Durkheim's Theories Of Moral Power

most likely not be measurable by quantitative means approved by science, which is why scientists may be skeptical of them, but they are in essence no less real, and the understanding behind them is the same. According to Durkheim, “the idea of force is of religious origin. From religion, philosophy first and later the sciences borrowed it” (Durkheim 206). Despite scientists’ skepticism for the physical forces claimed by religion, Durkheim maintains that they are just as legitimate, and in fact evolved from the same starting point as scientific forces. This case is particularly interesting because religious and scientific communities frequently argue over whose forces are real and take this debate as reason both science and religion cannot be
Moral power stems from tradition and a feeling of obligation to one’s fellow community members. Durkheim describes it by writing “When a native is asked why he follows his rites, he replies that ancestors have always done so and that he must follow their example. [...] he feels morally obligated so to conduct himself; he feels he is obeying a sort of imperative, fulfilling a duty” (Durkheim 192). The moral obligation members feel for one another is the primary reason members follow the rites of their community and continue to subscribe to the social order. In religion this moral power is extremely strong, and what results is that “All the beings that participate in the same totemic principle consider themselves, by that very fact, to be morally bound to one another; they have definite obligations of assistance, vengeance, and so on, toward each other” (Durkheim 192). It is for this reason that religious societies are able to tell their members how to act and conduct
Both religion and science attempt to understand the world around them by classifying things into different categories and use the same logic to do so. “Both attempt to connect things to one another, establish internal relations between those things, classify them, and systematize them” (Durkheim 431). Science and religion can both be seen as a means of interpreting the world. Where they differ is how they go about doing this. While science has a tendency to be conservative in statements, and view classifications on a spectrum, religion is more likely to view things as binary. Durkheim explains that “What appears above all to typify logic of religious thought is a natural taste as much for unrestrained assimilations as for clashing contrasts. It is given to excess in both directions. When it brings things together, it mixes them together; when it distinguishes between things, it makes them opposites. It knows neither moderation nor nuance but seeks the extremes. As a result, it employs logical mechanisms with a certain gaucheness, but none of them are unknown to it” (Durkheim 240-241). Religion makes bolder statements, with clear definitions of right and wrong, and in doing so is more compelling to individuals. While science might say eating a certain food has a 75% probability of making a person sick, a religion will set this food as an absolute prohibition and