The Queen

Emile Durkheim wrote extensively about totemism in his book The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. The concept of the totem was based upon his interest in Australian aborigine's and their use of a central object, in some cases a rock which was decorated with drawings, paint and scratches. These totems were pivotal to these clans. They depicted their shared history, their beliefs. Durkheim distinguished between the sacred and the profane. Societies needed something sacred to group together behind, something special, untouchable. The aborigines had their totem as Native Americans had. In western societies we had churches, flags and monarchs. Durkheim was particularly interested in religion, something he believed was a social glue. However he realised that with the advent of scientific research (he himself wanted sociology to be seen as a science) people were becoming more rational, religion was losing its social significance.

A hundred years on and more modern sociologists are claiming that we live in a secular society where religion and its institutions are losing their social significance. So what is our totem now? what does our society hold as sacred? Post modernists would say consumerism and Marxists may have some sympathy with that. But as the partial lock down enters its third week people are meeting in parks, ignoring the government. The Prime Minister is in intensive care, his foreign secretary announcing during a daily briefing that he hadn't spoken to him since Saturday (this was on Monday).  So who or what can be brought forward as a sacred totem. On Sunday evening the Queen addressed her subjects via TV. She spoke for less than five minutes but stressed solidarity and community, recalled British wartime experiences. The Queen addresses the public rarely - at Christmas yes but only several times outside her regular festive bulletin. The hope of the establishment is that this sacred totem in the shape of our monarch would convince the British people to stay at home. But it is more than that. The Queen would reassure those at home, make them feel that they are not alone. This is a shared experience which is faced by us all. She didn't mention her elderly son Prince Charles but the public would be aware that he had symptoms of the virus himself, so This touches all lives. The Queen's sacredness lies in other areas too. I am 48, I've lived through ten Prime Ministers but only one Queen. She is a constant in the lives of all of the people living in the UK. She has always been there. Even non monarchists such as myself have an interest in her. Netflix's big success The Crown is watched not only by die hard monarchists. She embodies our shared experiences, our national story. She is a totem. I'll refrain from saying 'our rock' but others may see her as this.  The Queen is on our money, our stamps and in our subconsciousness.

So the hope is that her message will inspire and comfort the British people in this in a way that the different religions can't, their reach is only for the converted. the problem is that there are other totems. The post modernists talk about agency, choice, the freedom to construct your own identity through consumption, you are what you buy. The police have reported quite simply that some people don't want to stay in, they refuse to social distance themselves from others. The referendum in 2016  which was placed before the public gave the idea that we can govern ourselves and the current government played on that. Sadly now that it needs people to listen it is finding it difficult to get them to do so.

The real sociological interest now is what is the most powerful totem. That of collective solidarity embodied by the state and the Queen; or that of the libertarian, the individual, the consumer? let's see.