As I mentioned in another post/thread, 'collective ethic' is a heuristic dervied from the commonly used 'ethos' of the social sciences.
A theological anecdote, appropriate for worship by the acolytes of the Religion of Social Scientology. So in the secular context of a free nation, governed by law consistent with the 1st Amendment, it is time to wake up and smell the religion, and make sure it isn't Progressively permeating the machinery of our free state. Religion is not restricted to God, Baby Jesus, the Ten Commandments, and a draft pick to be named later.
Durkheim's theologicial slight of hand: 'My new religion, based on the following definition of "S"ociety, is not a religion: why no, it is a 'science' which catagorizes what all competing religions do as religion/" In the clawimg human mess of peers leg lifting over other peers that is theologic politics, he ordained that up until his true religion (based on worship of the Tribe), that competing tribal religions up until the modern era were worshipping the wrong God totem; ancient man, according to Durkheim, had mistaken 'God' for God, when the true God was really the Tribe..."S"ociety. Wrong unseen magic spirit in the sky.
Read his Religious Formes. Here is the give away in his summary of Formes, where the 'still seminal' Duerkheim rolls his eyes into the back of his head and finally, somewhere, defined "S"ociety as only a True Believer could:
Society is not at all the illogical or a-logical, incoherent and fantastic being which has too often been considered. Quite on the contrary, the collective consciousness is the highest form of psychic life, since it is the consciousness of consciousness. Being placed outside of and above individual and local contingencies, it sees things only in their permanent and essential aspects, which it crystallizes into communicable ideas. At the same time that it sees from above, it sees farther; at every moment of time it embraces all known reality; that is why it alone can furnish the minds with the moulds which are applicable to the totality of things and which make it possible to think of them.
Emile Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (New York, The Free Press, 1954), p. 444.
Sell it,brother Emil: because they're still buying it.
And if that is not enough to see where such deeply theological statements such as . 'collective ethic' is a heuristic dervied from the commonly used 'ethos' of the social sciences.
come from, there are these excerts from 'still seminal' Durkhein as well:
“If religion has given birth to all that is essential in society, it is because the idea of society is the soul of religion."
(Bellah, 1973, p. 191 [excerpt from The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life])
"For we know today that a religion does not necessarily imply symbols and rites, properly speaking, or temples and priests. This whole exterior apparatus is only the superficial part. Essentially, it is nothing other than a body of collective beliefs and practices endowed with a certain authority."
(1973, p. 51 [excerpt from "Individualism and the Intellectuals"])
"...sacred things are simply collective ideals that have fixed themselves on material objects."
(1973, p. 159 [excerpt from "The Dualism of Human Nature and its Social Conditions"])
Bellah, Robert N. 1973.
Emile Durkheim: On Morality and Society, Selected Writings. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Isn't it remarkable? Nobody was fooled when they called "Christian Scientology" a science. But morph "Social Scientology" into Sociology, and suddenly people are seeing science in a room full of folks breathing through the soles of their feet, going on about the highest form of psychic life that sees all from above, and so on. It is laughable, but it worked where other forms of religious leglifting did not.
Yes, it is understandable why those of a certain bent -- uncontrollable fealty to their atavistic herd mentality/God genes-- would run headlong into the arms of this religion. But of what import is 'how many' did that in the context of a free, secular nation, when it comes to the peer to peer relationships of individuals living in freedom? Does this nation now suddenly, in modern times, support the concept of a majority view of religion imposed on every minority? If so, then fuck this nation with a chainsaw.
Now, please proceed along these lines of tribal worship, and see how it goes on a website named "Rebirth of Reason."
PS: I have more than once seen Durkheim referred to in Sociology texts as "still seminal." Seminal: containing or contributing the seeds of later development. So, how does one lose one's seminality? Is what is meant by 'still seminal' mean, 'until we throw him under the bus, as was necessary with Marx?'
(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 2/18, 7:40am)