A Reconsideration of the Presuppositions of the Sociology of Religion: Subject, Approach, Field

Document Type : Research Paper

Author

Associate Professor of Sociology, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Extended Abstract
 
Introduction and Objectives: The ultimate goal of knowledge is intervention, and its prerequisite is acquiring a correct understanding of the reality in which one is to intervene. This article’s focus on “subject,” “approach,” and “field” is an effort to bring the existing sociology of religion as close as possible to Islam and to Iran, with the consideration that this cannot be achieved except through a revision of the constitutive “presuppositions” that shape them.
In examining the subject-related presuppositions of religion, we arrive at its “signifying” (or expressive) nature (dalālatī būdan), its “determinacy” (taʿayyun dāshtan), and its “ideological nature” (īdiyūlūzhīk būdan). Reflection on prevalent theories in the sociology of religion also reveals that they are often afflicted by the flaw of “reductionism” (taḥwīlgarāyī) and are generalized to fields distinct from the contexts of their own emergence and application. Consequently, they inevitably overlook the different conditions of these fields, such as “agency” (fāʿiliyyat) and the appropriate, requisite “place” (makān) of religion in society, and they adopt a biased and pathological approach to its specific issues, particularly in situations where religion is “linked with power.”
The focus on presuppositions in this article is due to their highly determining effects on the subject matter and its theoretical approaches. They are capable of compensating for some of the pervasive shortcomings in sociology and its subfields in Iran and can strengthen its metaphysical foundations.
In terms of subject matter, the article is among works that engage in critique and revision of sociology or a specific branch of sociology, with the clarification that “critique of sociology” (naqd-i jāmiʿahshināsī) is distinct from “sociological critique” (naqd-i jāmiʿahshinākhtī), and the former itself has various types, ranging from its more internal critiques to completely external ones. Based on this, the critique of sociology can be broadly separated into two main categories: First, critiques and revisions directed against the conceptual and theoretical efforts of contemporary sociologists or their predecessors; and second, critiques that sociologists and non-sociologists direct at sociology itself as a branch of knowledge, demanding the application of certain considerations and changes in some of its foundations and pillars. This category, which is also considerably more diverse, sometimes goes beyond this and is prone to becoming a threshold literature (adabiyyāt-i āstānahʾī) of the discipline, placing it on the path of more serious changes. Threshold and external critiques are the kind that are offered based on foundations and logic other than those of sociology—even if the critic is not aware of this or does not state it. The subject of such critiques is not the object and issues of sociology, but sociology itself, focusing on its “subject-related presuppositions” and “theoretical foundations.”
Sociology of religion, according to the necessity and agenda of the science, has found religion to be similar to its other objects and views it as a “social phenomenon”; however, it is expected to also pay attention to its distinct and unique characteristics. Three key characteristics of religion that have significant impacts on its subject matter and theories and may alter its research path are as follows:

Signifying and Expressive Nature (Dalālatī Būdan)

Religion is not merely a physical or behavioral phenomenon; rather, it carries content and conveys meaning and is among expressive social phenomena. Signifying and expressive phenomena can be distinguished at five levels:

Non-signifying phenomena that, under specific conditions, may convey meaning. Examples include artifacts and objects obtained in archaeological excavations.
Conventional signs and symbols in a society.
Auditory phenomena and oral language.
Written content phenomena.
Prescriptive and performative content phenomena. Religious texts, regardless of their origin and validity, and ideologies with manifestos, belong to this category.

Religion’s placement at the fifth level of signification means it is an “intentional” (qaṣdmand) phenomenon, and reducing it to its social functions and manifestations without considering its prescriptive content leads to an incomplete and incorrect understanding of it.

Essentialism and Determinacy (Zātʾangārī wa Taʿayyun Dāshtan)

Due to its signifying nature, religion has a definite and determined essence and is sensitive to arbitrary changes. This characteristic causes religion, unlike some fluid and constructed phenomena, to possess doctrinal stability and constancy (pāydārī wa s̱abāt-i āmūzihʾī). Overlooking this determinacy leads the sociologist into error when analyzing the social processes of religion.

Ideological Nature (Īdiyūlūzhīk Būdan)

Religion is not a collection of personal beliefs for individual use; rather, beyond that, it is a program for collective life and, when necessary, for entering and intervening in power relations. This attribute gives religion an ideological nature and turns it into an active and influential agent in the public sphere.
Reductionism (Taḥwīlgarāyī)
In its second part, the article critiques the dominant approach and theories in the sociology of religion. A large portion of classical and even contemporary theoretical literature in the sociology of religion suffers from the flaw of “reductionism”; meaning it reduces religion to non-religious phenomena that have simpler logic and requirements, thereby diminishing it.
Agency in the Field (Fāʿiliyyat dar Maydān)
The reductionistic approach and strategy in studies of religion has led to the disregard of religion’s agency—which has decisive effects on the field—and kept a part of its reality concealed. This shortcoming occurs when religion is viewed merely as a reactive and passive entity in social relations, and its determining effects, whether direct or indirect, are ignored. The critique of ignoring religion’s agency is valid for all religions and is not exclusive to Islam, which possesses a greater agency than other religions. The article’s emphasis on noting and observing these points and considerations is more aligned with maintaining fidelity to reality as it is, rather than advocacy for religion.
Taboo-Breaking of Power (Tābūshikanī az Qudrat)
The article’s emphasis on observing “agency” is based on the general and common requirement of religions, which has been overlooked due to the dominance of reductionistic approaches in the sociology of religion. The taboo-breaking of power, however, is another overlooked reality that is only true for some religions, specifically regarding Islam. Sociologists’ neglect of this also stems from the doctrine and historical experience of Western Christianity and the influences that the dominant sociological tradition has absorbed from it. The tabooing of power, which also has other roots, has led scholars to treat any relationship between religion and power as inherently negative and pathological, and to analyze it through such prior assumptions.
However, this taboo has never been a relevant issue in the doctrine and historical experience of Islam and has been broken more clearly in recent times. The emergence of religious states and religious-political movements is a reality that cannot be analyzed with theoretical tools derived from the Western secular experience. The article claims that power-holders in the West, along with some social science scholars, have attempted to take this tool away from believers and from the process of establishing religion by employing the policy of “power tabooing.”
What is expected from the sociology of religion in Iran is increased attentiveness to its proximate field of study and the highest possible fidelity to the prevailing realities within it. This task primarily requires certain revisions and conceptual creativity, and the introduction of considerations that enable it to explain new situations where religion is neither passive nor marginal; rather, it is at the core of society and linked to power.
In conclusion, the article reaffirms its covenant and commitment to sociology, stating that sociology, while universal, is an inherently contextual and indigenous form of knowledge (dānishī būmī), because it arises from contemplation of its surrounding realities. Moving beyond the stage of “reading sociology” (jāmiʿahshināsīkhānī) and “knowing sociology” (jāmiʿahshināsīdānī) toward the stage of “doing sociology” (jāmiʿahshināsī kardan) requires courage in critiquing classical presuppositions and attention to the historical and theological particularities of the Iranian field. This revision not only does not diminish the validity of the science but also brings it closer to reality by achieving “sociological objectivity” (ʿayniyyat-i jāmiʿahshinākhtī), thereby improving its capacity for intervention.

Keywords

References

 منابع
برگر، پیتر ال‌. (۱۳۸۰). موج‌ تازۀ‌ سکولارزدایی‌ از جهان: دورنمای‌ جهانی؛ در: افول‌ سکولاریزم، ترجمه:‌ افشار امیری‌. تهران: پنگان‌.
برگر، پیتر ال‌. (13۹۷الف). سایبان مقدس: عناصر نظریۀ جامعه‌شناختی دین، ترجمه: ابوالفضل مرشدی. تهران: ثالث.
برگر، پیتر ال‌. (13۹۷ب). شایعۀ فرشتگان: جامعۀ مدرن و کشف دوبارۀ فراطبیعت، ترجمه: ابوالفضل مرشدی و آسیۀ حاجی‌غلامی. تهران: ثالث.
برگر، پیتر ال‌ و توماس لوکمان. (1375). ساخت اجتماعی واقعیت، ترجمه: فریبرز مجیدی. تهران: علمی و فرهنگی.
برگر، پیتر ال‌. و دیگران‌. (1380). افول‌ سکولاریزم، ترجمه:‌ افشار امیری‌. تهران: پنگان‌.
ترنر، برایان‌. (۱۳۷۹). ماکس‌ وبر و اسلام‌، ترجمه:‌ سعید وصالی. تهران: مرکز.
تریگ، راجر. (1384). فهم علم اجتماعی، ترجمه: شهناز مسمی‌پرست. تهران: نشرنی.
توکویل، الکسی دو. (1393). تحلیل دموکراسی در امریکا، ترجمه: رحمت‌الله مقدم‌مراغه‌ای. تهران: نشر علمی و فرهنگی.
دورکیم، امیل. (1383). صور بنیانی حیات دینی، ترجمه: باقر پرهام. تهران: نشر مرکز.
زاکرمن، فیل. (1384). درآمدی بر جامعه‌شناسی دین، ترجمه: خشایار دیهیمی. تهران: لوح فکر.
سروش‌، عبدالکریم‌. (1372). فربه‌تر از ایدئولوژی. تهران: مؤسسۀ فرهنگی صراط.
شجاعی‌زند، علی‌رضا. (۱۳۷۹). جامعه‌شناسی‌ اسلام‌ در کار وبر و ترنر. ماهنامۀ‌ کتاب‌ ماه علوم اجتماعی. دی‌وبهمن، ش‌ 40-39، ۱۱-۱۵. https://ensani.ir/fa/article/135225/
شجاعی‌زند، علی‌رضا. (1381). عرفی‌شدن‌ در تجربۀ‌ مسیحی‌ و اسلامی.‌ تهران: مرکز بازشناسی‌ اسلام‌ و ایران‌.
شجاعی‌زند، علی‌رضا. (1387). گشایش‌های نظری در مطالعات جامعه‌شناختی دین. فصلنامۀ علوم اجتماعی. بهار، ش 40، ۱-۲۶. https://dor.isc.ac/dor/20.1001.1.17351162.1387.15.40.1.7
شجاعی‌زند، علی‌رضا. (1388). جامعه‌شناسی دین. جلد ۱. تهران: نشر نی.
شجاعی‌زند، علی‌رضا. (1392). ذات‌انگاری دین. دوفصلنامۀ جستارهایی در فلسفۀ دین. 2(3)، ۸۱-۱۱۱. http://www.ensani.ir/fa/content/331003/
شجاعی‌زند، علی‌رضا. (1394). دین در زمانه و زمینۀ‌ مدرن. تهران: پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی.
شجاعی‌زند، علی‌رضا. (1398الف). تحویل‌گرایی در مطالعات جامعه‌شناختی دین. فصلنامۀ‌ قبسات، 24(91). ۵۹-۹۶. https://qabasat.iict.ac.ir/article_35659_172d5659a59a39f72403e87f5b0d9644.pdf
شجاعی‌زند، علی‌رضا. (1398ب). از دین‌سازی‌های عقل تا دینی‌سازی علم. فصلنامه راهبرد فرهنگ، 12(2). ۷-۴۰. https://doi.org/10.22034/jsfc.2019.100932
شجاعی‌زند، علی‌رضا. (۱۴۰۲). ریشه‌های دینی و تاریخی تابوسازی قدرت. فصلنامۀ راهبرد فرهنگ. 16(۶۳) ۷-۳۸. https://doi.org/10.22034/jsfc.2023.401809.2522
صدری، احمد. (۱۳۷۸). بررسی جامعه‌شناختی نقش دین در جامعۀ مدنی. https://www.islahweb.org/topic/thought  http://www.islahweb.org/node/1987
صدری، احمد. (۱۴۰۱). مکان دین در آیندۀ ایران سکولار و مردم‌سالار؛ https://www.zeitoons.com/67847
کیوپیت‌، دان‌. (۱۳۷۶). دریای‌ ایمان، ترجمه: حسن‌ کامشاد. تهران: طرح‌نو.
همیلتون‌، ملکلم‌. (۱۳۷۷). جامعه‌شناسی‌ دین، ترجمه: محسن‌ ثلاثی‌. تهران: تبیان‌.
مارتین، دِیوید. جان اُرم میلز، ویلیام اس. اف. پیکرینگ (ویراستار) (۱۳۹۴). جامعه‌شناسی و الهیات، ترجمه: علی مرشدی‌زاد). تهران: ترجمان.
مارکس‌، کارل‌. (1381). دربارۀ‌ مسئلۀ‌ یهود؛ گامی‌ در نقد فلسفۀ‌ حق‌ هگل، ترجمه: مرتضی‌ محیط‌. تهران: اختران‌.
واخ‌، یوآخیم‌. (1380). جامعه‌شناسی‌ دین، ترجمه:‌ جمشید آزادگان‌. تهران: سمت‌.
ویلم‌، ژان‌ پل‌. (1377). جامعه‌شناسی‌ ادیان، ترجمه:‌ عبدالکریم‌ گواهی‌. تهران: تبیان‌.
وینچ‌، پیتر. (1372). ایدۀ‌ علم‌ اجتماعی‌ و پیوند آن‌ با فلسفه، ترجمه:‌ زیر نظر سمت‌. تهران: سمت‌.
References
Beckford, J. A. (2000). Start together and finish together: Shifts in the premises and paradigms underlying the scientific study of religion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 39(4), 480-495. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1388081
Bell, D. (1960). The end of ideology: On the exhaustion of political ideas in the fifties. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Berger, P. L. (1380 H.sh./2001). Mawj-i tāzih-ʾi sikūlārzidāyī az jahān: Dūrnamā-yi jahānī [The wave of de-secularization from the world: A global perspective] (A. Amīrī, Trans.). In P. L. Berger et al., Ufūl-i sikūlārizm [The decline of secularism] (A. Amīrī, Trans.). Tehran: Pangān. [In Persian]
Berger, P. L. (1397a H.sh./2018a). Sāyibān-i muqaddas: ʿAnāṣir-i naẓariyyih-ʾi jāmiʿahshinākhtī-yi dīn [The sacred canopy: Elements of a sociological theory of religion] (A. Murshidī, Trans.). Tehran: S̱ālis̱. [In Persian]
Berger, P. L. (1397b H.sh./2018b). Shāyiʿih-ʾi firishtigān: Jāmiʿih-ʾi mudirn wa kashf-i dubārih-ʾi farāṭabīʿat [A rumor of angels: Modern society and the rediscovery of the supernatural] (A. Murshidī & A. Ḥājīghulāmī, Trans.). Tehran: S̱ālis̱. [In Persian]
Berger, P. L. (Ed.). (1999). The de-secularization of the world: Resurgent religion and world politics. Washington, D.C.: Ethics and Public Policy Center.
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1375 H.sh./1996). Sākht-i ijtimāʿī-yi wāqiʿiyyat [The social construction of reality] (F. Majīdī, Trans.). Tehran: ʿIlmī wa Farhangī. [In Persian]
Berger, P. L., et al. (1380 H.sh./2001). Ufūl-i sikūlārizm [The decline of secularism] (A. Amīrī, Trans.). Tehran: Pangān. [In Persian]
Cupitt, D. (1376 H.sh./1997). Daryā-yi īmān [The sea of faith] (H. Kāmshād, Trans.). Tehran: Ṭarḥ-i Nū. [In Persian]
Davie, G. (2007). The sociology of religion: A critical agenda. Sage Publications.
Dobbelaere, K. (1999). Towards an integrated perspective of the processes related to the descriptive concept of secularization. Social Compass, 60(3), 229-247. doi: 10.2307/3711935
Durkheim, É. (1383 H.sh./2004). Ṣuwar-i bunyānī-yi ḥayāt-i dīnī [The elementary forms of religious life] (B. Parhām, Trans.). Tehran: Nashr-i Markaz. [In Persian]
Durkheim, É. (1912). The elementary forms of religious life. George Allen & Unwin.
Fayyāḍ, I., & Raḥmānī, J. (1386 H.sh./2007). Manāsik-i ʿazādārī wa wijdān-i jamʿī dar tashayyuʿ-ʾi Īrānī [Mourning rituals and collective conscience in Iranian Shiism]. Dīn wa Irtibāṭāt, 14(32), 101-119. doi: 10.30497/rc.2008.1382 [In Persian]
Gellner, E. (1371 H.sh./1992). Pisāmudirnizm, ʿaql wa dīn [Postmodernism, reason and religion]. [Translator not specified]. [In Persian]
Glasner, P. E. (1977). The sociology of secularization. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Hamilton, M. (1377 H.sh./1998). Jāmiʿahshināsī-yi dīn [The sociology of religion] (M. S̱÷alās̱ī, Trans.). Tehran: Tabyān. [In Persian]
Hargrove, B. (1979/1989). The sociology of religion: Classical and contemporary approaches. U.S.A.: Harlan Davidson.
Huntington, S. P. (1993). The clash of civilizations? Foreign Affairs, 72(3), 22-49.
Hyman, G. (2004). The study of religion and the return of theology. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 72(1), 195-219. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40005883
Lambert, Y. (1999). Religion in modernity as a new axial age: Secularization or new religious forms. Sociology of Religion, 60(3), 303-333. doi: 10.2307/3711939
Martin, D., Mills, J. O., & Pickering, W. S. F. (Eds.). (1394 H.sh./2015). Jāmiʿahshināsī wa īlāhiyyāt [Sociology and theology] (A. Murshidīzād, Trans.). Tehran: Tarjumān. [In Persian]
Marx, K. (1381 H.sh./2002). Darbārih-ʾi masʾalih-ʾi Yahūd; gāmī dar naqd-i falsafih-ʾi ḥaqq-i Higil [On the Jewish question; a step in the critique of Hegel's philosophy of right] (M. Muḥīṭ, Trans.). Tehran: Akhtarān. [In Persian]
Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. Free Press.
Robertson, R. (Ed.). (1969). Sociology of religion. England: Penguin.
Ṣadrī, A. (1378 H.sh./1999). Barrasī-yi jāmiʿahshinākhtī-yi naqsh-i dīn dar jāmiʿih-ʾi madanī [A sociological study of the role of religion in civil society]. Retrieved from https://www.islahweb.org/topic/thought and http://www.islahweb.org/node/1987 [In Persian]
Ṣadrī, A. (1401 H.sh./2022). Makān-i dīn dar āyandih-ʾi Īrān-i sikūlār wa mardumsālār [The place of religion in the future of secular and democratic Iran]. Retrieved from https://www.zeitoons.com/67847 [In Persian]
Shojāʿīzand, ʿA. R. (1379 H.sh./2000). Jāmiʿahshināsī-yi Islām dar kār-i Weber wa Turner [Sociology of Islam in the work of Weber and Turner]. Kitāb-i Māh-i ʿUlūm-i Ijtimāʿī, (39-40), 11-15. Retrieved from https://ensani.ir/fa/article/135225/ [In Persian]
Shojāʿīzand, ʿA. R. (1381 H.sh./2002). ʿUrfīshudan dar tajribih-ʾi Masīḥī wa Islāmī [Secularization in Christian and Islamic experience]. Tehran: Markaz-i Bāzshināsī-yi Islām wa Īrān. [In Persian]
Shojāʿīzand, ʿA. R. (1387 H.sh./2008). Gushāyishhā-yi naẓarī dar muṭāliʿāt-i jāmiʿahshinākhtī-yi dīn [Theoretical openings in sociological studies of religion]. Faṣlnāmih-ʾi ʿUlūm-i Ijtimāʿī, (40), 1-26. doi: 20.1001.1.17351162.1387.15.40.1.7 [In Persian]
Shojāʿīzand, ʿA. R. (1388 H.sh./2009). Jāmiʿahshināsī-yi dīn [Sociology of religion] (Vol. 1). Tehran: Nashr-i Ney. [In Persian]
Shojāʿīzand, ʿA. R. (1392 H.sh./2013). Zātʾangārī-yi dīn [Essentialism of religion]. Dūfaṣlnāmih-ʾi Justārhā-yī dar Falsafih-ʾi Dīn, 2(3), 81-111. Retrieved from http://www.ensani.ir/fa/content/331003/ [In Persian]
Shojāʿīzand, ʿA. R. (1394 H.sh./2015). Dīn dar zamānih wa zamīnih-ʾi mudirn [Religion in modern time and context]. Tehran: Pizhūhishgāh-i ʿUlūm-i Insānī wa Muṭāliʿāt-i Farhangī. [In Persian]
Shojāʿīzand, ʿA. R. (1398a H.sh./2019a). Taḥwīlgarāyī dar muṭāliʿāt-i jāmiʿahshinākhtī-yi dīn [Reductionism in sociological studies of religion]. Qabaṣāt, 24(91), 59-96. Retrieved from https://qabasat.iict.ac.ir/article_35659_172d5659a59a39f72403e87f5b0d9644.pdf [In Persian]
Shojāʿīzand, ʿA. R. (1398b H.sh./2019b). Az dīnsāzīhā-yi ʿaql tā dīnīsāzī-yi ʿilm [From rationality's religion-making to science's religification]. Rāhburd-i Farhang, 12(2), 7-40. doi: 10.22034/jsfc.2019.100932 [In Persian]
Shojāʿīzand, ʿA. R. (1402 H.sh./2023). Rīshihhā-yi dīnī wa tārīkhī-yi tābūsāzī-yi qudrat [Religious and historical roots of power taboo-making]. Rāhburd-i Farhang, 16(63), 7-38. doi: 10.22034/jsfc.2023.401809.2522 [In Persian]
Soroush, A. (1372 H.sh./1993). Farbih tar az īdiyūlūzhī [Fatter than ideology]. Tehran: Muʾassisih-ʾi Farhangī-yi Ṣirāṭ. [In Persian]
Tocqueville, A. de. (1393 H.sh./2014). Taḥlīl-i dimukrāsī dar Amrīkā [Democracy in America] (R. Muqaddam Marāghihʾī, Trans.). Tehran: Nashr-i ʿIlmī wa Farhangī. [In Persian]
Trigg, R. (1384 H.sh./2005). Fahm-i ʿilm-i ijtimāʿī [Understanding social science] (Sh. Masmīparast, Trans.). Tehran: Nashr-i Ney. [In Persian]
Turner, B. S. (1379 H.sh./2000). Māks Weber wa Islām [Weber and Islam] (S. Waṣālī, Trans.). Tehran: Markaz. [In Persian]
Turner, B. S. (1974). The sociology of religion: An explanation of the unity and diversity in religion. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Turner, B. S. (1991). Religion and social theory. London: Sage.
Turner, B. S. (2005). Talcott Parsons's sociology of religion and the expressive revolution: The problem of Western individualism. Journal of Classical Sociology, 5(3), 303-318. doi: 10.1177/1468795X05057868
Wach, J. (1380 H.sh./2001). Jāmiʿahshināsī-yi dīn [Sociology of religion] (J. Āzādagān, Trans.). Tehran: Samt. [In Persian]
Weber, M. (1958). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. New York: Scribner.
Willaime, J.-P. (1377 H.sh./1998). Jāmiʿahshināsī-yi adyān [Sociology of religions] (ʿA. K. Guvāhī, Trans.). Tehran: Tabyān. [In Persian]
Wilson, B. (1979). Contemporary transformation of religion. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Winch, P. (1372 H.sh./1993). Īdih-ʾi ʿilm-i ijtimāʿī wa paywand-i ān bā falsafih [The idea of a social science and its relation to philosophy] (Trans. under supervision of SAMT). Tehran: Samt. [In Persian]
Woodhead, L., & Heelas, P. (2000). Religion in modern times. Oxford: Blackwell.
Zuckerman, P. (1384 H.sh./2005). Darāmadī bar jāmiʿahshināsī-yi dīn [Invitation to the sociology of religion] (Kh. Dayhīmī, Trans.). Tehran: Lūḥ-i Fikr. [In Persian]
 

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics