Sacred–profane dichotomy  

From The Art and Popular Culture Encyclopedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 23:00, 6 January 2012
Jahsonic (Talk | contribs)

← Previous diff
Current revision
Jahsonic (Talk | contribs)

Line 1: Line 1:
 +{| class="toccolours" style="float: left; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 2em; font-size: 85%; background:#c6dbf7; color:black; width:30em; max-width: 40%;" cellspacing="5"
 +| style="text-align: left;" |
 +"All known [[religious belief]]s, whether simple or complex, present one common characteristic : they presuppose a [[classification]] of all the things, real and ideal, of which men think, into two classes or opposed groups, generally designated by two distinct terms which are translated well enough by the words [[Sacred–profane dichotomy|profane and sacred]] (profane, sacré). This division of the world into two domains, the one containing all that is sacred, the other all that is profane, is the distinctive trait of religious thought. --''[[The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life ]]'', Durkheim (1912), Durkheim, tr. Joseph Ward Swain
 +|}
{{Template}} {{Template}}
-French sociologist [[Émile Durkheim]] considered the '''[[dichotomy]] between the [[Sacred (comparative religion)|sacred]] and the [[profane]]''' to be the central characteristic of [[religion]]: +French sociologist [[Émile Durkheim]] considered the '''[[dichotomy]] between the [[Sacred (comparative religion)|sacred]] and the [[profane]]''' to be the central characteristic of [[religion]] (see left).
- +
-:"All known [[religious belief]]s, whether simple or complex, present one common characteristic : they presuppose a [[classification]] of all the things, real and ideal, of which men think, into two classes or opposed groups, generally designated by two distinct terms which are translated well enough by the words [[profane]] and [[sacred]] (profane, sacré). This division of the world into two domains, the one containing all that is sacred, the other all that is profane, is the distinctive trait of religious thought. --''[[The Elementary Forms of Religious Life]]'' (1912), tr. [[Joseph Ward Swain]]+
In Durkheim's theory, the sacred represented the interests of the group, especially unity, which were embodied in sacred group symbols, or [[totems]]. The profane, on the other hand, involved mundane individual concerns. Durkheim explicitly stated that the dichotomy sacred/profane was not equivalent to good/evil. The sacred could be good or evil, and the profane could be either as well. In Durkheim's theory, the sacred represented the interests of the group, especially unity, which were embodied in sacred group symbols, or [[totems]]. The profane, on the other hand, involved mundane individual concerns. Durkheim explicitly stated that the dichotomy sacred/profane was not equivalent to good/evil. The sacred could be good or evil, and the profane could be either as well.
Line 8: Line 10:
==Criticism== ==Criticism==
Durkheim's claim of the universality of this dichotomy for all religions/[[cult]]s has been criticized by scholars like British [[anthropologist]] [[Jack Goody]]. Goody also noted that "many societies have no words that translate as sacred or profane and that ultimately, just like the distinction between natural and supernatural, it was very much a product of [[European religious thought]] rather than a universally applicable criterion." Durkheim's claim of the universality of this dichotomy for all religions/[[cult]]s has been criticized by scholars like British [[anthropologist]] [[Jack Goody]]. Goody also noted that "many societies have no words that translate as sacred or profane and that ultimately, just like the distinction between natural and supernatural, it was very much a product of [[European religious thought]] rather than a universally applicable criterion."
 +==In paintings==
 +*''[[Profane Love (Titian)]]'' (1514-15) -<small> Oil on canvas, [[Alte Pinakothek]], [[Munich]].</small>
 +*''[[Sacred Love versus Profane Love by Giovanni Baglione]][http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Baglione.jpg]''
 +*''[[Sacred and Profane Love]]'' by Titian
==See also== ==See also==
-* [[Carnival]] and [[Carnivalesque]]+*[[Dichotomy]]
 +*[[Venus Caelestis and Venus Naturalis]]
* [[Grotesque body]] * [[Grotesque body]]
* [[Mircea Eliade]] * [[Mircea Eliade]]
* ''[[Profanum]]'' * ''[[Profanum]]''
-* [[Ritual]] and [[Ceremony]] 
-* ''[[Sacred and Profane Love]]'' (Oil painting, by Titian) 
* [[Social control]] * [[Social control]]
{{GFDL}} {{GFDL}}

Current revision

"All known religious beliefs, whether simple or complex, present one common characteristic : they presuppose a classification of all the things, real and ideal, of which men think, into two classes or opposed groups, generally designated by two distinct terms which are translated well enough by the words profane and sacred (profane, sacré). This division of the world into two domains, the one containing all that is sacred, the other all that is profane, is the distinctive trait of religious thought. --The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life , Durkheim (1912), Durkheim, tr. Joseph Ward Swain

Related e

Wikipedia
Wiktionary
Shop


Featured:

French sociologist Émile Durkheim considered the dichotomy between the sacred and the profane to be the central characteristic of religion (see left).

In Durkheim's theory, the sacred represented the interests of the group, especially unity, which were embodied in sacred group symbols, or totems. The profane, on the other hand, involved mundane individual concerns. Durkheim explicitly stated that the dichotomy sacred/profane was not equivalent to good/evil. The sacred could be good or evil, and the profane could be either as well.

Criticism

Durkheim's claim of the universality of this dichotomy for all religions/cults has been criticized by scholars like British anthropologist Jack Goody. Goody also noted that "many societies have no words that translate as sacred or profane and that ultimately, just like the distinction between natural and supernatural, it was very much a product of European religious thought rather than a universally applicable criterion."

In paintings


See also




Unless indicated otherwise, the text in this article is either based on Wikipedia article "Sacred–profane dichotomy" or another language Wikipedia page thereof used under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License; or on research by Jahsonic and friends. See Art and Popular Culture's copyright notice.

Personal tools