Sacred-profane dichotomy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about Émile Durkheim's identified central characteristic of religion. For The Sacred and Profane by The Smashing Pumpkins, see Machina/The Machines of God.

The dichotomy between the sacred and the profane has been identified by French sociologist Émile Durkheim as the central characteristic of religion: "religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden." [1] In Durkheim's theory, the sacred represented the interests of the group, especially unity, which were embodied in sacred group symbols, totems. The profane, on the other hand, involved mundane individual concerns. Durkheim explicitly stated that the dichotomy sacred/profane was not equivalent to good/evil: the sacred could be good or evil, and the profane could be either as well.[2]

Contents

[edit] Criticism

Durkheim's claim of the universality of this dichotomy for all religions/cults has been criticized by scholars like British anthropologist Jack Goody.[3] Goody also noted that "many societies have no words that translate as sacred or profane and that ultimately, just like the distinction between natural and supernatural, it was very much a product of European religious thought rather than a universally applicable criterion."[4]

Some Eastern religions like Buddhism disapprove of cultivating dualism, even between the sacred and the profane. A disciple is first asked to cultivate "a good mind".[citation needed] In the intermediate stage, the disciple is asked to "break through the good mind" (i.e, stop distinguishing between the sacred and the profane).[citation needed] In the final stage of learning, the monk lets go of all conceptualizations of good and bad or sacred and profane.[citation needed] This is called the final good.

The Puritans challenged the dichotomy's prevalence within medieval/early modern Christianity, especially Catholicism, especially regarding a person's occupation.[5] William Tyndale wrote that, superficially, there is "difference betwixt washing of dishes and preaching of the word of God; but as touching to please God; none at all";[5] William Perkins wrote that the "action of a shepherd in keeping sheep is as good a work before God as is the action of a judge in giving sentence, or a magistrate in ruling, or a minister in preaching."[5] John Cotton resolved the dichotomy by holding that a person's attitude could in a sense make sacred work which was normally looked down on - "Faith...encourageth a man in his calling to the homeliest and difficultest...Such homely employments a carnal heart knows not how to submit unto; but now faith having put us into a calling, if it require some homely employment, it encourageth us in it...So faith is ready to embrace any homely service his calling leads him to, which a carnal heart would blush to be seen in."[5]

[edit] See also

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ Durkheim 1915, p.47
  2. ^ Pals 1996, p. 99
  3. ^ The sacred-profane distinction is not universal. Retrieved on 2007-07-10. quote: "neither do the Lo Dagaa [group in Gonja, editor note] appear to have any concepts at all equivalent to the vaguer and not unrelated dichotomy between the sacred and the profane"
  4. ^ Sacred and Profane - Durkheim's Critics. Retrieved on 2007-07-10.
  5. ^ a b c d Ryken, Leland (1991) Worldly Saints: The Puritans as They Really Were. Zondervan Publishing. Found on google book search at URL [[1]] Retrieved 2008-01-20

[edit] References

  • Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, (1912, English translation by Joseph Swain: 1915) The Free Press, 1965. ISBN 0-02-908010-X, new translation by Karen E. Fields 1995, ISBN 0029079373
  • Pals, Daniel (1996) Seven Theories of Religion. New York: Oxford University Press. US ISBN 0-19-508725-9 (pbk).

[edit] Further reading