berger luckmann modernity, pluralism and the crisis of meaning

8/12/2019 Berger Luckmann Modernity, Pluralism and the Crisis of Meaning

1/71

Modernity,PluralismndheCrisis fMeaningTheOrientationf ModernMan

PeterL. BergerThomasLuckmann

Bertelsmannoundation ublishersGtersloh 995


2/71

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 .itersloh

Edio. Dr ndtrr Ktrhlmrnn

cory 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


3/71

Contents

lletner lYeidenleldPreface

PeterL. Betger,Tbomas uchmannModernity,pluralism nd hecrisisof meaningwhatbasic umanneeds f oricntationm u s te a t i s f i e d l . . . . . . . . . . . . 91. The foundationsf the meaningfulness

o f h n m a ni f e . . . . . . . . . . . . 92. Themeaningfuhre*l .ocialrelrtion


4/71

Preface

Questions f culturalorientatiooare among he most urgenr ssuesof modernsociety. ndividualismand pluralismead o the conse-quence hat individualsmore anclmoreface he difficulty to define

standards nd valuesguiding theirown lives. ndividuaLsequirethese alues o be able o find orientationn a situationvhichs de-finedby optionsand he necessityo takedecisions.

Three ccntralgroups of questions lelineate rucial problems,whichthe Bertelsmannoumlationntends o tackleby creatinganew ,rngc[ pro:c,son cuhural rrcntation:- llow can ndividualsealizemeaningfulivesby chosingrom

thc pluralisticnultiplicityof optionsl- How dohumanbeings oorclinatehe numerous olesandsocial

networksn which they interactln other words:how do theystabilizchcir own identity)V/hat valuesystems uide thcir ideasof good and cvil? In asmuch :s individualsharcconrnron aluepatternswe have oraisca consccutiveuestion:'hichcommunities osuchndividu-als onn who sharcsimilar pattcrnsf mearingand udge heirlivesby the samevalue systcrns? nd finally:what do thesecomnrunitiesontributc o thc integrationof the societyas awholeor to whatextcntdo thcy endangeruch ntegration?Howcanmodernsocietiesrovidedrerequiredigaturesl

Individualswho havcacquircd tableorienrationsossess n cffcc-tivepanacea gainst xistentialhrcats o theirself-perception.heyregard hemsclvesspeoplewithan undoubteddentity.And they


5/71

avail henxelvesf ethical tandardshich enablehem o judgetheiractionswith regard o theireffecton society sa whole

On all drreeevelsndividuals aveceasedo act accordingo whathes raditionallybeen egarrled sself-evidentnd akcn or grantcd.

Thereforc he ossof thetaken-for-grantedas ed to the possibilityand cvennecessityo decide hat is meaningful, ood andsociailyacceptablc.his decisions an individualone and t is debatrblefthccohesion f society uffcrssa consequencefthesedecisions.naddrtionhe pluraiistic bundancef suchdecisionsllowscommun-ities o emerge hichenjoy he oyalties f rheirmembers ut donot nccessarilyake nto eccounthe welfare f socictyasa whole.

'fherange f projects n

"culnrralorientation" tartedts series fpublicationswith a firstvolumeon "'lhc lossof orientation the

cohesion risisn modernsociety"in German anguage nly).In anext phaseof the field of projectswc commissionednumber ofexpcrtises. s a first result,Peter llerger (Boston)and 'lhomas

Lucknrann(Konstanz)present heir analysisof the mechanismswhich ead o a crisis f meaningn nodern society.his study

emergedrom a contextof projectswhich aredealingwith

orientation in the mmediate ocial eighborhoodndwith the orientationby communicationn a workplacc environmentand in companyhierarchies.ther sub-projectsocuson the legitimacyof politicaliction and he limits to statecontrol ofsocialprocessesr on newchallengesue o the ever ncreasint omplexityof knowledgendtheflow of informationwhich modernndividualsace.

PeterBergerand ThomasLucknrann ountamong he ceusesorthe modern risis fmeaning rocesscsf modernization,Luralismand particularlywith regard o Buropean ocieties seculariza-tion. fhjsleadso the conscqucncehat thevalidityof sharedmean-ing is difficulto mailtain for largergroupsof individualsn society.Patternsof meaningare being sharedand maintainedby smallercommunities.t is therefore rucialo distinguishn which way individualsnite to form these ommunities.n addition,all of themrelate o the functionalmacrosysternsn society ike politics,eco-

6


6/71

nomy andscience.nteraction etweenhese evels ndcommunitiesis being egulated y intermediarynstitutions,mediacommunica-tion andmoralizing tatementsn everydayife. It will needurtherenquiry o establishefinitcknowledgen which nstitutionsreef-

fectiven this respect ndhow they performheir task.The resultofsuch a study can be evidenceon the possibility o counteracrcentripetalendenciesn society.

Prof.Dr. Verner \eidenfeldMemberof the Boardof theBertelsmannoundation


7/71

Modernity, pluralismand he crisisof meaningwhatbasic umanneeds f orientationmust be satisfied?

Peter [.. etgerTbomas uchmann

1. The oundationsfthemeaningfulnessfhuman ife

It is not apparent hetheralk about he crisisof meaningn today'sworldreally correspondso a new formof disorientationn the life

of modernpcopLe. ouldt bethatwc aremerelyhearing he Latestrepetitionof an old lament?s ir the complaint'hich cxpresseshefeeLingf distress hich hasagainand againafflictedhumanity nthe faceof a worid become nstcady?s this thc old lament, hathurnan ife sa ife to*'ardsdcath?s this thevoiceof doubt, hatthislifecould ind its meaningn a transcendentistory of salvationlOris this despcration bout he lackof sucha meaningl Vc aredistantin time fromthc book ofthe Ecclcsiastes'everythings noughtleverythings n vainl")utnotdistantrom hespiritof thcChronicle of BishopC)ttovon Frcisingwrittenmore than850 ycarsago:"ln alL,wc areso depressedy thc mcmory of thingspast, he pres'surcof thc present nd he fearof futurevicissitudeshat we acceptthe sentence f death hat is in rrsand rnay become ired of lifc it-self." t is evenurther and all thc sanle ot so ar betwecn hecon-ceptions f human ate in historyrom Thucydideso AlbenCamus.


8/71

On t,hat basis remodern andpost-modern)riticsof present aysocietyand cultureconvinced hat the crisisof our tirness funda-mentally different romaLlpast mkeries?Theseobservers ardlystart rom the assumptionhat thcrehasbeena radical hangen thehumancondition, he conditiohumana.Rather hey seem o suspecta new socialconstitutiorof themeaningof 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 f

somethingike 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 isit possibleo improveour understandingf chengesn par-ticulartructuresfmeaning.

Meaning s constitutedn humanconsciousness:n the consciousnessof the individual,who is individuatedn a body andwho hasbeensocialized sa person.Consciousness,ndividuation,he speci-ficityof 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 inso 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 ieldthat is delimitedby an openhorizon.This

10


9/71

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 stiliwithout meaning.It is however the foundation, onwhich rncaning can comeinto ex-

istence. For, apprehensionswhich do not occur simplyand inde-pendentLybut which the ego turns its attention lowardsacquireahigher degrecof thcmatic definition;thcy becomeclearlycontoured"expcrienccs".

Expericnces aken nrdividr.rallywouLd stili bcwithout mcaningIlowever, as a core of expcricncc cletachestself from the back'ground of apprehensions, onsciousness rasps he rclatioDof this

core to other expcnences.The srmplcst orm of suchrelationshipsare "equal ' , 's imi1ar",diffcrcnt", "equallygood' , "differentandworse" etc.Thus is constitutedthc most elementary evel of mean-ing. Me:rning s nothing but a complexform of consciousness:t doesnor exist ndependently.k always has a point ofreference.Meaningis consciousness f the fact th:t a relationshipexists betweenexperiences.he inverse s also rue: the meaning f experiences

and, as wiLlbe shon'n, of actjons has to be constructed hrough' relational" erformancesf consciousness.he experienceurrentar a particular monent can be rclated to onein the immediateordistant past. GeneralLy,each expcrience s related not 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 ofmulti-layered perform-ancesof consciousness xy scenr, ts resultsare the simpleelemeotsof meaning n our daily livcs. -or cxample, n theapprehensionof aflower a typical gestalt s tied in with a typicalcolor connectedo atypical quality of snell,touch, and use. In directedconsciousnessthis apprehensionbecomesexperience, his experiences grasped nrelation to other experiences"sonrany flowcrs')or related o a clas'sification taken from a social stock of knowledge("an Alpineflower') and may finally be intcgrated nto a planof action("pick it


10/71

and ake t to my lovcdone!"). n this processmultiple ypes "A1-pine lower",lovedone')are ntegrateclnto a processualcheme('pickn and ake t to') and usednto a morecomplex, ut stilleveryday nit of meening. f finrllythis projects not simply put

into actionbecause t confiicts witha morallyfounded maxim("don'tpick itl rareflowerl"), then a decision s arrivedat and ahigherevelmeanings constitutedhrough 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 completcdction s meaningfuln retrospect. ctionis guided

by aviewo a prcconceivedim.Thisdesignsa utopian whichheactor anticipates future stete,assesscsts desirabilityand urgencyand considershe stepswhich willbring it about- insofaras heprocesss not fanriliarhroughearlier imilaractions ndhasnotbccome habit. 'Ihe neaningfthc acions, in the acr", sconsti-tutedby their clationo thegoal.The completedcion,wherhersuccessfulr not- but also he actionprojected scomplete canbe comparedo otheractions, an be undersrood s he fulfillmentof maxims,an be explained nd ustifiedes he execution f laws,canbcexcusedsdefyingnorm, anbedeniedo others nd n thelimitalso o oneself.hedoublemeaningnd hecomplextructureof meaning recharacteristicf all actionbut in day-to-dayoutine!he chxracteristicsayappear lurred.

Socialaction,of course, hares his structureof meaningbut ac-quiresadditionalharacteristicimensions: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 response r nor- theremay,or may not be,ananswer.t canbc intended suniqueor may aim to achieve egularrepetitionor to be prolongedhrough ime. The complexmeaning

l2


11/71

of social action and social relations is constructedn thesedifferentdimensionsof nreaning.

In speakingof the constitution of nreaningn thc consciousnessfthe individualit rvasalreadyclear that this couldnot neen the iso

lated subject, hc s'indowless monad. Daily lifeis full of manyfoldsuccessionsf sociirl ctionand he personaldentityof the individ-ual s formedonly in this action.Purclysubjectivepprchensionsrethe foundation of the constitution ofmeaning: simplc layers ofmcaning can bc created n thc s.rbjcctive expericnce ofa Peison.Higher laycrs of meaning anda more complex strucnrrcof meaningdependon thc objectificationof subjectivemeaning n socialaction.

The individuaLs only able o makecomplicatedogical onnectionsand initiateand controldifferentiatedequencesf 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 "traditions'),low even n the lowest evclsof meaningof nrdividLralxperience.Iypification,classification,atterns f ex-pcrience nd schcnles { ection are elcnrentsf subjectivc toresofknowledge that are largely takcn overftom thc social stockofknowledge.

Certainly, subjcctive constitution ofmeaning is the originof allsocial stocks of knowiedge, historicaircservoirs of meaning,onwhich peoplc born into a particular societyin a particularepochmay dral. ' lhe neaningof an cxperience l action was born''somewherc, once upon a timc in the conscious, problenlsoLving"action of an individuai relative tohis or her naturalandsocialenvironnrcnt. Howeverl si ce most problenrswith which thenrdividual is confronted also arise n thclives of other pcople,thesolutions to these problems arc not just subjcctively but alsointcrsubjectivelyclcvant. ither he problcIrrshemselvesrise rominteractive social action, so thatthe solutionsmust also be found incommon. Ihcsc solutions can also be objectifiedn one of a numberof possibleways, through signs, tools, buildings,but above all

l l


12/71

through thc cormnunicativeornx of a languagen


13/71


14/71

diffusccxpcrtknowledgen populariz,cdorm and peopleappropri-arcpicccs f this nformation nd ntegratet withthcir stockof

The 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 rcligiousndlater phiJosophicalxperrsnto valuesystenN. hese lainr o nrean,ingfullycxplainandregulatchc conductof lifeof thc inclividuain

relationo thccommunity n both routinesf dailyifeand n over-coming criscswith referenceowardsrealitiesransccnding veryday ifc (thcodicy).

Theclaiurof superordinatconligurationsfvalues ndvaluesys,rems " f i l lrhe nr i r" ry f l i fewrrhnrern ing. n ros rpp . rygnln 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 thattranscendsre ifeof the individuale.g. 'erernity").Biographicalatcgories f ncaning,as wc call thcm, endowthemcxning of short-range ctiolswith long,tern significancc.hemeaningof cvcryday outinesdoesnot disappear ntirelybut it issubordinateo the "meanjngof lifc". (c will narnecre,amongstthe manyhistoricalonstructionsf biographical chcnrcs,nly rhesmall enrc f theexemplaryifc' andhe arger enrc f theholylife",rhc ancienthcroiccpic, and thc modernheroic egend(e.g. PrinceEugene,Georgc Vashington,Baron von Richrhofen,Antoinedc St.Exupry,Rosa ,uxemburg, takhanov).

All institrrtionsmbodyan 'original' action-nealingwhich hasproved tselfn the definitivc cgLrlationf socialaction n a parricu-lar functionalarea.Of particularrlportanceare those nstiturionswhose ask ncludeshe sociaL rocessingf meaning-Mostimport,ant of all are hose nstitutionswhosemainfunctions onsistn the

l 6


15/71

coDtrolof the productionof mcaning ndhe transmissionf mean_ing.Such nstitutionsave xistedn almost ll socictiesther hnthc archaic.n dreoldhigh culturcs, n thesocietiesfthe earlymo'dcrn periodand latcr (e.g. in todaysran) rcLigiousmoralinstittr

tions havebcencloscLyied to thc apparatusf dominationTheycoLrld imrelativelysuccessfullyt boththe productionand distri'butionof a relativcly onsistentierarchyf meaning.f howevertheconditionsothofproductionnddistributionf socialmeaningapproximatco an opcnmarket, his hasconsidcrableonsequcncesfor the 'nreaningbudget'. n that case nunrbcr f suPPliersfmcaningcompctc or thefavor c,f a public thatis confrontedwith

the clifficultyof choosinghe nrostsuitablemeaningromthe wcalthof me:ningsvailable.cshall enrrn o thisater.Institutionsave he askof storing ndmaking "ailableeaning

for theactions f the ndividualboth in particular ituationsnd oren e[tire conductof lifc.This functionof institutionss however sscntially elated o tire rolc ofdre ndividualasa consumer ut alsof ion l*e 'o . , r r r.: p rodu ,rof rcanin6 .

Thisrelationshipanbe 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 incloctrinationccks o ensure hat the lndividualonly thinks and doeswhat conforns to thebasicnorms of thc so-cicty. And thc corrtrolandcensorshipf everythinghat is pubLiclysaid, aughtor preachcd ims o prevent he diffusionof dissidcntopinion.nternal ndexternalompetitions auoided r eliminated(not always ucccssfullyl).he re:rning { actionsnd ife conductsirlposedasa unquestioncdule brndingon all.For examPle,he rc-lationshipof marricd couplesand the relationshipof parents ochildrcns defincd nambiguously.arents ndchildrenenerally

conform;devianccs clearlydefincd sdcviancerom thcnorn.

17


16/71

In modernsocietiesonditionsare different.Of course, here arestill institutionswhichconmunicatche meaning f actionsor theirparticularareaof action;here are stillvaluesystcmswhichare ad-ministercdy some nstitutionsasnrcaningfulategoriesf life con,

duct. Ho*'cver,as willbe sho*'n, there are, by comparisonwithpremodern ocieties,ifferencesn the consisrencyf valuesystemsas n the internaland external onpetitionover the productionofmeaning,hc communicationf rneaning, nd ts mposition.To re-turn oncemorc to the example:n modernsocietiest wouldbe dif-ficultto find parcntsand childrenfor whom the relationshipsequallybindingon bothpartiesand s de{ined nquestioninglyy afirm valuc

system.

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

Socially bjcctifiedndprocesscdtocks f meaningre"preserved"in historical eservoirsf mcaningand "administered"by institu-tions.Theactions f the ndividualareshaped y objectivemeaningsuppliedromsocial tocks f knorvledge ndcommunicated ythepressureor compliancewhichemanatesrom institutions.n thisprocess, bjectificdmeanings constantlyn interactionwith subjec-tivelyconstitutcdmeaning nd ndividualprojects oracion. IIow-ever,nreaninganalsobe ascribed one might evensay,aboveall- to the intcr'subjcctivetructureof social elationsn whichthcindividualac* and ives.

From the verybeginninga childis incorporatednto sociaLela-tionships:withits parents ndwith othersignificant ersons.hese

relationshipseveiopn regular, ircct andreciprocalctions. trict-

l8


17/71

ly, an infant isnot capableof action in the fullmeening of the word.As an individuated organismi! has, however, the bodily and con-scious apaciticsnherent o thc humanspecies hich it employsnits behavior owardsothers. 'Ihc actionsof others elative o the

child are thcmseives argely dctennined by schemesof experienceand action that are drawn frotr s


18/71

with biographicalcategoriesand schemesof action and rhar rheothers who enter inro sociai rclations withthe child do not nrirrorits behavioreven approximatcly. The typicalconsequencesor thedevelopmento{ thc child arc predictable!Pcrfect concordancc,as

projccted bove,s neverachieved,ut rrchaicsocieticsnd he traditional highcuitures were not far removed fromit. The oppositecasehas hovever no correspondingeaLiry: socierywithoutanykind of valueystem ndsithout stocks f mcaningadaptedo it ishard to imagineas a "society. As a child one isborn into commun-, t r c .u f l i f e l eben r t emc in rha l r cn th r, hr r e - t o \ ry inge x i . n r s

also conmunities of meaning. lhat means hat even without aunivcrsally sharedstock

of meaning adapted o a single,closedvalucsysten conrmonaltiesof meaning can be developcdn communitiesor drawn fromthe historicalrescrvoir o{ meaning.These comrlonmeaningscan then, of course,be contnrunicated o children relative-Iy consistently.

Communitiesoflifearecharactcrized y regularlyrepeated, ircctlyreciprocalaction in durablcsocial clationships.hosc involvedplace an institutionailyor other\r,isesecured rust in thc durabilityof the cormnunity.Beyondthesebasiccommonaltieshere are widedifferenccsbetweensocieties n the differcnt forms ofconrmunitieswhich are nstitutionalizedn them. The universalbasic orm are ifecommunitiesinto whichole is born. However, there are also lifccommunitiesinto whichone is adoptcd and those which one joins,such as partners in marriagc. Some cornmunities of life formthcftselves hrough adaptingoncs life to thecontinuationof sociaLrelationsthat were originally not intendedto be prolonged,othersrcquire initiation.Thc examplcs nclude holy orders which alsoconstitutehemselves s conrmunities f rneaning,eper colonies,retlrctuent homes!andPrisons.

Comnunities of lifepresupposca minimumof cornmonmeaning.'fhis measurccan in some societiesand for some formsof conrmu-nity be very minimal: itmay concern only the coincidcnceof the

objcctive ncaningof the schemcs f day to day socialaction, asper-

2A


19/71

haps in ancient slave householdsor in nrodernprisons. Commu'nities of lifemay also aspire o complcteunisonin all layersof mean-lng including thecategories f thc entireconducto[ life as n somemonastic orders or in theideal of certaintyPes of marriage.How

ever, most comntunities oflife acrossdiffcrentsociticsand ePochesaspire to a dcgree of sharednrcaning somevhere in betweenthisnlinimum andmaxinrum.

l xpc . r : ron . l o


20/71

nity of meaninghen their disagreemenrouldbe painful orbothpartncrs nd he crisisof meaningwouldescalatento a lifecrisis.

Letus renrain or an instant vithour example. et trsassumehewifeencountcrs theragingnrarriedwomenwho havearrivedat a

similarerspcctiven theircommon ging,perspectivehichdoesnot agrec ith the dominantviewsshared y their hLrsbancls.n ex-changing hcir expericnces conmunity of meaning mightbeformed.n thc first variantofour examplehis communityof mean-ing remains spartialasdoes hc rlisagreementith the husbandndthere{oreervcs scompensationather han replaccment.n the se-cond variantany partiaL isagreements interpretcdas "total"and

the new foundcommunityf meaningould ake heplace f thebroken narriage.Vhere ; ri f* .ommunir ic \l r \ lp re \ume nr in imrrn. rmmuniry

of meanrng,he inverses not true. Communiticsof meaningmayundercertaincircumstancesecome ommunitiesf lifc, they mayhoweverbc builtup and naintainedexclusivelyhrough nrediared,reciprocalaction-Theseconrnrunitiesay be foundedon differentnot directlypracticalevelsof nreanrng nd mayconcerndifferentrealmsof meaning, .g. philosophical, uchas he humanist irclesof the early modernperiod, scientific,uch es the nlany E-Mailcliquesof today, or the "meetingof souls"of which farnousor-respondenccsell, suchas har between 6loiseandAb6lard.

\Vehave cenhatundercertain ircunrstancesroblenrsmayoccurin the intersubjectiveonstructionf the personaldentity f thechild to whichthe term subjectiverisisof meaningnray be appli-cable. f the behaviorof the child is constantlyonfronred n theactionof significanrdultswithincongruent eacrionshe child willbe able o discern hc objecriveocialmeaningof its actionsonlywithdifficLrltyr not at all.If the child doesnor receive easonablyconcordantnswerso the questionwhoam ? posedhroughoutits behavior,hen ir nrustencounrer reatdifficultiesn takingonresponsibilityor itself.Even f under rorefavorablcircumstancesthe identityof a pcrsonhasbeenunproblemaricallyonstructed,ts

22


21/71

strength can be endangcred ater Lrypersistent,systematlcLrlconsrs-tency in the rcflection ofits actions n the actionsof others

F u r l . . r n r r r. ,w eh a ' e ecn h rr r r r d c re r t a i r c u n . r, r n ,. i n t e r _subjecrive riscsof meaningmay occur. For differentforms of

community oflife different typicaLmcasures f coherenceare to beexpected and these diffcrfrom society to societyand from periodto period.1hc conditionfor a crisis ofmeaning s that the mcnbersof a particular life-communityacceptunqestioninglythc degreeofcoincidencc f neaningexpectetl f them,but areunable o matchit . s wasalready tatcd,his discrcpancyetween is' and 'should"

appears articularly ftenf the dcal s -rflife communitynsist 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 .li 'ubjc.ti '< and nter- 'ubje.,vccrr 'c.ol meaning icrrren nra-e n

a society so th:rt thcy developinto a gcneralsocialproblem, thenone will hauc o seek hecause ot in the subjecttselfnor in thegiven inter-subjectivity ofhuman existence. t is rather to be ex-pected hat the causes rc !o be found in thcsocil structureitselfLet us, herefore, nquirewhich partlculartructures f a historical

societycounteract he dcvelopmentof crisesof nre:rningand whichencouragcsuch a development.More precisely:what are the struc-tural conditions for a sufficientdcgree of coincidcncen inter-sub-jectivereflectionssuchthat rhe foundation for theformation ofper'sonal idcntity*ith constantmerlrng s givenl\(hen do thesepro-cesses reate subjective criscs ol mcaningl And which structuralconditions romoteand which hindcr the sufFicientoincidcncef

' o c r a le l . r r ' r n r t h r r. h e o u n d . r t ' " nfl r f F o m m u n i l i e (e ' r \ t ; n ru

crisis?\(e will attempt to answerhescquestions n concrete crms in the

light of thc historical developmcntof nodcrn society.Flowever,wewish to prcccdc this attemptwith a fcw abstract,gencral considerxtions.For it is possible despitehe prxcticallyendlcssmultiPlicit/and importance of differcncesbetween societies to identify -with respect o our qr.lestion bout thestructuralconditionsfor the

23


22/71

cnrergcncef crisisof meaning trvo basic ypesof social tructureacross llcpoches-'lhe firsttype notparticularly usceptibleo crises f merningaresocicties hichhavea single ndgenerallyindingvalue ysternnto

which thedifferent ayers ndrcalms f rncaningrewellintcgrxrcd:from cveryclaychemes f expericnce ndaction o thesuperordi-nate categories f lifc conduct and crisismanagerncnt irectedtovards extraordinaryealiries. he totaL tockof meanings storedandmanagedn socialnstrtutions.

Becausehe schemes f actionobjcctified ndmademandatory nsocial nstitutionsare directed owardsa common valuesystem

superordinateo the specific reaningt is assuredn this type of so-cicty that the institutionsustainhc orderof mcaningn basic on-cordance ith practicalife. lhcydo this directlyand,so to speak,in dctail,by imprintinghenlsclves r1 hcmeaning f manyday today actions;hcydo this,so o spcak,n the argeby identifyingbio-graphicalategoriesf meaningwithcommunitiesf life, n particu-lar hose 4rich reentrustedirh forrninghe personaldentity f. Lr ldrcn

Brorurngnro renrbc r.f .oc ic ry.

Differcntsocietiesorrespondo this basicype o differentextents.Archaicsocietiesorrespondrost truelyto this type.The complcx,ancicnthighculturesareslightly ess losc,but essentialharaceris-tics of thistype are o be found cven n the premodern ocieriesfmoderntimes. Likeall other societieshesesocieties ave nranyorganizationalroblems nd heir membersaveevery ife probleminraginable:n dealingwith nature,work,domination,ife anddeath.Naturallyhereare alsoqucslons f meaningor the ndi-vidual.But these omparativelytable, ftenevenstatic ocicriescommunicaten order of meaningwhich isconsistento a largeextent hroughcongruentprocesscs f sociaiizationnd thc irxti-tutionalizationof action.Thcseproccsses re located n meaning-fully rclated ifecommunitiesncldiffcrcntsocialspaces. his basictype may be simplifiedas an ideal ype, howeversocieticswhosestructureevenapproximateso this type provideno ground or the

24


23/71

growth and extensionof subjective nd inter+ubjectiverisesofmeaning.

'l'hingsarediffcrent n societicsn which shared ndbindingvalucsarc no longer given for everyoncand structuraLlyecured nd in

which hese alLrcso not pcrmeate ll spheresf life equally ndbring hem nto concordancc.hrs Ls he basic onclitionor thespread f both subjectivend nter-subjectiverises f rneaning.nformulatinghisbasicype of socictyliableto crises"wc will againneglectmany dctails o identify n sinplificationts structural har-

In suchsocietieshcremay be a ualue ystcn nheritedby tradition

as a stock ol nreaningrom bygoneperiods.Thisvalue

systems

objectifiedn the socieral tockof knowledge nds hereend herestill administered yspecializedrcligious)nstitutions.Iheremayevenbc more han one set of valucsimported"fronr the stocks fthe musc magin:rire fmeanings. ot wantingto dexl withthequestion f socrlled pluralisnat this pointwe set o one side heposibility that a multiplicityof valuesystems aycoexistA societymayeven e liableo crisis"f it containsnlyonesinglealuc ys-tem, n the firllsense f the word, a single ystemonsisting felementsof mcaningfrornschemes f experience nd action allthewayto gener:rl ategoriesf life conduct)ncorPoratingll spheresof life arranged teprviseo{'ardssuperordinatealucs.

Evenn such societyavalueystcm ouldbeboth resentndnotpresen!.n sucha society he big instirutionsof the economy,politics,andreligion)haveseparatedhemselvesrom the superordi-natevalucsysten anddeterminehe actionof the individualn thefunctionalarca hat they administcr. conomicandpolitical nstitu-tionsmakeobligatorydre instmncntal ational,objcctivemeaningof schemesf:ctjon in thosereasor which heyare esponsible.'On the sidc so to spcak, eligiousnstitutionsoffer"value-rationaLwcrtrational) ategoriesor life conduct.S(euse hc term' offer'even n thccase, ssumed cre, hat society ontains nlyone

ordcr ofmeaning rientatedowards upcrordintcalucs, ot muf

25


24/71

tiple,courpcting ystems.ecause ven n this case eligiorrsnstitu-tions ransmithehigher rdcrcategoriesapablef givingmeaningto the entircconduct f Life, ut evenwithoutcompetitionromothcrvaluc ystenshese :tetoriesmay notbe madcbinding nd

may not be inposedon the conductof people.Overall, he nstitu-tionsof tilis typeof societyno longercarrya well-orderedrockofmeaningand value consistendynd bindinglynto thc practiceoflife.

A socicty s rnthinkableentirely withoutcommon valuesandsharednterpretationsf reality.Vhat is the natureof valuesnsucha type of society, bvrously endingowards he modern,andwhercare hey to be found)

It is certainhat the scheDresf actioninstitutionalizedn the different unctionalspheres ave a bindinganclobjcctivemeaningor thoseacting n them. n the organizationof actionwithina singlesphere here s definitelya communityofmeaning. 'harhowever s not much by wayof commonalties. heobjectivemeaningof institutionalizedchemes f :rction s instru-mentallyorientatedowardshe functionof thisarea.Apart from itsgeneralizablespect s nstrumentallyariofial his institutionalizedschemeof actioncannot be transferredbetweensphercsand itcertainlycannot be integrated nto superordinate chenres fmeaning.he objectivemeaningof acrioncannor n itself be inte-grated nto ctegoriesefrring o rhesubjectand simultaneouslydirectcdowardsa superordinatealuesystem.Only rcligiousand'quasi'religiousnstitutionsommunicateategoriesf meaningwithsucha claim o generality.his claim s howeverefutedby theobjcctive eaningf theschemesf action f theother big"insti-tutions.lhesemeanings irecr [e adionof the individual n mostarcasof daily lifc,whether rhey conformro the superordinatemeaningsf schemesf lifecornnrunicared,or cxample y religiousinstitutions,or not. The clai to integrateones own life intoasuperordinatcaluesystemcan be realizedessentiallynly in asphere ot touched y the othcr'big'institutions,in a sphere o-cialiy efineds he private phere'.

26


25/71

A minimumof shared eaningsn a societys containedn theteneral grccmentiven o the

"firnctic,ningof functions',e. theagreementhat in eachareaof actioncondud shouldbe directedtowards nstrumcntally ational requircments.ncl this minimal

consensuss sccured y the generl ccePtancehat in the Privatereserves f individual existencc nd comnlunitiesof life separatemeanings f Lifemay be pursucd, istinctrom thoseof other ndividualsand groups.This minimummay be cxceedcd ven n thistypc of societics. irst, it isremarkablehat the "big"institutionsbind their spccific meanings beyond the rationalityof theorganizationf actionwithin thenr to generalalucs, uchas or

exampledrc

generalnterest".-xceedinghemininlLrmn thiswaymay fulfillabo"e all legitimatelypurposeswhile the schemeslaction henxclvcsmay remainuntouched. urthermore, econdly,individr.ralsndcomrnunitiesf meaningmay attenPt o difcctheiraction evcnwithin a sphereadnrinistcredy a 'big' institutiontowardssupcrordinatevalues' going beyondits instrumentallyrationalobjectivcmeaning.lowevcr,this canoccuronly in conflict

withthespecificnstrumentalationality.

'fhe attenrpts y institutionso conncto suPerordinatcaluesorlcgitimatorypurposesmay prodrrcc nlyvapid onnLriacndvalue-orientated onductof life may bc limited tothe reserve f the pri-vate.Thiswouldadd o the conditions orthe spread f subjectiveanrl nter-subjectivcrises f nrcaning.owever,his alsocreates,simultaneously,he precondrtionsor something lse,nanely thecoexistencef differentalue ystems nclfragmentsf value ystemsin the sanre ocietyand hus he parallelexistencef quitedifferentcommunitiesf meaning.The statewhichresults ronr thsepre-conditions an be calledpluralism.f it itselfbecomes suPerordinatevalue or asocictywe mayspeak f modernplLrralism

27


26/71

3. Modernityand he crisisof meaning

If pluralism rveredefinedas a state n which people who leadtheir

livesin vcry differentways are to bc found in thcsamesociety,onewould not be dealingwith aspccificallymodern phenomenon.Onecould findone or other variant o{ pluralismin almost all societiesother than the archaic.Ancient lndia as wellas the India o{ todaywas charactcrizedby a pluralism of casts,medieval Europe by apluralismof estates- ut in thcse examplcshe different formsof lifewould still be relatedo a common valuesysten and thc interaction

bctween the communitiesof life wouldremain limitedand strictlyregulrtcd.Even if one defincdpluralisrn as a state n which dif{erentforrnsof lifc were to be found in a societywithout thesedifferentformsof lifebeing referrcdto a common valuesystemone would beablc to find examples, or instancethe Roman Empire which ineconomic andpoLitical erms wasa single sociery.But even heretheinteractionbetween thc different groupsand peoples - insofar asthey wercnot regionallyseparatcd was

reglllatedsuch that the dif-fercntsupcrordinatestocksof nreaningwereuncoupled rom the in-stitutionalizedschcmesof actionof the functionalspheres.The dif-ferent groups could, therefore, interacrin the instrumentallyra-tional spheres [ action whileat thc same ime remaining attachedotheir orvn valuesystems-For example, he relationsofJews to non,Jews vere egulated y theso-calledfenceofthe law".

1f hesc egulationsreno longer, r canno longer,be nraintained,then a ncw situationis created, widr serious mplicationsfor thetakcn-forgranted starusof valuesystemsand overarching viewsofthe world. Thcethnic, religiousand orher groupsand coDrmunitiesof lifc,divided bydifferentstocksof meaning,are no longcr spatially.cp.]rrr.d r. for o,ample n rrgrorr ut r rorierlor 'rrrc or in quar.ters or thetrocs of a city),nor do they interactonly through theneutraltcrrainof strictlyseparated equences f actionin institution-alizedfunctionalspheres.Encountersor, under certain circum-

2 8


27/71

stances, lashes etwcendiflerentvluesystensnd views of theworld becomcnevitablc.

'l'hcreha'e bcenapproximationso this state f affairs efore,. g.in thc Ilellenicuorlcl.This form of pltralisrnis not necessarily

linkcd o thespread f crises f meaning,hough articulariyn theHellcnic world therewcrealsosigns f this.This form of plLrralismhasbecomeully flcdged nlyin modcrnsocietics. ere, he ccntralstructuralaspects f this pluralisnrhavcbeen aiseclo the sttus fan cnlightencdaluc bovehediffcrent oexistingndcontpetingvalue systcnx.So, for examplc, c'lerances rcckoned he "en-

lightencd'virtuepar cxcellence,ince nLyhrough olerancean n-

dividuaLs nd conrmunitiesivesideby sicle nd withone anodler,whilst directingeir existence owards differentvalues. Thismodcrn orm of pluralisn s,ho*cvcr,also hc Lrasiconditionortire spread f mbjcctive nd inter ubjectiverises f meaning.\Vhethcrmodernpluralismneccssarilycadso suchcrisess en openquestion. owevcr,one can say with certainty hatin highlydevcloperl ndusrrial countries,i-c. where mc,dernizationhasprogrcsseclurthcst and thc nlern form of pLuralisms fullydevelopcd, aluesystems nd stocksof meaningare no longcr thecomnronpropertyof ail members 'f society.l he individualgrowsup in a norld inwhich herearc neither onrmon alues hichdeternrinection n different phcres f life, nor a singlecalityidentical or all. The 'ndividual s incorporatednto a suPcrordinatesystem f meaning y thc cornmunityof life in whichit growsup.Howcvcr, his canrot be assunedo bc the nrcaring ystemf odlerpcopleMitmcnschen).hcse thersmayha"cbeen hapedy quhedifferentsysrensof nrcaning n the communities flife inwhichthey grew up. In Europc, sharedand overarching ystems f in-terprctationwerc alreadyshakcn n the early phaseof modcrni-zation. The history of totalitariandeologiesn the last hundredycarshasshorvn h:rtnothing,not cvenradical egrcssion,an restore such nterpretativc chemes cnnanentlyor make thcnr thestructLrralharactcristic f a modernsociety.t is, by theway, also


28/71

questionablehcther undamentalistttemptsn rhecountries fthesocalledThirdVorld willbe more successlulegardlessf the in-tensiry rvuh *'hrchoverarching nd universallybindingstocksofmeaning redefendedoday.

It hasbeennotcd hat suchconditions ronrote he spreadf sub-jectiveand ntcr-subjectiverises f meaning. ut whilesome ondi-tionsaccelerateuchcriseshereareotherswhich hinderhem.Thepalcsuperordinatealues f modernpluralism o nothave hispower.Theynrayhaveotherusefuleffectsn that they promote hepeaceful oexistencef diffcrent formsof life and value systems.lhey are,howevcr,not suitableo dircctly counteracthe spread fcrises f meaning.They

tell the inclividualow to behave owardsother peopleand groupswho differ intheirviewof life. They donot, however,ell one howone should eadonc's ife whenthe un-questionedalidity ofthe traditionalorder is shaken. hat may beachieved y diffcrentmeans.As the degreeo whichsociallyvalidconditioningof shared nterpretations l realitydecreasesifferentcommunitiesf life candevelopncreasinglynto quasi-autononrouscomnunitiesof meaning.nsofaras hese ommunities rove hem-selveselatively tablehey may preserveheir nrembersrom crisesofmeaning. tability sparticularly mportantor theroleplayedbysuch ife communitiesn the coherent ormationof personaldentityof children grorvingup in them, who maythereby be protectedfrom subjectiverises f meaning.oncrete ommunitiesf life asqasr'autonomousonmunitiesof nreaning,ndnrorestable, pure"conrmurniticsf like mindedpeoplc (Gesinnungsgemeinschaften)counteracthe pa demicspread f crises f meaning. owever,heycannot ranscendhe preconditionshichprornotehe spread Fcnscsof meaninganchoredstructurally n modern society. iur-themore, to rcpeat his point, communitiesf ljfenr whichthe dis,crepncy etween he expectcd nd actualcommunityof mcaningis too greatcan themselvesecome he trigger for inter-subjectivecrises fmeaning.

Thisdialecticalelationshipctween he lossof meaning nd the

30


29/71

nev creat ion fnreaningr betweenheerosion fnrcaningnd tsrebuildinganmostclcarlybe observedn the case f religion.lhis

is, n anycase,hr: most mportant orm of a comprehensiveatternof experienccndvalues,ystematicallytructurcdndrich in mean_

ing. Forthe argest artof humanhistory a societywasunthinkablewithout a singlercligion encompassingverythingand everyone'lhc godsof nry ancestorserc nanrrallyalsonry own gods;mygodswerenaturallyaLsohe godsof all the membersf my tribeorry town.Most archaicocieties cre ike this.Across ong periods

of timehigh culnrreswith rnany differentiatedocial nstitutionswcre ike hisaswcll.Then hisunitybetweenhe ndividual,isorhersociety nd hegods, mbodyinghchighest uthorityn theor-dcr of vaiue,vas hakenn diffcrcntpiaces ndat diflerent ypesbyreligious chisms. his happenedongbefore he beginning f mo-dernity,as or exarnplen the exodus f lsraelrom the unifiedsymbolic order of the MiddleEast,or evenmore radicallyn the separa-tion of Christianityrom the symbolicorder of classical ntiquity.Aftersuchschisnrsherewere rcpeated ttemptso restorea superordinatesysrem f oreaning n a new basis, erhaps f a smallerscope "subculture'nstead f culturc) as n the unity ofthe tribeof Israclwith itsGod or in the constant earchor thc unity of theChristian hurch.

Vith the concept f Christendomn theEuropeanmiddleages nanemptwasmade o irringogetherall the peoplen a certrin spaceof power under a single,common and superordinateystemolmeaning, nd to h,-,ld hcmthere. Vc know that this attemPtwasneverentircly successful.ithin Christendomrinoritiesreservedtheir specialymbolicysterlsJews, heretics, ultsderiving romapagan art.At ti'resthc symbolicunity of Christendomwasbrokeup fromwithout lslam)r fromwithin GreekOrthodoxy,lbin-gensians).t wasmostseverelyhakcn y the Rcformation-he con-sequencesf thn quakewerenot intended,or thereformerswantedto restoreand prcscrve uni{iedChristendom nr ncw basis. he

schismof thc church foiled this attempt atthc Europeanevel.

l 1


30/71

Alongsidehc Orthodoxchurch wo new"Christcndoms"emerged- onc C:rtholic, heothcr Protcstant. he formula rvirh whichthereligiouswars n centralEuropcwereended cuius cgio,eius eli-gio- wis thc foundation oran attcnrpt o restorc ymbolicunity at

least ithinsmall pacesf rule.Llowcver,ue o theonset f modernizationcven this territorial solution wasonly short ived. In-dustrialization,rtranization,rigrationand masscommunicationscould notbe clcanlydividednto CatholicandProtestant hannels.In nodcrn centralEuropcCatholicsand Protestantsand ncreas-ingly membcrsf many aiths,not to speak fincrcasing umbers fpeople ithoLueligion)ncounter ach therandaremixedup,e.g. hrough rarriage.

The conccpt fregio n thc formulaof the Peace fVestphaliahusloses ts spatialmening.tcgio becomeshe sphcre of cotrmunicationfor a communityof meaningand conviction rsuallynotlimitedto a particulararea.One is Catholic by belonging o aCatholic rcligiouscommunityand taking part in other Catholicinstitutionsvcn f one'sneighborsreprotestants.lhesesubcuftures,generallyvoluntaryconrntunitiesf convrction,no longerofferthe securityof earliercomnrunities f lifeand nreaningwhichwere embcddedn societaiordcrs of valueand meaning.Never,rheless,hrough various ornrsof comnrunicationnd social ela-tions they can save he individualfrom unmasterablcrisesofmeaning.f theydo not turn radicallygainst ocictyandareat ieasttoierated y it, theyact,so o spcak, n aggregateo stenr he spreadof crises f mcaningn society.inlightenedulerswcre wiseenoughto recognizchis 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-ationas made theassertionl thc monopolyof localized ysremsf nreaning ndvalueacross ntiresocictiesmore tlifficult if notentirely mpossible. r

the safle time it hascreatcde posibility forthe formationof

32


31/71

communiticsf conviction ranscendingpacc e.g. through com-prchcnsivedeologies)nd rom drcse tocksof meaning he sharednreaningsf smaller oolmunitiesmxy be derived.Despite his possibilitythe overalldeuelopmcnt ngenders,boveall, a greatdegree

of insecurity; oth in the orientationof individualactionsand theentire irection f ;fe.Nevertheless,t 'ould bemislcadingo draw heconclusion,rom

this alone, hat nrodern ocietiesuffer rom comprehensiverises frneaning. herearestill peoplewho cvenunder hese onditions reable o establish meaningful elationshipetweenhe experiencesof thcir ownlivesand he various nterpretiveossibilitiesffcred othem and who are thereforeable o conduct heir livesrelativelymeaningfully. urthertrore, hereare he institntions, ub-culturesandcommunitiesf convictiolwirichtransportranscendentaluesand 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"oldfashioned rorality",lurthermorethrough he formal moralization f certainmore or less rofession-alizcdsphercs f action-Legalizationmeans hat the functionaL ys-tem is rcgulatcdy abstract onns, ixed n writing and bindingonali members f a society.Moralizations an attempt o solvecon-crctecthical qucstionshat appear n individualspheres f action.|or example, n the USA academicisciplinesuch as "mcdical

etirics' or "businessethics' havecmerged. egalizationgnores hedifferentvaluesystenrs f thosc affected. he nroralizationf pro-fessionalpheres oes withouta conrprehensiverder of meaning.Iloth creatc hcconditionsn whichpeoplemanageheir daily iveswithouta comprehensivend haredroralrty.

Sucha society anbe comparcdvitha system f trafficrules.Onestopson red anddriveson grcenand he maintenancef these rrlesis in the ntcrestof all participants.ne can herefore ormally elyon peopleabidingby the ruleswithoutthe rules hemselveseing

legitinratedn deepmoral tcnns. f the rulesare nlringed,one can

33


32/71

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:'trafficrul""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 denrocraticroccsso legalizehese ules, hen theymustseek o legitimizehese ulcs 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 rcgulateonductn professionalifeor in thepublic phere arcof linle rsen overcomingrisesf meaningndconflictsn person:lifc. lowcvcr, ven f we ignorehe 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 isdcmanded f individuals hat they shouldplacetheir interestschind hoseof socictyasa whole, hen"trafficru1es"

areno longcrcnough. n sucha situation, n overarchingmorality,regardlessf howit is founded, ccorncs societalmperative.\{rhat wehave ust claimeddrawson a tradition of sociological

theory whichcanbe tracedbackabovcall to Emile Durkheimandthe Frenchschool oundedby hin. Flowever,t rejects neof theirbasicassumptions.urkheim bclicved hat no societycan survivewithout an overarchingmorality; ire named that overarching

morat-symbolic,rderreligion".

\e diverge rorn Durkheimn that


33/71

wc clonot accepthisnecessityor thc "norrnalcase". he dialoguewith Durkheirncquires s to specify his"normalcase"more precisely.Durkheim devotedmuch effort to the study of thephenom-enonof sacrifice ecausee considercdhat the willingnesso sacri'

ficc oncsown interests nd n extrcnris nes ife for thc socialwholewas a decisive haracteristicor thc ability of asociety o survivc.Durkhcinr's ssumptionolds or a societyvhichs exposcdo ancxistcntialreat.But t rspreciselyh threatwhich s missingnthc normal ase The trafficpartlcrpantseed o follow heruiesin thcirorr,n nterest; o willingncssor sacrifices presumed.Modcrnizationmakes he occurrcrrce f such"normalcases" ruchmorc1ikely han t was n carlicrpcriocls:nodernizarionringswithit cconomic rowth which is typicallyassociaredith rclativepoliti-cal stability.The citizenrys much css cnrpted o 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.

'lhc rveakeningndeven he collapsef an overarchingrderofnrcaning ith theonset f modernitys hardlya novel heme. hecnlishtcnmcnt nd tssuccessors,clconrcdhisprocess 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 conset1ucncercwelcomed r rcjectedthcrc ;s widespreadonscnsusn tbe factsof thematter. e feel hetthisconscnsushoughnotcomplctcly nfoundedoes ndulysinrplify aconrplcx ituation.lhcrcis widespreadonsensusot onlyanrong*experts ut alson conrnxrn ense nderstandingbout hecause, erhaps ven he main crusc of this breakingapart of theconrprehensiverder of meaning.l his is to be found n theretreatof religion.Religion here is not understood n thewider senseenployedby DLrrkheim,.e.asanycomprehensiverderof meaning

and world order, but rather in the narrower more corventionl

t5


34/71

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 veryoriginalnterpretation asaccepted s actandwel-

comedby progrcssivehilosophersnrl ntellectualsnd 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 religion.

Theconfrontationiththis 'nrodernperson" esbecome n m-portant opic orwholegcnerationsf Christianheologiansndacentral oint n theprogranrmef theChristianhurchesn westerncountries.;orthis hesis,swell,a nLrmberf argrrmen*anbede-ployed.listoricalvidenceuggcstshatat Leastincehe 18th en-turythesocialnfluencef thc church asdeclined,t easrn wes-ternEurope, nd hat mportantnstitutionse.g. he enrire duca-tionalsystcm) ave iberated hcmselvcsrom their earlier eligiousties. n addition, he term'modernperson" s not entirelydivorccdfrom reality. t is likclythat there are a considerablc umber ofpeoplcwhocopewith thcir liveswithout religiousaith (inthe sensedefinedcarlier)or religiouspractice.Vhether thistype of secular

exjstences an absolute ovelty s questionable.t is ikely that therehave alwaysbeenpcoplewho have ound thcir happinessn thisv'orld withoutchurches 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'hethcrhc institutional retreatof the

churches anbe equatcdwiththe rctreatof rcligiousnterpretations

36


35/71

in consciousness.)bservers f the EuropeaneligiousceneincLLrd-ing one of the two authorsof this study)have for a long timepointedout that declericalizationhouLdot be confusedwith thelossof religion. n any case he convcntionalecularizalionlesis

rapidlyoses redibilityassoo asoue eavesWestern

Europc.A particular rritant forthistheory isthe stateof religionn theUnitedStates.American societycrn hardly be described s un-modern. Io*'ever, eligion s forccfullyaliveandpresentherc.Andthis s ruebothat he nstitutionaleuel sq'ellas n the conscious-ness nrl ife conductof millionsof peoplc.Thereare cw signs hatthis situation s changingn thc dircctionsuggcstedy the scculariza-tion thesis.Outside :,uropeand North America t isin any casenonscnse.he socalled 'hird Vorlcl is n fact shakeny thc onrushof religious novements. he Islauric ereissxnceas attractedmostattentionbut 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 all 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 ThirdVorld, not in thc tra-ditionalvillages. eople raincd at tbe nrodernuniversitics reoltenthe cadingadres fthismovemcnt.

ln short: he Europeanmodel of secularizedodernity hasonlylimitedexport alLre.he most nrportantactor n the creation fcrises f meaningn socicty s n dre ilc of thendividuals prob-ablynot the supposedlyodcrrrecularityut modern luralisnr.Modcrnity means quantitative svellasqualitativencreasen pluraliz:uion.fhe structural ausesf this factarewell known: popula-tion growthand migrationand, associated ith this, urbanization;pluralization n the physical,dcrrogr:rphic ense;he market eco-

nomy and inclustriaLizationhich throw togetherpeople of the


36/71

mostdifferenthindsand orce hem to dealwitheachother reason-ably peacefully;he rule of law anddenrocracy hichprovide nsti-tutional guarantcesor this peaceful oexhtence. he mediaof masscommunicationonstantlynd empharicaLlyarade pluraliryof

waysof life and thinking:both prlntedmaterial iding on mass i,teracyspread crosshe entirepopulationby compulsory choolingand he nes-est lectronicmedia.f the interactionsnabled y thispluralizationare not restricted y 'fenccs'of one kind or another,rhis plurlism akes ulleffect,bringingwith it one of its conse-quencesrhe "structural'crisisof meaning.'lhe "fenceof the aw" wasalrcadymentioned. abbinicaludaismerectedhis fence o distinguish racticing

ewsrom their profane

surroundings.t was his 'fence"which madepossiblehe survivalofthe Jewishcommunityover many centuries n a mainly hostileChristianor Islamicsociety-One nlight alsosey: he "fenceof thelaw"protected hosepeople ivnrg within it frompluralism.Thisprotectioncollapsed ith the emancipation f theJews n wesrernsocieties nd the people affcctedwere consequentlyarticularlyliable ocrises f meaning.t is not merehappenstancehat modernJewishhinkers ndwritershav con ern d hemselvesarticularlyn-tensivelywithsuchcrises f meaning.Conversely ne cansay hatany group that wisheso protect itself from the consequencesfpluralismmust erect ts own 'fenceof the law'. As wasmentioned,there havebeen nstances f pluralisurhroughouthistory, for in,stxnce n the large owns of late antiquity andprobably at timesalong he traderoutesand the urban cenrers f Asia. Themodernprocesses f pluralizationdistinguish hemselvesrom their pred-ccessorsot only by their immense xtentmuchwidercirclesareaffected y them),hey are alsodistinguishedy their acceleration:whiLstheir effectsrogressivelyxtend o "new"countries,hey donot remainstatic, n alreadyhighly modernizedocietieshey areaccelerating.

Modernpluralism eadso a thorough elativizationf systems f

valuesandschemes f intcrpretation.Put differently: heoldvalue

38


37/71

systems ndschemesfinterpretation rc decenonized. The result-ing disorientation f the individual and ofwhole groupshas foryearsbccn he main themeof socixland culturalcriticism.Catego-ries suchas 'alienation"and "anorrie'arc proposedo charctcrize

thc difficulty experienccdy peoplerying to find theirway in themodcrnworld. fhe weaknessf suchcommonplace oncePtionssnot that they exaggeratehe crisisof meaning.Their weaknessstheirblindncssowardshe capacityf individualsswell asdifferent conrmunities f life and meaning opreserveheir ownvaluesand intcrpretations.Existentialphilosophyfrom KicrkegaardoSartrchasdevelopedhe most mprcssive onceptionf thealienatcdhuman being.Other versions rc to befound throughotecent\festcrn literanrre oneneedmentiononlyKafka).However,t can-not bc doubtedhat this imagcof humanityapplieso onlya 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 yfearandarenot tempted o makedesperatelcapsof faith, nor do they co sider hemselvescondemnedto

frcedonr'-One x-ayor anothcr,withor without religion,hey copewiththeir ives. tis important o understand ow theymnagchis.But beforewe attempt o pursue his questionwe wish to returnoncc moreto or.rrclain that pluralism s thecause f the crisisofmcaning r modernity.We must cxaminemoreclosely hesignifi'cance or the stock of meaningend the process hroughwhichmeaning s lost,of the socialpsychological tatusof meaningandknowlcdge s aken'forgranted.

J9


38/71

4. The lossof the taken-for-granted

lf communitiesof lifeand mc:ning rcally overlap to the extentthat

is demandedby socialcxpectariols, rhen social ife and the existenceof thc individualproccedhabitu:l ly alnrostby themselves". hisdoesnot necessarilymply drat drc individuals have no lifeproblemsor 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 whothey are. Forexrmple, the role of a slavc was presurnably nevera pleasantone.Nevertheless,however unpleasant t may have

been the individualswho occupiedthis role livcd in a steadyand clearly identifiableworld in which they could orientate their behavior,rheir expecta-tions and their iden!ity rvithsonrcdcgreeof confidence.They werenot lorcedto daily rcdefinehe nrcaningof their existence.This unanbiguousdefinit ionof exntcnce n the world wassharedby thesiavesard their owners, though it must beassurned hat the latterfelt moreat ease n theircxistencehan did the slaves. eitherrheslavc nor the slavcorvnerwere, as Sartre rvouldsay, "condemnedtofreedom".(Thc possibilrty that the slavesmight rebelor the slaveon'ner abandonhisproperty to bccomea monk nccdnot concern ushere - quite apart fromthe f:ct that such cases ere rare.)

Modern pluralism undcrminesthis conrnron-senseknowledge".

The world, society, ife andpersonai dentity are called ever moreinto question.They may be subjcct to nrultiple interpretationsandcxch interpretationdefines ts own perspcctivcsof possibleaction.No irterpretrtion,no rangcof possiblcactionscan any longerbe acceptedas he only true and unquestionablyight one. lodividualsarethus frequentlyfaced with thc questionwhether they should nothave iived their lives in a completely different mannerthan theyhave hitherto. 1'his is expericncedon dre one hand as a great ibera-tion, as an opening of new horizons andpossibilitiesof life, leading

out of the confinesof the old, unquestionedmode of existence.The

40


39/71

sanreprocess s, however, often exPerienced s oPPressiveoften bythe sanrepeoplc)- as a pressureon individuals torepeatedlymakesensc of the new and the unfamiliar in theirrealities. Thcre arepcople who withstand tllis pressure;hcre are some who evcn seem

to rclish it.One might call thcnrv,rtuosos of pluralism.However,the najority of people feel insccure andlost in a confusingworldfull of possibilitiesof interpretation ofl'hich some arclinked to alrernative aysof life.

The concepts evelopedy Arnold Gehlen nhis heory ofinsti tLrlions help us to understandhis anrbivaLent ituation.Vc have al-ready made rcfcrence to this body of theoryin the introductorycirapter with reference c, the inrportmce ofinstitutionsfor hunranoricntation in reality. Institutions are designedo relieve ndividualsof thc nccessityof reinventing thcworld and reoricntatiogthcmselves n it evcry day.Instittltions create'programmes"for theconduct of social nteraction andfor the 'execution" of particularcur-riculumvitae.They provide cstcdparternsowardswhich peoPlemay rlirectbehavior.By practicing hese prescribed"odes of be'haviorthe individualearns o natch the expectationshat go withccrtain roles: c. g. ashusbancl, ather, employec,tL\ Paycrl Particr'pant in traffic, consumer.f institutions arefunctioningreasonablynorm:rlly,thcn individuals fuLfill the roles assignedo them by so'cicty in the form of institutionalizcd schemesf actionand lead heirlivcs accorcling o insritutionally sccurcd, sociallyshaped curriculawhich arc argely accepted nqucstioningly.

in their effcctsnstitutions are substitutes or instincts: theyallow

actionnithcrut a1lalternativesaving o be considered.any soci-etally nportant socialntcractions rc carriedout quasiautomaticalLy.Every timc slaveseceive an order from theirmastcr they donot need to considerwhcthcr to obey or Dot. Nor does the slaveorvner pause o considerwhether he isentitledto giveorclers o hisslaves.Neither the slaves or the slveowner quesliontheir own ac-tions or the actronsof dre other; typiclly, their actionis unreflec-

tivc. Connecting Gehlen's theory of institutionswith the social


40/71

psychology f Georgc IcrbertMcadc to which the precedingis-cussion f the formationof pcrsonaldcntityis also ndebted) necansay hat the institutionalprogrammcs'are internaiizedir in-dividualconsciousnessnddircct hc indivldual'scrions ot asalicn

but as he ndividual'swn mcanings.Programmes"

are nternal-ized in multi-laycredroccsscs:irst in "primarysociliztion",nwhichthe Ioundations re aid for the formationof personalden-tityi then in"sccondxrysocializ-ation"hichdirects he individualtowardshe rolcsof social cality,aboveall n the world of work.

The structurcsf society ccomc tructures f consciousness.laveand masterdo not mcrclybehaven conformity withtheir roles,they think,feel andconccive f thcnxclvesn ways hat conform otheir rolcbehavior.Ihc srrbjectivcorldof the individualdoesnotnecessari)yave o coincide omplctclys,ithsociallybjectified 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 thecompletecon-gruence f meanings. scanrlessransitionrom primaryo secondary ocializations thccxceprio n nrost ocieties,ot the rule.The individualhas idiosyncratrcnrpulsesand dares ro transferdreamsnto day to day ife and o seekadventuresutside he pro-grammes f socicty.Neverthclcss, venis can be spokenof as' 'nonnatity'.Deviationsrom the nstitutionalrogrammesnddi-vergencesromthe society's istorical escrvoirsf meaning and eserves f meaning) re elativc)y areandremain imitedo the ndi-vrrlrul:nd hi' rncan'h:u rl.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 individualhcn specialnstitutionalprogrammes reap-plied n thetreatment fthe deviant.lhis rrearment asboth an ex-ternaland an internalaspect. xternalLyllc rangeof treatmentsx-tends romthe physicaliquidationof thosewhohavedeviatedrom

the true path to lovingspiritualcare or "lostsheep".One wayor

42


41/71

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 deviant

thought and o restorche previoLrsmindless"

acceptancef normalrty.Instinrtionsdraw thcir power from the naintcnanceol unqlres-

tionedvaLidity.An institution sendangeredronr the moment nwhichthe peopleLivingwithin it orwithit begin o thinkabout n-stitutional roles, dentities, chenres f interpretation,valuesandwaysof viewinghc worlcl.Conscrvative hilosophers avealwayssensed ris;seniorpolicemcn know it from practicalexperiencc.nthe normal ase" angeroushought anbe reasonablyontroiled.However,pluralismmakeshiscontroLmoredifficult.Ihereis herea cLear ociafpsychologicalialectic from liberation o burden-some rccdom: t isextremelyard o be orced o leadonesown lifewithoutbeingable 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 ullof examplesfthis.Oneneedhinkonlyofthc theme f "provincialism",of thcbiographicalialecticetweentown and city, of thc manypossiblcpaths to freedom'(ArthurSchnitzlcr).Madame ovarysuffersn her narrow,provincialworld.But ifshehad had he chanceo move o Parisshewould not haveremainedappy or long.Alienatlon ouldhave een hepriceofher grcrter re"dom. he l-, ' 'clr. br"r cen,rrnlyrer "roorlc-

chilclrcnwould probably haveconceivedhe idea hat the old pro-vincial worldhad ts goodsides fter all which at the timeweresotaken or grantcd rat hey werenot noticedat ali.A physicalreturnto that world isusuallyno longer possible.here is howevernoshortagcof suggestedoutes or an internalreturn(religious,po'

litical,therapeutic),.aysof healing he pain ofalienation. rojects

43


42/71

aimed at restoring thegood "old world" almost alwaysincludethesuppressionor linitation of pluralism- and with good reason:pluralism constantly suggcstslternatives,alternatives orce peopleto think, thinking undermincsthe foundationof all versionsof a"good

oLdworld'; the assumptiono[ itsunquestionedexistence.Modernization inpliesthe radrcal transformatjon of all externalconditionsof 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 materialcxistence, here isnow an apparently endlessand constantly improvingplurality oftechnologicalsystems.Both individuals and hugeorganizations acethe nccessityof choosingone or other option from amongstthisplurality. This conpulsion forchoice 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 meamthe change rom an exist-encedctermined by fate toonc consistingof a long seriesof possiblechoices. :ate previously determined almost atl phases f life, the in-dividual movcd frorr phaseo 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 andpersonal dentity. The gods were "alreadypreselt" at birth,as wasthe sequence f socialroles that followed. Put diffcrently:the rangeof pregiven, unqucstioned assumptionsexrendcd o lhe largestpartofhumanexistence.

Modernization fundamentalLyhanged his. Birthand deatharestill- only just - determinedby fate. In parallelto 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


43/71

which job should I take up) Vhom shall Imarry? Ifow shorrld Ibring up nry children?Even the godscan be sclected ronr a rangeofpossible options. I can change my rcligious allcgiance,my citizen-ship, ny life style, myimage of nrysclf and my sexualhabitus.The

rangc of taken for-grantedassumptions hrinks to a relativelysmallcore which is hard to define.l hc technologicalconomicoundationsof this changc reat the levclof the matcrial,ut its social i-nrcnsions re ntensified,boveall, by pluralism.luralism ot onlypcrmitsone o rnakc hoicesjob,hud;and r ivife, eligion, 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)possibleo close oneseyes othe frct that a decisionhat onc nrirkescould also have been madediffcrcndy. Two central instirutions ofmodern societyPromotethistransition from rhe possibility of choice to the comPulsion tochoosc: he ruarket econornyand denrocracy.Both institr.ltionsarefoundcdon t he aggregationf individualchoice andthemselvescncorageont;ouous hoiceand sclcctron. hc ethosof dcmocracynrakcs hoice nto afundamental umannght.

f iretaken-for-granredesides n thc reaLmof unquestioned, ecurcknowledge. lhe lossof the taken for-granted unsettleshis realm: Iknow lessand lcss. nstead have :r ralge of opinions.Someof thescopinious condcnscnto sornething hat one night call bclief.Thescare opinionsfor vhich I an prcparcd tomake sacrificesn the lirrrit,even today, to sacrificemy lifc, but probablyno longerunquestion-ingly. It lics n the natureof things hatin the 'normal"life of so

cicty and the i ndividualsuch inritcascs re relativelyare ln the'nornral process f modernization anrin any caseno longerforceclo decidev.hcther I am preparcd o wager my life forfaithorevcn nrcre opinions. Unqucstioncd, secureknor'ledgedissolves ntoa no longer very compclLing aggrcgateof loosely conncctedopinions.Firm interpretations f reaiity bccomehypotheses. on-victions become matters of tastc. Conrmandmentsbecome sugges

45


44/71

tions. hese hangesn consciousnessrcatche mpressionf a cer-ta in ' f laress .

One can rmaginche conscioLrsncssf the individualas differentlevclsayered n top of eachothcr. n the "depths"(this erm is not

r.rscdere n thc |reudianscnsc f depthpsychology)ie those nter-prctationsdratarc taken or granted.This isthe sphere f unques-tioned,certainknowlcdge. lfrcd Schtitz alleddris he levelof the"world-takenfor-grantcd';Robcrt and Ilelen Lynd meantsome-thingof the same indwith their concept f"of-course-statements".Theother pole, hc uppermostcvcl of consciousnessuppermostnthe sensc f closesto thc "surfacc'),is the sphere f insecurity,hatwhichis not taken or grantcd,opinionswhichI am in principlepreparedo revise r evcn etract.Thissphcre s ruledby the motto"chacrrn songut . In this layer lodel,thc modernizationf con-sciousnessppears sa lossof 'depth'.Moreengaginglyne canview consciousnesss a hugecoffeenraker the contentsof consciousness f all types have evaporatedupwards,the residualgroundsas enouslyhrunken,hccoffce as ecomererty hin.

The oss fthe akcn-for-grantedvithallits ocial ndsychologicalconsequercess mostpronounced asonewouidexpect in thesphereof religion.Modernpluralismhas undercut he monopolyenjoyedby religious nstiturions.Vhether they like itor not thereligiousnstitutionsrc 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 longcrtaken or granted,bur ratherdreresultof a delibcrate hoice.Evcn hosewhodecideorenain with thcconfession f their parcnts are makingsuch achoice:hey could,afterall, havcchanged onfcssionr religionorsimplyleft the churchaltogethcr. his fundamentallyhangeshesocialpositionof the churchcs,whether heir theologicalelf-imageis willingto acknowledgeris stateof aff:rirs r not. Ifthey wish tosurvive,churchesncreasnrgly ecd o consider he wishesof their

membcrs.The church must provc irselfn the free markct.The


45/71

pcoplc x'ho 'buy" a particular faith become a groupof consuners.Regardlcss f how stubbornly the thcologians efuseo acknowledgeit, the wisdomof thc oldconnercial nraxirn- "the customer s al-ways right' - has orced itself on the churchcs.They do not always

abidcby thismaxirn, but often enough hey do.'l hc churches ave ncreasingifficulty nhanging 'ntounmarket-ablc dogmas nd practices.hc sanre rocess hanges he relationship of thc churc hes o one anothcr.They can no longercount onthc statc ither o drive he flock into churchservices r 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 church

historian Richard Niebuhr introducecl the corceptof 'dcnollinx-tions" which hcdefinedas follows:'A denominations a church,which has achnowlcdgcddre right of othcr chr.rrcheso exist."It isno accidenthat the term "dcnon)rDation"originatedn thc USA-fronra society vhichcan be secnas rhe p;oneerof modern plural-isnr. lhc increasing imilarity of thc r eligioussiruation n othcrmodernsocictics ith rhe situation nthe USAcannotbe explaincdby a proccss f culturalAnericanization as somc, or obviousidcologicalreasons,wish to bclicve. The simiLaritys only superfi-cially due to American inflLrences.* real cause s the global sprcadof nrodern luralism.

'l hLs hift has * correspondent t the level of individualconscious-ncs. Religion also"evaporatcsrrpwards'; it loscsts statusas takenfor granted.This shift creatcs or faith the statusof 'possibility",

bascLln the sentencc: do rot halc !o bclievehat I know.'l hisreligious possibility'is usually ovcrlookedwhen theologianslanrcnt hc trivializat ionof religion n modernity.lowever, suchdrcologiansrenot keen o e dnlit hat they mightwish to scea situ-ation in which one could bc * Christian in thesame taken'for-grantcd way in which one is man or woman, one hasbrown or bluecycs and suffers rom hay fevcr since birdr. This posibilityof faith

mst howcvcr be plausible particularlyto protestant theologians.

47


46/71

Protestantisnr,ronr Lrrther'scomprchension f conscienceVerstndnis esGe\\ ' lsscns)o Kierkcgord's lcapof faith',hasbeen hemodern religionpar cxcelience.hcologianscould acknowledgethese deas ith hopc rather hal pessimisl.Fromthc social cienti

ficperspectiveone nru$ howrvcr recotnize that modcrn society hasnot scen a great accumulationof Kierkegaardirn"knighCsof fairh .More typical is a typcof pcrsonl,ith "Ohristianopinions"- a person who belongs sonrchow' to r church, butin a loose way, whichfor theologiansmust be r.rnconlfortablylosc o other realmsof con-sun]ption.People with 'rcligiousopinions changetheir opinionsrelativelyeasily evcn if they do not thcrcforc aLwayschange heirmembershipn a "denomrnatiou. lraditionalChristianchurches,particularly il F.uropc,stiLl h.rvc grcrt difficulty in accepting hischange.They, in fact,wLsho closc heir eyes o it. For examplc,heRoman Catholic ChLrrch efuscs o understand *elf asa "denomina-

tion . Thosebranches f Protcstantism hich stillunderstandhemselvcs sappealingo thc population t largehavesimilardifficulties.The exceprion re disest:blishcdhurches, boveall in the Anglo-sa-ronworld, *'hich haveexisred n a pluralistic situation from the

The lossof depth in religious consciousnessan be traced (not co-incidentally) inthe ^nerican languagc.l he nost common exprcs-sion for belongingto a religion in thc United States s"religious

prcfcrence",s n 'my rcligious rcfcrcnccs I-utheran";n Germanthis transLatesnto: "ich 7-jehe s vor, l,uthcrancr zu sein". By com-parison, he expression ti llcomnrcn in Contincntal Europe is'con,

fession" "I anr of the Luthcran confession".The exprcssionconfession" refcrsto 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"detennincthe market for acommodity or aservice). implies a lackof comnltmentand refers o the possibility f prcferring omething

else n future. It isa historical irony of thecurrent Europeansitua

48


47/71

tion, that, for cxarnple,Gennans alsomean nothing more than a "re-

ligious prefercncc' when they say hat they are of theLuthcran con-fession.Thc Iossof the takcnJor-granteds today a global phenom-

5. Habituatcdmeaningand crises f mcaning

Day-today actions recarried n habitually. heirimplicit rneaning

is untouched.Hard, thrcateninginres an ead o the eppearance fcrisesof nreaning n some areas f life. Even then orherarcas emainunder the inflLLcnccf old habinratcd rneanings.iven during civilwars and earthquakcspeople bmsh thcir teeth if thc water supplyhas not beer cut off.Thc litcratrrrcc,n such periods, c. g. memoirsabout Gcrnrany in the last years of thewar and its imnrediateaftern1ath ont^in mpressiveestimonyof thervay n which apocalypseand norm:rlity coexistside'by side.

Even in hardtirnes, crisesof meaning rarely afflictall arcasof lifesinultaneously andvith dre same forcc. Particularlywhen habitu-ated action has becomedifficult or irnpossiblen many areas, t pro-tectsx8ainstcrisesof meaning n those areaswhere one can continueaccording o habit. In societies nrvhichcrisesof meaningoccr.rr otin the rvakcof seriouscatastrophcs nd total wars the range of ha-bitualnorrnalityvhich is maintaincds of coursemuch wider.ButtakenJor-grantedhabits are not just thrextenedby seriousevents nthc fate of the collectivity, but also by radicalchangc n the life ofthe individual. In all societies here arc certain typicalchangcswhichmay unlcashcrisesof meaning f thcy are not sociallyacknowledged.In archaic and traditional societics here areritcs of passage hichgive mcaningto thesechanges.Puberty, sexual nitiation, cntry intoa job, agc and death could be cxpcctedwith lessuncertaintybecausecodesof behavior existed or dealingwith thesebiographicalbreaks.

49


48/71

l he societaloundation f tue:ningc sured hat these hanges erenot experielcedby the incli"idualpcrson as deep crises et aloneexistcntialhreats.lhc weakenirg r evencomplete bsencef suchritcs of passagen modernsocietiesanbe readasa symptom and

a co-cause of a slowly risingcrisisof meaning.n part, this devel-opr r r.n t. we l l. oued omoJern lu ra l i z r t ion .'lo clarify whathasbeensaicl,et us considerwo spheres f 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 suchroubles restill in businessoday, oretrostamongsthese he churches. e will returnto thispoint. Churcheswere,however, ever he onlyinstitutionswhich wereand have e-nrained ctive n this area.Relarionalerworks f interectionrvhcreverhcycontinueo cxist belongo the socialnsritutionswhichscrve or the producrion nd communicationf nreaning.Youngpcople n thisor thatfornrof sexualroublemey still rrn toa well treaninguncle,aunt,grand-parent r godparent.Howeverhereas wcll,like for thechurchcs,herehasbeena decidedossofcrcdlbility.Geographicndsocialmobility hasvery muchweakenerlthe networkof relational ntcraction.Furthermore,t is more andmore ikelythat, for example,he well-meaningnclenot only livesfar away but is alsohopelesslyonfused y his own love life. The

same an be said or problemsn the arcaof work- worricsaboutsuitableraining,roubLesiththe boss ndwithcolleagues,nem-ployment ndat some oint,usuallyn themiddle f acareer,heincscapablecalizationhat cvcrythinghasbecnachievedhat couldbe hoped or and hat from canat bcsthopero evoiddownward ocialmobility.

In both areas,modernsocictyhas 'invented"new institutions or

the productionandcommunication f meaning psychotherapyf

50


49/71

differentsorts, exual ndprofessionalounsellorsbothalready re-sent within schools), pecial ourscsnd seminarsor adult educa-tion,departrnentsf thewelfare tate, sychologicallyrained or ra-ther,half rarned)ersonneifficcrs, nd :st but no!easrhe mass

media.The piest and he old aunt maysometimesti1lbe heLpfuL.But it is more probable hat'modernpcople turn towards henewinstitutions f orientation. or this purposeneoften 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-Helpitcraturehe volume hat is best

tuned o onescrrentdifficulties,whcthcr hey be in onesouter orinner ife.A wordon the mcdiaof mass onrnrunicationrom publishing o

tclcvision: shasoften andrightlybeensaid hese nstitutions lay akcy rolc in modernmcaningfulrientation ormore preciselynthe communication f meaning. hey mediatebetweencollectiveand ndividualxperiencey providing ypicalnterprerationsorproblems hicharedcfincd s ypical. hatever thernstitutionsprovidc ywayof intcrprcttionsf realityandvalues,he mediaselect ndpeckagehese roducts,ransform hem n the processnddecide n the form of dissemination.

Modernsociety asanunberofspecializednsritutionsor the pro-ductionand communication f nrcaning.Even houghan adequatetypologyof thesenstitutions ndnn enalysis f their modeof opera-tion wouldbe helpful,socialscicntists aveonly tentativelybegunto deal-ith this problem. ly way of a first approximationonecould distinguish etwecn hosc nstittrtionswhich offertheir interpretivcscrvices n an opcnnrarkct e.g. psychotherapy)nd hoseinstitutionswhichcater o a smaller,often strictlyclosed ommu-nityof mcaningndspirit sccts,ultsandcommunes ith strictlydefined tyles f life). Thedistinction nto newand old institutionsof meaning-productionas ts uscs.There are old institutionsthemos! important are the churchctwho continue o cultivateheir

5 1


50/71

establishednterpretationsof rcality as best as hcy can and to offerthem competitively n a pluralisticsituation.Newer instiutionshave to start from scratch,but thcy h;rve he "advantage"that theycan take unrestraincdly fronr the traditional meaningsof the differ-

ent cr.rltures nd epochcs. lven though such institutions xre free todraw on a single,well tlefined, ancicntstock of meaning, they arewithout exception highlysyncrctic. Techniques of meditationimporrcd from Asia are to be found alongsidehe newest practicesof psychotherapy,dizzryingscxualcxperimentsalongsidea restrictedpetit-bourgeois deal of f:rmily happiness.And all of this can bedistributed through the massadvcrtising nrcthods of late capitalism.

Jugglingwith these discrepant ntcrpretations of reality requiresaccrtain skill and consequentlya number of professions aveemcrgedspecialized n this aptitude. These arethe professions f the "know-

ledge ndustries",as econonlists all this sector.Helmut Schelskyhascharacterized hem as occupations which arc conccrned with theeducation,ounseliing ndplannirgof other people-

The institutions f meaningproductionhavea rangeof possibleoptions. Hos'ever, in tcrnrsof the strategy they chose to enforcetheir inrerpretive perspective nsociety hey are imited to two mainpossibilities. n thc onc hand hcy may enter he market nwhichthey must survive m compctition with old and new suppliers.Onthe other hand they may mobiliz-e he state or their purposes.Pro-duccrs nray acquire a monopoly position through lcgislation

berger luckmann modernity, pluralism and the crisis of meaning

Documents