Rehmat Ullah

22110116

Modern Theories in the Study of Religion

Dr. Irfan Moeen Khan

“Emile Durkheim’s theory of knowledge”

This paper will serve as a response to Durkheim’s theory of knowledge, in which he

brings in the idea of social origin of categories of thought. In the reading assigned to us

Durkheim highlights the two conceptions; apriorism and empiricism and their opposite

difficulties (unique shortcomings), which have competed against each other for centuries. The

difficulties make these stances insufficient in understanding the categories of thought. Through

the idea of these categories having a social origin, Durkheim suggests that a third stance may be

adopted which would allow us to better understand these forms of thought, by joining the

opposite advantages of the two rival theories. In this third stance, it seems Durkheim aims to

reconcile apriorism (rationalism) and empiricism. This response paper will present my

understanding of Durkheim’s sociological theory of knowledge and the way he has attempted to

reconcile apriorism and empiricism, it will also discuss how successful has he been in doing so.

The best way to begin this response paper is to expound upon the theory of social

genesis/origin, discovered by Durkheim. He concedes that at the root of our judgments lie the

Kantian “categories of understanding”, which dominate our intellectual life as “solid frames”

which confine thought. These principle categories and notions of time, space, number, cause, and

personality can be found in primitive religious beliefs. “They are born in and from religion; they

are a product of religious thought” (Durkheim 9). Durkheim says that if religion is a “socially

eminent” thing and these categories have a religious origin, then these forms of thought also
become social things. To explain his point further, he talks about the categories of time and

space, and how they are social institutions. Time and space, are “abstract and impersonal

frameworks” which contain the history and existence of humanity (collectively). The differences

among these categories also arise because of the different affective meanings assigned to them

based on regions. Space, time, and the inherent distinctions are held in common among men, this

commonality implies that they are of social origin (Durkheim 11).

For Durkheim, historically, apriorists and empiricists have opposed each other’s views on these

categories, and both these views have opposing difficulties which are troublesome. For the apriorists,

these forms are inherent in the human intellect and cannot be derived by experience (empirically). For

empiricists, the individual constructs these forms by putting together bits and pieces. Classical empiricism

in itself robs these categories of their characteristic properties of universality and necessity. As by

“right”, if one is to perceive the “fact” of these categories to be different from what it occurred as, one

reduces reason to experience, which then makes reason disappear. So “Classical empiricism leads to

irrationalism” (Durkheim 13). The apriorists, Durkheim argues, fail to warrant the “singular power”

which allows reason and intellect to transcend experience, and even their best hypotheses of a divine

reason being inherent in man, cannot be subjected to experimental control. It seems that Durkheim

critiques rationalists for not being empirical, and empiricists for not recognizing the importance of the

inherent or pre-supposed nature of these forms of thought. On their own, both of these conceptions are of

little use. Individual experience (empiricism) is not a good enough reason, and apriorism calling these

categories innate merely “shifts” the problem and does not solve it This leads him to propose his stance of

social origin, which may harmonize the two opposing conceptions.

In bringing social origin into the picture, Durkheim suggests that the opposing advantages of both

conceptions may be added. If the categories are collective representations then they acquire a “special

intellectuality”, richer than that of individual representations which give reason the power to transcend
empiricism. Due to man being dual, an individual being and a social being, he acts as part of the society

and transcends himself, this results in an “irreducibility of reason to individual experience” (Durkheim

16). This way Durkheim helps apriorism and reason retain and account for their power, which allows

them to transcend experience.

Durkheim’s idea of social origin gives us a new perspective on the theory of knowledge, it makes

us move past the apriorist idea of forms of thought being innate and naturally given to us, and it also takes

us away from considering these categories as “purely artificial” constructs. The rationalism in the

sociological theory of knowledge comes from combining the positives of apriorism and empiricism and

excluding their difficulties. By analyzing the sources of conflict between apriorism and empiricism,

Durkheim seems to have had integrated the two rather effectively. But when Durkheim talks about the

categories of thought being collective and constructed by society, this has relativistic implications. When

society becomes the source of these forms of thought (social origin) and when the idea of constructs

comes in, and one may ask that in the presented sociological theory, does not empiricism dominate, and is

enough value given to the individual representation of the categories for the theory to possess a

significant rationalist element? But we see that Durkheim clears this confusion when he talks about

looking for seeds of rationality in individual consciousness. People and society do construct categories

out of their experience, but individuals recognize these unconsciously, logically prior to any experience.

This way, as he indeed claims, Durkheim manages to retain the essential principles of apriorism and takes

inspiration from empiricism.

Durkheim’s theoretical insight is invaluable to philosophy. He makes us see the necessity for a

third stance and a new conception of the categories of thought. Individual experience (empiricism) is not

rational on its own, and apriorism calling these categories innate merely “shifts” the problem and does not

solve it. His idea of a social origin of these categories allows him to successfully reconcile the two

conceptions by accounting for apriorism’s presupposing nature and building on the collective experience

of society in formulating these categories which makes them more than just innate states.