BERGER, Peter L. & LUCKMANN, Thomas. Modernity, Pluralism and the Crisis of Meaning

7/24/2019 BERGER, Peter L. & LUCKMANN, Thomas. Modernity, Pluralism and the Crisis of Meaning

1/72

Modernity,

Pluralismnd

he

Crisis fMeaning

The

Orientation

f ModernMan

Peter

L. Berger

ThomasLuckmann

Bertelsmann

oundation

ublishers

Gtersloh 995


2/72

cIP-Fiihcns!!liJD!

Nlodcrnn), lnLLsn lhoaissolneanLng rl,r

onenrarion r nulco tr, PqerL Bor-lcr

(i

d.d.h :

Bqldrmrn( l.Nn(d'on

01995 sedelsmrtrdridanon .itersloh

Edio. Dr ndtrr

Ktrhlmrnn

cory cdtor: ltisltr

N!uPdh

Prodcriotrdnor sabr. Kltt'nr

cover design IT(i

!r(b.agqtrur, Rielereld

corerphoro 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,elercld

Print Fuldrervun.g$Nax, !ulda


3/72

Contents

lletner lYeidenleld

Preface

Peter

L. Betger,Tbomas

uchmann

Modernity,

pluralism nd he

crisisof

meaning

what

basic uman

needs f

oricntation

m u s te a t i s f i e d l

. . . . . . . . . . . . 9

1. The foundations f the meaningfulness

o f h n m a ni f e

. . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2. Themeaningfuhre*

l

.ocialrelrt ion


4/72

Preface

Questions

f cultural

orientatiooare among he most urgenr ssues

of modern

society. ndividualism

and pluralism

ead

o the conse-

quence hat individuals

more anclmore

face he difficulty to define

standards nd valuesguiding their own lives. ndividuaLsequire

these alues

o be able o find orientation

n a situation

vhich

s de-

finedby

optionsand he necessity

o takedecisions.

Three ccntral

groups of questions

lelineate rucial problems,

which

the Bertelsmann

oumlation

ntends o tackleby creatinga

new

,rngc

[ pro:c,

s

on cuhural

rrcntation:

-

l low

can ndividuals

ealizemeaningfulivesby chosing

rom

thc pluralisticnultiplicityof optionsl

-

How do

humanbeings oorclinate

he numerous olesandsocial

networks

n which they interactl

n other words:how do they

stabilizc

hcir own identity)

V/hat value

systems

uide thcir ideasof good and cvil? In as

much

:s individuals

harcconrnron alue

patterns

we

have o

raisc

a consccutive

uestion:'hich

communities o

such

ndividu-

als onn who sharcsimilar pattcrns f mearingand udge heir

lives

by the samevalue systcrns?

nd finally:

what

do these

comnrunities

ontributc

o thc integrationof the society

as a

whole

or to what

extcntdo thcy endangeruch ntegration?

How

canmodernsocieties

rovidedrerequiredigaturesl

Individuals

who havc

acquircd table

orienrations

ossess

n cffcc-

tive

panacea gainst

xistentialhrcats o

their

self-perception.hey

regard hemsclvesspeoplewith an undoubteddentity.And they


5/72

avail

henxelvesf ethical tandards

hich enablehem

o

judge

their

actionswith regard o their

effecton society s

a whole

On all drree

evelsndividuals ave

ceasedo act according

o what

hes raditionally

been egarrled sself-evident

nd akcn

or grantcd.

Thereforc he ossof the taken-for-grantedas ed to the possibility

and cven

necessityo decide

hat is meaningful, ood and

sociaily

acceptablc.

his

decision

s an individual

one and t is debatrble

f

thc

cohesion f society uffcrs

sa consequencefthese

decisions.

n

addrtion

he pluraiistic bundance

f suchdecisions

llowscommun-

it ies o emerge

hich

enjoy he

oyalties f rheir

members ut do

not

nccessarilyake nto eccounthe

welfare f socictyas

a whole.

'fhe

range f projects n

"culnrral

orientation" tartedts series f

publications

with a first

volumeon

"'lhc

loss

of orientation

the

cohesion risis

n modern

society"

in

German

anguage nly).

In a

next phaseof the field of projects

wc commissioned

number of

expcrtises.

s a first result,

Peter llerger

(Boston)and

'lhomas

Lucknrann

(Konstanz)

present

heir analysisof

the mechanisms

which ead o a crisis f meaning

n nodern society.

his study

emergedrom a contextof projectswhich aredealing

with

orienta

tion in the

mmediate

ocial

eighborhood

ndwith the orientation

by communication

n

a

workplacc environment

and in company

hierarchies.

ther

sub-projects

ocuson the

legitimacyof political

iction and

he limits to statecontrol of

socialprocessesr on

new

challenges

ue o the ever ncreasint

omplexityof knowledge

nd

the

flow of informationwhich modern

ndividualsace.

Peter

Bergerand ThomasLucknrann ount

among he ceuses

or

the modern

risis

f

meaning rocesscsf

modernization,Lural ism

and particularly

with regard o Buropean ocieties

seculariza-

tion. fhjs

leads

o the conscqucnce

hat the

validity

of shared

mean-

ing is difficult

o mailtain for largergroupsof

individualsn society.

Patternsof meaningare being shared

and maintainedby smaller

communities.t is therefore rucial

o distinguishn

which way in

dividuals

nite to form these ommunities.

n addition,all of them

relate o the functionalmacrosysternsn society ike polit ics,eco-

6


6/72

nomy andscience.nteraction

etween

heseevels ndcommunities

is being egulated

y intermediary

nstitutions,mediacommunica-

tion

andmoralizing tatements

n everydayife. It will need

urther

enquiry o establish

efinitcknowledge

n

which nstitutions

reef-

fectiven this respect ndhow they perform heir task.The resultof

such a study can

be evidence

on the possibility o counteracr

centripetalendenciesn

society.

Prof.Dr. Verner \eidenfeld

Member

of the Boardof the

Bertelsmann

oundation


7/72

Modernity, pluralismand

he crisis

of meaning

whatbasic

uman

needs

f orientation

must be satisfied?

Peter [.. etger

Tbomas uchmann

1. The oundations

fthe

meaningfulnessfhuman ife

It is not apparent hether

alk about he crisisof

meaningn today's

world

really correspondso a new form

of disorientation

n the life

of modernpcopLe. ould t bethat wc aremerelyhearing he Latest

repetitionof

an old

lament?s ir

the complaint

'hich cxpresseshe

feeLing

f distress hich hasagainand againafflictedhumanity

n

the

face

of a worid become nstcady?s this thc old

lament, hat

hurnan ife s

a ife to*'ardsdcath?s this the

voice

of doubt, hat

this

life

could ind its meaningn a transcendentistory of salvationlOr

is this despcration bout he lack

of sucha

meaningl Vc aredistant

in t ime from

thc book of

the Ecclcsiastes'everythings noughtl

everythings n vainl")

ut

not

distantrom hespiri t

of thc

Chroni

cle of Bishop

C)tto

von Frcisingwritten

more than

850 ycarsago:

"ln

alL,

wc

areso depressedy thc mcmory of thingspast, he pres'

surcof thc present nd he fearof futurevicissitudeshat we accept

the sentence

f death hat is in rrsand rnay become ired of

lifc it-

self." t is even

urther and all thc sanle ot so

ar

betwecn he

con-

ceptions f human ate in history

rom

Thucydideso Alben

Camus.


8/72

On

t,hat

basis remodern

and

post-modern)riticsof present ay

societyand culture

convinced hat the crisisof our tirnes

s funda-

mentally different rom

aLlpast

mkeries?These

observers

ardly

start rom the assumption

hat thcre

hasbeen

a

radical

hange

n the

humancondition, he conditiohumana.Rather hey seem o suspect

a new socialconstitutior

of the

meaning

of

human ife in moder-

nity, which has hrown meaning, ndwith it human ife, into a his'

torically uniquecrisis.

SuchspecLations

re powerfully suggestive

andmay appear onvincing,

hat

doesnot mean,however, hat they

will actually stand

up to cmpiricaL

nvestigation.

Contemporary

sociological nalysisends ar too easily o assumehe existence f

somethingike meaningand meaningfulnesss fiotive of human

actionandasa backdrop gainst hich he moderncrisisof meaning

is

apparcnt.

t is,

therefore, ecessaryo beginwith sonreanthropo-

logical

preliminaries. hey shallseek o

identify

the general ondi-

tions and basicstructures f mexningfulhuman ife. Only in this

way is

it possibleo improveour understandingf chengesn par-

ticular

tructuresf

meaning.

Meaning s constitutedn humanconsciousness:n the conscious

nessof the individual,who

is individuated

n

a body and

who has

been

socialized sa person.Consciousness,ndividuation,he speci-

ficity

of the body, societyand the historico'social onstitutionof

pcrsonal dentity are charactristicsf our species,he phylo- and

ontogenesis f which need not

be considered-

lowever,we will

provicle shortsketch

of the generaL

erformances

f consciousness

from which the multi-layered

meaningfulnessf experience nd ac-

tion in human ife is built up.

Conscior.rsncssaken n itself s nothing; t is always onsciousness

ofsomething. t exists nly in

so ar

as t directs ts

attntion

owerds

an object, owerds

a goal.This intentionalobject s constituted y

the various

syntheticachievementsf consciousnessnd appearsn

its gcner;l

structure.

herher

t bc perception. emoryor imagi

nation:

around he core, he theme' of the intentional bject,

extends thematic ield that is delimitedby an openhorizon.This

10


9/72

horizon in

which

consciousness f ones own

body

is always given

can 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

a

higher degrecof thcmatic definition;

thcy becomeclearly

contoured

"expcrienccs".

Expericnces aken nrdividr.rallywouLd stili bc

without

mcaning

Ilowever, as a core of expcricncc cletaches

tself from the

back'

ground of apprehensions, onsciousness rasps

he rclatioD

of this

core to other expcnences.The srmplcst orm of such relationships

are

"equal ' , 's imi1ar" ,

d i f fcrcnt" , "equal ly

good' ,

"d i f ferent

and

worse" etc.

Thus is

constituted

thc most elementary

evel of mean-

ing. Me:rning s nothing but a complex

form of consciousness:

t does

nor exist ndependently.k always has a point of

reference.

Meaning

is

consciousness

f the fact th:t a relationship

exists between

experiences.

he inverse s a lso rue: the meaning

f experiences

and, as wiLl be shon'n, of actjons has to be constructed hrough'

re lat ional" erformancesf consciousness.he

experienceurrent

ar

a particular monent can be rclated to one

in the immediate

or

distant past. GeneralLy,each expcrience s related

not to one

other,

but to a type of experience, schenre f experience,

a maxim,

moral

legitimation ctc.

won fron many experiencesand cither

stored in

subjectiveknowiedge or tkcn fronl a socialstore

of knowledge.

As convoluted as this phcnomcnology of

multi-layered perform-

ancesof consciousness xy scenr, ts resultsare

the simple

elemeots

of

meaning n our daily livcs. -or cxample, n the

apprehension

of a

flower a typical gestalt s tied in with a typical

color connected

o a

typical quality of snell,

touch, and use. In directed

consciousness

this apprehensionbecomesexperience, his experience

s grasped

n

relation to other experiences

"so

nrany flowcrs')

or related o a

clas'

sification

taken from a social stock of knowledge

("an Alpine

flower') and may finally be intcgrated nto a plan

of action ("pick it


10/72

and ake t to my lovcd

one!"). n this processmultiple ypes "A1-

pine lower",

loved

one')are ntegrateclnto a

processualcheme

('pick

n and

ake t to') and usednto a more

complex, ut sti l l

everyday

nit of meening. f finrlly

this project

s not

simply put

into action becauset confiicts with a morally founded maxim

("don't

pick itl rare

flowerl"), then a decision s arrived

at and a

higher

evelmeanings

constitutedhrough he scquential vaiuation

of

values

nd ntcrcsts.

'l

his example lready

ndicateshe doublemeaning

f

'acting"

and

"action".

Th meaning

f the currentact s constituted

rospective-

ly. A completcd

ction s meaningfuln retrospect. ction

is guided

by aview o a prcconceivedim.Thisdesignsa utopian which he

actor anticipates

future stete,assesscsts desirability

and urgency

and

considershe

steps

which will

bring it about

-

insofaras

he

processs not fanri l iar

hroughearl ier imilaractions ndhasnot

bccome habit. ' Ihe

neaningfthc acions,

in

the acr", s

consti-

tutedby their clation

o thegoal.The completedcion,wherher

successful

r not

-

but also

he actionprojected scomplete can

be

comparedo other

actions, an be undersrood s he fulfillment

of maxims,

an be

explained nd

ustified

es he execution

f

laws,

can

bcexcusedsdefying

norm, anbedeniedo others nd n

the

limit

also o oneself.he

doublemeaningnd hecomplex

tructure

of meaning re

characteristicf all actionbut in

day-to-dayoutine

!he chxracteristicsay

appear lurred.

Social

action,of course,

hareshis structureof meaning

but ac-

quiresadditional

haracteristicimensions:t

can be indirect or di-

rect, t canbe mutualor unilateral.Socialactioncanbe directed o-

wards

otherpcople

present r absent, ead

or unborn. t canseek o

addresshem n

their individuality,

or associal ypesof differentde-

grees f anonynrity,

r nrerclyas

social ategories.t can be directed

towardsobtaining

a responser nor

-

theremay,

or may not be,an

answer.t can

bc

intended

sunique

or may aim to achieve egular

repetition

or

to be prolonged

hrough ime. The complexmeaning

l2


11/72

of

social action and social relations is constructed

n

these

different

dimensionsof nreaning.

In

speaking

of the constitution of nreaning

n thc consciousness

f

the individual

it rvas

already

clear that this could

not neen the

iso

lated subject, hc s'indowless monad. Daily life is full of manyfold

successionsf

soci ir l

ct ion

and he

personal

denti tyof

the individ-

ual s formedonly in this action.

Purclysubjectivepprchensions

re

the

foundation of the constitution of

meaning: simplc

layers of

mcaning can bc created n thc

s.rbjcctive expericnce of

a

Peison.

Higher laycrs of meaning and

a more complex strucnrrc

of meaning

dependon thc objectification

of subjectivemeaning

n

social

action.

The individuaLs only able o makecomplicated ogical onnections

and

init iateand

control

dif ferentiatedequences

f action

f he or

she s ablc to draw on the

vealth of experience

avaiiable n a social

contexr.

In fact,

elemcntsof

meaningsirapedby

older streamsof so-

cial action

"tradit ions'),

low even

n

the

lowest

evcls

of

meaning

of

nrdividLralxperience.

Iypif ication,

classif ication,

atterns

f ex-

pcrience

nd schcnles { ection are elcnrents

f subjectivc tores

of

knowledge that are largely takcn over

ftom thc social stock

of

knowledge.

Certainly,

subjcctive constitution of

meaning is the origin

of all

social

stocks of knowiedge, historicai

rcservoirs of meaning,

on

which peoplc born into a particular society

in a particular

epoch

may dral. ' lhe neaning

of an cxperience l

action was born

''somewherc

,

once upon a timc

in the conscious, problenl

soLving"

action

of

an individuai relative to

his or her natural

and

socialenvironnrcnt. Howeverl si ce most problenrswith which the

nrdividual is confronted also arise n thc

lives of other pcople,

the

solutions to these problems

arc not

just

subjcctively but

also

intcrsubjectivelyclcvant. i ther he problcIrrs

hemselvesrise

rom

interactive social action, so that

the

solutions

must also be

found in

common. Ihcsc solutions can also be objectified

n one of a

number

of possible

ways, through signs, tools, buildings,

but above

all

l l


12/72

through thc cormnunicative

ornx of a language

n


13/72

'lhe

subjective

solutions'

for

problenrs

f experience

nd action,

thc

"primary"

objcctifications f

rreening vhich became

ntersuLr-

jcctivcly

retrievablehrough conrrnunication

ith othcrsaresocial_

ly processed n different

"paths"

\ir'hich

have

varied enormously

across istory. In institutionaLly ontrollerl

"secondary'

processes

much

s gnored

s oo nsignificant;

ther hings rediscarded

s n

appropriate r even dangerous.

part of the objectifications

f

nrcanig drawnon for processing

re nerely stored way,

dlose

*'hich

are

udged

o be adequate r

right aregivena form of ordcr,

vhi lc

certain lementsc


14/72

diffusccxpcrtknowledge

n populariz,cdorm

and peopleappropri-

arcpicccs

f this nformation nd ntegrate

t

with

thcir stock

of

The arcas

f rneaning re

stratificd.The

"lowest',

simplest

ypifi

cations, elating o factsof namreand he socialworld, are hc foun-

dations

of different

parternsof cxperience nd action.

Stacked n

thcsc ypifications

are schenesof

action orientatcdby maxirns

of

action owardshigher values.

Supcrordinate

conligurations

of

va-

luc"

hrvc bcen

developedince he

old high culturcs y rcligious

nd

later phiJosophical

xperrsnto value

systenN. hese lainr

o nrean,

ingfully

cxplain

and

regulatc

hc conduct

of

life

of thc inclividuain

relation o thc community n both routines f daily ife and n over-

coming criscswith

referenceowardsrealities

ransccnding very

day

ifc (thcodicy).

The

claiurof superordinatc

onligurations

f

values

nd

value

sys,

rems

"

f i l l

rhe n r i r " ry f l i f ewr rh

n re rn ing. n ros rpp . rygn l

n I

schenre rat

brings ogethermodels

or action n the most

diverse

areas nd its

them nto a projection

of meaninghat

srrerchesrom

birth to death.

This scheme f mcaning

elateshe totality

of a life to

a time that transcendsre ife of the individuale.g. 'erernity").

Biographical

atcgories f ncaning,

as

wc

call thcm, endow

the

mcxning of

short-range ctiols

with long,tern significancc.

he

meaning

of

cvcryday outinesdoes

not disappear ntirely

but it is

subordinate

o the

"meanjng

of l i fc". (c wil l narne

cre,amongst

the many

historical

onstructions

f biographical chcnrcs,

nly rhe

small enrc

f the

exemplaryifc' and

he

arger

enrc f theholy

l i fe", rhc ancienthcroic cpic, and thc modern heroic egend

(e.g. Prince

Eugene,

Georgc Vashington,Baron von

Richrhofen,

Antoine

dc St.Exupry,Rosa

,uxemburg,

takhanov).

All institrrtions

mbody

an

'original'

action-nealing

which has

proved tself

n the definitivc cgLrlation

f socialaction n a parricu-

lar functional

area.

Of

particular

rlportance

are those nstiturions

whose

ask ncludes

he sociaL rocessing

f meaning-Most

import,

ant of all are hose nstitutionswhosemainfunctions onsistn the

l 6


15/72

coDtrolof the production

of mcaning nd

he transmission

f

mean_

ing.Such nstitutions

ave xistedn almost

l l socicties

ther hn

thc archaic.

n dre

old

high culturcs, n the

societiesf

the early

mo'

dcrn period

and latcr (e.g. in todays

ran) rcLigious

moral

instittr

tions havebcencloscLyied to thc apparatus f domination They

coLrld im

relativelysuccessfullyt both

the production

and distri'

butionof a

relativcly onsistentierarchy

f meaning.

f however

theconditions

oth

of

productionnddistribution

f social

meaning

approximatco

an

opcn

market, his has

considcrableonsequcnces

for the

'nreaning

budget'.

n that case

nunrbcr f suPPliers

f

mcaningcompctc or the

favor c,f a public that

is confronted

with

the clifficultyof choosinghe nrostsuitablemeaningrom the wcalth

of me:ningsvailable.

cshall enrrn o this

ater.

Insti tutions

ave

he ask

of storing nd

making "ai lable

eaning

for

the

actions f the ndividual

both in particular ituations

nd

or

en e[tire conductof lifc.

This functionof

institutionss

however s

scntially elated o tire rolc of

dre ndividualas

a consumer ut

also

f i on l *e ' o . , r r r .

:

p rodu ,

ro f

rcan in6 .

This

relationship

an

be comparatively

implc

n

both

archaic

o-

cietics nd

n most raditional

high

cultures.

n suchcivilizations

he

mcaning f indivrrhraLsphcres

f actionss

ntegratcdithout

major

ruptures

ith

thc o"erall

meaning f life conduct

and his

s tself c

fcrred o a rclativelycoherent

alue

systcm.

he conrmunication

f

rneanings

oincd

o thc control

of the production

of mcanirg.

ldu

cation

or

direct incloctrination

ccks o ensure

hat the lndividual

only thinks and does

what conforns to the

basicnorms of

thc so-

cicty. And thc corrtrolandcensorshipf everythinghat is pubLicly

said, aughtor

preachcd ims o prevent he

diffusionof

dissidcnt

opinion.

nternal ndexternalompetit ion

s auoided r

el iminated

(not always ucccssfullyl).

he re:rning { actions

nd ife conduct

s

irlposedasa unquestioncd

ule brndingon all.

For examPle,

he rc-

lationship

of

marricd couplesand the

relationshipof

parents o

childrcn

s defincd nambiguously.

arents ndchildren

enerally

conform;devianccs clearlydefincd sdcviancerom thc norn.

17


16/72

In modernsocieties

onditions

are different.Of

course, here are

still institutionswhich

conmunicatc

he meaning

f actionsor their

particular

areaof action;

here arestill

value

systcmswhich

are ad-

ministercd

y

some

nstitutions

as

nrcaningful

ategories

f life con,

duct. Ho*'cver, as will be sho*'n, there are, by comparisonwith

premodern

ocieties,ifferences

n the consisrency

f

value

systems

as n the

internaland external

onpetition

over the production

of

meaning,

hc communication

f rneaning, nd ts

mposition.To re-

turn once

morc to the example:

n modernsocieties

t

would

be dif-

ficult

to find

parcntsand

children

for

whom the relationship

s

equally

bindingon both

partiesand s de{ined nquestioningly

y a

firm valuc

system.

2.

Thc meaningfulness

f social elationships,

the concurrence

f meaning

and he general

conditions

or crises

f meaning

Socially bjcctified

ndprocesscd

tocks f meaning

re

"preserved"

in

historical eservoirs

f mcaning

and

"administered"

by institu-

tions.The

actions f the

ndividualareshaped

y objectivemeaning

suppliedrom

social tocks

f knorvledge nd

communicated y

the

pressureor compliance

which

emanatesrom institutions.

n this

process,bjectificdmeanings constantlyn interactionwith subjec-

tively

constitutcdmeaning

nd ndividual

projects or

acion. IIow-

ever,nreaning

an

alsobe ascribed

one might even

say,aboveall

-

to the intcr'subjcctive

tructureof social elations

n which

thc

individual

ac* and ives.

From

the

very

beginning

a

child

is incorporated

nto

sociaLela-

tionships:with

its parents

ndwith other

significant ersons.

hese

relationshipseveiopn regular, ircct andreciprocal ctions. trict-

l 8


17/72

ly, an

infant is

not capable

of action in the full

meening of

the word.

As an individuated organism

i! has, however, the

bodily and con-

scious

apacit icsnherent o thc

human

species

hich i t employs

n

its

behavior owards

others. ' Ihc actionsof

others

elative o the

child are thcmseives argely dctennined by schemesof experience

and action that are drawn frotr

s


18/72

with

biographical

categoriesand schemes

of action and

rhar rhe

others who

enter inro

sociai rclations with

the child do not nrirror

its behavior

even

approximatcly. The typical

consequencesor

the

development

o{ thc

child arc

predictable!

Pcrfect

concordancc,

as

projccted bove, s neverachieved, ut rrchaicsocietics nd he tra

ditional high

cuitures were

not far removed from

it. The

opposite

casehas hovever

no

correspondingeaLiry:

socierywithout

any

kind of value

ystem

nd

sithout

stocks f mcaning

adapted

o

it is

hard 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 re

-

t o

\ ry i n g

e x i . n r s

also conmunities

of meaning.

lhat

means

hat even without a

univcrsally shared

stock

of meaning adapted o a single,closedvaluc

systen conrmonalties

of meaning can be developcd

n communities

or drawn from

the historical

rescrvoir o{ meaning.

These comrlon

meaningscan

then, of course,

be contnrunicated o

children relative-

Iy

consistently.

Communities

oflife

arecharactcrized y regularly

repeated, ircctly

reciprocal

action in

durablc

social

clat ionships.

hosc involved

place an institutionaily

or

other\r,isesecured rust in

thc durability

of the cormnunity. Beyond

thesebasiccommonalties

here are wide

differenccs

between

societies n

the differcnt forms of

conrmunities

which

are nstitutionalized

n them. The

universalbasic orm

are ife

communities

into which

ole is born. However,

there are

also lifc

communities

into which

one

is adoptcd and those which

one

joins,

such as

partners in

marriagc. Some

cornmunities

of

life

form

thcftselves

hrough adapting

oncs life to the

continuation

of sociaL

relationsthat were originally not intended to be prolonged, others

rcquire init iat ion.

Thc

examplcs nclude holy

orders which

also

consti tute

hemselves

s conrmunit ies

f

rneaning,

eper

colonies,

retlrctuent homes!

and

Prisons.

Comnunities

of

life

presupposc

a

minimum

of cornmon

meaning.

'fhis

measurc

can in

some societies

and for some forms

of conrmu-

nity be very

minimal: it

may concern

only the coincidcnce

of the

objcctive ncaning of the schemcs f day to day socialaction, asper-

2A


19/72

haps in ancient

slave households

or in nrodern

prisons.

Commu'

nities of life

may also aspire o complcte

unison

in all layers

of mean-

lng including the

categories f thc entire

conduct

o[ life as

n some

monastic orders or in the

ideal of certain

tyPes of

marriage.

How

ever,most comntunities of life acrossdiffcrent sociticsand ePoches

aspire to a dcgree of shared

nrcaning somevhere

in between

this

nl inimum andmaxinrum.

l x p c . r : r o n . l o


20/72

nity

of

meaning

hen

their disagreemenrould

be painful or

both

partncrs

nd he crisis

of meaningwould

escalatento a life

crisis.

Let

us renrain or an instant vith

our

example. et trsassume

he

wife

encountcrs

ther

agingnrarriedwomenwho

havearrived

at a

similar erspcctiven theircommon ging, perspectivehichdoes

not

agrec ith

the dominantviews

shared

y their hLrsbancls.n

ex-

changing

hcir expericnces

conmunity

of meaning might

be

formed.

n thc first variant

of

our

example

his community

of mean-

ing remains

spartial

asdoes hc rlisagreement

ith the husband

nd

there{ore

ervcs scompensation

ather

han replaccment.n

the se-

cond variant

any partiaL

isagreements

interpretcdas

"total"

and

the new foundcommunity f meaningould ake heplace f the

broken narriage.

Vhere ; r

i f * .ommun i r i c \

l r \ lp re \ume n r in imr rn

. rmmun i ry

of meanrng,

he inverse

s not

true. Communitics

of

meaning

may

under

certaincircumstances

ecome ommunities

f lifc, they may

however

bc built

up and naintained

exclusively

hrough nrediared,

reciprocal

action-These

conrnrunities

ay be founded

on different

not directly

practical

evels

of nreanrng nd may

concerndifferent

realmsof meaning, .g.

philosophical, uch

as he humanist ircles

of the

early modern

period, scientific,

uch es the nlany

E-Mail

cliques

of today, or the

"meeting

of

souls"of which farnous

or-

respondenccs

ell, such

as har between 6loise

andAb6lard.

\Vehave

cenhat

undercertain

ircunrstances

roblenrsmayoccur

in

the inter

subjective

onstruction

f the personal

dentity f the

child to which

the

term subjective

risisof meaning

nray be appli-

cable. f the behaviorof the child is constantly onfronred n the

action

of significanr

dultswith

incongruent eacrions

he child will

be able

o discern

hc objecrive

ocialmeaning

of its actions

only

with

difficLrlty

r not at all.

If the child does

nor receive easonably

concordant

nswerso

the question

who

am ?

posedhroughout

its

behavior,

hen ir nrust

encounrer

reatdifficulties

n taking

on

responsibility

or

itself.Even

f under rore

favorablc

ircumstances

the identityof a pcrsonhasbeenunproblemaricallyonstructed,ts

22


21/72

strength

can be endangcred

ater Lrypersistent,

systematlc

Lrlconsrs-

tency

in the rcflection of

its actions n the actions

of others

F u r l . . r n r r r . ,

w e

h a ' e

e c n

h

r r r r r d c r

e r t a i r c u n . r , r n ,

. i n t e r _

subjecrive r iscs

of meaning

may

occur.

For

different

forms of

community of life different typicaLmcasures f coherenceare to be

expected

and thesediffcr

from society to society

and

from period

to period.

1hc

condition

for a crisis of

meaning

s that the mcnbers

of a particular life-community

acceptunqestioningly

thc degree

of

coincidencc f neaning

expectetl f them,

but areunable

o match

i t . s

was

already tatcd,

his discrcpancyetween

is'

and

'should"

appears art icularly ften

f the dcal s -rf

l i fe community

nsist hat

r r < h o u 1 d'e r u n ' p l e r . o n r m u n r r vl n r c ; n i n g .

l i

'ubjc.t i '

< and

nter- 'ubje.,vccrr 'c .ol

meaning

icrrren nra-e

n

a society so th:rt thcy develop

into a gcneral

social

problem, then

one

wil l hauc o seek he

cause ot in the subject

tsel f

nor in the

given

inter-subjectivity of

human existence.

t is rather

to be ex-

pected

hat the causes rc !o

be found in thc

socil structure

itself

Let us, herefore, nquire

which part lcular

tructures

f a historical

society counteract he dcvelopmentof crisesof nre:rningand which

encouragcsuch a development.

More precisely:

what are the struc-

tural conditions for a sufficient

dcgree of coincidcnce

n inter-sub-

jective

reflections

such

that rhe

foundation for the

formation of

per'

sonal idcntity

*ith

constant

merlrng s givenl

\(hen

do thesepro-

cesses reate subjective

criscs ol

mcaningl And

which structural

condit ions romote

and

which hindcr the sufFicient

oincidcnce

f

' o c r a l e l . r r ' r n r t h r r. h e o u n d . r t ' " nf

l r f F o m m u n i l i e (

e ' r \ t ; n r

u

crisis?

\(e will attempt to answer

hescquestions

n concrete

crms in the

light of thc historical developmcnt

of nodcrn

society.

Flowever,

we

wish to prcccdc this at tempt

with a fcw abstract,

gencral considerx

tions.

For it is possible despite

he prxctically

endlcss

multiPlicit/

and

importance of differcnces

between societies

to

identify

-

with respect o our qr.lestion bout the

structural

conditions

for the

23


22/72

cnrergcncef crisis

of meaning

trvo basic ypes

of social tructure

across ll

cpoches-

'l

he first

type not

particularly usceptible

o crises

f merningare

socicties hich

have

a single ndgenerally

indingvalue

ysternnto

which thedifferent ayers ndrcalms f rncaning rewell intcgrxrcd:

from

cveryclay

chemes

f expericnce nd

action o the

superordi-

nate categories

f lifc

conduct and crisis

managerncnt

irected

tovards extraordinary

ealiries.

he totaL

tockof meaning

s stored

andmanaged

n socialnstrtutions.

Because

he schemes

f

actionobjcctified nd

mademandatory n

social nstitutions

are

directed owards

a common value

system

superordinateo the specific reaningt is assuredn this type of so-

cicty that the institutions

ustainhc order

of

mcaning

n

basic on-

cordance ith

practical

ife. lhcy

do this directly

and,so to speak,

in dctail,by imprinting

henlsclves r1 hc

meaning

f

many

day to

day actions;hcy

do this,

so o spcak,n the arge

by identifying

bio-

graphical

ategories

f meaningwith

communities

f life, n particu-

lar hose 4rich

re

entrustedirh forrning

he personal

dentity f

.

L r l d rcn

Bro ru rng

nro

ren rbc r .

f . oc i c r y .

Differcnt

societies

orrespond

o this basic

ype o different

extents.

Archaicsocieties

orrespond

rost truely

to this type.

The complcx,

ancicnthigh

cultures

areslightly ess

losc,but essential

haraceris-

tics of this

type are

o be found cven n

the premodern

ocieriesf

modern

times. Like

all

other societieshese

societies ave nrany

organizational

roblems

nd heir members

aveevery

ife problem

inraginable:

n

dealingwith

nature,work,

domination,

ife and

death.Natural ly herearealsoqucslons f meaningor

the

ndi-

vidual.

But these

omparatively

table, ften

evenstatic

ocicries

communicate

n

order

of meaningwhich is

consistent

o a large

extent hrough

congruent

processcs

f sociaiization

nd

thc

irxti-

tutionalization

of action.

Thcse

proccssesre located

n meaning-

fully rclated ife

communities

ncldiffcrcntsocial

spaces.his

basic

type may be

simplified

as an ideal

ype, however

societicswhose

structureevenapproximateso this type provideno ground or the

24


23/72

growth and extensionof

subjective nd inter+ubjective

rises

of

meaning.

'l'hings

arediffcrent n societics

n which shared nd

bindingvalucs

arc

no longer given for everyoncand structuraLly

ecured nd

in

which hese alLrcso not pcrmeate l l spheresf l i fe equally nd

bring

hem nto concordancc.

hrs Ls he basic oncli t ion

or the

spread f

both

subjective

nd

nter-subjectiverises f

rneaning.

n

formulating

his

basic

ype of socicty

liable

to crises"

wc will again

neglect

many dctails o identify n sinplification

ts structural

har-

In suchsocietieshcre

may be a

ualue

ystcn

nheritedby tradition

as a stock ol nreaningrom bygoneperiods.This

value

system

s

objectified

n the socieral tock

of knowledge nd

s hereend here

still administered y

specialized

rcligious)nstitutions.

Ihere

may

evenbc

more

han one set

of valucs

imported"

fronr the stocks

f

the musc magin:rire f

meanings. ot wanting

to dexl with

the

question f

so

crlled pluralisn

at this point

we set o one side

he

posibility that a multiplicityof

value

systems

ay

coexistA society

mayeven e l iableo crisis"

f i t containsnlyone

single

aluc ys-

tem, n the

firll

sense f the

word, a single ystem onsisting f ele

mentsof mcaning

frorn

schemes f

experience

nd action all

the

way

to

gener:rl ategoriesf life conduct)

ncorPorating

ll spheres

of life arranged teprviseo{'ards

superordinate

alucs.

Even

n such

societyavalue

ystcm

ouldbeboth

resent

nd

not

presen!.

n such

a society

he big instirutions

of

the economy,

politics,and

religion)

have

separatedhemselves

rom the superordi-

natevalucsysten anddeterminehe actionof the individual n the

functionalarca hat they administcr.

conomic

andpolitical nstitu-

tions

makeobligatorydre instmncntal ational,

objcctive

meaning

of

schemesf:ctjon in those

reasor which hey

are esponsible.

'On

the sidc so to spcak,

el igiousnstitutions

offer"

value-

rationaL

wcrtrational) ategoriesor life conduct.

S(euse hc

term

'

offer'

even n

thc

case, ssumedcre, hat society

ontains nly

one

ordcr of meaning rientatedowards upcrordintcalucs, ot muf

25


24/72

tiple,

courpcting ystems.

ecauseven n

this case eligiorrsnstitu-

tions

ransmithehigher

rdcrcategories

apablef givingmeaning

to

the entircconduct

f Life, ut evenwithout

competit ionrom

othcrvaluc

ystenshese

:tetoriesmay not

be madcbinding

nd

may not be inposedon the conductof people.Overall, he nstitu-

tions

of tilis type

of societyno longercarry

a well-ordered

rockof

meaning

and value consistendy

nd bindingly

nto thc practice

of

life.

A

socicty s rnthinkable

entirely without

common values

and

sharednterpretations

f reali ty.

Vhat is the nature

of

values

n

such

a type of society,

bvrously ending

owards he modern,

and

wherc

are hey to be found)

It is certain hat the scheDresf action

institutionalized

n

the different unctional

spheres avea

binding

anclobjcctivemeaning

or

thoseacting n

them. n the organization

of actionwithin

a single

sphere here s definitely

a community

of

meaning. 'har

however s

not much by way

of commonalties. he

objectivemeaning

of institutionalized

chemes

f :rction s instru-

mentally

orientated

owards

he functionof this

area.Apart from its

generalizable

spect

s nstrumentally

ariofial his institutionalized

schemeof action cannot be transferredbetweensphercsand it

certainly

cannot

be integrated nto

superordinate

chenres f

meaning.

he objective

meaning

of acrioncannor n

itself be inte-

grated

nto ctegories

efrring o rhe

subjectand

simultaneously

directcd

owardsa superordinate

alue

system.Only rcligious

and

'quasi '

rel igiousnstitutions

ommunicateategories

f meaning

with

sucha claim

o generality.

his claim s however

efutedby the

objcctive eaning f theschemesf action f theother big"insti-

tutions.

lhese

meanings

irecr [e adion

of the individual n most

arcas

of daily lifc,

whether

rhey conform

ro the

superordinate

meanings

f schemes

f life

cornnrunicared,or

cxample y religious

institutions,

or not.

The clai

to integrateones

own life into

a

superordinatc

alue

systemcan be realized

essentially

nly in a

sphere ot

touched

y the othcr

'big' insti tutions,

in a sphere o-

cial iy efined s he private phere'.

26


25/72

A minimum

of

shared

eaningsn a society

s containedn

the

teneral

grccmentiven o

the

"firnctic,ning

of functions',

e. the

agreement

hat in eachareaof action

condud

shouldbe directed

towards

nstrumcntally ational requircments.

ncl this minimal

consensuss sccured y the generl ccePtancehat in the Private

reserves f

individual existencc nd comnlunities

of life separate

meanings f

Lifemay be pursucd, istinct

rom

thoseof other

ndi

vidualsand groups.This minimum

may be cxceedcd

ven

n this

typc of

societics. irst, it is

remarkablehat the

"big"

institutions

bind

their spccific meanings

beyond the

rationality

of the

organization

f action

within thenr to general

alucs, uchas

or

example

drc

generalnterest".-xceedinghemininlLrmn thisway

may fulfill

abo"e all legitimatelypurposes

while the schemes

l

action

henxclvcsmay remain

untouched.

urthermore,

econdly,

individr.rals

nd

comrnunities

f

meaningmay attenPt

o difcct

heir

action evcn

within

a

sphereadnrinistcred

y a

'big'

institution

towards

supcrordinate

values'

going beyond

its

instrumentally

rationalobjectivc

meaning.lowevcr,

this canoccur

only in conflict

with thespecificnstrumental

ationality.

'fhe

attenrpts y institutions

o conncto suPerordinatc

alues

or

lcgitimatorypurposes

may prodrrcc nly

vapid onnLriac

nd

value-

orientated

onductof

life may bc limited to

the

reserve f the pri-

vate.This

would

add o

the conditions or

the spread f

subjective

anrl nter-subjectivcrises

f nrcaning.

owever,

his alsocreates,

simultaneously,

he precondrtions

or something

lse,

nanely the

coexistence

f different

alue ystems nclfragments

f

value ystems

in the sanre ocietyand hus he parallelexistencef quitedifferent

communities

f meaning.

The statewhich

results ronr thse

pre-

conditions

an be calledpluralism.

f it itself

becomes suPerordi

nate

value or a

socicty

we mayspeak f

modernplLrralism

27


26/72

3. Modernity

and he

crisisof meaning

If pluralism rvere

defined

as a state n which

people who lead

their

lives in vcry different ways are to bc found in thc samesociety,one

would

not be dealing

with a

spccificallymodern phenomenon.

One

could find

one or other

variant o{ pluralism

in almost all societies

other

than the archaic.

Ancient lndia as well

as the India o{ today

was charactcrized

by

a pluralism of casts,

medieval Europe

by a

pluralism

of estates- ut

in thcse examplcs

he dif ferent forms

of life

would

still be related

o a common value

systen and

thc

interaction

bctween the communities of life would remain limited and strictly

regulrtcd.

Even if

one defincd

pluralisrn as a state n

which dif{erent

forrns

of

lifc

were to

be found in a society

without these

different

forms

of

life

being referrcd

to a common value

systemone would

be

ablc

to

find

examples,

or instance

the Roman Empire which

in

economic and

poLitical erms was

a single sociery.

But even here

the

interaction

between thc

different groups

and peoples

-

insofar

as

they werc

not regionally

separatcd was

reglllatedsuch that the dif -

fercnt

supcrordinate

stocks

of nreaningwere

uncoupled rom the in-

stitutionalized

schcmes

of 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

o

their orvn value

systems-For

example, he relations

ofJews to non,

Jews

vere

egulated

y the

so-cal led

fence

ofthe

law".

1f

hesc egulations

reno

longer, r canno longer,

be nraintained,

then a ncw situation is created, widr

serious mplications

for

the

takcn-for

granted

starusof value

systemsand

overarching views

of

the world. Thc

ethnic, religious

and orher

groups

and coDrmunities

of 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 the

neutral

tcrrain

of strictly

separated equences

f action

in institution-

al ized functional spheres.Encountersor, under certain circum-

2 8


27/72

stances, lashes

etwcendiflerent

vlue

systens

nd

views of the

world becomc

nevitablc.

'l'hcre

ha'e bcen

approximationso this state

f affairs efore,

. g.

in thc Ilellenic

uorlcl.

This

form

of pltralisrn

is

not necessarily

l inkcd o thespread f crises f meaning,hough articulariyn the

Hellcnic world there

wcre

also

signs f this.

This form of plLrralism

hasbecomeully flcdged nly

in modcrnsocietics. ere,

he ccntral

structuralaspects f this pluralisnrhavcbeen

aiseclo the

sttus f

an cnlightencd

aluc

bove

hediffcrent oexisting

ndcontpeting

value

systcnx.

So, for examplc, c'lerance

s 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. This

modcrn orm of pl ural isn s,

ho*cvcr,

also

hc Lrasicondition

or

tire

spread

f

mbjcctive nd inter ubjective

rises f

meaning.

\Vhethcrmodernpluralismneccssarilycads

o suchcrises

s en

open

question. owevcr,one can say

with certainty hat

in highly

devcloperl ndusrrial countries,

i-c. where mc,dernization

has

progrcsseclurthcst and thc

nlern form of pLuralism

s fully

developcd, aluesystems nd stocksof

meaningare

no longcr the

comnronpropertyof ail members 'f society.

l

he individual

grows

up in a norld in

which

herearc neither

onrmon

alues hich

deternrinection

n

different phcres f

l i fe, nor a single

cali ty

identical or all. The 'ndividual s incorporated

nto a suPcrordinate

system f meaning y thc cornmunity

of life in which

it growsup.

Howcvcr, his canrot be assuned

o

bc

the nrcaring ystem

f odler

pcopleMitmcnschen).hcse thersmayha"cbeen hapedy quhe

differentsysrens

of nrcaning n the communities f

life in

which

they

grew

up.

In Europc, sharedand overarching ystems

f in-

terprctationwerc alreadyshakcn n the

early phaseof

modcrni-

zation. The history of totalitarian

deologiesn the

last hundred

ycarshasshorvn

h:rt

nothing,

not

cven

radical egrcssion,

an re

store such nterpretativc chemes cnnanently

or

make thcnr the

structLrralharactcristic f a modernsociety.t is, by the way, also


28/72

questionable

hcther undamentalist

ttemptsn rhecountries

fthe

socalledThird

Vorld will

be

more successlul

egardlessf the in-

tensiry rvuh *'hrch

overarching

nd universallybinding

stocks

of

meaning

redefendedoday.

It hasbeennotcd hat suchconditions ronrote he spread f sub-

jective

and ntcr-subjective

rises f meaning. ut while

some ondi-

tions

accelerate

uchcriseshereareotherswhich hinder

hem.The

palcsuperordinatealues

f modernplural ism o not

have his

power.They

nrayhaveother

useful

effects

n that they promote he

peaceful

oexistencef diffcrent forms

of life and value systems.

lhey are,

howevcr,not suitable

o dircctly counteracthe

spread f

crises f meaning.They

tell the inclividual ow to behave owards

other people

and groupswho differ in

their

view

of life. They do

not, however,

ell one how

one should ead

onc's

ife when

the un-

questioned

alidity of

the traditionalorder is shaken. hat

may be

achieved y diffcrentmeans.

As the degreeo which

socially

valid

conditioning

of shared nterpretations l reality

decreasesifferent

communities

f life can

developncreasinglynto quasi-autononrous

comnunities

of meaning.nsofar

as hese ommunities

rove hem-

selveselatively tablehey may preserveheir nrembersrom crises

of

meaning.

tability s

particularly mportant

or the

role

playedby

such ife communities

n the coherent ormation

of personaldentity

of children grorving

up in them, who may

thereby be protected

from subjective

rises f meaning.

oncrete ommunities

f l i fe as

qasr'autonomous

onmunities

of

nreaning,

ndnrorestable,

pure"

conrmurnitics

f like minded

peoplc

(Gesinnungsgemeinschaften)

counteracthe pa demicspread f crises f meaning. owever, hey

cannot ranscend

he preconditionshich

prornotehe

spread F

cnscsof meaning

anchored

structurally n modern society. iur-

themore,

to rcpeat

his point, communities

f ljfe

nr which

the dis,

crepncy

etween he expectcd

nd actualcommunity

of

mcaning

is too great

can themselves

ecome he trigger for inter-subjective

crisesfmeaning.

This dialecticalelationship ctween he lossof meaning nd the

30


29/72

nev creat ion f

nreaning

r between

heerosion f

nrcaningnd

ts

rebuilding

anmost

clcarly

be observedn the case

f religion.

lhis

is, n any

case,hr: most mportant orm of a comprehensive

attern

of experienccnd

values,

ystematicallytructurcd

nd

rich in mean_

ing. For the argest artof humanhistory a societywasunthinkable

without a singlercligion encompassingverything

and everyone

'lhc

gods

of nry ancestors

erc

nanrrallyalso

nry own gods;

my

gods

werenaturallyaLsohe godsof all the members

f my tribe

or

ry town.

Most archaic

ocieties

cre ike this.

Across ong periods

of time

high culnrreswith rnany differentiated

ocial nstitutions

wcre ike hisas

wcll.

Then hisunitybetween

he ndividual,

isor

hersociety nd hegods, mbodyinghc

highest uthority

n theor-

dcr of vaiue,

vas

hakenn diffcrcntpiaces

ndat diflerent ypes

by

religious chisms. his happened

ong

before

he beginning

f mo-

dernity,

as or exarnplen the exodus f lsrael

rom the unified

sym

bolic order of the Middle

East,or evenmore radically

n the separa-

tion of Christianity

rom

the

symbolicorder of

classical ntiquity.

After

such

schisnrsherewere rcpeated ttempts

o restorea super

ordinatesysrem f oreaning

n a new basis, erhaps

f a smaller

scope"subculture'nstead f culturc) as n the unity of the tribe

of Isracl

with its

God or

in the constant earch

or thc unity of the

Christian hurch.

Vith the concept f Christendom

n

the

European

middleages n

anempt

wasmade

o irring

ogetherall the people

n a certrin space

of power under a single,

common and superordinate

ystemol

meaning, nd to h,-,ld hcm

there. Vc know that this attemPt

was

neverentircly successful.ithin Christendom rinorities reserved

their special

ymbolic

ysterls

Jews,

heretics, ults

deriving rom

a

pagan art.

At ti'res

thc symbolic

unity of Christendom

wasbroke

up from

without lslam)

r

fromwithin GreekOrthodoxy,

lbin-

gensians).

t wasmost

severely

hakcn y the Rcformation-

he con-

sequences

f thn quakewerenot intended,or the

reformers

wanted

to

restoreand prcscrve uni{iedChristendom n

r ncw basis. he

schismof thc church foiled this attempt at thc European evel.

l 1


30/72

Alongside

hc Orthodox

church wo new

"Christcndoms"

emerged

-

onc C:rtholic, he

othcr Protcstant. he formula rvirh which

the

religiouswars

n central

Europcwereended

cuius

cgio,

eius eli-

gio

-

wis

thc foundation or

an attcnrpt o restorc

ymbolicunity at

least i thinsmall pacesf rule.Llowcver,ue o theonset f mod

ernizationcven this

territorial solution was

only short ived. In-

dustrialization,

rtranization,

rigrationand masscommunications

could not

be clcanlydivided

nto CatholicandProtestant

hannels.

In nodcrn

centralEuropc

Catholicsand Protestantsand ncreas-

ingly membcrs

f many aiths,

not to speak

f

incrcasing umbers

f

people i thoLu

eligion)

ncounter ach

therandaremixed

up,

e.g. hrough rarriage.

The conccpt

fregio n thc formula

of the Peace

f

Vestphalia

hus

loses

ts spatialmening.

tcgio becomes

he sphcre of

cotrmu

nication

for a

community

of

meaning

and conviction rsually

not

limited

to a

particulararea.

One

is

Catholic by

belonging o a

Catholic rcligious

community

and taking part in

other Catholic

insti tutions

vcn f one's

neighborsreprotestants.

lhese

subcuf

tures,

generallyvoluntary

conrntunities

f convrction,no longer

offer the securityof earliercomnrunities f life and nreaningwhich

were

embcddedn

societai

ordcrs of

value

and meaning.

Never,

rheless,

hrough various ornrs

of comnrunication

nd social ela-

tions they

can save he individual

from unmasterablc

risesof

meaning.

f they

do not turn radically

gainst ocictyand

areat ieast

toierated

y it, they

act,so o

spcak, n aggregateo

stenr he spread

of crises

f mcaningn

society.inlightened

ulerswcre wise

enough

to recognizc his and left their subjectso seekhappiness here

they find it".

It turned

out that the hope

tirat Catholics ould

be

loyal

supporters

f the Prussian

rorvnwaswell founded.

Vhat has

been aidabout eligion

holds,mutatis

mutandis,or other

conprehcnsive

orders

of meaning.Moderniz-ation

as made

the

assertion

l thc monopoly

of localized ysrems

f nreaning ndvalue

across

ntire

socictiesmore

tlifficult if not

entirely mpossible. r

the safle time it hascreatcde posibility for the formationof

32


31/72

communitics

f conviction ranscendingpacc

e.

g.

through com-

prchcnsive

deologies)

nd

rom

drcse tocksof

meaning he shared

nreanings

f smaller oolmunitiesmxy be derived.

Despite his pos

sibility

the overalldeuelopmcnt ngenders,bove

all, a greatdegree

of insecurity; oth in the orientationof individualactionsand the

entire irection f ;fe.

Nevertheless,t

'ould

bemislcadingo draw heconclusion,

rom

this alone, hat nrodern ocietiesuffer rom comprehensive

rises f

rneaning. herearestill peoplewho cvenunder hese onditions

re

able o establish meaningful elationship

etween

he experiences

of

thcir own

livesand he various nterpretive

ossibilities

ffcred o

them and who are thereforeable o conduct heir lives

relatively

meaningfully. urthertrore, here

are he

institntions, ub-cultures

andcommunities

f convictiol

wirich

transport

ranscendent

alues

and

stocksof

mcaning nto

concretesocial

elationships nd life

conrmunities

ndsupport henr here.The succcss

f modernsocicty

beyond hcse

islands

of meaning"s

duc

to a legalizationf the

rules of social ife and its

"old

fashioned rorality",

lurthermore

through 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 bindingon

ali members

f a society.

Moralization

s an attempt

o solvecon-

crcte

cthical qucstionshat appear n individualspheres

f action.

|or example, n the USA academic

isciplines

uch as

"mcdical

etirics' or

"business

ethics' havecmerged. egalization

gnores he

different

value

systenrs f thosc affected. he nroralization

f pro-

fessional pheres oeswithout a conrprehensiverder of meaning.

Iloth creatc hc

conditions

n which

people

manageheir daily ives

without

a

comprehensive

nd haredroralrty.

Sucha society anbe comparcd

vith

a system f traffic

rules.One

stopson red anddriveson grcenand he maintenance

f these rrles

is in the ntcrest

of

all participants.

ne can herefore

ormally ely

on

people

abidingby the ruleswithout

the

rules hemselveseing

legitinratedn deepmoral tcnns. f the rulesare nlringed,one can

33


32/72

bring thosewho have nfringcd hc

'traffic

rules" o reason, y laws

or by non state ules, laintainedby tradeassociationsr medical s-

sociations.

Char:rcteristically,roups

with

rival interest n demo-

crticsocieties ttcmpt o havc he

"traffic

rules' which aremost m-

portant for them legalizcd y thc state.Obviously, he analogy s

only partial:

'traffic

rul""s" an rcfcr only to the practical ssues f

individual

spheres f social ifc. Lven there a moralizing,value-

orientaredhetoricmust

bc enrployed.

Particularly f groupswith an intcrest n a particular

set of

rules

wish

to use he denrocratic

roccsso

legalize

hese

ules,

hen they

mustseeko legitimize

heseulcs y referenceo vxlueselevanto

all of society however aguely

hesc

may

be

ormulated.

Beyondhe nfluencef the awand he ethics'ofparticularphere

individuals

are lcft to

their own

devices.

ystems f ethics let

alone he lawswhich rcgulate

onduct

n

professional

ife

or in the

public phere arc

of

l inle

rsen overcomingrisesf meaningnd

confl ictsn person:li fc. lowcvcr, ven f we ignore

he

fact

hat

the analogywnh

traffic rulcs s incomplete,t is in any case alid

only for thc

'normal

case Vhat docs hatmean? meanshat he

analogy ssumcs societywhich hasachievcd high degree f eco-

nomic

prospcrity, xperienceso inrDlcdiatchreat rom outside nd

hasnetotiated

elations etwccndiffcrentgroup nterestselatively

peacefully.

is one of thc saddcning xperiencesf

this century hat

such

normality'

is

alwaysragile.f conditionsre

abnormal"

and

particularly f it is

dcmanded f individuals hat they should

place

their interests

chind hoseof socictyasa whole, hen

"traffic

ru1es"

areno longcrcnough. n sucha situation, n overarchingmorality,

regardless

f

how

it is founded, ccorncs societalmperative.

\{rhat we

have

ust

claimed

draws

on a

tradition of sociological

theory which

canbe tracedbackabovcall to Emile Durkheim

and

the French

school oundedby hin. Flowever,t rejects

neof their

basicassumptions.

urkheim bclicved hat no society

can survive

without

an overarching

morality; ire named that overarching

morat-symbolic,rder

religion".

\e diverge rorn Durkheim n that


33/72

wc

clonot accept

his

necessityor thc

"norrnal

case". he dialogue

with Durkheirn

cquires s to specify his

"normal

case"more pre

cisely.Durkheim devotedmuch effort to the study of the

phenom-

enonof sacrifice ecausee considercdhat the willingness

o sacri'

ficc oncsown interests nd n extrcnris nes ife for thc socialwhole

was a decisive

haracteristic

or

thc ability of a

society o survivc.

Durkhcinr's ssumptionolds or a

society

vhichs exposcdo an

cxistcntialreat.But t rspreciselyh threat

which s missingn

thc normal ase The trafficpartlcrpantseed o fol low he

ruies

in thcir

orr,n

nterest; o wil l ingncssor

sacrif ice

s presumed.

Modcrnization

makes he occurrcrrce f such

"normal

cases"

ruch

morc

1ikely han t was n carlicrpcriocls:nodernizarion

ringswith

it cconomic rowth which is typically

associared

ith rclativepoliti-

cal stability.The

citizenry

s much

css cnrpted

o question he

le-

gitinracy

of an order

lvhcn

its survival is sccured

by matcrirl

prosperiy. However, t shouldbc cmphasizedhat

it would be a

gravc

crror to assumehat this statccould be regarded ssecure

nd

irreversible.

' l

hc

rveakening

ndeven hecollapse

f

an overarchingrderof

nrcaning ith theonset f modernitys hardlya novel heme. he

cnlishtcnmcnt nd ts

successors

,clconrcd

his

process s hc over-

turc for thc crcation

of

a new onler

bascd n

freedomand

rcason.

'l

hc postrevohLtionaryrench raclitioralists ndother conservative

thinkershavebewailed he sameprocss sdecadencend

declinc.

Vhcthcr modcrnity

and

ts

conset1ucncerc

welcomed r rcjected

thcrc ;s widespread

onscnsusn tbe factsof the

matter. e feel het

thisconscnsushoughnot complctcly nfoundedoes ndulysinr

pl i fy a

conrplcx i tuation.

lhcrc

is widespread

onsensus

ot only

anrong*

experts ut also

n

conrnxrn ense nderstanding

bout he

cause, erhaps ven he main crusc

of

this breakingapart of

the

conrprehensiverder of meaning.

l

his is to be found n the

retreat

of religion.

Religion here is not understood n the

wider sense

enployed

by DLrrkheim,.e.asanycomprehensiverderof

meaning

and world order, but rather in the narrower more corventionl

t5


34/72

mcaning

religion,asbelief n god, n anotherworld, salvation nd

the bcyond.$(ith referenceo thc n)odern Vest his mplies hat the

declinc

f Christianityhascauscdhc moderncrisisof meenint.

This nor very

original

nterpretation as

accepted s

act

and

wel-

comedby progrcssivehilosophers nrl ntellectuals nd mourned

by almostall conservativedeologicalhinkers.Put simply he main

thesis

f this argument,well establishedn the socioiogy f religion

as he

"secularizetion

thesis' s that modernhy eads nescapablyo

sccularization secularizationn the sense f a lossof influence f

religious

nstitutionson socictyas well as he iossof credibility

of

religious nterpretations

n peoplc's onsciousness.hus comes nto

being

a

historically

new species:

the

nrodernperson"who believes

that onecancopeboth in onesown life and n social xistence ith-

out rel igion.

The

confrontation

ith

this

'nrodern

person" esbecome n m-

portant opic or

whole

gcnerations

f

Christianheologiansnda

central oint n the

progranrmef theChristianhurchesn

western

countries.;or

this hesis,s

well,

a nLrmberf argrrmen*anbede-

ployed.l istorical

videnceuggcstshatat Leastincehe 18th

en-

tury thesocialnfluencef thc church asdeclined,t easrn wes-

tern

Europe,

nd hat mportantnsti tutions

e.

g. he

enrire duca-

tional

systcm) ave iberated hcmselvcsrom their earlier eligious

ties. n

addition, he term

'modern

person" s not entirely

divorccd

from

reality. t is likcly

that there are a considerablc umber of

peoplcwho

copewith thcir liveswithout religiousaith (in

the sense

defined

carlier)or religious

practice.

Vhether this

type of secular

exjstences an absolute ovelty s questionable.t is ikely that there

have alwaysbeen

pcople

who

have ound thcir happinessn this

v'orld

without

churches before and after they came nto ex-

istence. ut even

disregardinghis, dre equationof modernity

and

secularization

ust be reated

keptically.

{ the

secularizationhesis

appliesanywhcre,

hen in westcrn -urope. (Even

there

it would

have to be questioned r'hethcr

hc institutional retreat

of the

churchesanbe equatcdwith the rctreatof rcligiousnterpretations

36


35/72

in consciousness.)bservers f the Europeaneligious

cene

incLLrd-

ing

one of the two authorsof this study)

have for a

long time

pointed

out

that declericalizationhouLdot be confused

with the

lossof

religion. n any case he convcntional

ecularizalion

lesis

rapidly oses redibilityassoo asoue eaves

Western

Europc.

A particular rritant for

this

theory is

the

stateof religion

n

the

United

States.

American societycrn hardly be described

s un-

modern. Io*'ever, eligion s forccfullyaliveandpresent

herc.And

this s ruebothat he nsti tutionaleuel s

q'el l

as n theconscious-

ness nrl

ife conductof

millionsof

peoplc.

Thereare

cw signs hat

this situation s changingn thc dircctionsuggcsted

y the scculariza-

tion thesis.Outside :,uropeand North

America t is

in

any case

nonscnse.he socalled 'hird Vorlcl is n fact shaken

y thc onrush

of religious novements. he Islauric ereissxnceasattracted

most

attentionbut it is far from bcing he only case.

Vorldwideone can

tracc hc successtory of evangelicalrotestantism,

he moststriking

chapter

f

which is Evangelism. his newProtestantism

preadsike

a prairie ire

-

in s-idestretches f Eastand Southeastern

sia, n

Africasouthof the Saharand mostsurprisingly

in al l coun-

trics of Latin America.Often it is preciselyhose ayersof society

most ouchedby modernizationwhich are most susceptible

o reli

giouscndrusiasm. he troops of todays eligious

massmovcnrents

arc to bc found n the new citicsof the Third

Vorld, not in thc tra-

ditionalvillages. eople raincd at tbe nrodern

universitics reolten

the cadingadresfthismovemcnt.

ln short: he Europeanmodel of secularized

odernity hasonly

l imitedexport alLre.he most nrportantactor n the creation f

crises f meaning

n

socicty s

n

dre i lc of the

ndividual

s

prob-

ably

not

the supposedly

odcrrr

ecularityut

modern lural isnr.

Modcrnity means quantitative s

vellas

qualitative

ncreasen plu

raliz:uion.

fhe

structural ausesf this factare

well 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

most

differenthindsand orce hem to dealwith

eachother reason-

ably peacefully;

he rule of law anddenrocracy

hich

provide nsti-

tutional guarantcesor

this peaceful oexhtence. he mediaof mass

communication

onstantly

nd empharicaLlyarade plural iryof

waysof life and thinking: both prlntedmaterial iding on mass i,

teracy

spread crosshe

entirepopulationby compulsory chooling

and

he nes-est lectronic

media.

f

the

interactions

nabled y this

pluralizationare not restricted

y

'fenccs'

of one kind or another,

rhis plurlism akes ull

effect,bringing

with

it one of its conse-

quencesrhe

"structural'

crisisof meaning.

'lhe

"fence

of the aw" was

alrcadymentioned. abbinical

udaism

erectedhis fence o

distinguish racticing

ews

rom their profane

surroundings.

t was his

'fence"

which made

possiblehe survivalof

the

Jewish

community

over

many centuries n

a mainly hostile

Christian

or

Islamic

society-One nlight alsosey: he

"fence

of the

law"

protected hosepeople ivnrg within it from

pluralism.This

protectioncollapsed ith

the emancipation f the

Jews

n wesrern

societies nd

the people affcctedwere consequently

articularly

liable o

crises f meaning.t is not merehappenstance

hat modern

Jewishhinkers ndwritershav con ern d hemselvesarticularlyn-

tensivelywith

suchcrises

f

meaning.

Conversely ne cansay hat

any group that wishes

o protect itself from the consequences

f

pluralismmust erect ts

own

'fence

of the law'. As wasmentioned,

there have

been nstances

f pluralisur

hroughout

history, for in,

stxnce n the large

owns of late antiquity and

probably at times

along he traderoutes

and the urban cenrers f Asia. The

modern

processesf pluralizationdistinguish hemselvesrom their pred-

ccessorsot

only by their immense xtent

much

wider

circlesare

affected y them),

hey are alsodistinguishedy

their acceleration:

whiLst

heir effects

rogressivelyxtend o

"new"

countries,hey do

not remain

static, n alreadyhighly modernized

ocietieshey

are

accelerating.

Modern

pluralism eads

o a thorough elativization

f systems f

valuesandschemes f intcrpretation.Put differently: he old value

38


37/72

systems ndschemesf

interpretation rc decenonized

.

The result-

ing disorientation f the individual and of

whole groups

has for

years

bccn he

main themeof socixland cultural

criticism.Catego-

ries such

as

'alienation"

and

"anorrie'

arc proposed

o charctcrize

thc difficulty experienccdy people rying to find their way in the

modcrnworld. fhe weaknessf suchcommon

place oncePtions

s

not that they exaggeratehe crisisof meaning.

Their

weaknesss

their

bl indncss

owardshe capacityf individuals

s

well asdiffer

ent conrmunities f life and meaning o

preserve

heir own

values

and intcrpretations.Existentialphilosophy

from Kicrkegaard

o

Sartrchas

developed

he most mprcssive onception

f the

alienatcd

human being.Other versions rc to be

found throughot

ecent

\festcrn literanrre oneneedmentiononly

Kafka).However,

t can-

not

bc doubted

hat this imagcof humanityapplies

o only

a small

portion of the population

n rnodern

societies

though his portion

may be in certin especrsn importantone).

Most people

n these

societies o not

vander

around

ikc

characters

n a

Kafha novel.

They arenot plagued y

fear

and

arenot tempted o

makedesperate

lcapsof faith

,

nor do they co sider hemselves

condemned

to

frcedonr'-One x-ayor anothcr,with or without religion, hey cope

with

their ives. t

is important o understand ow they

mnagchis.

But

before

we

attempt o pursue

his

question

we wish to return

oncc more

to

or.rrclain that pluralism s the

cause f the

crisisof

mcaning r modernity.We must cxaminemore

closely he

signifi'

cance or

the stock

of meaningend the process

hrough

which

meaning s lost,

of

the socialpsychological tatus

of meaningand

knowlcdge s aken'forgranted.

J9


38/72

4. The loss

of the taken-for-granted

lf

communities

of

life

and mc:ning rcally overlap to the extent

that

is demandedby socialcxpectariols, rhen social ife and the existence

of thc indiv idual

proccedhabi tu: l ly alnrost

by

themselves". h is

doesnot necessarilymply

drat drc individuals have no life

problems

or

that they are happy

with thcir fate. However,

rhey a! least

"kno\ir"

about

the

world,

how tr-,bchave n it, what is reasonable

o

cxpect and, iast

but not least, ndiviclLrals now who

they are. For

exrmple, the role

of a slavc was presurnably never

a pleasantone.

Nevertheless,

however unpleasant t may have

been the individuals

who occupied

this role livcd in

Documents

BERGER, Peter L. & LUCKMANN, Thomas. Modernity, Pluralism and the Crisis of Meaning