Religion and social theory

146 Pages·1991·16.916 MB·English

by  Bryan S. Turner

RELIGION AND SOCIAL THEORY
Theory, Culture & Society
ocial lheory
Theory, Culture & Society caters for the resurgence of interest in culture
within contemporary social science and the humanities. Building on the
heritage of classical social theory, the book series examines ways in which this Second edition
tradition has been reshaped by a new generation of theorists. It will also
publish theoretically informed analyses of everyday life, popular culture, and
new intellectual movements.
Bryan S. Turner
EDITOR: Mike Featherstone, Teesside Polytechnic
SERIES EDITORIAL BOARD
Roy Boyne, Newcastle-upon-Tyne Polytechnic
Mike Hepworth, University of Aberdeen
Scott Lash, University of Lancaster
Roland Robertson, University of Pittsburgh
Bryan S. Turner, University of Essex
Also in this series
Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture
Revised edition
Pierre Bourdieu and Jean-Claude Passer on
The Tourist Gaze
Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Societies
John Urry
Theories of Modernity and Postmodernity
edited by Bryan S. Turner
Global Culture
Nationalism, Globalization and Modernity
edited by Mike Featherstone
The Body
Social Process and Cultural Theory hL JL T., o, LIBRARY
edited by Mike Featherstone, Mike Hepworth
and Bryan S. Turner
Consumer Culture and Postmodernism
Mike Featherstone
Talcott Parsons
Theorist of Modernity
SAGE Publications
edited by Roland Robertson and Bryan S. Turner
London • Thousand Oaks • New Delhi
'45i
D Lé>-
© Bryan S. Turner 1983. 1991
First edition 1983
Second edition 1991. Reprinted 1994, 1997. 1999 For Adelaide and Nicolas
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be
reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted or utilized
in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without ppeerrmmiiis sion in
writing from the Publishers.
The first edition was published by Heinemann Educational
Books, London, and Humanities Press, New Jersey. We are
grateful to Gower Publishing Group for permission to prepare
this new edition.
314786
SAGE Publications Ltd
6 Bonhill Street
London ECzA 4PU
BL60 ,T87 1991
SAGE Publications Inc
METO LIBRARY
2455 Teller Road
Thousand Oaks, California 91320 Religion and social theory / Bryan S.
SAGE Publications India Pvt Ltd
32, M-Block Market 0020166834
Greater Kailash -1
New Delhi 110 048
Published in association with Tlieory, Culture & Society,
Department of Administrative and Social Studies,
Teeside Polytechnic
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Turner, Bryan S.
Religion and social theory—2nd ed.
I. Tide
306.6
ISBN 0-8039-8568-1
ISBN 0-8039-8569-X pbk
Library of Congress catalog card number 91-53015
Typeset by AKM Associates (UK) Ltd, Southall, London
Printed and bound in Great Britain by Selwood Printing Ltd.,
Burgess Hill, West Sussex
Contents
Acknowledgements viii
Introduction to the Second Edition ix
Introduction to the First Edition I
1 Other Religions 15
2 Social Cement 38
3 Social Opium 63
4 Religion as Exchange 87
5 Religion as Social Control 109
6 Feudalism and Religion 134
7 Individualism, Capitalism and Religion 155
8 Religion and Political Legitimacy 178
9 Religion and Global Politics 199
10 Secular Bodies and the Dance of Death 227
Appendix: What is Religion? 242
Bibliography 247
Index . 261
Introduction to the Second Edition
Acknowledgements
The constitution of social theory
f religion is also a contribution to the development of a
ctllflv 0
ThlS S " of the body. In the evolution of this intellectual project, Mike Two issues have been central to the development of sociological theory
nl 0
S°C?herstone, Arthur Frank and George Stauth have been especially since the classical foundations of the discipline in the 1890s. First there
JcffiSdUporrivc. My interest in the sociology of religion was isjjie matter of social order, whicji is is
society possible? The problem of sodaJLoxdeiv which is also referred to
h P ilv stimulated and later supported by Roland Robertson. The
as~Tiie~fio15bl*^ concerns the social foundations of
social stability and social cohesion; it inyffi^^
X t u al environment^^
relatlonsn^^^
to Stephen Barr whose editorial advice has been invaluable.
•isfficailyT^^ a common moral
Bryan S. Turner order or system^fvaiues which binds people together into a community
Wivenhoe 1991
MlTcIS^^ mejxnOT fa^
relations jftn^^^
sqck^^^
of this integrative value system (Parsons, 1991). JReligion is a social
This is not to say that sociology has some conservative foundation.
The problem of social order necessarily involves a sociological enquiry
into the essential processes and circumstances which disrupt and
challenge the contingent and fragile order of social life. A sociology of
social order inevitabjyjmpjiies the study of social conflict, dissent and
change. Religion often binds people into alternative and competing
soaaTljro^
feature of modern social life. .
^ ~SecoSc^,^c^^e^mines the social meaning of coUeqiyeitfe,. the
' ^ significance_of^social action and the forms of knowledge and under
standing, which are a necessary i e^ In part this
queslioW^ the
notionsot 'action'and 'beTia^^ the
essential feature ofJpLuman^^
the participants:it^ is no behaviour
responamgto external circumstances or stimuli. Social actiori involves
knowledge and reflexivity on the part of social actors, a process in which
the social agent 'constantly'',reflects upon the nature of action and its
meaningful quality. The assertion that human social^ action is
meaningful is also therefore a definition of what it is to be human. The
behaviour oFanimals is contrasted with human action on the grounds
that animal behaviour is not reflexive. Animals have no consciousness,
Introduction The constitution of social theory xi
x
A hence no conception of history or time. For Nietzsche, it was this religion and sociology stand in an intimate relationship to each other.
sense of the passing of time which was part of the tragedy of human Religion may be defined as a system of symbols and values which,
through their emotional impact, not only bind people together into a
beHuman action then is purposeful, m v s ^ u ^ ^ m ^ s m^ sacred community, but induce a normative and altruistic commitment
-^iSol^flctionut involves the choice.of .alternative means.for to collective ends. Religion produces community as the consequence of
-^^g"aitemative ends. In this sense, human action and interaction collective ritualistic practices and a common sharing of belief. Religion
^S^SSSS^S^^a: events, the outcomes of which can never be creates powerful symbols of social life and human existence which
rtiv oredicted or too9n: This uncertain^ in human Hfe is at least one generate a powerful experience of social membership. In Emile
riolodcal source of religious^ Durkheim's terminology, religion is an essential feature of collective life
he conceptualized as means for struck as such; religion is collective social thought (Dürkheim, 1957). In this
- S S l S b i^ ^ r^ ' Se words of Peter Berger (1969), 4a sacred specific sense, any social group may be regarded also as a religious
oov' which by providing stable meanings organises and structures group, because the sense of community can be regarded as an
reaHty Religion, a^ it were (Luhmann, experience which transcends individual or private existence.
However, religion is intimately connected with both the problem of
I9Thes^twoprobiems<theprob^^ social order and the meaningful nature of social relations. By
ture of human interaction) are obviously very closely interrelated, approaching religion from the point of view of order, sociology may
c rial action presupposes some stable set of assumptions or norms by appear to neglect the individual and individual experiences of the
hich social action can be guided. SocialjDrckr^^ sacred. Some definitions of religion appear to give more prominence to
rms and values, is necessary for social action and interaction to occur. the idea of the individual experience of Otherness (Wach, 1971, p. 13).
? Sl ^ t i o n ' h e n ce by the Religion is simply this experience of the Holy. From a sociological
^nowledge^^ 1979)- Asa^equence, perspective, however, there is no substantial difference between the
-^xls^enceofsocial orderjs something about which socialactorsjnust social nature of religious activity and the personal character of religious
t^^ntIf7eTiect and ponder. Ail social actions require an inter experience. In Durkheim's sociology of religion, it is collective ritual
pretation of s^ of the intentions of pAer social practice which produces profound experiences of transcendence and
rtors and predictions about future consequences of action.JSpciojogy Otherness.
can thus be defined as an mjerpretive^scienceof^meaningful so^ I have argued that sociology is an interpretive science which attempts
a^nteTamhlWeber; 1949,1968)7*"" " . to explain social order and understand the nature of social action. Order
Disruptions of and threats to social order question the meaningful and meaning are also central to the nature of religious life. Given the
haracter of social action. In traditional societies, natural disasters, or at importance of these issues, it is not surprising to discover that the
least crises which are seen to be 'natural', such as earthquakes, droughts 'founding fathers of sociology' in very different ways and with different
d ilence represented major dislocations of social life, which were sets of assumptions were forced to address these two issues, and to
oest
ot easily repaired. These 'natural disorders' had to be reconciled with consider these problems of the constitution of society by reference to
human interpretations of the divine order. Within a naturalistic fallacy, religious phenomena, and the relationship between the individual and
the disorders of nature were a mirror of the disorders of society. Social the social. Dürkheim and Weber may be taken as the classical
disorder in the form of warfare, inter-social violence and human cruelty illustration of this contention, although other leading figures in
is equally a challenge to the idea of normality and continuity. The sociology were also involved in the development of the sociology of
uncertainty of social action, the problem of risk, and the unpredictable religion — such as Georg Simmel (1906).
nature of future conditions force human beings into a collective Durkheim's sociology was an attempt to create a scientific study of
response to the shapeless and contingent nature of 'reality'. The moral facts, and therefore he remained primarily concerned with the
oroblem of risk, uncertainty and meaning is thus a threat to our moral order of society. In The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life,
'ontological security', that is, to our emotive sense of our own continuity Dürkheim (1961) provided a general sociological account of the sacred
and selfhood (Giddens, 1990, p. 92). Religion is an aspect of the 'repair order of society which is produced by common beliefs, collective social
work' that we do on reality in order to counter the risks of disorder. rituals and shared religious experiences. For^urkjLejniahe^e^s^ial
Because sociology reflects upon the two issues of meaning and order, nature of religion was that it addressed the division between the sacred
•• introduction The problem of theodicy xiii
he orofane and generated a common consciousness which was the critique of the world, and how these radical religious resp^ ,es to social
order produced revolutionary transformations of society. Religion is an
^ • n was a system of symbols and ritual practices concerning the i essential component of the radical Utopian mentality which challenges
rellgd which created a moral community and, in the collective \ the stable order of routine existence. Thus, Parsons saw Weber as
SaC 'ences of the social group, individuals experienced what he] providing a historical sociology of religion which was to some extent a
eX?e red to as the social effervescence of religious practice. This affective refutation of Marx. By contrast, Parsons treated Durkheim as a
^ ouence of religious practices tied the individual to the social group sociologist who made a major contribution to the analytical under
COnShond which was emotional in character. In this respect, Durkheim's standing of the foundations of social order. In Parsons's interpretation,
•\ theory of morals, knowledge and religion was a sociological Durkheim's analysis of thejmgactof religious values on the emergence
soCl f he individualism and rationalism of Kant's philosophy of the con£ejp£j^^ was primarily a coruiuffion- to^the
0 t
crltl? ic 1990). Durkheim rejected the idea that a sense of rational sociology of social order? However, we do not need to posit an
0V
ovation was the foundation of moral life; instead he insisted on the opposition between Weber and Durkheim in terms of their sociological
Z\ origins of the feeling of obligation, just as he insisted on the social
analysis of religion.
f "dations of our experience of Otherness. Rudolf Otto's notion in The
Recent interpretations of Durkheim have, for example, pointed to
jof the Holy (1929) that the religious experience is characterised as
Durkheim's dependence on the philosophy of morals which had been
[iemysterium tremendum etfascinosum was for Durkheim always a social
developed by Schopenhauer. As I have already argued, within this
£X
perspective, Durkheim's analysis of moral systems was in fact a reply to
r^hecase of Weber, the analysis of religion was at the core of his Kant, since Durkheim rejected Kant's individualism and rationalism,
iolodcal research. Unfortunately, sociologists have too frequently adopting instead Schopenhauer's emphasis on emotion, feeling and
S entrated almost exclusively on the two famous essays which were compassion as foundations of moral action. Moral obligation had to rest
C° hhshed as The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Because • on foundations other than individual motive and social sanction.
pU much emphasis is placed on the Protestant Ethic thesis (Turner, Durkheim's sociology of morals was an attempt to provide a sociological
50 s Weber has been somewhat exclusively treated as a historical analysis of the moral problems of contemporary society. For Durkheim,
l97 olosist whose main concern was to chart the religious foundations of modern societies have been shaken to their roots by industrialisation
S°Cdern industrial capitalism. In fact, we have to see Weber's Sociology and by the rise of utilitarian individualism. We can see that one of the
^Religion within a much broader framework, namely asthestudyofAe central questions of Durkheim's sociology was: how is a meaningful
Ivational drives ^iëJ!^3SmjSS^J^SS^s (THbrrakT 1980). moral order possible in a secular and differentiated society?
Iteber was~concerned to understand sociologically the general social
We also now realise more fully that Weber's sociology was pro
sequences f ious systems of soteriology in the shaping of social
0 var foundly shaped by the philosophy ofNietzsche, who had also questioned
lues institutions and personality. Weber's sociology of religion is
the rationalistic assumptions of Kantian idealism (Stauth and Turner,
LsastudyofhiJWJKO^ 1988). Since Nietzsche was the principal follower of Schopenhauer, we'
d in this sense Weber5Isociology might_beJtescnbed^asji can now identify certain convergences between Durkheim and Weber
rgi^T0Ïi^[VÎ^O9^% 'Personality' in this context meant the oyer questions of religion and morals, but we can also see that
nnscious development of a life plan, or a rational order of existence. historically the sociological questions of order and meaning have always
Weber's general sociology involves the comparative study of the life been interrelated in various complex ways. Order and meaning as
rders which are produced by systems of ethical belief and how these analytical issues are closely interwoven, and as a consequence there is no
?fe orders interact with the personalities associated with the various justification for establishing a sharp division between Weberian
thical systems. The development of the Calvinistic personality was an historical sociology and Durkheim's analysis of the elementary forms of
essential feature of the origins of modern society. the sacred.
become somewhat commonplace to treat Durkheim and Weber
It has
ithin different frameworks, and this division may be in part consc The problem of theodicy
ience of Talcott Parsons's interpretation of their position within the While I have argued that rej^gjonis a systemofsymbols andpractices
development of sociology (Parsons, 1981). For Parsons, Weber's major ^^Produc^ social commitment.tiburpj^hj^oiipj^. experience,
stion religious world-views provided a revolutionary
w as n ow
xiv Introduction The problem of theodicy xv
offers a perspective on social existence which requires a rational problematic nature of human sexuality, Christianity institutionalised a
reflection on social reality. In its highly elaborate and articulate form, strongly ascetic response to the problem of the body. In theology, 'the
this religious knowledge becomes a theology which, through the work of world', that is, the profane regions of life, was defined essentially by the
religious experts and specialists, evolves into a complex cosmology of nature of the human body and by the destructive forces of human
human beings and their place in the world. Under the impact of rational sexuality.
elaboration, it becomes a theodicy. TJtoesej^smologies are^hus general Thus in the theodicy of the Abrahamic religions, the body came to be
explanations of the nature of reality, the place ofluman, be^gskuhat; associated with the broader problem of truth, subjectivity and salvation.
reality and G^'sTwoiWng of salvation.in history (Lapointe, 1989). It was only by subordinating and regulating the body through ascetic
N^general terms, the core of this religious knowledge is organised practices such as diet that the soul could achieve full knowledge of itself
around the central problem of theodicy, which in its literal meaning is a and thereby gain salvation. The regulation of the body via painful
vindication of God's providence in view of the inevitable presence of exercises produces the truth of the self. Thus, in Christianity 'the truth,
evil in the world. In terms of Christian theology, the central problem of obligations of the faith and the self are linked together. This link permits
theodicy is to explain how an omnipotent God can both be loving and a purification of the soul impossible without self-knowledge' (Foucault,
compassionate, and allow evil to exist. Furthermore, how can human 1988, p. 40). However, this problem of sexuality was not an un
beings be held responsible for their actions if God is an omnipotent differentiated or general problem, but came to define the specific
Author? These fundamental problems in Christian thought were relationships between men and women and their characteristic
eventually elaborated by philosophers such as Gottfried Leibniz as a sexualities.
religious response to rational scepticism about God in relation to the In this book I argue that the Abrahamic religions were specifically
universe. patriarchal in their theology and practice, and that the masculine
However, in sociology, and especially in the work of Weber, theodicy character of the Divine cannot be ignored or forgotten. The masculine
came to refer to any general ideology which provides a religious character of God and Christ in New Testament Christianity created a
explanation of injustice and human suffering. Weber developed the social system of patriarchal power in which women were assigned to and
concept to provide a comparative understanding of religious responses inscribed in inferior and subordinate positions, because it was the sexual
to social stratification and inequality. nature of Eve and her transgression which played such an important
When I first wrote this book, I gave a special emphasis to the problem part in the Christian mythology of the exclusion of Adam and Eve from
of human embodiment in relation to theodicy, because I wanted to the Garden of Eden. Although in Christianity the theology of the
argue that a social theodicy is an inevitable consequence of the priesthood and sacrament continued to enforce and reproduce this
universalistic feature of human embodiment. Although relativism has foundational patriarchy, the Roman Catholic Church came to embrace
become one of the dominant themes of modern philosophy and Mariology; through the figure of the Virgin Mary a channel was found
sociology, there are grounds for believing that we can discover a for a fuller expression of female spirituality, albeit within a dominant
common phenomenology of the human body which provides universal patriarchal framework (Warner, 1976).
istic problems and solutions. The fact of human embodiment also forces In this approach to the sociology of religion, the elementary forms of
human beings to address or to cope with problems such as pain, the religious life are concerned with the problems of order and meaning
reproduction and death. The body and theodicy are intimately as these two issues have been shaped by the contingency of human
connected, because the central features of theodicy are a number of embodiment. However, we have to understand these elementary forms
distinctive intellectual responses to the problem of human pain, the from a historical perspective, since the creation myths of the major
nature of sexuality and the moral problems of death. While all religions world religions have been transformed by historical change and by
have a theodicy in response to questions of human reproduction, the interaction with each other. Sociologists have not simply been
nature of the human body is problematic in the Abrahamic religions. concerned to understand the general contribution of religion to the
Sexuality and embodiment appear to have been especially problematic social fabric; they have addressed a number of more specific questions
concerns in Christianity, which developed the concept of the body as such as the contribution of the Abrahamic religions to the formation of
flesh. While Adam was created in the image of God, Christianity western capitalism, that is, what is the relationship between religion and
elaborated a strong theory of evil as a consequence of Man's fall from the processes of modernisation?
grace. Since this fall from grace was deeply associated with the
vi Introduction
x
p modernity to postmodern!ty From modernity to postmodernity xvii
r om
Weber's sociology of religion continues to be important because in the different position on this problem and in this section I want to outline
^cul^tZZ
Protestant Ethic thesis he provided a striking picture of modernisation briefly how I would conceptualise the problem of
terms of the process of rationalisation. He argued that the long-term £T T-
in m r d a t i 0n t0 t he temporary debate
consequence of Calvinistic asceticism and rationalism was a secular P
reality (or an iron cage) in which there is a plurality of values in Locating these issues within a historical framework, I believe that we
competition with each other. As a consequence, the very meaning of should regard the Protestant Reformation as not only one source of
Zkch-
social order is threatened. In other words, Weber provided a compelling modernisation but also its defence against magic, superstMon
picture of the process of secularisation, whereby religious values lose enft or mysticism Calvinistic Protestantism was crudal in the
their social force, and world-views become increasingly pluralistic and development of modern forms of individuality, rationalism and
fragmented. The world we live in is a world of competing polytheistic
values where there are no common agreements such that these
competitive struggles could be authoritatively resolved. The ultimate
consequence of this process is that, alongside the dominance of
instrumental rationalism and experimental science, religious values b e T^
become attenuated and symbols are emptied of their content. i o ^^
Weber's version of the transition from Gemeinschaft to Gesellschaft rationalism (Parsons, 1963). rotestant
can be seen as an argument which is to some extent parallel to If we regard Protestantism as the cultural seedbed of modernitv th,„
Durkheim's analysis of the contrast between mechanical and organic we have to regard the Counter-Reformation and b a r o ^m 7i„ the
solidarity. In The Division of Labor in Society, Dürkheim (1964) drew a seventeenth century as an anti-modernist movement The £Z£
distinction between premodern societies, which are based upon
mechanical solidarity, and contemporary societies, in which, as a result the Roman Catholic Church which would counteract the individual t c
of social differentiation, the nature of social order changes to organic and rational challenge of Protestantism. However, we should1 also vLw
solidarity. In the mechanical solidarity of so-called primitive societies, ntL?a.T"^rmati°n 1 S
social consensus is based upon a common set of beliefs, a shared potocal life which were as sWoictihaiDte dt hwCi tbhr aobastoo luctinsman agi^di nthe baroq uned
ritualistic system and a dominant symbolic code, which in general terms For Perry Anderson (.974), absolutism was a response m the
constitute the conscience collective. With the social division oflabour and
the growing complexity of social life, this collective consciousness one hand, and to the collapse of military-feudal institutions with
begins to break down as social beliefs are no longer generally held and urbanisation, on the other. The crisis of the sevemeenTclnwv
society comes to rest on the reciprocal relations between social actors in
a complex division oflabour. However, in modern society, the speed of
c e r r am ilscal problems following the transformation of the world
social change, the emphasis on egoistic individualism and the absence of
civic morals have produced an extensive anomie in society. Dürkheim
popmatKm growth and social unrest. But these social changes also
believed therefore that some form of collective consciousness or civil
nfluenced soc.et.es such as Germany (Vierfaaus, ! 88). The rS of ar!
religion would be necessary in modern societies, possibly based upon 9
some form of nationalism (Dürkheim, 1957).
In the first edition of Religion and Social Theory I adopted a fairly aZlhZ Jy
dtVel0p,,ng a m a ss culture of emotionality, which
strong version of the secularisation thesis, arguing that indeed religious
u Z r t o f tS T ° f e m ° r i 0 nS W O U ld ^ S i - Uy ~ the
symbols had lost their force and there was no longer a common religious authority of the old order over various social classes emerging in the new
framework dominating social life. I rejected the 'golden age' theory of
religion in order to suggest that feudal society, for example, was not
necessarily based upon a common culture, but was culturally divided aeoiogical justification of political absolutism. The Sun King was the
between various estates, each of which had a rather separate system of Imng embodiment of baroque virtue in which the King's bodv waT»
belief and symbolisation. For various reasons, I would now take a rather
£ S° S h 0 f t he Satf ^ I 9 8 8 ) - T he cultur j S r h f b afZlSue£
•Deluded Shatkespeare's explanation of the oedipal complex in
xviii Introduction
Monteverdi's music, which can be regarded as an alchemy of sound; the From modernity to postmodernity xix
façades of churches such as Santa Maria della Pace in Rome; an idea of grand narratives, concepts of unity, a unified notion of
emphasis of the persuasive force of religious images, as in the work of rationality and the authoritative dominance of western forms of
Francisco Zurbaran; and finally the eroticisation of divinity in such reasoning These changes in intellectual culture are in my view
works as Bernini's adoration sculptures, especially the Ecstasy of Saint potentially far more profoundly damaging to the intellectual core of the
Teresa (Argan, 1989). Against the plain white interiors of northern Protestant version of modernisation. In so far as Christianity is the
Protestant churches therefore thé baroque culture of the south grand narrative, the postmodernist technique of deconstruction and the
developed an elaborate interior of colour, emotion and sound which was critique of textuality is a direct analytical challenge to the biblical
to capture the masses through the stimulation of emotional affect. authority of the Christian tradition, especially the Protestant version of
Within this perspective, the recent critique of modernity by post that tradition. At the same time, the hedonistic life-styles of con
modern theorists may be regarded as a contemporary manifestation of a sumensm provide an equally profound challenge to religious asceticism
much longer set of oppositional movements against the rationalising and capitalist modernism. According to the arguments of Daniel Bell
tendency of the modern project. If modernity can be regarded, from a Frednc Jameson, Scott Lash, Michael Featherstone and others if
Weberian perspective, as a process of rationalisation and secularisation postmodernism is associated with the consumerist life-style of the new
within the context of an urban industrial civilisation, then we can trace a middk classes of advanced capitalism then these life-styles become
number of oppositional social movements which have been critical of globally significant through the extension of the world economic system
the dominance of modernity. These oppositional movements will and the globalisation of culture (Featherstone, 1988). Consumerist
include not only the Counter-Reformation and baroque culture, but the hedonism and postmodernist relativism challenge Christianity at both
romantic movement, the various elements of the conservative critique the intellectual and experiential levels by providing alternative sources
of modernity and, in contemporary societies, feminism and various of value, life-style and perspective.
components within the green movement. These social movements are
Wealso need to take accountof the various ways in which thefeminist
clearly not identical and they are also not necessarily related to each
critique of patriarchal religions and the postmodern critique of
other. However, they have in various ways challenged the uni
rationalism interact to provide yet another source of alternative values
dimensional notion of rationality in modernity, the emphasis on reason
to traditional Christian systems. The primary assumptions of the
rather than emotions, the concept of a grand narrative, and a ideological
Abrahamic faiths have been patriarchal since they are based upon
view of history. This picture of the relationship between modernity and
postmodernity appears to me to be historically more satisfactory than ^ Z ^ ^ T ^ ^ ^ d i v i ne S o n s h ip a nd a Pa£riarcha"
alternative positions which suggest that postmodernism has its specific n f^
origins in, for example, post-war developments in communication ol the Abrahamic religions provides a powerful alternative In so far as
technology or in the development of new middle classes in a we treat western rationalism as a patriarchal form of thought, post-
7^*cT mi™m TuqUally
consumerist culture. The secular version of modernity which we find h°Stile to t he *rand n a ^s of
S S ^ S T l m !y
within Protestantism has, therefore, found its alternative in a variety of mstrumentalis* *"ionalism of western
social movements which have questioned the authority of rational and
The point of this argument is not to claim that the baroque was
individualistic views of reality.
postmodern but rather to identify a series of contrasts in western
If this position has any validity then the conceptualisation of
history which either prefigured or imitated some of the contrasts of the
secularisation becomes much more complex. First, in the contemporary ^S^A^9"^
b C t W e en m ° d e m i ty a nd Postmodernity. I
world the major threat to Calvinistic or Protestant forms of religiosity
may no longer appear in the guise of rationalism as in the nineteenth tZ2h
^ b ° U r g e o is environn*nt of northern Europe,
century but in the challenge of postmodernity and consumerism. The
with modernist tendencies, and therefore I have tried to argue that the
challenge of rationality, as described, for example, by Mrs Humphrey
Counter-Reformation and baroque culture represented an alternative
Ward in Robert Elsmere in 1888, no longer appears as the most
set of values practices and institutions which, to some extent, mirrored
significant opposing force against the type of religion represented by
the modern development of postmodernity. I also want to argue that
up r^a
western Protestantism. The postmodernisation of society has produced mstrumental rationalism, because it is based "
o r
a profound critique, at least at the level of intellectual exchange, of the
r etWC °f W°ririmaSt6ry'tCnds t0 be PatriarcLi^S
format and its assumptions. The development of Mariology inside the