Berger-Modernity, Pluralism, Crisis of Meaning

7/28/2019 Berger-Modernity, Pluralism, Crisis of Meaning

1/72

Modernity,PluralismndheCrisis fMeaningTheOrientation f ModernManPeterL. BergerThomasLuckmann

Bertelsmannoundation ublishersGtersloh 995

Accessed Feb 26, 2013 http://www.stiftung.bertelsmann.de/bst/en/media/xcms_bst_dms_14283_14284_2.pdf


2/72

cIP-Fiihcns!!liJD!Nlodcrnn), lnLLsn lhoaissolneanLng rl,ronenrarion r nulco tr, PqerL Bor-lcr(i d.d.h : Bqldrmrn( l.Nn(d'on

01995 sedelsmrtrdridanon .iterslohEdio. Dr ndtrr Ktrhlmrnncory cdtor: ltisltr N!uPdhProdcriotrdnor sabr. Kltt'nrcover design IT(i !r(b.agqtrur, Rielereldcorerphoro Itobcd J)!Lru'11.K'ero.n.i. I'r{l

Ns Yo'k. soloDu, R (lu$erh.hMdsn'Latour andqpessr s dgtotrcn'bll, B,elercldPrint Fuldrervun.g$Nax, !ulda



3/72

Contents

lletner lYeidenleldPrefacePeterL. Betger,Tbomas uchmannModernity,pluralism nd hecrisisof meaningwhatbasic umanneeds f oricntationm u s te a t i s f i e d l . . . . . . . . . . . . 91. The foundations f the meaningfulnesso f h n m a ni f e . . . . . . . . . . . . 92. Themeaningfuhre*l .ocialrelrt ion


4/72

Preface

Questions f culturalorientatiooare among he most urgenr ssuesof modernsociety. ndividualismand pluralism ead o the conse-quence hat individualsmore anclmore face he difficulty to definestandards nd valuesguiding their own lives. ndividuaLsequirethese alueso be able o find orientationn a situation vhich s de-finedby optionsand he necessityo takedecisions.Three ccntral groups of questions lelineate rucial problems,which the Bertelsmannoumlation ntends o tackleby creatinganew ,rngc [ pro:c,son cuhural rrcntation:- l low can ndividualsealizemeaningfulivesby chosingrom

thc pluralisticnultiplicityof optionsl- How do humanbeings oorclinatehe numerous olesandsocialnetworks n which they interactl n other words:how do theystabilizchcir own identity)V/hat valuesystems uide hcir ideasof good and cvil? In asmuch :s individuals harcconrnron aluepatternswe have oraisca consccutiveuestion:'hichcommunities osuchndividu-als onn who sharcsimilar pattcrns f mearingand udge heirlives by the samevalue systcrns? nd finally: what do thesecomnrunities ontributc o thc integrationof the societyas awholeor to whatextcntdo thcy endangeruch ntegration?How canmodernsocietiesrovidedrerequiredigaturesl

Individualswho havcacquircd tableorienrations ossessn cffcc-tive panacea gainst xistentialhrcats o their self-perception.heyregard hemsclvesspeoplewith an undoubteddentity.And they



5/72

avail henxelvesf ethical tandardshich enablehem o judgetheir actionswith regard o their effecton society sa wholeOn all drree evelsndividuals aveceasedo act accordingo whathes raditionallybeen egarrled sself-evidentnd akcn or grantcd.Thereforc he ossof the taken-for-grantedas ed to the possibilityand cvennecessityo decide hat is meaningful, ood andsociailyacceptablc.his decisions an individualone and t is debatrblefthc cohesion f society uffcrs sa consequencefthesedecisions.naddrtionhe pluraiistic bundancef suchdecisionsllowscommun-it ies o emerge hichenjoy he oyalties f rheirmembers ut donot nccessarilyake nto eccounthewelfare f socictyasa whole.'fhe range f projects n "culnrralorientation" tartedts series fpublicationswith a first volumeon "'lhc lossof orientation thecohesion risis n modernsociety" in German anguage nly). In anext phase f the field of projectswc commissioned number ofexpcrtises. s a first result, Peter llerger (Boston)and 'lhomasLucknrann(Konstanz)present heir analysisof the mechanismswhich ead o a crisis f meaningn nodern society.his studyemergedrom a contextof projectswhich aredealingwith orientation in the mmediate ocial eighborhood ndwith the orientationby communicationn a workplacc environmentand in companyhierarchies. ther sub-projectsocuson the legitimacyof politicaliction and he limits to statecontrol of socialprocessesr on newchallengesue o the ever ncreasint omplexityof knowledge ndthe flow of informationwhich modern ndividualsace.PeterBergerand ThomasLucknrann ountamong he ceusesorthe modern risis f meaning rocesscsf modernization,Lural ismand particularlywith regard o Buropean ocieties seculariza-tion. fhjs leadso the conscqucncehat thevalidityof sharedmean-ing is difficult o mailtain for largergroupsof individualsn society.Patternsof meaningare being sharedand maintainedby smallercommunities.t is therefore rucial o distinguishn which way individuals nite to form these ommunities.n addition,all of themrelate o the functionalmacrosysternsn society ike politics,eco-6



6/72

nomy andscience.nteraction etweenheseevels ndcommunitiesis being egulated y intermediarynstitutions,mediacommunica-tion andmoralizing tatementsn everydayife. It will need urtherenquiry o establishefinitcknowledge n which nstitutions reef-fectiven this respect ndhow they perform heir task.The resultofsuch a study can be evidenceon the possibility o counteracrcentripetalendenciesn society.Prof.Dr. Verner \eidenfeldMemberof the Boardof theBertelsmannoundation



7/72

Modernity, pluralismand he crisisof meaningwhatbasic umanneeds f orientationmust be satisfied?Peter [.. etgerTbomas uchmann

1. The oundationsfthe meaningfulnessfhuman ifeIt is not apparent hether alk about he crisisof meaningn today'sworld really correspondso a new form of disorientationn the lifeof modernpcopLe. ould t be that wc aremerelyhearing he Latestrepetitionof an old lament?s ir the complaint 'hich cxpresseshefeeLing f distress hich hasagainand againafflictedhumanity nthe faceof a worid become nstcady?s this thc old lament, hathurnan ife s a ife to*'ardsdcath?s this thevoiceof doubt, hat thislife could ind its meaningn a transcendentistory of salvationlOris this despcration bout he lackof sucha meaningl Vc aredistantin time from thc book of the Ecclcsiastes'everythings noughtleverythings n vainl") ut notdistantrom hespiri tof thcChronicle of BishopC)ttovon Frcisingwritten more than 850 ycarsago:"ln alL,wc areso depressedy thc mcmory of thingspast, he pres'surcof thc present nd he fearof futurevicissitudeshat we acceptthe sentencef death hat is in rrsand rnay become ired of lifc it-self." t is even urther and all thc sanle ot so ar betwecn hecon-ceptions f human ate in history rom Thucydideso AlbenCamus.



8/72

On t,hat basis remodern andpost-modern)riticsof present aysocietyand cultureconvinced hat the crisisof our tirnes s funda-mentally different rom aLlpastmkeries?Theseobservers ardlystart rom the assumptionhat thcrehasbeena radical hangen thehumancondition, he conditiohumana.Rather hey seem o suspecta new socialconstitutiorof the meaningof human ife in moder-nity, which has hrown meaning, ndwith it human ife, into a his'torically uniquecrisis.SuchspecLationsre powerfully suggestiveandmay appear onvincing,hatdoesnot mean,however, hat theywill actually standup to cmpiricaLnvestigation.Contemporarysociological nalysisends ar too easily o assumehe existence fsomethingike meaningand meaningfulnesss fiotive of humanactionandasa backdrop gainst hich he moderncrisisof meaningis apparcnt.t is,therefore, ecessaryo beginwith sonreanthropo-logicalpreliminaries. hey shallseek o identifythe general ondi-tions and basicstructures f mexningfulhuman ife. Only in thisway is it possibleo improveour understandingf chengesn par-ticular tructuresf meaning.

Meaning s constitutedn humanconsciousness:n the consciousnessof the individual,who is individuatedn a body andwho hasbeensocialized sa person.Consciousness,ndividuation,he speci-ficity of the body, societyand the historico'social onstitutionofpcrsonal dentity are charactristicsf our species,he phylo- andontogenesis f which need not be considered- lowever,we willprovicle shortsketchof the generaLerformancesf consciousnessfrom which the multi-layeredmeaningfulnessf experience nd ac-tion in human ife is built up.Conscior.rsncssaken n itself s nothing; t is always onsciousnessofsomething. t exists nly in so ar as t directs ts attntionowerdsan object, owerdsa goal.This intentionalobject s constituted ythe varioussyntheticachievementsf consciousnessnd appearsnits gcner;lstructure. herher t bc perception. emoryor imagination:around he core, he theme' of the intentional bject,extends thematic ield that is delimitedby an openhorizon.This10



9/72

horizon in which consciousness f ones own body is always givencan lso be themxtizcd. The sequence f interconnected hemes-lct us call them apprehensions' is in itself stili without meaning.It is however the foundation, on which rncaning can come into ex-istence. For, apprehensionswhich do not occur simply and inde-pendentLybut which the ego turns its attention lowards acquire ahigher degrecof thcmatic definition; thcy becomeclearly contoured"expcrienccs".

Expericnces aken nrdividr.rallywouLd stili bc without mcaningIlowever, as a core of expcricncc cletachestself from the back'ground of apprehensions, onsciousness rasps he rclatioD of thiscore to other expcnences.The srmplcst orm of such relationshipsare "equal ' , 's imi1ar" , d i f fcrcnt" , "equal lygood', "d i f ferentandworse" etc. Thus is constituted thc most elementary evel of mean-ing. Me:rning s nothing but a complex form of consciousness:t doesnor exist ndependently.k always has a point of reference.Meaningis consciousness f the fact th:t a relationship exists betweenexperiences.he inverse s also rue: the meaning f experiencesand, as wiLl be shon'n, of actjons has to be constructed hrough' re lat ional" erformancesf consciousness.he experienceurrentar a particular monent can be rclated to one in the immediate ordistant past. GeneralLy,each expcrience s relatednot to one other,but to a type of experience, schenre f experience,a maxim, morallegitimation ctc. won fron many experiencesand cither stored insubjectiveknowiedge or tkcn fronl a socialstoreof knowledge.As convoluted as this phcnomcnology of multi-layered perform-ancesof consciousness xy scenr, ts resultsare the simple elemeotsof meaning n our daily livcs. -or cxample, n the apprehensionof aflower a typical gestalt s tied in with a typical color connected o atypical quality of snell, touch, and use. In directed consciousnessthis apprehensionbecomesexperience, his experience s grasped nrelation to other experiences"so nrany flowcrs') or related o a clas'sification taken from a social stock of knowledge ("an Alpineflower') and may finally be intcgrated nto a plan of action ("pick it



10/72

and ake t to my lovcdone!"). n this processmultiple ypes "A1-pine lower", lovedone')are ntegrateclnto a processualcheme('pick n and ake t to') and usednto a morecomplex, ut sti l leveryday nit of meening. f finrlly this project s not simply putinto action becauset confiicts with a morally founded maxim("don't pick itl rare flowerl"), then a decision s arrivedat and ahigher evelmeaningsconstitutedhrough he scquential vaiuationof values nd ntcrcsts.'l his example lreadyndicateshe doublemeaning f 'acting"and"action".Th meaning f the currentact s constituted rospective-ly. A completcd ction s meaningfuln retrospect. ction is guidedby aview o a prcconceivedim.Thisdesignsa utopian which heactor anticipates future stete,assesscsts desirabilityand urgencyandconsidershe stepswhich will bring it about- insofaras heprocesss not fanri l iarhroughearl ier imilaractions ndhasnotbccome habit. ' Ihe neaningfthc acions, in the acr", s consti-tutedby their clationo thegoal.The completedcion,wherhersuccessfulr not - but also he actionprojected scomplete canbe comparedo other actions, an be undersrood s he fulfillmentof maxims, an be explained nd ustifiedes he execution f laws,canbcexcusedsdefying norm, anbedeniedo others nd n thelimit also o oneself.hedoublemeaningnd hecomplex tructureof meaning recharacteristicf all actionbut in day-to-dayoutine!he chxracteristicsayappear lurred.Socialaction,of course, hareshis structureof meaningbut ac-quiresadditional haracteristicimensions:t can be indirect or di-rect, t canbe mutualor unilateral.Socialactioncanbe directed o-wardsotherpcoplepresent r absent, eador unborn. t canseek oaddresshem n their individuality,or associal ypesof differentde-grees f anonynrity, r nrerclyassocial ategories.t can be directedtowardsobtaininga responser nor - theremay,or may not be,ananswer.t canbc intended suniqueor may aim to achieve egularrepetitionor to be prolonged hrough ime. The complexmeaning

l2



11/72

of social action and social relations is constructed n thesedifferentdimensionsof nreaning.In speakingof the constitution of nreaning n thc consciousnessfthe individual it rvasalreadyclear that this could not neen the isolated subject, hc s'indowless monad. Daily life is full of manyfoldsuccessionsf soci ir l ct ionand he personaldenti tyof the individ-ual s formedonly in this action.Purclysubjectivepprchensionsrethe foundation of the constitution of meaning: simplc layers ofmcaning can bc created n thc s.rbjcctive expericnce of a Peison.Higher laycrs of meaning and a more complex strucnrrc of meaningdependon thc objectificationof subjectivemeaning n socialaction.The individuaLs only able o makecomplicated ogical onnectionsand init iateand control dif ferentiatedequencesf action f he orshe s ablc to draw on the vealth of experienceavaiiable n a socialcontexr. In fact, elemcntsof meaningsirapedby older streamsof so-cial action "tradit ions'), low even n the lowest evclsof meaningof nrdividLralxperience.Iypif ication,classif ication,atterns f ex-pcrience nd schcnles { ection are elcnrents f subjectivc toresofknowledge that are largely takcn over ftom thc social stock ofknowledge.Certainly, subjcctive constitution of meaning is the origin of allsocial stocks of knowiedge, historicai rcservoirs of meaning, onwhich peoplc born into a particular society in a particular epochmay dral. ' lhe neaning of an cxperience l action was born''somewherc, once upon a timc in the conscious, problenlsoLving"action of an individuai relative to his or her natural andsocialenvironnrcnt. Howeverl si ce most problenrswith which thenrdividual is confronted also arise n thc lives of other pcople, thesolutions to these problems arc not just subjcctively but alsointcrsubjectivelyclcvant. i ther he problcIrrshemselvesrise rominteractive social action, so that the solutionsmust also be found incommon. Ihcsc solutions can also be objectified n one of a numberof possible ways, through signs, tools, buildings, but above all

l l



12/72

through thc cormnunicativeornx of a language n


13/72

'lhe subjectivesolutions'for problenrs f experiencend action,thc "primary" objcctifications f rreening vhich becamentersuLr-jcctivclyretrievablehrough conrrnunication ith othcrsaresocial_ly processed n different "paths"\ir'hichhavevaried enormouslyacross istory. In institutionaLly ontrollerl"secondary'processesmuch s gnored s oo nsignificant;ther hings rediscardeds nappropriate r even dangerous. part of the objectifications fnrcanig drawnon for processingre nerely stored way,dlose*'hich are udged o be adequate r right aregivena form of ordcr,vhi lc certain lementsc


14/72

diffusccxpcrtknowledgen populariz,cdorm and peopleappropri-arcpicccs f this nformation nd ntegratet with thcir stockofThe arcas f rneaning restratificd.The "lowest',simplestypifi

cations, elatingo factsof namreand he socialworld, are hc foun-dationsof differentparternsof cxperience nd action.Stacked nthcsc ypificationsare schenesof action orientatcdby maxirnsofaction owardshigher values.Supcrordinateconligurationsof va-luc" hrvc bcendevelopedince heold high culturcs y rcligious ndlater phiJosophicalxperrsnto valuesystenN. hese lainr o nrean,ingfully cxplainandregulatchc conductof life of thc inclividuainrelation o thc community n both routines f daily ife and n over-coming criscswith referenceowardsrealities ransccnding veryday ifc (thcodicy).The claiurof superordinatconligurations f values ndvaluesys,rems " f i l l r he n r i r " r y f l i f ewr rhn re rn ing. n ros rpp . rygn ln Ischenre rat brings ogethermodels or action n the mostdiverseareas nd its them nto a projectionof meaninghat srrerchesrombirth to death.This scheme f mcaningelateshe totalityof a life toa time that transcendsre ife of the individuale.g. 'erernity").Biographical atcgories f ncaning, as wc call thcm, endow themcxning of short-range ctiols with long,tern significancc. hemeaningof cvcryday outinesdoesnot disappear ntirelybut it issubordinateo the "meanjngof l i fc". (c wil l narne cre,amongstthe manyhistorical onstructionsf biographical chcnrcs,nly rhesmall enrc f theexemplaryifc' and he arger enrc f theholyl i fe", rhc ancienthcroic cpic, and thc modern heroic egend(e.g. PrinceEugene,Georgc Vashington,Baron von Richrhofen,Antoinedc St.Exupry,Rosa,uxemburg, takhanov).All institrrtions mbodyan 'original' action-nealingwhich hasproved tself n the definitivc cgLrlationf socialaction n a parricu-lar functionalarea.Of particular rlportanceare those nstiturionswhose ask ncludeshe sociaL rocessingf meaning-Most import,ant of all are hose nstitutionswhosemainfunctions onsistn thel 6



15/72

coDtrolof the productionof mcaning nd he transmissionf mean_ing.Such nstitutionsave xistedn almost l l socictiesther hnthc archaic.n dreold high culturcs, n thesocietiesf the earlymo'dcrn periodand latcr (e.g. in todays ran) rcLigiousmoral instittrtions havebcencloscLyied to thc apparatus f domination TheycoLrld im relativelysuccessfullyt both the productionand distri'butionof a relativcly onsistentierarchy f meaning.f howevertheconditionsothof productionnddistributionf socialmeaningapproximatco an opcnmarket, his hasconsidcrableonsequcncesfor the 'nreaningbudget'. n that case nunrbcr f suPPliersfmcaningcompctc or the favor c,f a public that is confrontedwiththe clifficultyof choosinghe nrostsuitablemeaningrom the wcalthof me:ningsvailable. cshall enrrn o this ater.Insti tutionsave he askof storing ndmaking "ai lable eaningfor theactions f the ndividualboth in particular ituations nd oren e[tire conductof lifc.This functionof institutionss however sscntially elated o tire rolc of dre ndividualasa consumer ut alsof i on l *e ' o . , r r r . : p rodu ,ro f rcan in6 .This relationshipanbe comparativelyimplc nbotharchaico-cietics nd n most raditionalhighcultures.n suchcivilizationshemcaning f indivrrhraLsphcresf actionss ntegratcdithoutmajorruptures ith thc o"erallmeaning f life conductand his s tself cfcrred o a rclativelycoherent aluesystcm. he conrmunicationfrneanings oincd o thc controlof the productionof mcanirg. lducationor direct incloctrination ccks o ensurehat the lndividualonly thinks and doeswhat conforns to the basicnorms of thc so-cicty. And thc corrtrolandcensorshipf everythinghat is pubLiclysaid, aughtor preachcd ims o prevent he diffusionof dissidcntopinion.nternal ndexternalompetit ions auoided r el iminated(not always ucccssfullyl).he re:rning { actions nd ife conductsirlposedasa unquestioncdule brndingon all.For examPle,he rc-lationshipof marricd couplesand the relationshipof parents ochildrcns defincd nambiguously.arents ndchildren enerallyconform;devianccs clearlydefincd sdcviancerom thc norn.

17



16/72

In modernsocietiesonditionsare different.Of course, here arestill institutionswhichconmunicatche meaning f actionsor theirparticularareaof action; here arestill valuesystcmswhich are ad-ministercd y some nstitutionsasnrcaningfulategoriesf life con,duct. Ho*'cver, as will be sho*'n, there are, by comparisonwithpremodern ocieties,ifferencesn the consisrencyf valuesystemsas n the internaland external onpetitionover the productionofmeaning,hc communication f rneaning, nd ts mposition.To re-turn oncemorc to the example:n modernsocietiest wouldbe dif-ficult to find parcntsand children for whom the relationshipsequallybindingon both partiesand s de{ined nquestioninglyy afirm valucsystem.

2. Thc meaningfulnessf social elationships,the concurrence f meaningand he generalconditions or crises f meaning

Socially bjcctified ndprocesscdtocks f meaning re"preserved"in historical eservoirs f mcaningand "administered"by institu-tions.The actions f the ndividualareshaped y objectivemeaningsuppliedrom social tocks f knorvledge ndcommunicated y thepressureor compliancewhich emanatesrom institutions.n thisprocess,bjectificdmeanings constantlyn interactionwith subjec-tively constitutcdmeaning nd ndividualprojects or acion. IIow-ever,nreaning analsobe ascribed one might evensay,aboveall- to the intcr'subjcctivetructureof social elationsn which thcindividualac* and ives.From the very beginninga child is incorporatednto sociaLela-tionships:with its parents ndwith othersignificant ersons. heserelationshipseveiopn regular, ircct andreciprocal ctions. trict-l 8



17/72

ly, an infant is not capableof action in the full meening of the word.As an individuated organism i! has, however, the bodily and con-scious apacit icsnherent o thc humanspecies hich i t employs ni ts behavior owardsothers. ' Ihc actionsof others elative o thechild are thcmseives argely dctennined by schemesof experienceand action that are drawn frotr s


18/72

with biographical categoriesand schemesof action and rhar rheothers who enter inro sociai rclations with the child do not nrirrorits behavior even approximatcly. The typical consequencesor thedevelopment o{ thc child arc predictable!Pcrfect concordancc,asprojccted bove, s neverachieved, ut rrchaicsocietics nd he traditional high cuitures were not far removed from it. The oppositecasehas hovever no correspondingeaLiry: socierywithout anykind of value ystem ndsithout stocks f mcaningadaptedo it ishard to imagine as a "society . As a child one is born into commun-, t r c .u f l i f e l e b e n r te mc in rh a l r c n th r , h r r e - t o \ r y i n ge x i . n r salso conmunities of meaning. lhat means hat even without aunivcrsally sharedstock of meaning adapted o a single,closedvalucsysten conrmonaltiesof meaning can be developcd n communitiesor drawn from the historical rescrvoir o{ meaning.These comrlonmeaningscan then, of course,be contnrunicated o children relative-Iy consistently.Communitiesoflife arecharactcrized y regularlyrepeated, ircctlyreciprocalaction in durablc social clat ionships. hosc involvedplace an institutionaily or other\r,isesecured rust in thc durabilityof the cormnunity. Beyond thesebasiccommonalties here are widedifferenccsbetweensocieties n the differcnt forms of conrmunitieswhich are nstitutionalized n them. The universalbasic orm are ifecommunities into which ole is born. However, there are also lifccommunities into which one is adoptcd and those which one joins,such as partners in marriagc. Some cornmunities of life formthcftselves hrough adaptingoncs life to the continuation of sociaLrelationsthat were originally not intended to be prolonged, othersrcquire init iat ion. Thc examplcs nclude holy orders which alsoconsti tute hemselves s conrmunit ies f rneaning,eper colonies,retlrctuent homes!andPrisons.Comnunities of life presupposca minimum of cornmon meaning.'fhis measurccan in some societiesand for some forms of conrmu-nity be very minimal: it may concern only the coincidcnceof theobjcctive ncaning of the schemcs f day to day socialaction, asper-2A



19/72

haps in ancient slave householdsor in nrodern prisons. Commu'nities of life may also aspire o complcteunison in all layersof mean-lng including the categories f thc entire conduct o[ life as n somemonastic orders or in the ideal of certain tyPes of marriage.However,most comntunities of life acrossdiffcrent sociticsand ePochesaspire to a dcgree of sharednrcaning somevhere in between thisnl inimum andmaxinrum.l x p c . r : r o n . l o


20/72

nity of meaninghen their disagreemenrould be painful or bothpartncrs nd he crisisof meaningwouldescalatento a lifecrisis.Let us renrain or an instant vith our example. et trsassumehewife encountcrs theragingnrarriedwomenwho havearrivedat asimilar erspcctiven theircommon ging, perspectivehichdoesnot agrec ith the dominantviewsshared y their hLrsbancls.n ex-changing hcir expericnces conmunity of meaning might beformed. n thc first variantof our examplehis communityof mean-ing remains spartialasdoes hc rlisagreementith the husband ndthere{ore ervcs scompensationather han replaccment.n the se-cond variantany partiaL isagreements interpretcdas "total" andthe new foundcommunity f meaningould ake heplace f thebroken narriage.Vhere ; r i f * .ommun i r i c \ l r \ lp re \ume n r in imr rn. rmmun i ryof meanrng,he inverses not true. Communiticsof meaningmayundercertaincircumstancesecome ommunities f lifc, they mayhoweverbc built up and naintainedexclusivelyhrough nrediared,reciprocalaction-Theseconrnrunities ay be foundedon differentnot directlypracticalevelsof nreanrng nd may concerndifferentrealmsof meaning, .g. philosophical, uchas he humanist irclesof the early modernperiod, scientific, uch es the nlany E-Mailcliquesof today, or the "meetingof souls"of which farnous or-respondenccsell, suchas har between 6loiseandAb6lard.\Vehave cenhatundercertain ircunrstancesroblenrsmayoccurin the intersubjectiveonstructionf the personaldentity f thechild to which the term subjective risisof meaningnray be appli-cable. f the behaviorof the child is constantly onfronred n theactionof significanr dultswith incongruent eacrionshe child willbe able o discern hc objecrive ocialmeaningof its actionsonlywith difficLrlty r not at all. If the child doesnor receive easonablyconcordantnswerso the questionwhoam ? posedhroughoutits behavior, hen ir nrustencounrer reatdifficulties n taking onresponsibilityor itself.Even f under rore favorablc ircumstancesthe identityof a pcrsonhasbeenunproblemaricallyonstructed,ts22



21/72

strength can be endangcredater Lrypersistent,systematlcLrlconsrs-tency in the rcflection of its actions n the actionsof othersF u r l . . r n r r r . ,w e h a 'e e c n h r r r r r d c re r t a i r c u n . r , r n ,. i n t e r _subjecrive r iscsof meaningmay occur. For different forms ofcommunity of life different typicaLmcasures f coherenceare to beexpected and thesediffcr from society to societyand from periodto period. 1hc condition for a crisis of meaning s that the mcnbersof a particular life-community acceptunqestioningly thc degreeofcoincidencc f neaning expectetl f them, but areunable o matchi t . s wasalready tatcd,his discrcpancyetween is' and 'should"appears art icularly ften f the dcal s -rf l i fe community nsist hatr r


22/72

cnrergcncef crisisof meaning trvo basic ypesof social tructureacross ll cpoches-'l he first type not particularly usceptibleo crises f merningaresocicties hich havea single ndgenerally indingvalue ysternntowhich thedifferent ayers ndrcalms f rncaning rewell intcgrxrcd:from cveryclay chemesf expericnce ndaction o the superordi-nate categories f lifc conduct and crisis managerncnt irectedtovards extraordinaryealiries. he totaL tockof meanings storedandmanagedn socialnstrtutions.Becausehe schemesf actionobjcctified ndmademandatory nsocial nstitutionsare directed owardsa common valuesystemsuperordinateo the specific reaningt is assuredn this type of so-cicty that the institutions ustainhc orderof mcaningn basic on-cordance ith practicalife. lhcy do this directlyand,so to speak,in dctail,by imprinting henlsclves r1 hc meaning f manyday today actions;hcy do this,so o spcak,n the argeby identifyingbio-graphical ategoriesf meaningwith communities f life, n particu-lar hose 4rich reentrustedirh forrninghe personaldentity f. L r l d rcnBro ru rngnro renrbc r .f . oc i c r y .Differcntsocietiesorrespondo this basicype o differentextents.Archaicsocietiesorrespondrost truely to this type.The complcx,ancicnthighculturesareslightly ess losc,but essentialharaceris-tics of this type are o be found cven n the premodern ocieriesfmodern times. Like all other societieshesesocieties ave nranyorganizationalroblems nd heir members aveevery ife probleminraginable:n dealingwith nature,work, domination,ife anddeath.Natural ly herearealsoqucslons f meaningor the ndi-vidual.But these omparativelytable, ftenevenstatic ocicriescommunicate n order of meaningwhich is consistento a largeextent hrough congruentprocesscsf sociaiization nd thc irxti-tutionalizationof action.Thcseproccssesre located n meaning-fully rclated ifecommunities ncldiffcrcntsocialspaces.his basictype may be simplifiedas an ideal ype, howeversocieticswhosestructureevenapproximateso this type provideno ground or the24



23/72

growth and extensionof subjective nd inter+ubjective risesofmeaning.'l'hingsarediffcrent n societicsn which shared ndbindingvalucsarc no longer given for everyoncand structuraLlyecured nd inwhich hese alLrcso not pcrmeate l l spheresf l i fe equally ndbring hem nto concordancc.hrs Ls he basic oncli t ionor thespread f both subjective nd nter-subjectiverises f rneaning.nformulatinghis basicype of socicty liableto crises"wc will againneglectmany dctails o identify n sinplification ts structural har-

In suchsocietieshcremay be aualue ystcn nheritedby traditionas a stock ol nreaningrom bygoneperiods.This valuesystemsobjectifiedn the socieral tockof knowledge nd s hereend herestill administered y specializedrcligious)nstitutions.Ihere mayevenbc more han one setof valucs imported"fronr the stocks fthe musc magin:rire f meanings. ot wantingto dexl with thequestion f socrlled pluralisn at this point we set o one side heposibility that a multiplicityof valuesystems aycoexistA societymayeven e l iableo crisis"f i t containsnlyonesingle aluc ys-tem, n the firll sense f theword, a single ystem onsisting f elementsof mcaning frorn schemes f experience nd action all theway to gener:rl ategoriesf life conduct) ncorPorating ll spheresof life arranged teprviseo{'ardssuperordinatealucs.Evenn such societyavalueystcm ouldbeboth resentndnotpresen!.n sucha society he big instirutions of the economy,politics,andreligion)haveseparatedhemselvesrom the superordi-natevalucsysten anddeterminehe actionof the individual n thefunctionalarca hat they administcr. conomicandpolitical nstitu-tions makeobligatorydre instmncntal ational,objcctivemeaningof schemesf:ctjon in those reasor which heyare esponsible.'On the sidc so to spcak, el igiousnstitutionsoffer" value-rationaLwcrtrational) ategoriesor life conduct.S(euse hc term' offer' even n thc case, ssumedcre, hat society ontains nly oneordcr of meaning rientatedowards upcrordintcalucs, ot muf

25



24/72

tiple,courpcting ystems. ecauseven n this case eligiorrsnstitu-tions ransmithehigher rdcrcategoriesapablef givingmeaningto the entircconduct f Life, ut evenwithoutcompetit ionromothcrvaluc ystenshese :tetoriesmay not be madcbinding ndmay not be inposedon the conductof people.Overall, he nstitu-tionsof tilis type of societyno longercarrya well-ordered rockofmeaningand value consistendy nd bindingly nto thc practiceoflife.A socicty s rnthinkable entirely without common valuesandsharednterpretationsf reali ty.Vhat is the natureof valuesnsucha type of society, bvrously ending owards he modern,andwhercare hey to be found)It is certain hat the scheDresf actioninstitutionalizedn the different unctionalspheres avea bindinganclobjcctivemeaningor thoseacting n them. n the organizationof actionwithin a singlesphere here s definitelya communityofmeaning. 'harhowever s not much by way of commonalties. heobjectivemeaningof institutionalized chemesf :rction s instru-mentallyorientatedowardshe functionof this area.Apart from itsgeneralizablespect s nstrumentallyariofial his institutionalizedschemeof action cannot be transferredbetweensphercsand itcertainly cannot be integrated nto superordinate chenres fmeaning. he objectivemeaningof acrioncannor n itself be inte-grated nto ctegoriesefrring o rhe subjectand simultaneouslydirectcd owardsa superordinatealuesystem.Only rcligiousand'quasi 'rel igiousnstitutionsommunicateategoriesf meaningwith sucha claim o generality. his claim s however efutedby theobjcctive eaning f theschemesf action f theother big"insti-tutions. lhesemeanings irecr [e adion of the individual n mostarcasof daily lifc, whether rhey conform ro the superordinatemeaningsf schemesf life cornnrunicared,or cxample y religiousinstitutions,or not. The clai to integrateonesown life into asuperordinatc aluesystemcan be realizedessentially nly in asphere ot touched y the othcr 'big' insti tutions,in a sphere o-cial iy efined s he private phere'.26



25/72

A minimumof shared eaningsn a societys containedn theteneral grccmentiven o the "firnctic,ningof functions',e. theagreementhat in eachareaof actioncondud shouldbe directedtowards nstrumcntally at ional requircments. ncl this minimalconsensuss sccured y the generl ccePtancehat in the Privatereserves f individual existencc nd comnlunitiesof life separatemeanings f Lifemay be pursucd, istinct rom thoseof other ndividualsand groups.This minimum may be cxceedcd ven n thistypc of societics. irst, it is remarkablehat the "big" institutionsbind their spccific meanings beyond the rationality of theorganization f actionwithin thenr to general alucs, uchas orexampledrcgeneralnterest".-xceedinghemininlLrmn thiswaymay fulfill abo"e all legitimatelypurposeswhile the schemes laction henxclvcsmay remainuntouched. urthermore, econdly,individr.ralsndcomrnunitiesf meaningmay attenPt o difcct heiraction evcn within a sphereadnrinistcred y a 'big' institutiontowards supcrordinate values' going beyond its instrumentallyrationalobjectivcmeaning.lowevcr, this canoccuronly in conflictwith thespecificnstrumentalationality.'fhe attenrpts y institutionso conncto suPerordinatcaluesorlcgitimatorypurposesmay prodrrcc nly vapid onnLriac ndvalue-orientated onductof life may bc limited to the reserve f the pri-vate.This would add o the conditions or the spread f subjectiveanrl nter-subjectivcrises f nrcaning. owever,his alsocreates,simultaneously,he precondrtionsor something lse,nanely thecoexistencef different alue ystems nclfragmentsf value ystemsin the sanre ocietyand hus he parallelexistencef quitedifferentcommunities f meaning.The statewhich results ronr thsepre-conditions an be calledpluralism. f it itselfbecomes suPerordinatevalue or asocictywe mayspeak f modernplLrralism

27



26/72

3. Modernity and he crisisof meaningIf pluralism rveredefinedas a state n which people who lead theirlives in vcry different ways are to bc found in thc samesociety,onewould not be dealingwith a spccificallymodern phenomenon.Onecould find one or other variant o{ pluralism in almost all societiesother than the archaic.Ancient lndia as well as the India o{ todaywas charactcrizedby a pluralism of casts,medieval Europe by apluralism of estates- ut in thcse examplcs he dif ferent forms of lifewould still be related o a common valuesysten and thc interactionbctween the communities of life would remain limited and strictlyregulrtcd. Even if one defincdpluralisrn as a state n which dif{erentforrns of lifc were to be found in a society without thesedifferentforms of life being referrcd to a common valuesystemone would beablc to find examples, or instance the Roman Empire which ineconomic and poLitical erms wasa single sociery.But even here theinteraction between thc different groups and peoples- insofar asthey werc not regionallyseparatcd wasreglllatedsuch that the dif -fercnt supcrordinatestocksof nreaningwere uncoupled rom the in-stitutionalized schcmesof action of the functional spheres.The dif-ferent groups could, therefore, interacr in the instrumentally ra-tional spheres [ action while at thc same ime remaining attached otheir orvn valuesystems-For example, he relationsofJews to non,Jews vere egulated y the so-cal ledfenceofthe law".1f hesc egulationsreno longer, r canno longer,be nraintained,then a ncw situation is created, widr serious mplications for thetakcn-for granted starusof value systemsand overarching views ofthe world. Thc ethnic, religious and orher groups and coDrmunitiesof lifc, divided by different stocksof meaning,are no longcr spatially.cp.]rrr.d r. for o,ample n rrgrorr ut r rorierl or ' r rrc or in quar.ters or thetrocs of a city), nor do they interact only through theneutral tcrrain of strictly separated equencesf action in institution-

al ized functional spheres.Encountersor, under certain circum-2 8



27/72

stances, lashes etwcendiflerent vluesystensnd views of theworld becomcnevitablc.'l'hcreha'e bcenapproximationso this state f affairs efore, . g.in thc Ilellenic uorlcl. This form of pltralisrn is not necessarilyl inkcd o thespread f crises f meaning,hough articulariyn theHellcnic world therewcrealsosigns f this.This form of plLrralismhasbecomeully flcdged nly in modcrnsocietics. ere, he ccntralstructuralaspects f this pluralisnrhavcbeen aiseclo the sttus fan cnlightencd aluc bovehediffcrent oexistingndcontpetingvalue systcnx.So, for examplc, c'lerances rcckoned he "en-lightencd'virtuepar cxcellence,ince nLy hrough olerance an n-dividuaLs nd conrmunities ivesideby sicle nd with one anodler,whilst directing eir existence owards different values. Thismodcrn orm of plural isn s,ho*cvcr,also hc Lrasiconditionortire spread f mbjcctive nd inter ubjectiverises f meaning.\Vhethcrmodernpluralismneccssarilycadso suchcrisess enopenquestion. owevcr,one can say with certainty hat in highlydevcloperl ndusrrial countries, i-c. where mc,dernizationhasprogrcsseclurthcst and thc nlern form of pLuralisms fullydevelopcd, aluesystems nd stocksof meaningareno longcr thecomnronpropertyof ail members 'f society.l he individualgrowsup in a norld in which herearc neither onrmon alues hichdeternrinection n different phcres f l i fe, nor a single cali tyidentical or all. The 'ndividual s incorporatednto a suPcrordinatesystem f meaning y thc cornmunityof life in which it growsup.Howcvcr, his canrot be assunedo bc the nrcaring ystem f odlerpcopleMitmcnschen).hcse thersmayha"cbeen hapedy quhedifferentsysrensof nrcaning n the communities f life in whichthey grew up. In Europc, sharedand overarching ystems f in-terprctationwerc alreadyshakcn n the early phaseof modcrni-zation. The history of totalitarian deologiesn the last hundredycarshasshorvn h:rt nothing,not cvenradical egrcssion,an restore such nterpretativc chemes cnnanentlyor make thcnr thestructLrralharactcristic f a modernsociety.t is, by the way, also



28/72

questionablehcther undamentalistttemptsn rhecountries fthesocalledThird Vorld will be more successlulegardlessf the in-tensiry rvuh *'hrch overarching nd universallybindingstocksofmeaning redefendedoday.It hasbeennotcd hat suchconditions ronrote he spread f sub-jectiveand ntcr-subjectiverises f meaning. ut whilesome ondi-tionsaccelerateuchcriseshereareotherswhich hinder hem.Thepalcsuperordinatealues f modernplural ism o not have hispower.Theynrayhaveotherusefuleffectsn that they promote hepeaceful oexistencef diffcrent forms of life and value systems.lhey are,howevcr,not suitableo dircctly counteracthe spread fcrises f meaning.They tell the inclividual ow to behave owardsother peopleand groupswho differ in their view of life. They donot, however,ell one how one should eadonc's ife whenthe un-questionedalidity of the traditionalorder is shaken. hat may beachieved y diffcrentmeans.As the degreeo which sociallyvalidconditioningof shared nterpretations l reality decreasesifferentcommunities f life candevelopncreasinglynto quasi-autononrouscomnunitiesof meaning.nsofaras hese ommunities rove hem-selveselatively tablehey may preserveheir nrembersrom crisesof meaning. tability sparticularly mportant or theroleplayedbysuch ife communitiesn the coherent ormationof personaldentityof children grorvingup in them, who may thereby be protectedfrom subjectiverises f meaning. oncrete ommunitiesf l i fe asqasr'autonomousonmunitiesof nreaning,ndnrorestable, pure"conrmurnitics f like minded peoplc (Gesinnungsgemeinschaften)

counteracthe pa demicspread f crises f meaning. owever, heycannot ranscendhe preconditionshichprornotehe spread Fcnscsof meaninganchoredstructurally n modern society. iur-themore, to rcpeat his point, communities f ljfe nr whichthe dis,crepncy etween he expectcd nd actualcommunityof mcaningis too greatcan themselvesecome he trigger for inter-subjectivecrisesfmeaning.This dialecticalelationship ctween he lossof meaning nd the

30



29/72

nev creat ion f nreaningr betweenheerosion f nrcaningnd tsrebuilding anmostclcarlybe observedn the case f religion.lhisis, n anycase,hr: most mportant orm of a comprehensiveatternof experienccndvalues,ystematicallytructurcd ndrich in mean_ing. For the argest artof humanhistory a societywasunthinkablewithout a singlercligion encompassingverythingand everyone'lhc godsof nry ancestorserc nanrrallyalsonry own gods;mygodswerenaturallyaLsohe godsof all the members f my tribe orry town. Most archaic ocieties cre ike this.Across ong periodsof time high culnrreswith rnany differentiated ocial nstitutionswcre ike hisaswcll.Then hisunitybetweenhe ndividual,isorhersociety nd hegods, mbodyinghchighest uthorityn theor-dcr of vaiue, vas hakenn diffcrcntpiaces ndat diflerent ypesbyreligious chisms. his happenedong before he beginning f mo-dernity,as or exarnplen the exodus f lsrael rom the unifiedsymbolic order of the MiddleEast,or evenmore radicallyn the separa-tion of Christianity rom the symbolicorder of classical ntiquity.After suchschisnrsherewere rcpeated ttemptso restorea superordinatesysrem f oreaning n a new basis, erhaps f a smallerscope"subculture'nstead f culturc) as n the unity of the tribeof Israclwith its God or in the constant earchor thc unity of theChristian hurch.Vith the concept f Christendomn the Europeanmiddleages nanemptwasmade o irring ogetherall the peoplen a certrin spaceof power under a single,common and superordinate ystemolmeaning, nd to h,-,ld hcm there. Vc know that this attemPtwasneverentircly successful.ithin Christendom rinorities reservedtheir special ymbolic ysterlsJews, heretics, ultsderiving rom apagan art.At ti'res thc symbolicunity of Christendomwasbrokeup from without lslam) r fromwithin GreekOrthodoxy, lbin-gensians).t wasmostseverelyhakcn y the Rcformation- he con-sequencesf thn quakewerenot intended,or the reformerswantedto restoreand prcscrve uni{iedChristendom n r ncw basis. heschismof thc church foiled this attempt at thc European evel.

l 1



30/72

Alongsidehc Orthodoxchurch wo new "Christcndoms"emerged- onc C:rtholic, heothcr Protcstant. he formula rvirh which thereligiouswars n centralEuropcwereended cuius cgio,eius eli-gio- wis thc foundation or an attcnrpt o restorc ymbolicunity atleast i thinsmall pacesf rule.Llowcver,ue o theonset f modernizationcven this territorial solution was only short ived. In-dustrialization, rtranization, rigrationand masscommunicationscould not be clcanlydivided nto CatholicandProtestant hannels.In nodcrn centralEuropc Catholicsand Protestantsand ncreas-ingly membcrs f many aiths,not to speak f incrcasing umbers fpeople i thoLu eligion) ncounter ach therandaremixedup,e.g. hrough rarriage.The conccpt fregio n thc formulaof the Peace f Vestphaliahusloses ts spatialmening. tcgio becomeshe sphcre of cotrmunicationfor a communityof meaningand conviction rsuallynotlimited to a particulararea.One is Catholic by belonging o aCatholic rcligiouscommunity and taking part in other Catholicinsti tutionsvcn f one'sneighborsreprotestants.lhesesubcuftures,generallyvoluntary conrntunities f convrction,no longeroffer the securityof earliercomnrunities f life and nreaningwhichwere embcddedn societaiordcrs of valueand meaning.Never,rheless,hrough various ornrsof comnrunication nd social ela-tions they can save he individual from unmasterablc risesofmeaning.f theydo not turn radically gainst ocictyandareat ieasttoierated y it, theyact,so o spcak, n aggregateo stenr he spreadof crises f mcaningn society.inlightenedulerswcre wiseenoughto recognizc his and left their subjectso seekhappiness herethey find it". It turnedout that the hopetirat Catholics ouldbeloyalsupportersf the Prussianrorvnwaswell founded.Vhat hasbeen aidabout eligionholds,mutatismutandis,or otherconprehcnsiveordersof meaning.Moderniz-ation as madetheassertionl thc monopolyof localized ysremsf nreaning ndvalueacross ntiresocictiesmore tlifficult if not entirely mpossible. rthe safle time it hascreatcde posibility for the formationof32



31/72

communitics f conviction ranscendingpacc e.g. through com-prchcnsivedeologies)nd rom drcse tocksof meaning he sharednreaningsf smaller oolmunitiesmxy be derived.Despite his possibility the overalldeuelopmcnt ngenders,boveall, a greatdegreeof insecurity; oth in the orientationof individualactionsand theentire irection f ;fe.Nevertheless,t 'ould bemislcadingo draw heconclusion,romthis alone, hat nrodern ocietiesuffer rom comprehensiverises frneaning. herearestill peoplewho cvenunder hese onditions reable o establish meaningful elationship etweenhe experiencesof thcir own livesand he various nterpretive ossibilitiesffcred othem and who are thereforeable o conduct heir livesrelativelymeaningfully. urthertrore, hereare he institntions, ub-culturesandcommunities f convictiol wirichtransport ranscendentaluesand stocksof mcaning nto concretesocial elationships nd lifeconrmunitiesndsupport henr here.The succcssf modernsocictybeyond hcse islandsof meaning"s duc to a legalizationf therules of social ife and its "old fashioned rorality", lurthermorethrough he formal moralization f certainmore or less rofession-alizcdsphercs f action-Legalizationmeans hat the functionaL ys-tem is rcgulatcd y abstract onns, ixed n writing and bindingonali members f a society.Moralization s an attempt o solvecon-crctecthical qucstionshat appear n individualspheres f action.|or example, n the USA academic isciplines uch as "mcdicaletirics' or "businessethics' havecmerged. egalizationgnores hedifferentvaluesystenrs f thosc affected. he nroralization f pro-fessional pheres oeswithout a conrprehensiverder of meaning.Iloth creatc hc conditionsn which peoplemanageheir daily iveswithoutacomprehensivend haredroralrty.Sucha society anbe comparcdvith a system f trafficrules.Onestopson red anddriveson grcenand he maintenancef these rrlesis in the ntcrestof all participants. ne can herefore ormally elyon peopleabidingby the ruleswithout the rules hemselveseinglegitinratedn deepmoral tcnns. f the rulesare nlringed,one can

33



32/72

bring thosewho have nfringcd hc 'trafficrules" o reason, y lawsor by non state ules, laintainedby tradeassociationsr medical s-sociations.Char:rcteristically,roupswith rival interest n demo-crticsocieties ttcmpt o havc he "trafficrules' which aremost m-portant for them legalizcd y thc state.Obviously, he analogy sonly partial: 'traffic rul""s" an rcfcr only to the practical ssues findividualspheres f social ifc. Lven there a moralizing,value-orientaredhetoricmustbc enrployed.Particularly f groupswith an intcrest n a particularset of ruleswishto use he denrocratic roccsso legalizehese ules, hen theymustseeko legitimizeheseulcs y referenceo vxlueselevantoall of society however aguelyhescmaybe ormulated.Beyondhe nfluencef the awand he ethics'ofparticularphereindividualsare lcft to their own devices. ystems f ethics letalone he lawswhich rcgulate onduct n professionalife or in thepublic phere arcof l inle rsen overcomingrisesf meaningndconfl ictsn person:li fc. lowcvcr, ven f we ignore he fact hatthe analogywnh traffic rulcs s incomplete,t is in any case alidonly for thc 'normalcase Vhat docs hatmean? meanshat heanalogy ssumcs societywhich hasachievcd high degree f eco-nomicprospcrity, xperienceso inrDlcdiatchreat rom outside ndhasnetotiated elations etwccndiffcrentgroup nterestselativelypeacefully. is one of thc saddcning xperiencesf this century hatsuch normality'isalwaysragile.f conditionsre abnormal"andparticularly f it is dcmanded f individuals hat they shouldplacetheir interests chind hoseof socictyasa whole, hen "trafficru1es"areno longcrcnough. n sucha situation, n overarchingmorality,regardlessf how it is founded, ccorncs societalmperative.\{rhat we have ust claimeddrawson a tradition of sociologicaltheory which canbe tracedbackabovcall to Emile Durkheimandthe Frenchschool oundedby hin. Flowever,t rejects neof theirbasicassumptions.urkheim bclicved hat no societycan survivewithout an overarchingmorality; ire named that overarchingmorat-symbolic,rder religion".\e diverge rorn Durkheim n that



33/72

wc clonot accepthis necessityor thc "norrnalcase". he dialoguewith Durkheirn cquires s to specify his "normalcase"more precisely.Durkheim devotedmuch effort to the study of the phenom-enonof sacrifice ecausee considercdhat the willingnesso sacri'ficc oncsown interests nd n extrcnris nes ife for thc socialwholewas a decisive haracteristicor thc ability of a society o survivc.Durkhcinr's ssumptionolds or a societyvhichs exposcdo ancxistcntialreat.But t rspreciselyh threatwhich s missingnthc normal ase The trafficpartlcrpantseed o fol low heruiesin thcir orr,n nterest; o wil l ingncssor sacrif ices presumed.Modcrnizationmakes he occurrcrrce f such"normalcases" ruchmorc1ikely han t was n carlicrpcriocls:nodernizarionringswithit cconomic rowth which is typicallyassociaredith rclativepoliti-cal stability.The citizenry s much css cnrptedo question he le-gitinracyof an order lvhcn its survival is sccuredby matcrirlprosperiy. However, t shouldbc cmphasizedhat it would be agravccrror to assumehat this statccould be regarded ssecure ndirreversible.' l hc rveakeningndeven hecollapsef an overarchingrderofnrcaning ith theonset f modernitys hardlya novel heme. hecnlishtcnmcnt nd ts successors,clconrcdhis process s hc over-turc for thc crcationof a new onler bascd n freedomandrcason.'l hc postrevohLtionaryrench raclitioralists ndother conservativethinkershavebewailed he sameprocss sdecadencenddeclinc.Vhcthcr modcrnityand ts conset1ucncerc welcomed r rcjectedthcrc ;s widespreadonscnsusn tbe factsof thematter. e feel hetthisconscnsushoughnot complctcly nfoundedoes ndulysinrpl i fy a conrplcx i tuation.lhcrc is widespreadonsensusot onlyanrong*experts ut also n conrnxrn ense nderstandingbout hecause, erhaps ven he main cruscof this breakingapart of theconrprehensiverder of meaning.l his is to be found n the retreatof religion.Religion here is not understood n the wider senseenployedby DLrrkheim,.e.asanycomprehensiverderof meaningand world order, but rather in the narrower more corventionl

t5



34/72

mcaning religion,asbelief n god, n anotherworld, salvation ndthe bcyond.$(ith referenceo thc n)odern Vest his mplies hat thedeclinc f Christianityhascauscdhc moderncrisisof meenint.This nor very original nterpretation asaccepted s actandwel-comedby progrcssivehilosophers nrl ntellectuals nd mournedby almostall conservativedeologicalhinkers.Put simply he mainthesis f this argument,well establishedn the socioiogy f religionas he "secularizetionthesis' s that modernhy eads nescapablyosccularization secularizationn the sense f a lossof influence freligiousnstitutionson socictyas well as he iossof credibilityofreligious nterpretationsn peoplc's onsciousness.hus comes ntobeinga historicallynew species:the nrodernperson"who believesthat onecancopeboth in onesown life and n social xistence ith-out rel igion.The confrontationith this 'nrodernperson" esbecome n m-portant opic or wholegcnerationsf Christianheologiansndacentral oint n theprogranrmef theChristianhurchesn westerncountries.;or this hesis,swell,a nLrmberf argrrmen*anbede-ployed.l istorical videnceuggcstshatat Leastincehe 18th en-tury thesocialnfluencef thc church asdeclined,t easrn wes-ternEurope, nd hat mportantnsti tutionse.g. heenrire duca-tionalsystcm) ave iberated hcmselvcsrom their earlier eligiousties. n addition, he term 'modernperson" s not entirelydivorccdfrom reality. t is likcly that there are a considerablc umber ofpeoplcwho copewith thcir liveswithout religiousaith (in the sensedefinedcarlier)or religiouspractice.Vhether this type of secularexjstences an absolute ovelty s questionable.t is ikely that therehave alwaysbeenpcoplewho have ound thcir happinessn thisv'orld without churches before and after they came nto ex-istence. ut evendisregardinghis, dre equationof modernityandsecularizationust be reated keptically.{ thesecularizationhesisappliesanywhcre, hen in westcrn -urope. (Eventhere it wouldhave to be questioned r'hethcr hc institutional retreat of thechurchesanbe equatcdwith the rctreatof rcligiousnterpretations36



35/72

in consciousness.)bservers f the Europeaneligious ceneincLLrd-ing one of the two authorsof this study)have for a long timepointedout that declericalizationhouLdot be confusedwith thelossof religion. n any case he convcntional ecularizalionlesisrapidly oses redibilityassoo asoue eavesWesternEuropc.A particular rritant for this theory is the stateof religion n theUnited States.American societycrn hardly be described s un-modern. Io*'ever, eligion s forccfullyaliveandpresentherc.Andthis s ruebothat he nsti tutionaleuel sq'el las n theconscious-ness nrl ife conductof millionsof peoplc.Thereare cw signs hatthis situation s changingn thc dircctionsuggcstedy the scculariza-tion thesis.Outside :,uropeand North America t is in any casenonscnse.he socalled 'hird Vorlcl is n fact shaken y thc onrushof religious novements. he Islauric ereissxnceasattractedmostattentionbut it is far from bcing he only case.Vorldwideone cantracc hc successtory of evangelicalrotestantism,he moststrikingchapter f which is Evangelism. his newProtestantismpreadsikea prairie ire - in s-idestretches f Eastand Southeasternsia, nAfricasouthof the Saharand mostsurprisingly in al l coun-trics of Latin America.Often it is preciselyhose ayersof societymost ouchedby modernizationwhich are most susceptibleo religiouscndrusiasm. he troops of todays eligiousmassmovcnrentsarc to bc found n the new citicsof the Third Vorld, not in thc tra-ditionalvillages. eople raincd at tbe nrodernuniversitics reoltenthe cadingadresfthismovemcnt.ln short: he Europeanmodel of secularized odernity hasonlyl imitedexport alLre.he most nrportantactor n the creation fcrises f meaningn socicty s n dre i lc of the ndividuals prob-ablynot the supposedlyodcrrr ecularityut modern lural isnr.Modcrnity means quantitative s vellasqualitativencreasen pluraliz:uion.fhe structural ausesf this factarewell known: popula-tion growth and migrationand, associatedith this, urbanization;pluralization n the physical,dcrrogr:rphic ense;he market eco-nomy and inclustriaLizationhich throw togetherpeople of the



36/72

mostdifferenthindsand orce hem to dealwith eachother reason-ably peacefully;he rule of law anddenrocracy hich provide nsti-tutional guarantcesor this peaceful oexhtence. he mediaof masscommunicationonstantly nd empharicaLlyarade plural iryofwaysof life and thinking: both prlntedmaterial iding on mass i,teracyspread crosshe entirepopulationby compulsory choolingand he nes-est lectronicmedia. f the interactions nabled y thispluralizationare not restricted y 'fenccs'of one kind or another,rhis plurlism akes ull effect,bringingwith it one of its conse-quencesrhe "structural'crisisof meaning.'lhe "fenceof the aw" wasalrcadymentioned. abbinicaludaismerectedhis fence o distinguish racticing ews rom their profanesurroundings.t was his 'fence"which madepossiblehe survivalofthe Jewishcommunity over many centuries n a mainly hostileChristianor Islamicsociety-One nlight alsosey: he "fenceof thelaw" protected hosepeople ivnrg within it from pluralism.Thisprotectioncollapsed ith the emancipation f theJews n wesrernsocieties nd the people affcctedwere consequently articularlyliable o crises f meaning.t is not merehappenstancehat modernJewishhinkers ndwritershav con ern d hemselvesarticularlyn-tensivelywith suchcrises f meaning.Conversely ne cansay hatany group that wishes o protect itself from the consequencesfpluralismmust erect ts own 'fenceof the law'. As wasmentioned,there havebeen nstancesf pluralisur hroughouthistory, for in,stxnce n the large owns of late antiquity and probably at timesalong he traderoutesand the urban cenrers f Asia. The modernprocessesf pluralizationdistinguish hemselvesrom their pred-ccessorsot only by their immense xtent muchwider circlesareaffected y them), hey are alsodistinguishedy their acceleration:whiLstheir effects rogressivelyxtend o "new"countries,hey donot remainstatic, n alreadyhighly modernized ocietieshey areaccelerating.Modernpluralism eadso a thorough elativization f systems fvaluesandschemes f intcrpretation.Put differently: he old value38



37/72

systems ndschemesf interpretation rc decenonized. The result-ing disorientation f the individual and of whole groupshas foryearsbccn he main themeof socixland culturalcriticism.Catego-ries suchas 'alienation"and"anorrie' arc proposedo charctcrizethc difficulty experienccdy people rying to find their way in themodcrnworld. fhe weaknessf suchcommonplace oncePtionssnot that they exaggeratehe crisisof meaning.Their weaknessstheirbl indncssowardshe capacityf individualsswell asdifferent conrmunities f life and meaning o preserveheir own valuesand intcrpretations.Existentialphilosophyfrom Kicrkegaard oSartrchasdevelopedhe most mprcssive onception f thealienatcdhuman being.Other versions rc to be found throughot ecent\festcrn literanrre oneneedmentiononly Kafka).However, t can-not bc doubted hat this imagcof humanityapplieso only a smallportion of the populationn rnodernsocietiesthough his portionmay be in certin especrsn importantone).Most peoplen thesesocieties o not vander around ikc charactersn a Kafha novel.They arenot plagued y fearandarenot tempted o makedesperatelcapsof faith , nor do they co sider hemselvescondemnedtofrcedonr'-One x-ayor anothcr,with or without religion, hey copewith their ives. t is important o understand ow theymnagchis.But beforewe attempt o pursue his questionwe wish to returnoncc more to or.rrclain that pluralism s the cause f the crisisofmcaning r modernity.We must cxaminemoreclosely he signifi'cance or the stock of meaningend the processhrough whichmeaning s lost,of the socialpsychological tatusof meaningandknowlcdge s aken'forgranted.

J9



38/72

4. The lossof the taken-for-grantedlf communities of life and mc:ning rcally overlap to the extent thatis demandedby socialcxpectariols, rhen social ife and the existenceof thc indiv idualproccedhabi tu: l ly alnrost by themselves". h isdoesnot necessarilymply drat drc individuals have no life problemsor that they are happy with thcir fate. However, rhey a! least"kno\ir" about the world, how tr-,bchave n it, what is reasonableocxpect and, iast but not least, ndiviclLrals now who they are. Forexrmple, the role of a slavc was presurnably never a pleasantone.Nevertheless,however unpleasant t may have been the individualswho occupied this role livcd in a steady and clearly identifiableworld in which they could orientate their behavior, rheir expecta-tions and their iden!ity rvith sonrcdcgreeof confidence.They werenot lorced to daily rcdefine he nrcaningof their existence.This unanbiguousdef ini t ionof exntcnce n the wor ld was sharedby thesiavesard their owners, though it must be assurned hat the latterfel t more at easen their cxistencehan did the slaves. ei ther rheslavc nor the slavcorvner were, asSartre rvould say, "condemnedtofreedom". (Thc possibilrty that the slavesmight rebel or the slaveon'ner abandonhis property to bccomea monk nccd not concern ushere - quite apart from the f:ct that such cases ere rare.)Modern pluralism undcrmines this conrnron-senseknowledge".The world, society, ife and personai dentity are called ever moreinto question.They may be subjcct to nrultiple interpretations andcxch interpretation defines ts own perspcctivcsof possibleaction.No irterpretrtion, no rangcof possiblcactionscan any longer be acceptedas he only true and unquestionably ight one. lodividuals arethus frequently faced with thc question whether they should nothave iived their lives in a completely different manner than theyhave hitherto. 1'his is expericncedon dre one hand as a great ibera-tion, as an opening of new horizons and possibilitiesof life, leadingout of the confinesof the old, unquestionedmode of existence.The40



39/72

sanreprocess s, however, often exPerienced s oPPressiveoften bythe sanrepeoplc) - asa pressureon individuals to repeatedlymakesenscof the new and the unfamiliar in their realities. Thcre arepcople who withstand tllis pressure; hcre are somewho evcn seemto rclish it. One might call thcnr v,rtuosos of pluralism. However,the najority of people feel insccure and lost in a confusing worldfull of possibilitiesof interpretation of l'hich some arc linked to alrernat ive aysof l i fe.The concepts eveloped y Arnold Gehlen n his heory of inst i tLrlions help us to understand his anrbivaLent ituation. Vc have al-ready made rcfcrence to this body of theory in the introductorycirapter with reference c, the inrportmce of institutions for hunranoricntation in reality. Institutions are designedo relieve ndividualsof thc nccessityof reinventing thc world and reoricntatiog thcmselves n it evcry day. Instittltions create 'programmes" for the conduct of social nteraction and for the 'execution" of particular cur-r iculum vi tae.They provide cstcdparternsowardswhich peoPlemay r l i rectbehavior.By pract ic ing hese prescr ibed" odes of be'havior the indiv idual earns o natch the expectat ionshat go wi thccrtain roles: c. g. as husbancl, ather, employec, tL\ Paycrl Particr'pant in traffic, consumer. f institutions are functioning reasonablynorm:rlly, thcn individuals fuLfill the roles assignedo them by so'cicty in the form of institutionalizcd schemes f action and lead heirlivcs accorcling o insritutionally sccurcd, socially shapedcurriculawhich arc argely accepted nqucstioningly.in their effccts nstitutions are substitutes or instincts: hey allowact ionni thcrut a1lal ternat ivesaving o be considered. any soci-etal ly nportant social ntcract ions rc carr iedout quasiautomat icalLy.Every timc slaves eceive an order from their mastcr they donot need to considerwhcthcr to obey or Dot. Nor does the slaveorvner pause o considerwhether he is entitled to give orclers o hisslaves.Neither the slaves or the slveowner queslion their own ac-tions or the actronsof dre other; typiclly, their action is unreflec-tivc. Connecting Gehlen's theory of institutions with the social



40/72

psychology f Georgc IcrbertMcadc to which the preceding is-cussion f the formationof pcrsonaldcntity is also ndebted) necansay hat the institutional programmcs'are internaiizedir in-dividualconsciousnessnddircct hc indivldual's crions ot asalicnbut as he ndividual 'swn mcanings.Programmes"are nternal-ized in multi-laycred roccsscs:irst in "primary sociliztion",nwhich the Ioundations re aid for the formationof personalden-tityi then in "sccondxrysocializ-ation"hich directs he individualtowardshe rolcsof social cality,above ll n the world of work.The structurcs f society ccomc tructures f consciousness.laveand masterdo not mcrcly behaven conformity with their roles,they think, feel andconccive f thcnxclvesn ways hat conform otheir rolc behavior.I hc srrbjectivc orld of the individualdoesnotnecessari)yave o coincide omplctclys,ith socially bjectified ea-lity - this is impossible.n the process f socializationhereare fnot realbreakshen at east nrall racks.n the fornration f person-ality therecan be at best an :pproxinration o the completecon-gruence f meanings. scanrlessransitionrom primary o secondary ocial izations thc cxceprio n nrost ocieties,ot the rule.The individual has idiosyncratrcnrpulsesand dares o transferdreamsnto day to day ife and o seekadventuresutside he pro-grammes f socicty.Neverthclcss, venis can be spokenof as' 'nonnatity'.Deviationsrom the nsti tutionalrogrammesnddi-vergencesrom the society's istorical escrvoirs f meaning and eserves f meaning) re elativc)y areandremain imited o the ndi-vrrlrul: nd hi ' rncan' h:u r l .y Jo nor enrer nrocommunicarrveprocesscsnri hat "censordlip"opcrares venat the lowest evelofobjectificationand conrmunicationof "dangerous"thoughrs. f"censorship"is unable o contain he deviationwithin the interiorlife of the individual hcn specialnstitutionalprogrammes reap-plied n the treatment f the deviant.lhis rrearment asboth an ex-ternaland an internalaspect. xternalLyllc rangeof treatments x-tends rom the physicaliquidationof thosewho havedeviatedromthe true path to lovingspiritualcare or "lostsheep".One way or42



41/72

another he deviantbchaviormustbc rendered armless harmlessfor the executionof thc progrannre. fhe obstacleo the smoothfunctioningof the machinerymustbe removed. he internalaspectof this process f social ontroLs the attempt o stop deviantthought and o restorc he previoLrsmindless"acceptancef normalrty.Instinrtionsdraw thcir power from the naintcnanceol unqlres-tionedvaLidity.An institution s endangeredronr the moment nwhich the peopleLivingwithin it or with it begin o think about n-stitutional roles, dentities, chenres f interpretation,valuesandwaysof viewing hc worlcl.Conscrvative hilosophers avealwayssensed ris;seniorpolicemcn know it from practicalexperiencc.nthe normal ase" angeroushought anbe reasonablyontroi led.However,pluralismmakeshiscontroLmoredifficult. Ihere is herea cLear ociafpsychologicalialectic from liberation o burden-some rccdom: t is extremely ard o be orced o leadonesown lifewithout beingable o hold on to' unquestionedatters f interpre-tationandnormsof bchavior. his eadso a clamorous ostalgiafor the good oLddaysof unfreedom. iberation s an xmbituousthing.As GehLen uts t: freedom s born out of alienation and

Moderniteraturcs ul lof examplesfthis.Oneneedhinkonlyofthc theme f "provincial ism",of thc biographicalialecticetweentown and city, of thc many possiblcpaths to freedom' (ArthurSchnitzlcr).Madame ovarysuffersn her narrow,provincialworld.But if shehad had he chanceo move o Parisshewould not haveremainedappy or long.Alienatlon ouldhave een hepriceofher grcrter re"dom. he l-, ' 'clr. br"r cen,rrnly rer "roorlc-chilclrcnwould probably haveconceivedhe idea hat the old pro-vincial world had ts goodsides fter all which at the time weresotaken or grantcd rat hey werenot noticedat ali.A physicalreturnto that world is usuallyno longer possible. here is howevernoshortagcof suggestedoutes or an internal return (religious,po'litical, therapeutic),.aysof healing he pain of alienation. rojects

43



42/72

aimed at restoring the good "old world" almost always include thesuppressionor linitation of pluralism - and with good reason:pluralism constantly suggcsts lternatives,alternatives orce peopleto think, thinking undermincs the foundation of all versionsof a"goodoLdworld'; the assumptiono[ its unquestionedexistence.Modernization inplies the radrcal transformatjon of all externalconditions of hunan existence. he motor of this giant transforma-tion, as has often been said, is drc science-basedechnology of thelast centuries. In purely matcrial terms this dcvclopment hesbrought rvith it a huge expansion of the range of possibilities.Vhereas in thc past a few technologies,passed n from generationto generalion, wcre the foundation of material cxistence, here isnow an apparently endlessand constantly improving plurality oftechnologicalsystems.Both individuals and huge organizations acethe nccessityof choosing one or other option from amongst thisplurality. This conpulsion for choice extends ronr trivial consumergoods (which brand of tooth pastel) to basic echnological alternatives (which raw nTaterial or the motor vehicle industryl). The in-crease n the rangcof options also extends o the socialand intellcc-tual sphere. Icrc, nodernization meam the change rom an exist-encedctermined by fate to onc consistingof a long seriesof possiblechoices. :ate previously determined almost atl phases f life, the in-dividual movcd frorr phase o phascaccording o prcdeterminedpat-terns, childhood, rites of passagc,mployment, marriage,child rearing, ageing, llncss and death. Fate also determined he internal lifeof the individual: feelings, nterpret;rtionsof the world, values and

personal dentity. The gods were "alreadypreselt" at birth, as wasthe sequence f socialroles that followed. Put diffcrently: the rangeof pregiven, unqucstioned assumptionsexrendcd o lhe largestpartofhuman existence.Modernization fundamentalLy hanged his. Birth and deatharestill- only just - determinedby fate. In parallel to the plurality of pos-sible choiccs at a natcrial level multilayered processes f moderni-zation open up x rarge of options at thc social and intellectual evcl:44



43/72

which job should I take up) Vhom shall I marry? Ifow shorrld Ibring up nry children?Even the godscan be sclectedronr a rangeofpossible options. I can change my rcligious allcgiance,my citizen-ship, ny life style, my image of nrysclf and my sexualhabitus.Therangc of taken for-grantedassumptions hrinks to a relatively smallcore which is hard to define. l hc technologicalconomic oundationsof this changc reat the levclof the matcrial, ut i ts social i-nrcnsions re ntensif ied, boveall , by plural ism. lural ism ot onlypcrmitsone o rnakc hoicesjob,hud;and r iv i fe, el igion, a rty), tforcesone to do so as the moclcrn range o[ consumergoodsforccsonc to choosc (Persil or ArieL, VV or Saab).One can no longcrchooscnot to choose: t has bccome n)possible o close oneseyes othe frct that a decision hat onc nrirkescould also have been madediffcrcndy. Two central instirutions of modern societyPromote thistransition from rhe possibility of choice to the comPulsion tochoosc: he ruarket econorny and denrocracy.Both institr.ltionsarefoundcdon t he aggregationf individualchoice and themselvescncorageont;ouous hoiceand sclcctron. hc ethosof dcmocracynrakcs hoice nto a fundamental umannght.f ire taken-for-granredesides n thc reaLmof unquestioned, ecurcknowledge. lhe lossof the taken for-granted unsettles his realm: Iknow lessand lcss. nstead have :r ralge of opinions. Someof thescopinious condcnsc nto sornething hat one night call bclief. Thescare opinions for vhich I an prcparcd to make sacrificesn the lirrrit,even today, to sacrificemy lifc, but probably no longer unquestion-ingly. I t l ics n the natureof things hat in the 'normal" l i fe of socicty and the individualsuch inr i t cascs re relatively are ln the'nornral process f modernization anr in any caseno longerforcecl o decidev.hcther I am preparcd o wager my life for faith orevcn nrcre opinions. Unqucstioncd, secureknor'ledge dissolves ntoa no longer very compclLing aggrcgate of loosely conncctedopinions.Firm interpretations f reai i ty bccomehypotheses. on-victions become matters of tastc. Conrmandmentsbecome sugges

45



44/72

t ions. hese hangesn consciousnessrcatche mpressionf a cer-ta in ' f l a ress .One can rmaginc he conscioLrsncssf the individualas differentlevclsayered n top of eachothcr. n the "depths"(this erm is notr.rscdere n thc |reudianscnsc f depthpsychology)ie those nter-prctationsdrat arc taken or granted.This is the sphere f unques-tioned,certainknowlcdge. lfrcd Schtitz alleddris he levelof the"world-takenfor-grantcd';Robcrt and Ilelen Lynd meant some-thingof the same ind with their concept f "of-course-statements".The other pole, hc uppermostcvcl of consciousnessuppermostnthesensc f closesto thc "surfacc'),is the sphere f insecurity,hatwhich is not taken or grantcd,opinionswhich I am in principlepreparedo revise r evcn etract.Thissphcre s ruledby the motto"chacrrn songut . In this layer lodel, thc modernization f con-sciousnessppearssa lossof 'depth'.More engaginglynecanview consciousnesss a hugecoffeenraker the contentsof consciousness f all types have evaporatedupwards,the residualgroundsas enouslyhrunken,hccoffce as ecomererty hin.The oss fthe akcn-for-grantedvithall i ts ocial nd sychologicalconsequercessmostpronounced asonewouidexpect in thesphereof religion.Modern pluralismhas undercut he monopolyenjoyedby religious nstiturions.Vhether they like it or not thereligiousnstitutions rc suppliersn a nrarketof religiousoptions.The "church-goingpeoplc hasdrvindlcd o a mernbership hichcan in nany churchesbc countcdon the fingersof two hands.Membershipn a particulxrchurch s no longcr taken or granted,bur ratherdreresultof a delibcrate hoice.Evcn hosewho decideorenain with thc confession f their parcnts are making such achoice: hey could,afterall, havcchanged onfcssionr religionorsimply left the church altogethcr. his fundamentally hangeshesocialpositionof the churchcs,whether heir theological elf-imageis willing to acknowledgeris stateof aff:rirs r not. If they wish tosurvive,churchesncreasnrgly ecd o consider he wishesof theirmembcrs.The church must provc irself n the free markct. The



45/72

pcoplc x'ho 'buy" a particular faith become a group of consuners.Regardlcss f how stubbornly the thcologians efuse o acknowledgeit, the wisdom of thc old connercial nraxirn- "the customer s al-ways right' - has orced itself on the churchcs.They do not alwaysabidcby this maxirn, but often enough hey do.' l hc churches ave ncreasingi f f icul ty n hanging 'ntounmarket-ablc dogmas nd practices.hc sanre rocess hangeshe relat ionship of thc churc hes o one anothcr.They can no longercount onthc statc i ther o drive he f lock into churchservicesr to deelwiththeir rivals. The pluralistic situxtillorces hc rival churchcs o getaLong. nitially, this forced tolcr:rnce is grLrdging, ater it is lcgiti-ruized theologically(it bccomcsoecunrenical). he American churchhistorian Richard Niebuhr introducecl the corcept of 'dcnollinx-t ions" which hc definedas fol lows:'A denominations a church,which has achnowlcdgcddre right of othcr chr.rrcheso exist." It isno accidenthat the term "dcnon)rDation"originatedn thc USA -fronr a society vhichcan be secnasrhe p;oneerof modern plural-isnr. lhc increasing imilari ty of thc r el igioussiruation n othcrmodernsocict ics i th rhe situation n the USA cannotbe explaincdby a proccss f culturalAnericanization as somc, or obviousidcological reasons,wish to bclicve. The simiLarity s only superfi-cially due to American inflLrences.* real cause s the global sprcadof nrodern lural ism.'l hLs hift has * correspondent t the level of individual conscious-ncs. Religion also "evaporatcsrrpwards'; it loscs ts statusas takenfor granted. This shift creatcs or faith the status of 'possibility",bascLl n the sentencc: do rot halc !o bcl ieve hat I know. ' l h isrel igious possibi l i ty ' is usually ovcrlooked when theologianslanrcnt hc tr iv ial izationof rel igion n modernity. lowever, suchdrcologiansrenot keen o e dnli t hat they might wish to scea situ-ation in which one could bc * Christian in the same taken'for-grantcd way in which one is man or woman, one hasbrown or bluecycs and suffers rom hay fevcr since birdr. This posibility of faithmst howcvcr be plausible particularly to protestant theologians.

47



46/72

Protestantisnr,ronr Lrrther's comprchension f conscience Verstndnis esGe\\ ' lsscns)o Kierkcgord's lcapof faith ' , hasbeen hemodern rel igion par cxcel ience. hcologianscould acknowledgethese deas i th hopc rather hal pessimisl.From thc social cientific perspectiveone nru$ howrvcr recotnize that modcrn society hasnot scena great accumulationof Kierkegaardirn "knighCsof fairh .More typical is a typc of pcrson l,ith "Ohristian opinions" - a person who belongs sonrchow' to r church, but in a loose way, whichfor theologiansmust be r.rnconlfortably losc o other realmsof con-sun]ption. People with 'rcligious opinions change their opinionsrelatively easily evcn if they do not thcrcforc aLwayschange heirmembershipn a "denomrnatiou. lradit ional Christ ianchurches,particularly il F.uropc,stiLl h.rvc grcrt difficulty in accepting hischange.They, in fact, wLsh o closc heir eyes o it. For examplc, heRoman Catholic ChLrrch efuscs o understand *elf asa "denomina-t ion . Thosebranches f Protcstantism hich st i l lunderstandhemselvcs sappealingo thc population t largehavesimilardiff icult ies.The exceprion re disest:bl ishcdhurches, boveall in the Anglo-sa-ronworld, *'hich have exisred n a pluralistic situation from the

The lossof depth in religious consciousnessan be traced (not co-incidentally) in the ^nerican languagc. l he nost common exprcs-sion for belonging to a religion in thc United States s "religiousprcfcrence", s n 'my rcl igious rcfcrcnccs I-utheran";n Germanthis transLatesnto: "ich 7-jehe svor, l,uthcrancr zu sein". By com-parison, he expression ti ll comnrcn in Contincntal Europe is 'con,fession" "I anr of the Luthcran confession".The exprcssion confession" refcrs to bearing witness,cven to the wilLingnesso makethe sacrjfice of a martyr. .lhe American cxprcssion, by contrast,comes rom thc realm of the languagcof consunption (andfrom therealm of economic sciencc "prcferences'and "prcferencescales"detenninc the market for a commodity or a service). implies a lackof comnltment and refers o the possibi l i ty f prcferring omethingelse n future. It is a historical irony of the current Europeansitua48



47/72

tion, that, for cxarnple,Gennans alsomean nothing more than a "re-ligious prefercncc' when they say hat they are of the Luthcran con-fession.Thc Iossof the takcnJor-granted s today a global phenom-

5. Habituatcdmeaningand crises f mcaningDay-today actions recarried n habitual ly. heir implic i t rneaningis untouched.Hard, thrcateninginres an ead o the eppearancefcrisesof nreaning n some areas f life. Even then orher arcas emainunder the inflLLcncc f old habinratcd rneanings. iven during civilwars and earthquakcspeople bmsh thcir teeth if thc water supplyhas not beer cut off. Thc litcratrrrc c,n such periods, c. g. memoirsabout Gcrnrany in the last years of the war and its imnrediateaftern1ath ont^in mpressiveestimonyof the rvay n which apocalypseand norm:rlity coexistside'by side.Even in hard tirnes, crisesof meaning rarely afflict all arcasof lifesinultaneously and vith dre same forcc. Particularly when habitu-ated action has becomedifficult or irnpossible n many areas, t pro-tectsx8ainstcrisesof meaning n those areaswhere one can continueaccording o habit. In societies n rvhich crisesof meaningoccr.rr otin the rvakc of seriouscatastrophcs nd total wars the range of ha-bitual norrnal i tyvhich is maintaincds of coursemuch wider.ButtakenJor-grantedhabits are not just thrextenedby seriousevents nthc fate of the collectivity, but also by radical changc n the life ofthe individual. In all societies here arc certain typical changcswhichmay unlcashcrisesof meaning f thcy are not socially acknowledged.In archaic and traditional societics here are ritcs of passage hichgive mcaningto thesechanges.Puberty, sexual nitiation, cntry intoa job, agc and death could be cxpcctedwith lessuncertainty becausecodesof behavior existed or dealingwith thesebiographicalbreaks.

49



48/72

l he societaloundation f tue:ningc sured hat these hanges erenot experielcedby the incli"idualpcrson as deepcrises et aloneexistcntialhreats.lhc weakenirg r evencomplete bsencef suchritcs of passagen modernsocietiesanbe readasa symptom anda co-cause of a slowly risingcrisisof meaning.n part, this devel-opr r r .n t. we l l . oued omoJern l u ra l i z r t i on .'lo clarify what hasbeensaicl,et us considerwo spheresf life inthe existencef the ndjvidualhat areparticularlymportant uralsocrisis idden: exuality ndoccupatlon.hat humansexualitycouLlalv'ays ndeverywherecad o crises f meanings adequatelydocumentedn popularsayings nd he entiretyof human iteramre.'l he mainthemeof popularsongsn all countriess lovc, ove sick-ncssand disappointedove. The institutions hat were fonncriy re-rluired o dealwith such roubles restill in businessoday, oretrostamongsthese he churches. e will return to this point. Churcheswere,however, ever he only institutionswhich wereand have e-nrained ctive n this area.Relarional erworks f interectionrvhcreverhcycontinueo cxist belongo the socialnsritutionswhich scrve or the producrion nd communicationf nreaning.Youngpcople n thisor that fornrof sexualroublemey still rrn toa well treaninguncle,aunt, grand-parent r godparent.Howeverhereaswcll, like for the churchcs,herehasbeena decidedossofcrcdlbility.Geographic ndsocialmobility hasvery muchweakenerlthe network of relational ntcraction.Furthermore, t is more andmore ikely that, for example,he well-meaningnclenot only livesfar away but is alsohopelesslyonfused y his own love life. Thesame anbe said or problemsn the arcaof work - worricsaboutsuitableraining,roubLesith the boss ndwith colleagues,nem-ployment ndat some oint,usuallyn themiddle f a career,heincscapablecalizationhat cvcrythinghasbecnachievedhat couldbe hoped or and hat from canat bcsthopero evoiddownward ocialmobility.In both areas,modernsocictyhas 'invented"new institutions orthe productionandcommunication f meaning psychotherapyf50



49/72

differentsorts, exual ndprofessionalounsellorsbothalready re-sent within schools), pecial ourscs nd seminarsor adult educa-tion, departrnentsf thewelfare tate, sychologicallyrained or ra-ther,half rarned)ersonneiff iccrs, nd :st but no! easrhe massmedia.The piest and he old aunt may sometimesti1lbe heLpfuL.But it is more probable hat 'modernpcople turn towards he newinstitutions f orientation. or this purpose neoften does ot evenhave o visitan office,an nstitutionor a practice. imply urningonthe television, ne is facedwith a widc rangeof therapeutic ro-granrmes.lternativelyone goes o thc bookshop ndchoosesromthe shelves ackedwith Self-Helpitcrature he volume hat is besttuned o onescrrentdifficulties,whcthcr hey be in onesouter orinner ife.A word on the mcdiaof mass onrnrunicationrom publishing otclcvision: shasoften andri

Berger-Modernity, Pluralism, Crisis of Meaning

Documents

Transcript of Berger-Modernity, Pluralism, Crisis of Meaning