Religion and Globalization

Humanity, Globalization, and Worldwide Religious Resurgence: A Theoretical Exploration
Author(s): Roland Robertson and JoAnn Chirico

Source: Sociological Analysis, Vol. 46, No. 3 (Autumn, 1985), pp. 219-242
Published by: Oxford University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3710691 .
Accessed: 23/01/2015 14:34
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Oxford University Press and Association for the Sociology of Religion, Inc. are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Sociological Analysis.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 129.97.58.73 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 14:34:40 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Sociological
Analysis1985,46:3 219-242
Humanity,
Globalization,and Worldwide
ReligiousResurgence:
A TheoreticalExploration
Roland Robertson
University
ofPittsburgh
JoAnnChirico
andJefferson
Washington
College
a remarkable
occurrence
sociocultural
In recent
yearswe havewitnessed
ofreligion-connected
a resurgence
acrosstheglobe;notably,
phenomena
ofreligious
"fundamentalisms,"
manyofthem
theintimacy
andpoliticalissues;a largenumber
emphasizing
ofreligious
ofcasesofchurch-state
movements.
It isarguedthattheglobality
and theriseofmanynewreligious
tension;
oftheresurinsociological
terms
concerns
canonlybeunderstood
genceofreligious
andquasi-religious
byestabas suchandwhichconceptualan analytical
schemawhichgraspstheglobalcircumstances
lishing
Presentation
theevolutionary-historical
izestheprocesses
yielding
thematization
of humanity.
of
classicalandcontemporary
thatagrument
isfollowed
bya briefdiscussion
ofrelevant
sociological
in
condition
withan analytical
Thepaperconcludes
perspectives.
explication
oftheglobal-human
tothesignificance
andinreference
terms
ofmajordimensions
oftheprocess
ofglobalization
ofreligiousand sacredimplications
ofthatprocess.
We claimthatserioussocial-scientific
discussionof religiousbeliefand practicein a
ofthe modern
globalperspective
mustinvolvea basic concernwiththecrystallization
iftheProblemstellung
consistsin accountingfor
globalcircumstances.
More specifically,
thenear-worldwide
ofreligiousfundamentalism,
theextensivedevelopment
resurgence
of newreligiousmovements
withinconmovements
(includingliberational-theological
ventionalchurchesand denominations),and the proliferation
and sharpeningof
church-state
tensionsacrossmuchofthemodernworld,we mustat leastproducea theorysketchofthecontoursofand processesat workin respectoftheglobeas a socioculturalphenomenon.
theargument
Initiallyshortcircuiting
somewhat,we needto tacklethequestion:how
is "theglobe"possible?
That is askedin thesamegeneralspiritas Simmel'sposingofthe
ofdifferences
question:howis societypossible?Regardless
oftheminutiae
betweenthem,
a similarquestionwas asked,inter
alia, byToennies,Durkheimand Max Weberin the
classicalperiodofsociology(but in thosecases withmoreattentionthanSimmelgave
to variationin societalform).Indeed,the questionof"thepossibility"
of sociocultural
phenomenahas, we claim,been at the heartof the sociological-theoretical
enterprise
(Robertson,1980).Most frequently
thephenomenabeinganalyzedhave,indeed,been
societalin nature.In otherwords,the questionconcerning
"possibility"
has been most
in
frequently
addressed relationto theterritorial,
nationalsociety(oftenin termsofthe
waysin whichindividualsare relatedto society).It willbe seen later,however,that
somemajortheorists
did notor havenotconfinedthemselves
to thesocietallevel,while
in any case the issueofglobalorderis increasingly
visiblein a numberof disciplinary
and interdisciplinary
contexts.
219

220
SOCIOLOGICALANALYSIS
fromKant,but it also includes

derivesprimarily
perspective"
Clearly,"thepossibility
The questionof possibility
to Kant'sontologyand epistemology.
traditionsof reaction
is in, anycase,pivotedupon theissueofmodesofknowing.Since Hegel,philosophers
have been greatlyconcernedwiththe questionof the grounding
and social scientists
ofand feedbackbetween
ofthemodesofknowingor withthedegreeofinterpenetration
Bythetimeofclassicalsociology(1890-1920),nascentsociology"reason"and "reality."
ofknowledge-hadsyson theidea ofthesocialdetermination
of-knowledge-centered
ofknowledge
between,on theone hand,categories
focusedtherelationship
tematically
knowledge(society)and, on the
engenderedin and by the object of social-scientific
knowledge.
social-scientific
other,the categoriesof inter-subjective
of societywas raisedby his
Simmel'sinterestin the questionabout the possibility
ofnaturehad emphasizedthe"subpointingout thatKant'sapproachto thepossibility
of nature-namely,thatthe latterwas renderedpossibleby the
jective"construction
to knowa non-humandomain.Specificconceptsand categories-such
cognitiveeffort
forthecognitionofthat
appropriate
as space,time,and causality-weretranscendentally
ofsocithepossibility
external,non-humandomain.On theotherhand,in addressing
ety,Simmelarguedthatit was theobjectofsociologicalknowledgewhichproducedthe
a prioriathatmade societypossible;in the specialsense,however,thatthe objectof
Societyis
relationships.
and entity/observer
consistsin object/subject
knowledgeitself
viscapacities
its
assimilative
it,
by
studyof
madepossible,priorto sociological-observer
features
of indinon-assimilable
a-visindividuals,on theone hand,and theultimately
in thepresent
muchofourthinking
informs
viduals,on theother.Simmel'sperspective
context(Simmel1965:337-56).
in thepresentcontextto pursuetheseparticunorappropriate
It is neithernecessary
wouldrequirebotha historyofideas abouttherelationship
further-which
lar matters
and an autonomousdiscussionof reasonsfortaking
betweencategoriesand "reality"
to transcendthe long debate.Let us simplysay thatsocial-scisidesin or attempting
largenumberof "mementistsand otherexplicitobservers-aswellas an increasingly
or unity(which
wholeness
a
of
its
at
share
sense
least
modern
bers" ofthe
globalsystem
as
To speakof the modernglobalcircumstance
is not to say its empiricalintegration).
uncon"a singleplace"has, in otherwords,becomeso commonas to makeit virtually
ofand
although,as we willemphasizelater,therearenegativeinterpretations
troversial;
To ask whatmakes
to thatprocessofglobalization.
formsofresistance
politicoreligious
a doubleheadedquestion:how do
the modernglobalscenepossibleis to ask in effect
"do"partpullsus towardevidence
The
scene?
we/canwe knowtheunityoftheglobal
in objective,empiricalterms;the
thewholenessoftheglobalcircumstances
concerning
In sum,
matters.
us to considermore"subjective"
secondpartofthequestionconstrains
whereasa lotofevidencemaybe adducedaboutthe
and froman historical
perspective,
example,patternsofeconomicand
growthofpatternsofempiricalconnectedness-for
in which
theterms
also
to comprehend
need
domination-we
and
dependence
political
these
two
In
known.
are
be
and
perspecsynthesizing
thosepatternscameto
presently
analyticallevelaboutthe waysin which
tiveswe beginto learnat the self-consciously
the globalscene is possible.
the viewthatsubjectiveknowledgeimplicatedin anysystemof
Adamantlyrejecting
to the truecomprehenis mereideologicaldistortion-irrelevant
humanrelationships

HUMANITY,GLOBALIZATION,
AND WORLDWIDERELIGIOUSRESURGENCE
221
sion ofthe systemperse-we claim,forexample,thatit makesno senseto talkofpatternsofeconomicand politicalinequalitywithoutat thesametimeinvestigating

insitu
when
an
conceptions
ofinequality.We arenot,to be evenmorespecific,
interpersuaded
preteroftheWallersteinan
tellsus thatthefirst
orderofbusiworld-systems
perspective
in economic-utilitarian
nesshas been to addressthe characterof worldsystems
terms,
to be followed-whenmuchevidencefromthatperspective
has been accumulatedand
collated-by questionsconcerningideationalaspectsof the worldsystems(Bergesen,
1980).Indeedwe wouldclaimthatit wouldbe as appropriate
ifnot so "simple"to produce an analysisofthemakingofthemodernglobalcomplexin termsofideasandcatethe globalworldas it has apparently
goriesconcerning
been forworld-systems
and dependencytheorists
to producean "objective"
ofthe
accountofthehistorical
patterning
modernworldsystemof basicallyeconomicrelationships.'
To bringthe matterto a
head,whenwe aretold(Wallerstein,
1974)thatwe mustdeal-analytically
speaking-in
totalities
we are forcedto ask the question:how do we know-or, ifyou will,how do
we "do"-totalities,
No amountofaccumulation
ofdata concerncognitively
speaking?
ofthe"thing-in-selfness"
ingthepresumption
ofempirical
connections
at thegloballevel
willdeal withthatissue.The themeoftheunityof mankind(in whateverwayit may
be specifically
cast)requiresthatwe bothknowsomething
systematic
abouttheevolutionofinsituconceptions
-conceptions whichmightwellturnout to be utilitarian,
but
conceptionsnonetheless-ofmankind,and thatwe developin self-conscious,
reflexive
modea second-order
setofconceptionsat thesocial-scientific
levelwhichwouldfacilitatethe rigorous,standardized
discussionof the waysin whichglobalitycomesto be
and is (differentially)
known.
Conceivingtotalityalongwhathe sees as linesindicatedby Mauss,Dumont(1979)
has tackledthatissueby,in fact,goingback to ideasofLiebniz;specifically,
by arguing
- in a sensehas to be regarded,
thatthe worldmaybe regarded
ifthe issueis thatof
comprehending
globalunity- as consisting,
on theone hand,in a setofglobe-wide
relabetween
societies
tionships
and, on the other,of societiesas self-contained,
"windowless"
mondads.In attempting
to synthesize
the principlesof holismand individualism,
Dumontregardsrelationsbetweensocietiesas constituting
thewhole,withsocieties-conceivedforanalyticalpurposesas closed-reflecting
theprincipleofdiversity
withinthe
largerwhole. He thus graspsthe epistemological
problemof allowingboth forindividualityand discontinuity,
on theone hand,and wholenessand systemic
continuity,
on theother-inreference
to theglobeas a totalsociocultural
phenomenon.Dumont's
to thisproblem-area
entry-point
consistsin the wishto reconcileanthropology's
commitment
to theunityofmankindwithitscommitment
to theuniquenessofindividual
societies(a tensionwhichis,ofcourse,notconfinedto thedisciplineofanthropology).2
Such an entry-point
is certainly
compatible
withtheinterests
guidingthepresentanaly'It shouldbe added thatit is centralto the presentessaythatwhatwe call globality-theobjectof study
impliedbyBergesen's
(1980)notionofglobology-is
inextricably
bound-upwithprocessesofindividuation,
althoughcertainly
not simplyutilitarian
individuation.
Bergesenimpliesthatindividualism
and utilitarianism
are synonymous.
2Dumont'seffort
is closelybound-upwithhisoverallattempt
to contrastand philosophically-anthropologicallyreconcileWestern"ideological"
emphasesupon individualism
and equalitywithEasternemphasesupon
wholismand hierarchy.
See, forexample,Dumont(1977) and Dumont(1983).

222
thisissuein a mannerwhichwouldallow
sis.However,we seeka methodofaddressing
and dynamicsas well as synchronicity
would,
and structure-which
fordiachronicity
withthecentralprocessesinvolvedin thecrystallizain otherwords,cope conceptually
at theglobal
and diversity-within-unity
tionand reproduction
ofunity-beyond-diversity
level.
proceedsIn thatspecific
regard,we do not- as willbe madecleareras theargument
believethatthe categoriesof individualsocietiesand the systemof societiesare sufficient.Rather,we willarguethat,giventheexistenceofa globalcomplexwhichdisplays
a theory
both bounded societalunits and a widespreadsense of global continuity,
national
sketchof thatcomplexrequiresthe following
basiccomponents:(a) individual
to whichselves
societies;
(c) individual
selves;(d) a category
societies;
(b) a system
ofnational
We willfurther
arguethat,at a morerefinedlevel
belong-man/woman
(i.e. mankind).
in all)
of analysis,relationships
between
thesefourcomponents(six setsof relationships
in minimalterms"themodernglobalcircumstance."
The
maybe used to characterize
is that of the globalnotionwhichbest capturesthis overallconceptualpatterning
emergentand mutablephenomenon.
humansystemas an historically
A Preliminary
in theGlobalSystem
Positioning
ofReligion
concernsand themes
The virtually
worldwide
eruptionofreligiousand quasi-religious
in termsoffocusing
on whathas beenhappening
cannotbe exhaustively
comprehended
within
societies.The societieswhichhave been affected
by upsurgesofresociologically
ligiousexpressionduringthe past two decadesor so are too diverseforthatapproach
a numberofclusters
ofrelatively
similarsocieties(for
to suffice-although
undoubtedly
similarin sociologicaland
example,thosein theNorthAtlanticarea)maybe sufficiently
explanatory
leverageby comparingsocieties
historicaltermsforus to geta significant
withina cluster.Generallyspeaking,however,the worldwideness
of the religiousupin itstotality.
surgedemandsthatwe considerthe globalcircumstances
the comparative,
intra-sociThe onlyotheralternative
precluding
(not,incidentally
That has at leastone serious
perspective.
etal,or theglobalapproaches)is thediffusionist
disadvantage.This is centeredon thefactthatthe nearlyglobalupsurgein religionof
thelastfifteen-to-twenty
yearshas involveda largevarietyofreligiousdoctrines.More
whichare sometimes
theglobalrevivalconsistsin largepartofmovements
specifically,
ofeach other.This factorlargelypreand frequently
hostileto thefortunes
indifferent
ofideasamongthosewithshared
tackswhichemphasizethediffusion
cludesexplanatory
It makestherecentcross-societal
interests.
unlike,forexreligiousrevivalsociologically
studentmovement
ofthelate 1960s.In thelattercase- quite
ample,theverywidespread
was clearlya senseofan international
determinants-there
(or
apartfromintra-societal
withstudentsin one societyor a groupofsocietiesemulata transnational)
movement,
thosein anothersocietyor othersocietieson thebasisofa perceived
ingand influencing
That is not,however,to saythatshared
shared-or,at least,shareable-setofinterests.
basisin thepreson a cross-societal
material
absent
areentirely
interestsidealand/or
movements
we can see
ent globalreligiousrevival.In the case ofliberation-theological
of shared,religiously
expressedinterests
somethingapproachingthe circumstances
on a numberof
now that liberationtheologieshave appeared,oftencollaboratively,
formofmodernlinkageacrossnational
continents.Another,perhapsverysignificant,
is thatinvolvand fundamentalisms
boundariesin relationto therevivaloforthodoxies

223
ingsomeofthefundamentalist
in theU.S.A., on theone hand,and politievangelicals
in Israel,on theother.In thisparticular
militants
coreligious
case,we have a cross-nationalamplification
of otherwisedivergent
basisfor
religiousworldviews-the
primary
themutualsupportbeingthedispensationalist
theologyofpre-millennial
evangelicalism
(withits emphasisupon the eschatological
of the imminent
fulfillment
significance
of
Jewishcongregation
in Israel),on theone hand,and a perceivedIsraelineedforpoliticoreligioussupportin the U.S.A. beyondthe JewishAmericancommunity,
on the
other(Mouly and Robertson,1983).
The globalapproachhas the advantageofbeingable to takebothintra-societal
and
diffusional
factorsintoaccountand ofincorporating
themintoa higherlevelanalytic.
Before,however,attempting
tojustify
thatclaim,letus briefly
directly
consideran interestingapproachwhichpromisesto accountforintra-societal
trendsin primary
religious
reference
to the functioning
of and changesin "theworldorder."Wuthnow'sanalyses
ofmodernreligiousmovements
restconsiderably
upon theclaimthatmodernreligious
movements
are bestunderstoodin reference
to majorchangesin worldorder,defined
as "a transnational
divisionoflaborin whichsocietiesand members
ofsocietiesparticipate, necessitating
recurrent,
patternedexchange(economic,political,and cultural)
acrossnationalboundaries"
intocoreand peripheral
(Wuthnow,1980:58).Stratification
areasis themajorconsequenceofthetransnational
of
division economiclabor."As with
societies,the statusof theseareasand the relationsamongthemtendto be patterned
and legitimated
of reality"(Wuthnow,1980:59).A centralthesis
by broad definitions
is thatstratawithinsocietiesare deeplyaffected
by shiftsin thepoliticoeconomic
relationsbetweenand amongsocieties.Even thoughWuthnow(1980:60)announcesat one
pointthata society'sreligiousorientations
channelits actionsand affectits influence
on theworldorder,hisgeneralemphasisis upontheclaimthat"thechorusofresponses"
are "deeply"conditionedby the instabilities
presentin the largerworld-system."
Thiscannotbe theplacefora fullassessment
ofthedegreeto whichWuthnow's
(1978,
1980,1983)empirically-focused
discussions
oftheimpactofshifts
in primarily-economic
relationsbetweennationsupon religiousmovementsand trendswithinsocietiesare
We mustconfineourselvesto a fewgeneralobservations.First,his apconvincing.3
proachleaveslittleor no roomforconsideration
ofthewaysin whichthenationalstate
and the relationships
betweenstatesand "their"individualsand groupsaffector are
bound-upwithreligious
trends.Second,Wuthnowdoes notaddressthequestionofthe
circumstances
underwhichtherewillbe religious-asopposedto irreligious
or areligious-responsesto intra-societal
dislocations.Third,in spiteof his greatconcernwith
relationsamongnationalsocieties,Wuthnowdoes not consider-although
he does,en
passant,mention-thephenomenonof ideationalconstructions
ofthe relationsamong
nations.It is almostas ifhe weresayingthatrelationsbetweensocietiesare primarily
economic-withpoliticaland military
ramifications-but
thatideasonlyenterthepictureas intra-societal
outcomesof inter-societal
relations.
3Norcan we discussherethewaysin whichWallerstein's
veryrecentworkhas involveda shiftawayfrom
his earlierstatements
concerning
the epiphenomenal
statusof religion.See, forexample,Wallerstein
(1982)
and Wallerstein
(1983).Of particular
interest
is Wallerstein's
recentconcernwith"themetaphysical
presuppositions"operativeat the world-system
level.The presentessayissuesdirectlyfromRobertsonand Klepin
(Chirico)(1980)and we have decidedto letour thoughtsstandwithoutcomparingthemherewiththe new
turnin Wallersteinian
theory.

224
One major consequenceof Wuthnow'sargumentsis that his empirically-focused

could probablybe as welladdressedin terms
sketchesofformsofreligiousmovements
framedby internationalwhichhave been parametrically
developments
ofintra-societal
theextremeexternveers
toward
claim
generalizing
economicprocesses.His theoretical,
all interestforvirtually
alistposition;namely,thatwe can accountsocial-scientifically
of and shiftsin the pattern
phenomenaas outcomesof the structure
ingintra-societal
however,ofupholding
ofrelationsbetweenand amongsocieties.We haveno intention,
aboutthemodern
positionperse. We seekto promotea wayofthinking
an internalist
debatesv.
exogeny)
endogeny
(or
external
v.
internal
theold
worldwhichtranscends
theantinomy
butbygrounding
to renderan antinomyas a compatibility,
notby trying
and
betweenexternalist
in a conceptionoftheworldorder.4Groundingthe antinomy
and
of trans-societal
of the simultaneity
involvesa witnessing
perspectives
internalist
on theother.(Yet we
matters,
issues,on theone hand,and intra-societal
inter-societal
concernedin thispaperwithoutward"flows"fromsocieties.)
are particularly
considerthe formin whichreligioncan be locatedin such a frameof
Let us briefly
For a start,it has to be emphasizedthatjust as we oughtto do awaywith
reference.
so we have to do awaywithsimplereligion/nondichotomies,
simpleexternal/internal
Perhapsthebestwayofgivingsubstanceto thiscontentionis by
religiondichotomies.
to therecent,widespreadfocuson the relationsbetweenreligionand politics
referring
oftheserelationand betweenchurchand state.We maintainthattheproblematization
simul-by thinking
- at leastin theearlystagesofinquiry
shipscan onlybe understood
pairs.
related,interpenetrating
taneouslyabout both sidesof each of theseintimately
probofmodernchurch-state
In otherwords,thereis no primafaciereasonforthinking
It
of "churches." is equallyplausible
simplyupon the revitalization
lemsas contingent
to thinkin termsofchanges,or at leasttrends,withrespectto theoperationofmodern
to puzzleabout the recentconflationof religiousand political
Similarly,
statesystems.
tackledin termsof the politicalas it is of
issuesis, on the faceof it, as appropriately
and interthatinterlocking
the religiousdimension.In factit is partof our argument
on thesefronts
oughtto takeus beyond-butnotin thesenseofevadingpenetration
the debate about social secularization.
The coreof our thesisin thisregardinvolveswhatin one sensemaybe regardedas
In brief,whilethe state
and desecularization.
simultaneous
processesof secularization
has enlargeditssphereofoperationundertheguisesofenhancingthequalityoflifeand
thefunctionality
(internaland external)ofthesocietyforwhichitassumesresponsibility,
matterson twofronts-one
it has at the sametimebecomeembroiledin quasi-religious
In the formerrespectthe statehas becomeinthe otherextra-societal.
intra-societal,
d'etres
and raisons
suchas definitions
matters
involvedin a rangeof"deep-life"
creasingly
of birth,death,old age, sexuality,and otherdimensionsof individualand collective
and reward.(This is whatHabermashas called"thecolonizationof
meaning,suffering
modernstateshavebecomeconcerned,inter
alia, withquesExternally,
thelife-world.")
and
tionsof humanrights,inequalitybetweenand amongnations,nationalidentities
and externally
so on. In sum,thestatehas becomemoreand moreconcernedinternally
in Martins(1974).
forwhathe callsthe"isogenous"
perspective
argument
Mauss-inspired
4Seetheimportant
problem.
ignoringthe endogeny-exogeny
The isogenousmode of analysisinvolvessystematically

225
withwhatParsonscalledtelicmatters-thatis, mattershavingto do with"theendsof

the thematization
ofthe
man"(Parsons,1978:352-443).At the sametime,we suggest,
notionsof societyas "runby"the stateand of thesystem
ofmodernstates-thatis, the
of the "out-there
of societyand the systemof interrelated
consciousness
functionality"
the senseof individuality
and personality;
societies-propelsand amplifies
and, more
issuesconcerningthe natureof humanity.
diffusely,
helpsto crystallize
In otherwords,at one and thesametimetheostensibly
secularstatehas movedinto
heretofore
sacredrealmsand the "clientadherents"
of modernstateshave in various
waysbecomeconsciousofthe"fabricated"
natureofthestate-run
society.The modern
state"invites"
butnotwhollybecauseitis increasingly
religious
encroachment,
precisely
concernedwithmatterstraditionally
associatedwiththereligiousdomain.This is parclearin thecase ofthoseWestern,
Protestant-dominated
ticularly
societieswhichsince
theReformation
have developed,in varyingdegrees,patternsofchurch-state
and religion-politics
differentiation.
and Humanity
Sociology
In recentyears,the term"humanity"
and variantsthereofhave been used withinin a numberofacademicdisciplines.5
creasingfrequency
thefocuson huUndoubtedly,
manrights
duringtheCarterpresidency
accelerated
interest
in thisrespect;butthemodernemergence
ofconcernwithhumanrightsis, we insist,an enduringpartofa larger
ofconsciousness
crystallization
aboutmatters
transcending
nationalsocieties.Sincethe
concernduringthe eighteenth
centuryEnlightenment
withthe Rightsof Man, some
ofthemostprominent
ofWesternintellectuals
havewritten
on suchthemes
extensively
as humannature,thehumancondition,humanrightsand humanity,
oftenin theform
ofprograms
forthe enhancement
of humanlife.Whilenot denyingthata numberof
theseprograms
havebeenhighlyinfluential
in thewriting
ofnationalconstitutions,
the
compositionof formalstatements
of humanrights(Laqueurand Rubin, 1977)and in
shapingideologiesand utopias,relatively
littleattentionhas been paid to the circumstancesunderwhichwidespreadconcernwithhumanityarises.
To be muchmoreprecise,therewas considerable
interest
in thecircumstances
yieldingconcernwithwhatwe herecall humanity
in theperiodsofpre-classical
and classical
sociology(1890-1920),but thatinteresthas not been amongthe manyaspectsof the
workoftheclassicalsociologists
whichhave receivedintensivediscussion.6
Durkheim's
ideason themodernemergence
ofconcernwiththecultoftheindividualhavenotbeen
widelyexploredin directreference
to his ideas concerning
extra-societal
formsof life.
5A considerablenumberofsociologytextbookswiththe word"human"or "humanity"

in theirtitleshave
beenpublishedin recentyears.Not one,so faras we know,providesan empirical
rootingofthephenomenon
alludedto, otherthanoccasionallyin termsofideas such as basic humanneeds.The mostrecenteditionof
theInternational
Encyclopedia
oftheSocialSciences
(Sills,ed., 1968)contains
noentry
undertheheadings
of"humanity"or"human
condition,"
although
there
isa conspicuously
non-sociological
entry
under"human
rights."
(NordoesESS
have contributions
on "individual"
or "individualism"!)
6Spaceconsiderations
precludemuchdiscussionof pre-classical
contributions
to the themeof humanity.
Suffice
to sayherethatMarxhad muchto sayaboutthetopicand thatrecentMarxianscholarship
has shown
a lotofinterest
in Marx'sconceptionofmankindand hisconceptionoftheindividual.An important
contributionwithsome bearingon the presentessayis Seve (1978).

226
SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS
betweenindividualsand sochangingrelationships
Simmel'sconceptionsofhistorically
ofthecatewhilehisbriefdelineations
littleattention;
cietieshavereceivedexceedingly
havebeen,to all intentsand purposes,ignored.Max Weber'scomplex
goryofhumanity
trendfromwhat Nelson (1969) called tribal
ideas concerninga universal-historical
to universalotherhood,the fateof the themeof the Rightsof Man and
brotherhood
of the nationalsociety
on the resilienceand necessity
nonetheless,
his own insistence,
have not been adequatelydissected,let alone broughtintobalance.
were,of course,
These relatively
unexploitedideas of the majorclassicalsociologists
century
fignineteenth
foundedpartlyon or in reactionto theideasofsuchimportant
uresas Comte,Marx and Nietzsche.Partlyin responseto Comte,Durkheimdeveloped
abstractconceptionofthe
whichdid notreferto a relatively
a conceptionofhumanity
Great Being which transcendsquotidianman/woman(witha religionproscriptively
procfromsocietaldifferentiation;
addedtothe latter),but ratherwas seen as emerging
and inofcivilizations;
the crystallization
and individualization;
essesof individuation
level.In responsesto Marxand Nietzsche,
at theinter-societal
creasinginterdependence
ofhumanity
in themodeofa category
ofindividualorientaSimmelsawthesignificance
fromsocieties.Broadlyspeaking,
ofindividuals
tionwhichresultedfromthe"alienation"
oftheclaimofNietzsche-whichin generalterms
a modification
thatviewconstituted
reasonswas also theviewofMarx-thatthegenuinehumanbeingbeand fordifferent
itshouldbe noted,claimedthatmanhad become
ginswherethestateends.(Durkheim,
in the relationship
betweenindividuaa god forman largelybecauseofthe reciprocity
on theone hand,and thegrowthofthestate,on theother).
tionand individualization,
in responseto
the salienceof the politicalfactor-largely
Weberemphasizedstrongly
Marx'semphasison the economicfactor-andwas oftenmoreconcernedto demonas opposedto developing
hislessexplicitideasconstratetheclosureofthenation-state,
otherhood."However,therewouldappearto be no good theoretical
cerning"universal
Weber'sviewswithrespectto theboundednessofthenation-state
reasonforregarding
universalotherhoodthanforregarding
as anylesscompatiblewithhisviewsconcerning
withhis
ofthemodernstateas incompatible
Durkheim'sideas aboutthestrengthening
life"and his questfora global
of a higher"international
ideas about the development
morality.Even thoughthesetwo setsof ideas are not preciselyanalogous,theyboth
betweensocietiesand individuals.
questionsabout relationships
pose significant
werenot onlywell-aware
In anycase,our convictionis thattheclassicalsociologists
and
betweensocietalviability individualconcernwith
oftheproblemoftherelationship
butthattheywereveryconsciousoftheconnectionbetweenthesetwo
meaningfulness,
Perhapssociologists
phenomenaand processesofchangein thedirectionof"globality."
havebeenmisledin thisregardbythefactthatpeoplesuchas Toennies,Weber,Simmel
inreaction
to preand Durkheimbecamepreoccupiedwiththeissueofsocietalviability
Each
of
"the
end
of
in
and
interest
gemeinschaft."
viousnineteenth-century
conceptions
the
taken
the
had
of
societies
because
thatsimply
past
ofthemrejectedtheassumption
(ratherthan the associationalor organic)formor
communalor mechanical-solidarity
becausesocietywas challengedby "thecultoftheindividual"modernsocietyis nonviable.Much ofclassicalsociologywas devotedto thetaskofshowingthatsocietiescould
remaina mathenationalsocietywouldforeseeably
takenewformsand that,moreover,
formofhumanexistence.Butsuchfocicertainly
jor,unavoidableand indeednecessary

HUMANITY, GLOBALIZATION, AND WORLDWIDE RELIGIOUS RESURGENCE
227
does notmeanthattheywereobliviousto thetrans-societal

indicatedor
developments
prescribed
by some of theirimmediatepredecessors.
In reference
to Kant'snotionof basic humanpresuppositions
and Nietzsche'sadvocacyofautonomoushumanaction-ratherthanactionheteronomously
guidedby cultural,societalor religiousconstraints-Simmel
becameinterested
in two closelyconnectedaspectsoftheproblemofhumanity.
On theone hand,he madethesimplepoint
-in revisionofNietzsche-thatlookingat humanexperiencein theframeof"humanity"was butoneoffourformsofapprehension
or analysis(theotherthreebeingculture,
societyand individual).Nietzschehad chosenbutone wayofconsidering
humanexperience. However,accordingto "taste"and circumstance,
it was equallyvalidto consider
experience
in,forexample,theframeofsociety.Simmelthusrelativized
Nietzsche's
position.First,he arguedthatNietzschehad somewhatarbitrarily
selectedone frameof
analysis,claimingthat it was the only appropriateone. Second, he maintainedthat
Nietzsche'swayof thinkingwas, in significant
of empiricalchanges
part,a refraction
(Simmel,1912).The latterpointindicatesthetendencyin Simmel'sthoughtwhichinvolvedhimin focusingnot merelyupon the analyticalcategories
ofhumanexperience
as such,butalso on theempirical
circumstances
whichledto theintellectual
production
ofone-sidedtheories-astrategy
whichhe also employedin relationto Marx (Simmel,
1978).
Simmelarguedthatwhathe calledthe"valuesofhumanexistence"
differ
profoundly
fromsocialvalues,in thatthelatterrestprimarily
upontheeffects
ofindividuals,
where
as humanvaluesinvolvethe"immediate
existenceofman."FollowingNietzsche,
Simmel
(in Wolff,1950:63)insistedthat it is the "qualitativebeingof the personality
which
marksthestagethatthedevelopment
ofmankindhas reached. . ." It is thusnot only
in a quantitativesensethatmankindis morethan society.
Mankind
isnotmerely
thesumofallsocieties:
itisanentirely
different
synthesis
ofthesame
. . . Society
elements
thatinothersyntheses
result
insocieties.
requires
theindividual
todifferentiate
himself
from
thehumanly
general,
butforbids
himtostandoutfrom
thesocially
general-inrecent
historical
periods
intowhich[theindividual]
[the]conflicts
fallswithhispoliticalgroup,
withhisfamily
. . . etc.,haveeventually
becomesublimated
intotheabstract
need
... forindividual
freedom.
Thisisthegeneral
category
thatcametocoverwhatwascommon
in thevariousclaimsoftheindividual
against
society
(Simmel
in Wolff,
1950:63-4)
Much ofwhathas recently
beenwritten
withrespectto and diagnosedas "narcissism,
and so on, could,we believe,be enhancedin termsofSimmel'sincipient
"self-concern,"
lineof argument
concerning
theempiricaldifferentiation
ofthecategoryof humanity.
Therearemanycircumstances
in themodernworldwhichpushor pullindividuals
out
ofparticularistic
involvement
in conventionally-used
socialcategories,
leavingthem,so
to say,face-to-face
withpotentially
universalistic
and/or"ultimate,"
concerns.Striking
and acutemanifestations
ofthisphenomenonareto be foundin manymodernmedical
situations,
notablythoseinvolving
confusionaboutthedefinition
ofdeathand theprolongationoflife.Thisphenomenonhas alsobeendramatically
and poignantly
displayed
in muchoftherecentresurgence
ofgeneralized,
as opposedto specifically
Jewish,
concernwiththeHolocaust;as wellas withtherealisticpossibility
ofthedemiseofthehuman species.Thus, in essence,we drawfromSimmelthemajorpointthatthe modern
relationbetweenthe individualand societyis such as to raiseincreasingly
such ques-

228
tionsas: Whatdoes it mean to be human?What criteriaare to be used in assessingabsolutelyor relativistically-the

attributes
ofbeinghuman?Whatare,to-useParsons'
phrase,"theendsofman?"Whatanalyticalnormsare to be used in discussionsof"the
ends of man?"
Durkheimapproachedtheproblemfroma different
angle.However,hisand Simmel's
viewsdo convergesignificantly.
The primary
difference
pivotsupon Durkheim'sinsistencethatthefullydevelopedindividualis a socialentity,in contrastto Simmel'sview
thatthe individualis increasingly
an extra-societal
entity.Durkheimclaimedthatwe
wouldsoon as individualshave littlein commonbutour humanity.In fact,Durkheim
appearedto thinkthatthediversification
ofindividuals
to thepointthattheyhad nothingmuchin commonas members
ofsocially-specific
groupswouldconstitute
a consummationofmenand women'ssocietality.
In otherwords,forDurkheim,
thediversification
of individualsoccurreddirectly
in termsof the internaldifferentiation-but
we would
claimalso, the externaldifferentiation-of
societies.The long-term
resultof processes
of(social)individuation
was a pluralistic
assimilation
on thepartofindividualsofwhat
mightbe calledessentialsocietality.
Individualsbecomethebearers
of"deepsocietality."
Here,ofcourse,is a remnantofComte'sthinking-inthesensethatwhenComtetried
to establisha programforthe institutionalized
celebrationof society,he labelledthat
formof celebrationthe "religionof humanity."
Thus thereseemsto have been a tendencywithinthe earlyFrenchsociological(and, indeed,political)traditionto equate
thatwhichis mostbasicallysocial (or societal)withthe notionof humanity.Striking
ofthisis to be foundin a comparisonofmaximsdrawnrespectively
confirmation
from
Kant and Durkheim,and the use of Kantianideas by Simmelin hisdiscussionof the
ofhumanity.
Kantarguedthatalthougha manis profane,
category
themankindin him
is sacred;whileDurkheim(1974:34)maintainedthatiftheindividualis spiritual,
"sociThe factthatSimmel,as wellas Durkheim,invokedKant'sorigety"is hyperspiritual.
inalmaximin orderto makesomewhat
different
in relainterest
pointsis ofconsiderable
tion to the issuein question.
On theotherhand,we findthatDurkheim(1961,463-96)spokeofthetranscendence
to whathe called"international
ofconcrete,nationalsocietiesin reference
life,"in such
in thetwentieth
a wayas to implythattherewouldarise,increasingly,
centurya categoryofconcern,whichby conventionalsociologicalstandardsdoes not,strictly
speaking, belong at the societal-but ratherat the civilizationalor extra-national-level
(Durkheimand Mauss, 1971). Additionalsubstancecan be providedby pointingto
ofthoughtbecameincreasingly
claimthat,in themodernworld,categories
Durkheim's
releasedfromtheirsocialor societalmooringsand, as he put it,takeon a lifeoftheir
own. In this,and manyotherareasof Durkheim'soeuvre,we encountera generalized
and universalism,
one crucialaspect
betweenparticularism
interestin therelationship
betweenDurkheim'smoralrelativism
havingto do withtherelationship
(i.e., morality
as beingsocietallyspecificand bound-upwiththe social realitiesof each society)and
relativizedsocietalrelamoraluniversalism
his humanity-oriented
(which,in effect,
of societalchange).
tivism,as an outgrowth
In dealingwiththe othergreatsociologistof the classicalperiodthe situationis far
morecomplex.Max Weberwas,to put it mildly,skepticalaboutthe modernconcern
withwhathas come to be called humanrights.It would appearthatWeber(1978:6)
under
thoughtthatin themodernworlddeep concernwithmatterswe are addressing

229
fanaticould in extremeformderivefroma kindofcharismatic

thecategoryhumanity
conparallelwithFreud'sdeveloping
cism.(In thatrespectthereis,surely,a remarkable
in thesameperiod.)7And yet,as we have indicated,thereis a very
cernwithnarcissism
trendin the direcstrandof Weber'sworkthatindicateda world-historical
significant
otherhood."That trendwas,ofcourse,one whichwas in continuous
tionof"universal
In anycase,thereis littledoubt
of"tribalbrotherhood."
rivalry
withthecounter-trend
thatWeberknewwellthatthereweretrendsin themodernworldwhichraisedacutely
theproblemofthedegreeto whichone couldsensiblyassigntheindividualto thesimNothingdisplaysthistrendin Weber'sthoughtbetter
ple statusof member-of-society.
in the
thanthetwofamousessayson thevocationsofpoliticsand science.Particularly
Weberraisedwhatmightbe calledthe modernLutheranproblemconcerning
former,
on theone hand,and thefuncthelinkbetweentheultimateconcernsofindividuals,
tionaloperationofsocietieson theother.In thisrespect,we arepersuadedby Schluchto prescribe
an individualmodeofexistence
thatWeberattempted
ter's(1979)argument
thenatureofWeber'sown
thosedomains.Notwithstanding
whichwassituatedbetween
acknowitis clearthathe, as a socialscientist,
attitudetowardthemodernpredicament,
and the deledgedthe tensionbetweenthe demandsof purelysocietalmembership
Nietzsche,called the stateof one's being.
mandsof whatSimmel,following
of
Weber'sleadinginterest
was, course,in themakingofthemodern"ironcage;"and
fuelwasburned)
oftheidea ofitsresilience
(untilthelasttonoffossilized
thepromotion
to attempts
madehimreactnegatively
to escapefromit. Moreover,he was equallyadaofreasonhad been formative
in remantin denyingthatthe charismatic
glorification
FollowingJellenik,
spectof modernformsof economicand politicalindividualism.
thesocialcelebratory
originsof
WeberarguedagainstRousseauesqueideasconcerning
asmodernideasaboutdemocracy;
insteadthecontribution
ofPuritanical
emphasizing
in theserespectsmaybe, the fact
ceticism.However,as cogentas Weber'sarguments
of his
remainsthat he leftrelatively
unattendedthe consequencesand implications
by a
domainis constituted
imageof a dualisticconditionin whichthe "non-societal"
massofdiscreteindividual-personal
be too muchto say
values.Whileitwouldcertainly
thereis littledoubt
thatWeberentirely
theory(ofpersonality),
lackeda psychological
thathisdistrust
of"depthpsychology"in hishostileattitudetowardFreud's
manifested
angle,we would suggestthat
work-inhibitedhim in this respect.From a different
Weberinsufficiently
followed-through
in respectoftheNietzscheanprognosisconcerngods."8
ing the returnof "theprimordial
'On thisneglectedaspectofWeber'sideasaboutcharisma,see Roth(1979).On thepsychoanalytic
context
ofFreud'sworkon narcissism,
see Homans(1979).Sennett(1978)linksnarcissism
to themodernconcernwith
charismaas "a psychicstriptease."
The link betweenpsycho-cultural
narcissismand exemplary-prophecy
charismais impliedbyKakar(1978).Our enpassantinterest
in narcissism
in thisessayderives,ofcourse,from
thefocuson thatthemeas a centerpiece
ofmodernthesesconcerning
self-centeredness
at theexpenseofcaringabout societyand the qualityofpubliclife,and thestate'sencroachment
upon personallife.The critical
focuson narcissism
has ignoredattempts
on thepartofsomeoftheclassicalsociologists
to cope analytically
with"thecultofthe individual"in reference
to the categoryof humanity.In evolutionary
terms,the phylo- as opposedto theontogenetic
- significance
genetic
ofnarcissism
has beenoverlooked.Evenmoreimportant
the"constructive,"
empathy-inducing
aspectsofsecondarynarcissism
emphasizedby Kohut(1978)have been
largelyignoredby recentcriticsof modernlife.
8Thelinksbetweenthistheme,Nietzsche's
ideasconcerning
"eternalrecurrence"
and Jung-who,ofcourse,
had muchrespectforNietzsche'sideas-on archetypes
and the collectiveunconsciouscannotbe explored
here,althoughthe paragraphswhichfollowtouchon them.

230
parallelbetweenthepredicament
to pointto a remarkable
It is,we think,worthwhile
formsby Durkheimand Simmel)and the controsketchedby Weber(and in different
versieswhichbrokeout, in roughlythe same period,in the nascentpsychoanalytic
to thedetails-nortakmovement(McGuire,1974;Homans,1979).Withoutattending
involvingFreud,Jung,Adler,et.al.,we can neveringsidesherein-the controversies
poto transcend
therespective
Jung's
attempt
thelesssummarize
thesituationas follows.
to thewayin whichWebertried
sitionsofFreudand Adlerbearsa strongresemblance
to Tolstoy-calledtheproblemof"thetwoethto deal withwhathe had-in reference
to do withthecontrastbetweenethics
ics."(In Weber'sworkthelatterhad specifically
or adaptation.Weberalso
ofconviction,
or absolutevalues,and ethicsofresponsibility,
impliedthatthe dilemmacould be consideredin termsof mysticism-versus-asceticism
tendencies.)
Jungmountedhistheand,lesseasily,in relationto Eastern-versus-Western
and Adler
Freudto the categoryofextrovert
oryofpsychological
typesby consigning
modelwas
In Jung'sperspective,
Freud'spsychoanalytic
to the categoryof introvert.
towardtheconcreteconcernsofsocieties-moreaccurately,
ofindividual
overoriented
Adler'stheorywas too muchconcernedwiththe issue
adaptationto society-whereas
ofego-subjectivity,
orpersonalidentity.
In Jung's
view,a theoryadequateto themodern
that
conditionshouldattemptto situatetheself-in facttheselfwas realized- between
one
whichwas,on the
and, on theother,thatwhich
hand,mostsocietallystructured
ultimate.The latterwas,of course,dealtwithby Jungin referwas mostprimordially
and the collectiveunconscious(or objectivepsyche).We would
ence to the archetype
concern
to emergent
exampleof sensitivity
claimthat,in thiscase, we have a striking
to theparticuwiththatwhichall humanbeingshave in common,butstillin reference
laristic,contingentand culturaldemandsof society.(cf.Homans, 1984.)
Whilewe have tendedto stresstherelativelackofattentionto theideasoftheclassiofsignificant,
in thisregard,we do notwishto minimize
theimportance
cal sociologists
betweenwritersof the past and thosefewrecentsocial scientists
explicitcontinuities
Two prominent
examaddressedtheissueofhumanity.
whohave,moreor lessdirectly,
plesofthelattershouldbe mentionedat thisjuncture.First,Habermashas drawnupon
a traditionof thought(which,to all intentsand purposes,beganwithKant) centered
modesof cognitionand valuation.
of universalistic,
trans-societal
upon the possibility
shiftto
TnHabermas'workthetraditionculminatesin his focusupon an evolutionary
whichwouldinvolvepoliticaland moralfreedom
a stageofmoralconsciousness
(as the
idea ofthegoodlife)and universalethicsofspeech(as thedominantmodeofdiscourse).
ofa parallel-butalso
Centralto Habermas'(1972:276)overalltheoryis theproposition
-between"theworld-historical
[and]
processofsocialorganization
in a sensean identity
the socializationprocessof the individual."This aspectof Habermas'workis, as will
in our own endeavor.
shortlybe seen,of pivotalsignificance
moderncase is providedby the laterworkof Parsonswho,
The second,prominent
moreexplicitly
drawingupon Kant,developedan analyticalschemecenteredupon the
notionofthehumancondition.In Parsons'delineationofthehumancondition,he esnoted,upon whathe called"telic"matters.His
peciallyfocused,as we have previously
workin thisarea was,at thetimeofhis death,onlyschematic;in the senseofhis prebetweenphysio-chemical,
outlineof the relationships
human-organic,
sentinga formal
ofthehumancondition.Parsonsdid nottacklethemore
actional,and telicsubsystems
whichamplify
concernwiththe humancondiissueof theprocesses
empirically-focused

231
tion,generally,
and the telicdimension,specifically.
The latteris of specialrelevance
here,because in defining
the telicsubsystem
as havingto do with"theends of man"
("ultimate
ground,""ultimate
order,""ultimate
agency,"and "ultimate
Parfulfillment"),
sons(1978)wentwellbeyondthesocietalframeofreference
and eventheworldsystem
and civilizational
perspectives-inthe directionof a focusupon such questionsas the
meaningand purposeofcollectiveand individual,and societaland extra-societal,
forms
oflife.In effect,
to thehumanconParsonswas arguingthatsuchquestionsareintrinsic
dition-that,in one way or another,theyare ever-present,
but increasingly
differenofthelatter.In a sense,theymakethehumancontiatedand thusthematized,
features
ditionitself"possible."Parsons'"paradigm
ofthe humancondition"was,as he empha"Theparadigmcategorizes
sized,erectedfroman anthropocentric
theworld
standpoint.
accessibleto humanexperience
in termsofthemeaningsto humanbeingsofitsvarious
parts.... The paradigmmustbe judgedin termsofitscognitive
meaningsas a contributionto knowledge
and evaluaputforward
byone setofhumanbeingsforconsideration
tion by others. . ." (Parsons,1978:361-62).
Thus Parsons soughtinteralia, to establish-in a neo-Kantian,"transcendental"
mode-the most"reasonable"and cognitively
plausibleset of a prioriaforthe analysis
oftherelationship
betweenactionsystems
and thetelicaspectofthehumancondition
in empathicreference
to thewaysin whichhumanbeings,as it were,"dotheultimate."
Withoutdenyingthatsetsof analyticalcategoriesare necessaryin thisproblem-area,
we mustemphasizethat our interestis in the moreempirically-focused
problemof
thematization
concern
withthehumancondition,in particular
ofconcrete
reference
to the
sociocultural
processesyieldingaccentuationof such.
Two examplesmaysuffice.
First,we pointto the rapidlyincreasing
concernon the
partofreligiousand/ortheologicalintellectuals
withwhatare oftencalled"worldtheologies"or withthe applicationof particulartheologicaltraditionsto the world-as-awhole.Second,we indicatetherapidincreasein concernwithhumanrights.Our claim
is thatin both cases therehas been sufficient
thematization
of the relevant-andcertainlynot unrelated-issuesfortheirfocito have now becomeso well-established
as to
involveincreasingly
institutionalized
mechanisms
and processesforongoingmodesof
discourse.Whilea contribution
suchas Parsons'is notwithoutrelevanceto thecrystallizationofsuchdiscourse(indeed,itis notabsurdto suggest
thathisideascouldbecome
guidelinesin one oftheseareas,mostlikelythefirst),
it tellsus little,ifanything,
about
the processeswhichgiveriseto and sustain-in a sense,renderpossible-theseforms
of discourse.
In thisrespectwouldappearto be moredirectly
relevant,sincea majorfeature
ofhis
workhas,ofcourse,been increasingly
guidedby an interest
in theprinciples
and structureofcommunicative
interaction.
In contrastto Parsons,Habermashas no a priori
offerings
as to whatwillbe thematized-but
he doesclaimthatmastermoralissuesbecome
increasingly
thematizedas, interalia, ego identities
and universalfocisupersede,or at
leasttranscend,
societally-structured
and culturally
interpreted
rolesand needs,and societally-prescribed
and culturally-stipulated
duties.Speakingspecifically
ofpersonaland
individualidentities,
Habermas(1979:116)arguesthattheyare becomingincreasingly
generaland abstract,"untilfinallytheprojectionmechanismsuchbecomesconscious,
and identityformation
takeson a reflective
form,in the knowledgethatto a certain
extentindividualsand societiesthemselves
establish
theiridentities."

232
This pointis broughtout moreclearlyin Habermas'reportofa discussionwithEder,

in whichtherewasproposedtheidea ofa separationofegofromcollective(presumably,
worldas a "unito Kant'snotionoftheintelligible
In reference
identity.
politicosocietal)
Habermasarguesthat"thekingdomofrational
versalkingdomof ends-in-themselves"
bythejustorderofa cosmopolifulfilled
beingsis an idealthatcan neverbe empirically
therecan be no suchthingas a globalworldof
In thisperspective
tan stateof affairs."
as opposedto, communicastable,absolutemoralprinciples-no"closed,"substantive,
form
tive realityat the global level. Nor can therebe establishedan institutionalized
whichwould sustainglobalreason.
reguofa universalistically
theconnections
illustrate
projections
suchidentity
Nevertheless,
collective
constructed,
against
whichtheprovisionally
action,
lateddomainofcommunicative
fluid. . . (A) collective
andrendered
canbe relativized
groups
reference
identities
ofparticular
aresocioculturally
ofa society
as soonas themassofmembers
becomes
superfluous
identity
Theideaofan identity
. . . andtodevelop
egoidentities.
roleidentities
forced
tolayasidetheir
as such
identities
. .. wouldnowbe thelastillusory
collective
taskbefore
becomereflective
(Habermas,
systems
ofallreference
variation
bythepermanent
couldbegivenupandreplaced
1979:224).
collectivofuniversalistic
Withthedevelopment
norms,arguesHabermas,no particular
itselffromother
ity- suchas a tribeor society- can establishboundariesfordelineating
ofWeber,mentionedabove,Haber"alien,"groups.In linewithNelson'sinterpretation
"the'own'groupis replacedby the
in
these
circumstances
mas (1979:24)maintainsthat
categoryof 'the other'who is no longerconceivedas an outsiderbecauseof his nonmembership."
Laterwe willtouchupon the questionarisingfromHabermas'insistencethatsuch
of
forcing"
and thatindeedthe "sociocultural
are basicallypost-religious
developments
and
in
both
collective
connectedto a declineofreligiosity
whichhe speaksis intimately
to establishanotherdivergence
forms.At thispoint,however,it is necessary
privatized
fromtheviewsofHabermas(1973).This has to do withthelatter'sclaimthatit would
ofmodernsocieties
werethemembers
"newmodeofsocialization"
an unlikely
constitute
theirindividuallivesintosocichangessplitting
to be currently
subjectto sociocultural
and whathave elsewhere(Robertson,1978:103-185)been called,following
etal-system
components.It is essentialto Habermas'argumentthat societalWeber,"mystical"
whichinvolvesuniversalis transcended
directly
by an egoidentity
roleidentity
system,
withHabermasaboutan overalland very
isticnorms.Whilewe arepartlyin agreement
inofrecenttrendsconcerning
ourinterpretation
driftin thelatterdirection,
long-term
allows formuch more latitudein the mannerin which
dividualidentity-formation
forexample,thatsome,butby
are utilized-allowing,
framesofreference
extra-societal
framesofreference
maybe bothvehiclesforand symbolsof
nomeansall, new-religious
formation.
formsofidentity
ofpurelysocietal-systemic
Indeed,as we
thetranscendence
whathas oftenin recentyearsbeen labeled
in moregeneralperspective,
have suggested
have a similar
perspective,
-ratherindiscriminately-narcissism
maywell,in long-term
about the opIn anycase,Habermashas recently
spokenmorepositively
significance.
presentedby the cleavage(as he sees it, in contrastto the action-theoretic
portunities
therationalisNevertheless
and "life-world."
between"system"
conceptofdifferentiation)
forms
of
such
cathecic
the
inhibits
recognition
analytical
ticbias ofHabermasiantheory
and nationalism
as ethnicity
ofidentity
(Fishman,1977;Smith,1979;Smith,1981)and

233
oftheproblemofworldorderconstrains
thewaysin whichthethematization
societies
and individualsto engage in activitiesconcerningsocietalreinvigoration
(Chirico,
1984).
Concern
Sourceand Structure
ofHumanitic
modern"humanitic
concern"can be tracedempirically
In thepresentperspective
to
thatoritwomajorsources.(We employtheneologismin orderto avoidthesuggestion
in thesenseofinvolving
entationto humanity
is necessarily
humanistic,
positiveconcern
forhumanityin toto.)First,thereare aspectsofthe operationof modern-particularly
ofsocietyat thelevelofinwhichgeneratea formoftranscendence
Western-societies
of alienationfromthe stateand the state'sincreasing
dividuals.The combination
conoflife(thedefinition
concern-with"deep"features
cern-whatwe call a quasi-religious
ofreligion,
oflife,the organization
of death,the"qualityoflife,"aging,the regulation
ofhuabouttheattributes
and raisond'&tre
and so on) increasingly
leadsto explicitness
of social classification,
man lifebeyondthe particularities
voluntaryreligiousinvolveof "fundamentalistic"
The resurgence
ment,even societalmembership.
promotionof
particularistic
ideologiesand doctrines(local, ethnicnational,civilizationaland recounter-evidence.
gional)does notby anymeansconstitute
For,as we willarguemore
ideasis heavilycontextualassertionofparticularistic
fullylater,the recentglobe-wide
ized by the phenomenonof increasing
globality.
The secondmajorsourceof humaniticconcernhas to do withthe relationsbetween
societies.On theinter-societal
fronttherehas been,in recentyears,a considerable
relativization
oftheimageofthegood society.Whilea fewscholars(e.g.,Nettland Robertson, 1968)arguedquitea longtimeago thatthenotionofsocietalmodernization
must,
in orderforit to have anyempiricalpurchase,involvea basically"relativistic"
frameof
reference,
thefactremainsthatthereis muchto suggestthat,untilquiterecently,
the
modernsystemof societiesoperatedroughlyin termsof twobasic imagesof the good
society-namelythe liberal-democratic
industrialsocietyand the communistic
industrialsociety.Moreover,evenin thatsituationoftwo"northern"
typesof"goodsociety"
therewas clearlyconsiderable
overlap.However,itbecameincreasingly
obviousduring
the 1970sthatthe situationof relatively
stableand establishedimagesand directions
of societalaspirationswas rapidlybreakingup. Now, in the mid-1980sit seemsthat
thereis globalconfusionaboutwhatconstitutes
the ideal-type
ofsocietalaspiration.If
ourdiagnosisin thisrespectis cogent,itwouldinexorably
follow-evenwithoutfurther
empiricalinvestigation-that
therehas to be "something"
resembling
whatParsonsanalytically
pinpointsas telicconcernofa trans-societal
kind.In otherwords,in a situation
in whichthereis verylittlestability
or security
in respectofwhatmightbe calledmodel
societies,then international
discourse,includingheavilypolitico-strategic
discourse,
oftentakesplace in termsofideas,howevertacitlyadheredto, concerning
the endsof
man.
- but notsole- reference
We maynowschematize
ourthinking,
withparticular
to the
emanationofhumanitic
concernin Westerncontexts.The mostbasicingredient
ofthat
processis the linkagebetweena situationof "anthropocentric
dualism,"havingto do
withthe relationship
betweenindividualsand societies,and a corresponding
situation
on a trans-societal
scale.Byanthropocentric
dualism(Schluchter,
1979),we meana human-centered
worldimageinvolvinga differentiation
of lifeintotwo realms.On the

234
on the other,thereis the

functionality;
one hand, thereis the realmofsocietal-systemic
this
As anthropocentric,
being.
realmof individualand relational(ifyou will,life-world)
ofa theotransformation
it beingan historical
dualisticframeis pivoteduponmankind;
centricdualism.
Trajectoriesof Emergenceof Humanity
National
Society
0..
ofNationalSociety
Relativization
9 c
:3
Self
ofSocieties
V~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~3
Emergenceof S |
w EL
Anthropocentric
DualisticCosmos 0
WorldSystem
Identity
ofPersonal
Relativization
Crystallization
ofGlobal
Telic Concern
Mankind
The linkagesof whichwe have just spokeninvolvesfourprocessesof relativization,

and twohaving
ofsocieties(trans-socialization)
twohavingto do withtherelativization
By relativizaofpersons,or selves(trans-personalization).
to do withthe relativization
or psychicentitiesin larger
theplacingofsociocultural
tionwe meana processinvolving
entitiesare constrainedto be moreselfcategoricalcontexts,such thatthe relativized
context(whichdoes not meanthatthey
in
the
larger
entities
relativeto other
reflexive
of selvesinvolves,
The relativization
self-reflexive).
will actuallybe "constructively"
of selfhoodin the moreinclusiveand fundamental
alongone dimension,the situating
ofsocieties- alonganframeofwhatitmeansto be ofmankind;whiletherelativization
in thecontextof
societies
of
concrete
the
situating
dimension-involves
other,parallel
to
societies
judgethe extent
of
societies-thus
particular
constraining
a worldcomplex
dominantproare
the
principlesof "societalquality."These
to whichtheyexemplify
Therebranchesfromeach a secondaryprocessofrelativization,
cessesofrelativization.
betweenconcretesocietiesand the categoryof
one havingto do withthe relationship
man,theotherinvolvinga connectionbetweenselvesand the globalcomplexof societies.
(concernWe proposethatwhatHabermas(an unlikely)"newmodeofsocialization"

one
constitutes
betweentheindividualand nationalsociety)actually
ingtherelationship
of a concernon thepartofthe
leadingtowardthecrystallization
ofthe circumstances
thatalienationfromthe(naissues.We arethussuggesting
individualwithtrans-societal
necessary
pathtowardthegenerationand
tional)societyis onemajorand theoretically
and would
foci.The conditionwhichHabermasregrets
oftrans-societal
generalization
"thenew mode of socialization"-ispreciselyone of
liketo considerunlikely-namely
toward"transhowevercircuitously,
conditionspushingindividuals,
thedifferentiating

235
societality."
However,we have seenthatHabermasdoes theorizethathumankindcan
and social-integrative
capitalizeon thespacecreatedby theveryseparationofsystemic
The hypotheticprocesses-to,in fact,transcend
them(in an "emancipatory"
direction).
ofsuch"capitalization"
allyempiricalcircumstances
has not,however,been spelled-out
His theory
byHabermasin theframeofwhatwe wouldcall thesociologyofthepossible.
ofan evolutionary
schemewhich,deliberately
dependslargelyon the"logic"
bracketing
involvesthebasicproposition
thatsocietalevolution
empirico-historical
contingencies,
runsin tandemwithan evolutionat thelevelofindividuals-specifically,
theemancipationof ego identity
fromstrictly
and an expansionof thepotential
societalconstraint
forindividual-moral
growth.9
We arguethatin themodernworldthereis takingplace a processwherebyconcerns
withindividualbeingaredifferentiated
fromdoing.This is not,letitbe emphasized,
the
as
of
same sayingthattheseaspects individuallifeare beingsegregated
fromeach other.
the modernWestern)worldthe
Rather,it is to arguethatin the modern(particularly
of individualinvolvement
in the collectivities
and rolecomplexesof
"happystupidity"
the"immortal
is increasingly
engine"ofbureaucracy
counterbalanced
byand interpenetrateswithconcernwithindividualmeaningfulness
at the leveloftheself.Essentialto
thatpointis thecontentionthateach aspect"needs"and reinforces
theother-emphaa level
sizingat the same timethatwe are speakingat a veryhighlevelof generality,
whichoverridesmanyempiricalnuancesand cuts-across
the arguments
of thosewho
have proclaimedthe demiseofeitherthe publicdomain(byencroachment
of thepersonalor ofdestructive
or thedemiseoftheprivaterealm(bythetentacles
gemeinschaft)
of the state)."0
Our majorproposition
at thispointis thatthereis an intimate
linkbetweenthedevel- themodeofindividual,
opmentofwhatmightbe calledasocietality
"mystical"
concern
withself-and the makingavailableof individualsforconcernwith"man."In a sense
thisfollowsthe line of argument
of thosewho have spoken,in reference
to the more
"advanced"societies,ofindividualsgrowingout ofthe nation-state
shell.On theother
hand,our own contentions
in thisregardfollowa Simmel-Durkheim
lineofreasoning.
Galtung's(1968)argument
restson thedetachment
oftheindividualfromnationalloyaltyin trans-or
cross-national
mode,via ideologiesofprofessionalism
whichare intolerant of nationalloyaltiesby virtueof cosmopolitanism
and the universalism
oftechnological-scientific
values. This we findto be unpersuasive,
certainlyinsufficient.
The
processofgrowing
out ofthe(state-centered)
societyis a muchmorediffuse
and "deep"
9Aswe havenoted,Habermas'emphasisuponmoralgrowthis,inourview,too constricting.
Somecognitive
and,particularly,
cathecticaspects(whicharecloselyboundup withnationaland ethnicloyalties)
ofidentity
formation
aredownplayedor seenas entirely
atavistic.Habermas'conceptionofindividualgrowthin a global
directionstandsin thetradition
ofMarx'suniversalistic
proletariat
and is onlyconcernedwitha formofpositivealienationfromstate-centered
societies.We, on the otherhand, have an imageof a morediffuse
state
ofalienation,including
negative
alienation.In otherwords,we tryto avoidtheutopiansim
ofbothMarxand
Habermas;even thoughour schemedoes ideal-typify
a stateof affairs
of"perfect"
balancebetweencommitmentto societiesand commitment
to mankind.That schematicpresentation
shouldnot,however,obscure
our viewthatthe routeto particularism-within-universalism
on a globalscale maybe one involvinga variety
of modesof detachmentfromsocietyperse. On negativeand positivealienation,withparticularreference
to Marx,see Gunneman(1979).
"0Wehave in mindherethe respective
arguments
of Sennett(1978) and Lasch (1979).

236
process- havingto do witha mixtureof alienationfromthe state(and the economy)

and a greaterconcernwithselfhoodin the mode of whatis oftencalledpsychological
ofpsychological
man/womanat thesametimeraisesissuesconman.The development
locationofselvesor persons.That processoflocatcerningthephenomenal-categorical
ingtendsin the directionof a concernwithwhatit meansto be humanin the most
involvedin thisformofdethatwhatis primarily
generalterms-henceour suggestion
undertheconceptualrusocietymaybe summarized
tachmentfromthestate-centered
aspectofthelatterin broad,comA significant
identity.
ofpersonal
bricofrelativization
itis not
termsis thatwhilewe see theprocessas "Western-pulled,"
parative-civilizational
societies.The natureof the modernglobalsystemis
confinedto the "post-industrial"
upon nearlyall socirelevantto theprocessofrelativization
suchas to placeconstraints
tendencies
of narcissistic
eties-hence,forexample,the diagnosisofthe intensification
to
in thesecontextsrelative
contexts,as a responseto industrialization
in non-Western
have
do
In otherwords,althoughThirdand FourthWorldsocieties
theglobalsystem.
individualsand primordialgroups
centeredupon incorporating
primarily
"problems"
theindividualall overthe conconfronts
shell,thelatterdiffusely
intothe nation-state
of the modernworldwithat least some of the alienatingcharacteristics
temporary
mysticaltendenciesof some nonWesternmodel.This exacerbatesthe other-worldly
Westernsocietiesand makesthe latteravailableas modelsforWesternindividuals,as
a monisticresistance
ideasinvolving
ofnon-Western
religious
exampledbythediffusion
dualism.The upshotis a tendencytowarda near-global
to Westernanthropocentric
of potentially
scope of
near-global
conceptionof selfhood-orat leasta thematization
the latterissue.
of society-involvesthe
the relativization
The seconddominant
process-concerning
what
whatis thepurposeofsocieties?
ofsuchissuesas: whatis a society?
thematization
does "thegood society"look like?In essence,thisprocessof relativization-attendant
or
of a globalsystemin whichthereappearto be no definite,
upon the crystallization
modelsof "goodness"(Nettland Robertson,1968)-involvesthe
relatively
permanent,
aboutsocietyas a modeofcoofhistorically
assumptions
taken-for-granted
attenuation
ofsocietyis at thecoreofthebreakthisquestioning
herence.As suggested
previously,
whichprevailedup to the 1960s-namelythe situationin
down of the circumstance
as involving
a ratherdefinite
to talkofmodernization
trajectory,
whichitwasappropriate
of societalchange.Increasingly
during
or a verysmallnumberof possibletrajectories,
of
now
the
criteria
that
the
relativized-to
became
modernization
by
point
the 1970s
than
that
rather
this
we
mean
in
respect
such are beingthematized.
By thematization
now."What
"We do notwishto be understoodas sayingsimplythat"we are all becominguniversalists
ofa concernwithwhatitmeansto be human,
we aresayingis thattheconcernwithselftendsin thedirection
Clearly,thereare,as we
and societalrelativism.
senseof societalfunctionality
in a contextof an increasing
-which amountsto a kindof"alienated
have said,a varietyofpossibleresponsesto the lattercircumstance
in absolutist
elitesasserting
whichis beingreactedagainstby, interalia, politico-religious
cosmopolitanism,"
of individualand societyin termsoftheirown societybeingthe bestsociety.As faras
formthe unification
appreciatedin the Westthatlarge
the so-calledThird and FourthWorldsare concernedit is insufficiently
to "move"
"livein"twoworldsand are "required"
numbersofindividualsin thosepartsoftheworldin effect
globalworld.In thatsense"modernity"
back and forthbetweentheirnativesocietiesand theWestern-framed,
is oftento be foundmoreacutelyin, say,the MiddleEast than in, say,the U.S.A.

237
smallclustersof societiesbeingregardedas clearlylead societiesor globalepicenters

therenow obtainsa situationin whichthe criteriaor societalchangethemselves
are
and inter-doctrinal
interofinter-societal,
matters
inter-continental,
inter-civilizational,
pretationand debate.
As we have said,each ofour dominantprocesseshas a secondaryprocess.In thecase
a shiftalongtheaxisself-mankind,
wespeakoftherelativization
oftheprocessinvolving
on thepartoftheindividual.In thecase oftheshiftinvolving
ofsocietalreference
relativizationof societywe speakof a secondaryprocesshavingto do witha shiftin the
natureof"citizenly
involvement."
Letus considerrelativization
ofsocietalreference
first.
In thisrespectdetachment
fromsocietyin thedirectionofthe anthropicconcernwith
thenatureofman mustalso raisethequestionofthenatureoforientation
to themore
concreteglobalsystemofinter-societal
In otherwords,therearisestheisrelationships.
sue oftheorientation
on thepartofindividualsto societiesotherthantheir"own"and
theirparticipation-however
vicarious
or empathic-inthe globalcomplexof societies,
whichnow becomesto all intentsand purposes"theworld"in the senseconveyedby
In itsextremeform,suchrelativization
wouldinvolvelookingat
theologicaltraditions.
one's "own)"societyas onlyone amongothers,but at the sametimeretaininga sense
of membership
in one's "own"society.
The second branchingprocess-relativization
of citizenlyinvolvement-hasto do
withwhat,in anothercontext,has been called tertiary
mobilization
(Robertson,1976).
Politicalscientists
and politicalsociologistshave tendedto specifytwo phasesof the
processof politicalmobilizationleadingto the circumstance
of citizenship
inclusion.
First,thereis the phase of detachment
fromprimordial
loyaltiesof tribe,religionand
so on-producingsomething
like a loyaltyto the politicalcenter.Second, thereis a
phaseofsecondarymobilization,
involvingtheinclusionofindividualsas citizenswith
to
respect law,franchise
and socialsecurity.
(The secondphasehas oftenbeen studied
as a seriesofsubphases.)The analyticaladditionof a thirdphaseofmobilization
in an
evolutionary
perspective
has to do withtheprocesswherebycitizenship
is expandedso
as to includeboth rightsand dutiesdevelopedin the secondphase and a conception
of the individualas human,withrightsand needs(perhaps,ultimately,
duties)which
arenotsolelysocietal.Thus tertiary
mobilization-the
relativization
ofcitizenly
involvement-involves a realigning
oftherelationship
betweentheconcretesocietyand theindividualin theformof an establishment
ofa newkindofdifferentiated
attachment
to
man/woman.Here againour basicpointreference
is theindustrialized
society.But we
can also add thatthe processofpoliticalmobilization
in othersocietiesis certainly
affected-inthesensethatmanyindividualsin thosesocieties,forexampleMiddleEasternsocieties,are implicatedin a globe-human
contextat thesametimeas theyare orientedtowardsociety-centered,
primary
or secondaryprocessesof mobilization.
These analyticalrepresentations
oftrajectories
ofmovement
awayfromthehistorical
circumstances
of society-centered
anthropocentric
dualism are intendedprimarily,
whentakenas a schematicwhole,to pinpointsignificant
aspectsofthedrifttowardhumaniticconcernin themodernworld.The overallschemecharacterizes
an evolutionary
stepbeyondthe usual typeof evolutionary
stagerelatingto societyand relationships
betweenindividualsand societies.In "ideal-typical"
formwe have depicteda circum-

238
emanatingfromthe anthropostance involvinga set of processesof differentiation

howemphasized,
context.It mustbe verystrongly
individual-society
centric-dualistic,
formofdualismdoes notentaileliminaofa newman-globe
ever,thatthecrystallization
by a
is contextualized
relationship
tionof thatcontext.Rather,the individual-society
two
the
terms,
in
ideal-typical
Thus,
highly
concern.
of
humanitic
frame
muchbroader
are coordinatedin such a way thatpersonsare both autonomousand yetimplicated
as aresocieties.Finally,itmustbe very
in no lessthanthreeothersetsofcircumstances,
indipurposeswe have schematically
emphasizedthat,eventhoughforpresent
strongly
ofour disin termsofone-wayarrowsthe implication
catedprocessesofrelativization
represented
perse can be mostfruitfully
circumstance
cussionis thattheglobal-human
arrows.
in termsof an entireseriesof two-way
analytically
and Religion
Globalization
have been relaand societalmodernization
Conceptionsofindividualmodernization
seenwithin
tivizedsuchthatindividualsand societiesare nowto be mostappropriately
and lessless-voluntaristic
(as opposedto morerestricted,
a largerframeof humanity
to re"globalization"
term
the
employ
We
a
world
system).
of
conceptions
dimensional,
conoftheglobal-human
involvedin therealization
ferto theelementofdirectionality
dition.
Can we accountforwhatappearsto be a worldHow does religionenterthepicture?
We believethatsuch
perspective?
in termsoftheglobalization
resurgence
widereligious
is possible,even thoughwe can attempthereonlya verybriefanalyticalprognosis.
as we have
ofthepresentglobalcircumstance,
We proposethattherearetwofeatures
concerns.
outlinedit,whichaccentuateor at leastopen-upreligiousor quasi-religious
oflife-in-society,
involvesa "release"fromthe"security"
On theone hand,globalization
and
of theworldorderofsocieties
both the legitimacy
thusraisingproblemsconcerning
is."The firstof thispair,it willbe noted,refersto
"really
themeaning
ofwhatmankind
to therelativization-ofdimension;whilethesecondrefers
therelativization-of-societies'
selves'dimension.On theotherhand,we wouldexpectthereto be seriousimplications
societies.In otherwords,theprocessofglobalization
processwithin
oftheglobalization
withinsocieties;or, ifyou will,
occurring
does not occurwithoutstrainsor discontents
proceeds,
withinsocietalcontexts.As globalization
reaction-indeed,resistance-from
ofparthe
to
define
identity
individuals-in-societies
and
on
societies
exerted
are
pressures
of
-a matterwhichanalystsused to thinkwas thespecialproblem new
ticularsocieties
At thecollectivebutwhichis nowclearlyofubiquitoussignificance.
nationalsocieties,
directionas sometake it upon
societallevelthereis thusa thrustin a quasi-religious
standsfor"
termswhat"their"
society"ultimately
to definein politicoreligious
themselves
and whatis sacredabout it.
theviewofthosewho drawattentionto theubiquity
In thisregardwe acknowledge
of civil-religion
problemsin the modernworld.Civil religionbecomesa problempreciselybecauseof thefactorswhichboth push individualsout of a purelysocietalform
However,
formation.
and accentuateproblemsofsocietalidentity
formation
ofidentity
concernsas sitesofpotentialreligious,
ideologicaland reliwe see societalcivil-religion
Thus withintheU.S.A., forexample,theriseofthenewfunconflict.
gious-ideological
damentalist
Rightcan be seen as an attempton the partof adherentsto a particular

239
to establishtheir
world-view
positionas thecivilreligionofAmerica(and Americancivil
revivalsin othersocietiesreligionas the civilreligionof the world).Fundamentalist
talkin Americacan
notablyIran-may be similarly
regarded.Moreover,civil-religion
be seenas an indirectacknowledgment
oftheseparationofchurchand
oftheliabilities
state.Societiessuchas Israel,Iran,and Pakistan- notto speakofthe"secularly
religious"
U.S.S.R. and someofitsallies- are"able"to conflatereligionand politics.Theiridentity
formation
is not"impeded"
at thesametimesocietieswithbytheconstitution.
However,
out hierocratic
differentiation
betweenthesacredand thesecularmay"suffer"
morein
the long-run.
The implication
of the increasing
concernwiththe legitimacy
of the worldorderof
societies(Meyer,1980:132-5)and withthe prospectsformankindperse raisesworld
civil-religion
problems.On the ostensibly
religiousfront,the mostobviousmanifestationofthelatterare,first,
theproliferation
oftheologies
in a numberofconofliberation
tinentaland sub-continental
contextsand, second,thegrowing
(and notunrelated)interestin worldtheology.
Bothofthese,butmostclearlythefirst,
aremanifestations
from
a Westernpointofviewof whatHabermas(1973:121)calls"therepoliticization
ofthe
biblicalinheritance
observablein contemporary
theologicaldiscourse,whichgoes togetherwitha levelingof [the]this-world/other-worldly
dichotomy.. . ." ("The idea of
God is transformed
... intotheconceptof a Logosthatdetermines
thecommunity
of
believers. . . 'God' becomesthe namefora communicative
structure
thatforcesmen,
on thepain ofa lossoftheirhumanity,
to go beyondtheiraccidental,empiricalnature
to encounterone anotherindirectly
. . ." (Habermas,1973:121).)12A good exampleof
the"leveling"
processofwhichHabermashas spokenis providedbythefuzzyboundary
betweensomeliberationtheologies,
on theone hand,and theostensibly
secular-moral
conceptionsof the maldistribution
of economicwealthand powerwithinand among
nationson the other.A morespecificexampleis the Moral Majorityinjunctionthat
it is a sin not to be politicallyactive.
The conjunction
ofsocietalcivil-religion
concernsandtheincipienceofworldcivil-religionproblems(Bellahand Hammond,1980:xiv)thuscomprises
the centerpiece
ofour
analysisof the place of religionin the globalizationprocess.Politicization
of theology
and religion,on the one hand, and the "theologization"
of politics,on the other,are
core featuresof thisconjunction.The globalizationprocessitselfraisesreligiousand
quasi-religious
questions.Theodical and eschatologicalquestions-orsuccessorquestionsto old theodicaland eschatological
queries-arehighon the agendaofglobaldiscourse.Religionis centeredin theprocessofglobalization
byvirtueofboththereligious
or quasi-religious
mattersraisedas a resultof universalistic
tendenciesinvolvingmankindand relationsbetweensocietiesandby theparticularizing
responsesto theuniversalistictendencies.In the latterregardthe internal-societal
development
offundamen12Weareunablehereto dealfullywiththesignificant
issueofthedegreeto whichthecommunicative
rationalitythatHabermasseesas inherent
in the"logic"ofsocio-cultural
psychological
evolutionis intrinsically
postreligious.
Foran argument
againstHabermas'claimthat,indeed,communicative
practicesupersedes
theinterpretativeand normativefunctions
of religion,see Davis (1980).The relevanceof thistheologicaldisputeto
sociologicalanalysisofthemodernglobeis certainly
not marginal.Our own viewis thatemergent
modesof
globaldiscourseare by old criterianeithersimplyreligiousnot simplysecular.Rathertheyare theologicalreligiousand secular.We interpret
Habermas'notionof the "linguistification"
of the sacredin thatlight.

240
talismsis pivotedupon the perceivedneed forsocietalintegrity.

The extentto which
would-beor actualreligiopolitical
elitesareatavistic
in thesenseofbeingreactionary
relativeto the globalizationprocessis a matterin need of case-by-case
discussion.Some
fundamentalist
movementswhichhave recentlystakedtheirclaimsto interpret
and
controlthe sociocultural
identities
of theirrespective
societiescan, indeed,be viewed
as reactionary-assitesforthe expressionof discontents-relative
to the globalization
process.At theoppositeend ofthespectrum,
otherfundamentalist
movements
maybe
- ifoftenverymilitantly
- newmodesofparticularistic
viewedas merelyoffering
societal
identityrelativeto globaluniversalism
in more-or-less
"concultural,"
relatively
pluralisticmode.
Thereare manyotheraspectsofthe ideaswhichwe have presented
herewhichhave
a directbearingon religionand religiosity
acrossthemodernworldas wellas uponarguthe secularization
mentssurrounding
thesis.Our majorgoal here,however,has been
to contributeto the taskof seeinghow religionmaybe discussedwithinthe context
concernwiththephenomenonofglobality,
ofgrowing
whichwe see as a generalization
and extensionoftheoldergemeinschaft-gesellschaft
problem.Directdiscussionofglobalityand globalizationis necessarybeforethe distinctively
religiousaspectsof such can
be systematically
analyzed.We should,however,emphasizein conclusionthatwe consider,and not onlyforthe reasonsalreadygiven,thatglobalization
enhances,at least
in the relatively
shortrun,religionand religiosity.
REFERENCES
Bellah,RobertN. and PhillipE. Hammond.1980.Varieties
ofCivilReligion.
San Francisco:Harperand Row.
Bergesen,Albert.1980."FromUtilitarianism
to Globology:The Shiftfromthe Individualto the Worldas
a Wholeas thePrimordial
Unit ofAnalysis."Chap. 1 in AlbertBergesened., StudiesoftheModernWorldSystem.
New York: AcademicPress.
Chirico,JoAnn.1984.Defining
America:The Religious
Function
ofEducation.
Ph.D. dissertation,
University
of
Pittsburgh.
Davis, Charles. 1980. Theology
and PoliticalSociety.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Press.
Dumont,Louis, 1977.FromMandevilleto Marx.Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
1979."The Anthropological
Communityand Ideology."SocialScienceInformation
18:785-817.
1983.Essaissurl'individualisme.
Paris:Seuil.
Durkheim,Emile. 1961.The Elementary
Formsof theReligious
Life.New York: CollierBooks.
. 1974.Sociology
and Philosophy.
New York: FreePress.
Durkheim,Emileand MarcelMauss. 1971."Noteon theNotionofCivilization."
SocialResearch.
58:808-813.
Fishman,J.A. 1977."Languageand Ethnicity."
Chapter1 in H. Giles ed., Language,
and Intergroup
Ethnicity
Relations.
Galtung,Johan.1968."On the Futureof the International
System."Journal
ofPeaceResearch
4:305-333.
New Haven: Yale University
Press.
Gunneman,JonP. 1979. The MoralMeaningof Revolution.
and HumanInterests.
London: Heinemann.
Habermas,Jurgen.1972.Knowledge
1973. Legitimation
Crisis.Boston:Beacon Press.
and theEvolution
Boston:Beacon Press.
1979. Communication
ofSocieties.
1984. The Theoryof Communicative
Action,Vol. I. Boston:Beacon Press.
Michael. 1983. The Politicsat God'sFuneral.New York: Holt, Rinehartand Winston.
Harrington,
and theMakingofd Psychology.
Homans,Peter.1979.Jungin Context:
Modernity
Chicago:ChicagoUniversity
Press.

241
Homans,Peter.1984. "Once Again, Psychoanalysis,

East and West:A Psychoanalytic
Essay on Religion,
Mourningand Healing."History
ofReligions.
24(2):133-154.
Kakar,Sudhir.1978.TheInnerWorld:A Psychoanalytic
andSociety
inIndia.New Delhi: OxStudyofChildhood
fordUniversity
Press.
Kohut,Heinz. 1978."Formsand Transformations
ofNarcissism."
In Paul H. Ornsteined., The Searchforthe
SelfVol. 1. New York: International
Universities
Press.
Laqueur,Walterand BarryRubineds., 1977. The HumanRights
Reader.New York: Meridian.
Lasch, Christopher.1979.The CultureofNarcissism.
New York: Warner.
Martins,Herminio.1974."Timeand Theoryin Sociology.'Chapter12 in JohnRex ed., Approaches
toSociology.London and Boston:Routledgeand Kegan Paul.
McGuire,Williamed., 1974. The Freud/Jung
Letters.
Princeton:PrincetonUniversity
Press.
Meyer,JohnW. 1980."The WorldPolityand theAuthority
oftheNation-State."
Chapter6 in AlbertBergesen ed., StudiesoftheModernWorld-System.
Mouly,Ruthand RolandRobertson.1983."Zionismin AmericanPremillenarian
Fundamentalism."
American
Journal
ofTheology
and Philosophy
4(3):97-109.
Nelson,Benjamin.1969.TheIdeaofUsury:FromTribalBrotherhood
toUniversal
Otherhood.
Chicago:Chicago
Press.
University
Nettl,J.P.and Roland Robertson.1968.International
and theModernization
Systems
New York:
of Societies.
Basic Books.
Parsons,Talcott. 1978.ActionTheoryand theHumanCondition.
New York: FreePress.
Robertson,Roland. 1976. "SocietalAttributes
and International
Relations."Chapter28 in JanJ. Loubser
et.al. eds., Explorations
in GeneralTheoryin theSocialSciences.New York: FreePress.
. 1977."Individualism,
Societalism,Worldliness,
Universalism:
TheoreticalSociologyof
Thematizing
Religion."Sociological
Analysis
38:281-308.
1978. Meaningand Change.New York: New York University
Press.
1979."ReligiousMovementsand ModernSocieties:Towarda Progressive
Problemshift."
Sociological
Analysis40:297-314.
. 1980."Aspectsof Identityand Authority
in SociologicalTheory."Chapter7 in Roland Robertson
and BurkartHolznereds.,Identity
andAuthority:
Explorations
in theTheory
ofSociety.
New York:St. Martin'sPress.
. 1982."Societies,Individualsand Sociology:Intracivilizational
Themes."Theory,
Cultureand Society
1(2):6-17.
. 1985. "The Sacred and the WorldSystem."Chapter22 in PhillipHammonded., The Sacredin a
SecularAge. Berkeley:University
of CaliforniaPress.
Rolandand JoAnnKlepin(Chirico).1980."TheModernEmergence
Robertson,
ofConcernwiththeHuman
Condition:A WorkingPaper."Presented
at theAnnualMeetingoftheInternational
SocietyfortheComparativeStudyof Civilizations,
SyracuseUniversity,
New York.
Roth, Guenther.1979. "Charismaand the Counterculture."
Chapter3 in GuentherRoth and Wolfgang
Schluchtereds., Max Weber'sVisionofHistory.
Berkeley:University
of CaliforniaPress.
Schluchter,
Wolfgang.1979."Value-Neutrality
and theEthicofResponsibility."
Chapter2 in GuentherRoth
and WolfgangSchluchtereds., Max Weber'sVisionofHistory.
Berkeley:University
of CaliforniaPress.
Sennett,Richard.1978. The Fall ofPublicMan. New York: Vintage.
Seve, Lucien. 1978. Man in MarxistTheory.AtlanticHighlands,New Jersey:
HumanitiesPress.
Sills,David ed., 1968.International
Encyclopedia
oftheSocialSciences.New York: Macmillan.
Simmel,Georg.1965."How is SocietyPossible?"
pp. 337-356in KurtH. Wolffed., EssaysonSociology,
Philosophyand Aesthetics.
New York: HarperTorchbooks.
1912.Schopenhauer
undNietzsche.
Leipzig:Dunckerand Humblot.
1978. The Philosophy
ofMoney.London: Routledgeand Kegan Paul.
Smith,Anthony,D. 1979.Nationalism
in theTwentieth
Century.
New York: New York University
Press.
. 1981.The EthnicRevival.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Press.
Wallerstein,
Immanuel.1974."The Rise and FutureDemise of the WorldCapitalistSystem:Conceptsfor
ComparativeAnalysis."Comparative
Studiesin Society
and History
16:387-415.
. 1982."Crisisas Transition,"
pp. 109-165in SamerAminetal. eds.,Dynamics
ofGlobalCrisis.New
York: MonthlyReviewPress.
- 1983."Crisis:The World-Economy,
theMovements,and theIdeologies."pp. 21-36 in AlbertBergesen ed., Crisesin theWorld-System.
BeverlyHills: Sage.

242
and Society.Berkeley:University
Weber,Max. 1978.Economy
of CaliforniaPress.
Wolff,KurtH. ed., 1950.The Sociology
ofGeorgSimmel.New York: FreePress.
Wuthnow,Robert.1978."ReligiousMovementsand the Transitionin WorldOrder."pp. 63-79 in Jacob
Needlemanand GeorgeBakereds., Understanding
theNew Religions.
New York: SeaburyPress.
. 1980. "WorldOrder and ReligiousMovements."Chapter4 in AlbertBergesened., Studiesof the
ModemWorldSystem.
. 1983."CulturalCrises."pp. 57-71 in AlbertBergesened., Crisesin theWorld-System.
BeverlyHills:
Sage.


Religion and Globalization

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Religion and Globalization

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Humanity, Globalization, and Worldwide Religious Resurgence: A Theoretical Exploration

Author(s): Roland Robertson and JoAnn Chirico

This content downloaded from 129.97.58.73 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 14:34:40 PM

This content downloaded from 129.97.58.73 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 14:34:40 PM

fromKant,but it also includes

This content downloaded from 129.97.58.73 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 14:34:40 PM

sion ofthe systemperse-we claim,forexample,thatit makesno senseto talkofpatternsofeconomicand politicalinequalitywithoutat thesametimeinvestigating

This content downloaded from 129.97.58.73 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 14:34:40 PM

This content downloaded from 129.97.58.73 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 14:34:40 PM

This content downloaded from 129.97.58.73 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 14:34:40 PM

One major consequenceof Wuthnow'sargumentsis that his empirically-focused

This content downloaded from 129.97.58.73 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 14:34:40 PM

withwhatParsonscalledtelicmatters-thatis, mattershavingto do with"theendsof

5A considerablenumberofsociologytextbookswiththe word"human"or "humanity"

This content downloaded from 129.97.58.73 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 14:34:40 PM

This content downloaded from 129.97.58.73 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 14:34:40 PM

HUMANITY, GLOBALIZATION, AND WORLDWIDE RELIGIOUS RESURGENCE

does notmeanthattheywereobliviousto thetrans-societal

This content downloaded from 129.97.58.73 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 14:34:40 PM

tionsas: Whatdoes it mean to be human?What criteriaare to be used in assessingabsolutelyor relativistically-the

This content downloaded from 129.97.58.73 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 14:34:40 PM

fanaticould in extremeformderivefroma kindofcharismatic

This content downloaded from 129.97.58.73 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 14:34:40 PM

This content downloaded from 129.97.58.73 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 14:34:40 PM

This content downloaded from 129.97.58.73 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 14:34:40 PM

This pointis broughtout moreclearlyin Habermas'reportofa discussionwithEder,

This content downloaded from 129.97.58.73 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 14:34:40 PM

This content downloaded from 129.97.58.73 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 14:34:40 PM

on the other,thereis the

The linkagesof whichwe have just spokeninvolvesfourprocessesof relativization,

(concernWe proposethatwhatHabermas(an unlikely)"newmodeofsocialization"

This content downloaded from 129.97.58.73 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 14:34:40 PM

This content downloaded from 129.97.58.73 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 14:34:40 PM

process- havingto do witha mixtureof alienationfromthe state(and the economy)

This content downloaded from 129.97.58.73 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 14:34:40 PM

smallclustersof societiesbeingregardedas clearlylead societiesor globalepicenters

This content downloaded from 129.97.58.73 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 14:34:40 PM

emanatingfromthe anthropostance involvinga set of processesof differentiation

This content downloaded from 129.97.58.73 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 14:34:40 PM

This content downloaded from 129.97.58.73 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 14:34:40 PM

talismsis pivotedupon the perceivedneed forsocietalintegrity.

This content downloaded from 129.97.58.73 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 14:34:40 PM

Homans,Peter.1984. "Once Again, Psychoanalysis,

This content downloaded from 129.97.58.73 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 14:34:40 PM

This content downloaded from 129.97.58.73 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 14:34:40 PM

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen