Abstrakt: | Society and religion form an integral whole. Each figure of the social life remains
in its peculiar connections with the signs of the religious life. The answer to the question
on what religion is and what relations it has with an individual, as well as reflections
of a collective life depends on the assumed cognitive perspective. Certainly,
a theologian, philosopher, pedagogue and psychologist will answer it differently. From
the perspective of sociological reflections, religion may be treated as the category of
culture which is combined with the structures of the social life in a specific way. As we
know from history and contemporary observations, the relations between society and
religion are different. In some cultures, religion fully permeates all structures and functions
of social life whereas in others, its role is restricted and marginalised. Looking at
religion in a sociological way, one can underline that religion is expressed by cultural
patterns of a social life, both an individual and collective one, which in the Christian
tradition is usually described by the church category. In this sense, Church is an institution,
but also a community and when we analyze the reflections of religion presence in
social life, there is more to it than institutionally organized forms of socio-religious life,
i.e. axiological basis of the social order, understanding man and his/her life values,
ways of thinking, basic moral notions, assessment criteria and stores of basic knowledge
religion and Church equip their congregation, as well as all those who remain within
the scope of their influence, with. The basic social function of religion towards society
consists in legitimising the order of social world and sense of living, legitimising,
namely, authorizing and giving meaning and value to it, structurising and hierarchising
it through references to extra-empirical, supernatural, revealed, holy truths of faith, deriving
from traditions and holy books, constituting the content of religious doctrine.
The cultural paradigm of examining religiousness assumed in the work allows for
treating the sociology of religion as an empirical science, the generalizations of which
are based on the analysis of facts and processes objectively existing in a religious life
and other spheres of culture funcionally connected with religion. Religiousness is understood
as the degree and quality of participation of particular people and social
groups in the institutionalised religious system, with consequences revealing themselves
in attitudes and actions in different spheres of social life. Religiousness expresses itselfin man’s attitude to institutionalised values, norms and symbols which individuals
experience as religious ones. It is also composed of practices and norms which a religious
institution (Church) presents as binding, and which a religionus man considers
personally as such. The cultural paradigm of examining religion and religiousness allows
for going beyond positivist perspectives and treating religiousness both as a social
and anthropological (human) phenomenon. Referring religion to the global system of
culture allows for wide, interconfessional and interdisciplinary studies of religion reflections
in its cultural costumes.
Mutual relations between religion and society undergo a historical change, which is
appropriately illustrated by contemporary notions of secularization and deprivatisation.
It is common knowledge that secularization means the processes of marginalization of
institutionalised religion presence in the elements of collective life, its privatisation being
transformed in laicisation of mentality. It is accompanied by a dismantlement of
Church infrastructure and treating the right to the individual conscience freed from being
directed by religious premises as an ultimate criterion solving the problems of faith
and morality. As a result of secularization processes, religion transforms in an individual
faith whereas morality in subjective conscience. Deprivatisation of religion means the
processes of the return of religious doctrine, religious values and its institutionalised dimensions
on the stages of the social life theatre, both on the normative and behavioural
level. Secularization and deprivatisation are social processes the nature and course of
which are conditioned historically and culturally, i.e. their relations shape differently
and “sinusoidally” in different historical and cultural epochs. Secularization and deprivatisation
form theoretical frames of reflection on legitimising function of religion
towards social world.
In contemporary discussions on the role, place and function of religion, Church, religiousness
in globalised world the socio-cultural specificity is described by sociologists
among other things by means of the category of social differentiation, deinstitutionalisation,
cultural pluralism and structural individualism take place around the
paradigms of secularization and deprivatisation. It seems that the inspiring and cognitive
function of the secularization paradigm which has recently been dominant in social
sciences, gives in to the deprivatization paradigm confronted with socio-cultural reality
of the processes accentuating the role and importance of religion, Churches and religiousness
in structures of globalised world. A new theoretical and methodological perspective
in sociological studies on religion in the contemporary culture is most frequently
combined with works by Jose Casanova, a Spanish sociologist. Within the
secularization paradigm, referring to religious contexts of economic, social, political
and moral processes is considered the questioning of the principles of rationality and attempt
of turning the history back. Religious faith has become one of many possibilities
that were supposed to be the subject of axiological choices. A social modernization has
not fully eliminated the role of religion in their functions of explaining and justifying
the senses and aims of life. The relations betwen modernisation and secularization are
becoming multidimensionally conditioned and take place according to the principles of
“various speeds”. Interesting in this context are the conclusions formulated by
R. Inglehart and P. Norris who examine multiple connections between religiousness and
condition of the “society of risk”. The growth of existential security and richness facilitates
the decrease of religiousness. Rich societies are becoming more secular, but theworld is becoming more religious. A unanimously understood interdependence that
growing standards of living, as a consequence of progressive modernization, increases
the sense of existential security, is not certain. “Wandering” religiousness appears in
places in which it seemed to irrevocably withdraw. A global perspective seems to favour
the thesis that only from a Europocentric point of view one can treat secularization
as a universal process. European exceptionalism is explained by J. Casanova by
historical process of Church’s symbiosis (as a community of cult) with the national
state, which caused the Churches to take over the role of a caretaker of collective memory
and representative of the imagined national community, but, at the same time, the
loss of the ability to function as the religion of individual salvation. Europeans, losing
faith in their national Churches, do not look for alternative religions of salvation and
remain hidden members of their Churches, even if they leave them openly. Religion,
Church and religiousness remain a public good and are important elements of a social
life taking on new challenges the development of civilization brings. A good illustration
of a contemporary active presence of religion in a public political and economic
life are the examples in favour of solving problems of world danger, namely climatic
changes, which are also the answer of world religions to the expectations directed at
them on the part of international political and economic communities.
Peter Berger, on the basis of the analyses of global processes in the context of
world religions draws the following conclusion: “As far as big international religious
movements of our times are concerned, I would risk to formulate a statement that Evangelicalism
with its sacred leadership and community activeness may give a certain type
of a protodemocratic training to their advocates. I would be more cautious as for the Islam
revival, although the book by Robert Hefner has convinced me that the Islam tradition
has nothing that is in its nature opposite to democracy. (...) a new standpoint to democracy
taken over by the Catholic Church since the Second Vatican Council,
constituted an important factor in the processes of democratisation of different countries,
especially in sothern Europe, in Latin America, the Philippines and Catholic
churches of the former Soviet Imperium”. Jose Casanova, when bringing his theory
closer to deprivatisation, declares: “I cannot find an important reason to eliminate religion
from a democratic public event, on a democratic or liberal level. One can, at the
most, for pragmatic historical reasons defend the need to separate Church from state, although
I am no longer convinced if a complete separation is a necessary or ultimate
condition of democracy. The attempt to establish a wall of separation between religion
and politics is not justified and at the same time probably brings about the opposite result
to the intended one”. Even though we assume that a paradigm of secularization
does not experience a sort of crisis, certainly, it is not any of the circumstances that
would justify the announcement of the cessation of secularization processes.
Deprivatisation does not eliminate secularization processes though it allows for showing
the roles and functions of religion, Church and religiousness, a priori disavowed and
skipped but changing in the practices of a collective and individual social life, in the
culture, politics, economy, in different types of social systems and citizen society.
Secularization, though, is not only a withdrawal of religion and its institutionalised
base from the spheres of public life, but also the possibility of its conditioned allocation
in deep spheres of personal privateness. In other words, religiousness can be conditionally
accepted in a secularistic paradigm of society as long as it remains a private sphereof an individual and does not enter the stage of the theatre of public life, inscribing itself
in a visible way into the social roles being played. Such an understanding of the
privatisation of religion and religiousness composes the political category, or, more precisely,
a cultural correctness creating the expected and to some extent, obliging or even
enforced norms regulating the patterns of participation of an individual in a public life.
An interesting illustration of this “cultural rule” is an interpretation of the state of collective
mentality of the Czech society diagnosed before the visit of Benedict XVI the
Pope in this place. “What worries me before the Pope’s trip is the silence of Catholics
in the media. In the Czech Republic Church is elite in a sense, and many intelectuals,
people of culture and science belong to it. They experience their faith privately and are
afraid of taking a part when Church is being spoken of”.
The meeting of religion and cultures permeates the real experience of an every-day
life of societies. Sometimes it facilitates ghettoisation and accentuation of conflicts
axiologically and institutionally legitimised, in other cases, it takes on the form of
co-presence, tolerance or interreligious and intercultural cooperation built on the basis
of “holy” religious canons.
There are numerous examples of the processes filling in the social space spreading
from secularization and deprivatisation. Religion is present in the structures of social
life and in culture. It is present both when it creates the premises of social actions taken,
legitimises the moral order and culture, but also when it is the subject of criticism
and exclusion. Different European communities are in different segments of this religious-
cultural space, more or less distant from its extreme poles. There is no one single
model of religiousness changes and one single rule. Even though the world religions
undergo changes in the circumstances of modernization and globalization, the very
transformations are expressed in very different shapes.
I am familiar with the point of view underlining the understanding of the problem
of the presence of religion in the structures of the social world and its legitimising
functions in a dynamic perspective, or, in other terms, “multidirectional changes”. Both
nowadays and in the future, one should study the religions and Churches, namely, religiousness
and Churchness in the society of a deepening socio-cultural pluralism in
which, theoretically speaking, everything can happen. Changes of religiousness take
place gradually in different directions, sinusoidally and incoherently. According to William
Ogburn’s hypothesis of “cultural delay” they go in pendular swings to one and to
the other side. In contrast to pendulum movements, cultural-religious changes are never
either similar or the same. It is advisable to study both the diagnosis of the rhythm of
changes and discover new meanings and values ascribed to “the same” phenomena, social
processes and structures. The ideologies of (post)modernity do not solve all human
existential problems to an extent giving satisfaction from finding the senses and aims of
life. They themselves seem to drift into the abyss of subsequent crises. Sentencing religion
to an inevitable death or a far-reaching privatisation, is at least premature.
It is the very processes and religious-cultural phenomena filling in the social space
between secularization and deprivatisation that constitute the subject of sociological reflections
included in this book. The first chapter is an attempt of a theoreticising characteristic
of the legitimising function of religion in the processes of the social world
creation. The second chapter analyses the contemporary processes of secularization and
laicisation in the context of culture globalization. The third chapter treats about the phe-nomenon of the weakening the model of secularization in favour of the processes of
a new return of religion into the spheres of public life. Chapter four on religious practices
in “cultural costume” shows cultural contexts of religiousness patterns, by means of
which religion updates in individual and collective rhythms of a social life. The next
two chapters are treated as an empirical illustration of the processes and religious-social
phenomena filling in the space between secularization and deprivatisation. The main
source of the data in question is the interpretation of the results of various sociological
empirical studies, as well as informative agencies referring to the socio-religious events
in Poland and Europe. |