morals, as opposed to legal or customary rules, is that they are enforced by conscience.” (Malinowski, 1969: 146) This contention again does not consider the influence of the internalized society, as the influence of conscience is conditioned through experience.

Malinowski does realize some of the limitations of the inquiries of sociologists in religion. He claims that “the conception of a “Collective Soul” is without any foundation in fact, and is against the sound method of social science” (Malinowski, 1969: 147), because it cannot be measured or even proven to exist. He also finds fault in the conclusion of the Durkheimian school that primitive religions were communal, and therefore the root of religion is primarily social. Because the existence of individualized religious experience is possibly not recorded or documented in the relics which are used in studying ancient religions, it is impossible to completely deny that they were not also important in forming the basis for religion today.

Collins and Malinowski both conceded that the essential nature of all religions was the existence of the duality of the sacred and the profane. Malinowski was diametrically opposed to Durkheim’s explanation that this commonality was attributed to the division of the social and individual:

Society as the keeper of lay tradition, of the profane, cannot be the religious principle of Divinity, for the place of this latter is within the domain of the sacred only. (Malinowski, 1969: 147)
He thus separated the moral from the social, and maintained the concept that although “religion standardizes the right way of thinking and acting” (Malinowski, 1969: 151), it is only related to morals as a specific cause amongst others in society.

The basic debate between Malinowski and Collins rests on different conceptions of the relation between nature and nurture. Durkheim and Collins have many rational and observable bases for their assertions pertaining to the symbolization of God in society. And likewise, Malinowski’s determination to discredit the social theory does have its merits in the relation of the individual to religion, despite his ignoring the internalization of society. Because these two investigations into the nature of religion and morality are still somewhat incomplete, they can only stimulate more research into this fundamental inquiry of the theory of religion.