an introductionSociologists and anthropologists of the twentieth century also made
contributions to the quest for a science of religion. Émile Durkheim
(1858–1917), often called the father of sociology, argued that what was
distinctive about religion was the distinction between the sacred and the
profane. The former was taboo and must not be touched by the profane,
suggesting that the sacred was isolated, forbidden, and in need of protec-
tion from the profane. Within society, the source of the sacred was identi-
fied with totemism, an elementary form of religion. Durkheim used the
methods of classification and comparison as part of his sociological or
social scientific type of approach to religion that he eventually equated
to society. Similar to many who preceded him, Durkheim relied on sec-
ondary testimony of travelers and missionaries for his evidence, which
was often filtered through Christian presuppositions and biases about the
nature of religion. Nonetheless, Durkheim insisted that religion repre-
sented the ultimate goals and ideals of a society while also serving as a
cohesive social force.
When the field of anthropology was emerging Bronislaw K. Malinowski
(1884–1942), a Polish scholar, introduced the participant observer method
that led to more accurate accounts of the religious culture studied and a
description about how the particular religion functioned within the soci-
ety. Malinowski, founding father of anthropological fieldwork with his
study of people in the Trobriand Islands off Papua New Guinea, found
the theory of evolution unnecessary for explaining religion. He distin-
guished between magic and religion, although both of them functioned
to alleviate anxiety associated with the difficulties and uncertainties of
human existence. From his functionalist perspective, Malinowski stressed
that religion originated as a response to emotional stress and functioned
as a catharsis for humans. By equating function with the purpose of
something, Malinowski argued that religion and magic shared their gen-
esis in human emotional states, but they differed in the sense that magic
was utilitarian and instrumental, whereas religion possessed no utility
and embodied an end in itself.
From within the discipline of anthropology later in its history, an influ-
ential definition of religion was offered by Clifford Geertz, an American
anthropologist, as a symbolic system that established emotions and moti-
vations, ordered human existence, provided a convincing factuality, and
the emotions and motivations of the system gave the impression of being
realistic. In critical response to Geertz’s definition of religion, Talal Asad
found it too abstract and estranged from the social, historical, and political
influences that normally shaped a symbol. Nonetheless, Roy Rappaport,
another social scientist, argued that religion emerged with language, which
means that it was as equally old as language and humanity. Rappaport