Emile Durkheim Vs Baraka

878 Words4 Pages

Emile Durkheim was a french sociologist that was mainly known for his views on the structure of society. More specifically on how traditional and modern societies evolved and functioned. On the contrary to Durkheim, the film Baraka shows the inconsistency between traditional and modern societies. Baraka focuses on the illogical progress from traditional to modern societies. In this sense, even though there is great distinction between Durkheim and the film Baraka, there is also great comparison. Emile Durkheim mentions collective conscience throughout his book: Division of Labour in Society in 1893. Collective conscience is ideas and moral attitudes which operate as a unifying force within society. Collective conscience could only be seen in a traditional society since they are more of a collective group, than a modern society would ever be. The traditional society is seen as a collective conscience because religion brings the group together. Durkheim thought that the modern society was better, more sane. While Durkheim calls modern society a disconnective collectiveness conscience, because everyone depends on themselves. Durkheim called the progress from traditional to modern society a “natural evolutionary progression.” He …show more content…

In a traditional society, rituals and religion bond the people together. Traditional society has no individuality instead they have togetherness. Meanwhile, in a modern society the people are socially disconnected; no collectiveness. The people honestly have no interest in being with others; they have a strong stand on individuality. Baraka illustrates the traditional society as a peaceful world, yet modern society is seen as violent. In Baraka you get the sense that their is no progress from traditional to a modern society. This could be true since the industrialization changed the way of living; everything went from simple to

Open Document