This paper compares the sociological theories of Karl Marx and Émile Durkheim on the role of religion in modern society. While both thinkers recognized religion as a powerful social force capable of maintaining cohesion and resisting change, they diverged sharply in their evaluations of that role. Durkheim, working from a descriptive, functionalist perspective, viewed religion as a vital source of moral community and social solidarity. Marx, by contrast, adopted a conflict-oriented approach, famously characterizing religion as the "opium of the people" — a mechanism that disguises economic oppression and suppresses necessary social change. The paper concludes by acknowledging that both perspectives capture partial truths about a phenomenon as complex and ancient as religion itself.
The paper exemplifies comparative theoretical analysis: it selects a single social phenomenon (religion), identifies the key conceptual frameworks each thinker applies (functionalism vs. conflict theory), and uses those frameworks as lenses to illuminate both agreements and divergences. This technique is particularly effective when the two theorists share a common question but arrive at opposite normative conclusions.
The paper opens with a brief thesis establishing the scope of comparison, then develops Durkheim's position (sociology as science, religion as cohesion) before turning to Marx's critique (estrangement, opium metaphor). A synthesis section maps both views onto contemporary theoretical labels (functionalism, social conflict theory), and the conclusion broadens the analysis to acknowledge religion's complexity beyond either framework.
Karl Marx and Émile Durkheim, two of the most important social critics of the modern world, agree on very little about the functions and goals of religion and its place in modern societies. The one clear overlap in their assessments is that religion is immensely important, and that no serious critique of society can be complete without an examination of it. This paper explores the approach that each of these theoreticians took toward understanding how religion functions in society.
Durkheim and Marx were historical contemporaries, and it is therefore unsurprising that they should be interested in many of the same social issues. However, their personal circumstances and philosophies were sufficiently different that one could never confuse the two. Durkheim (1858–1917) was in many ways the intellectual heir of the Encyclopedists and other French philosophers of the Enlightenment. Although he clearly held certain ideas about how society should work — that is, he was to some extent a prescriptive scholar — he was primarily concerned with how society does work, adopting a fundamentally descriptive approach.
One of Durkheim's major concerns was that sociology be recognized as a legitimate science, one that could be applied with the same rigor as chemistry or biology. This remains a concern in the discipline, though there are differences of opinion today about whether it should remain a serious question. This emphasis on sociology as science pushed Durkheim toward a descriptive practice of the field.
Durkheim wanted sociologists to observe society accurately and carefully, in the same way that a biologist would (Poggi, 2000, p. 3). Because of this, he tended to be less critical and more accepting of religion than Marx, who was far more concerned with the ways in which society could be changed. One of Durkheim's fundamental concerns was the question of how societies hold together. Given the many forces pulling society apart — everything from class conflict and high levels of immigration to urbanization and industrialization — how is it that societies do not simply fall apart?
For Durkheim, one of the chief forces for cohesion was established religion. Religion helped people feel that they belonged to a community, and this sense of community encouraged them to protect and support one another and to act in altruistic ways (Poggi, 2000, p. 5). This emphasis on the aspects of society that pull people together, rather than push them apart, is reflected in the following passage from 1893, from The Division of Labour in Society:
Man is only a moral being because he lives in society, since morality consists in solidarity with the group, and varies according to that solidarity. Cause all social life to vanish, and moral life would vanish at the same time, having no object to cling to.
Although Durkheim is explicitly referring to morality here rather than religion, he is describing the same social force. His identification of religion and morality as fulfilling the same function is evident in his definition of religion, drawn from The Elementary Forms of Religious Life:
A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden — beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them.
Durkheim and Marx agree that religion tends to keep society together. Another way of expressing this is that both writers believe religion tends to retard — or even prevent — social change. The key difference is that Durkheim views such cohesion and continuity as good for society, while Marx most definitely does not.
Marx is far more concerned with conflict and change than is Durkheim, and so he is far more critical of religion. This can be seen in the following passage from 1843, which is Marx's most famous commentary on the relationship between society and religion:
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions.
It is the opium of the people.
This quote has no doubt become the most famous statement on the nature of religion in part because it offended so many people. However, the following passage elaborates the reasons why Marx felt as he did, and is in many respects more analytically important (Raines, 2002, Introduction):
One may conclude after reading both Marx and Durkheim that religion is either one of the greatest goods of society or one of its greatest evils. Durkheim was arguing from what is now known as a functionalist perspective, one that sought to understand society from a standpoint that privileged stability and community. Marx, conversely, was arguing from a perspective now called social conflict theory. From this perspective, religion reduces and even prevents the necessary conflict needed to bring about social justice.
You’re 67% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.