WWW.SOCPOL.UNIMI.

IT

Dipartimento di Studi Sociali e Politici Universit degli Studi di Milano

Working Paper 6/08

Durkheims sociology of morality: is it still valid?

Mariolina Graziosi

WWW.SOCPOL.UNIMI.IT
Dipartimento di Studi Sociali e Politici Facolt di Scienze Politiche, via Conservatorio 7 - 20122 Milano - Italy Tel.: 02 503 21201 02 503 21220 Fax: 02 503 21240 E-mail: dssp@unimi.it

Durkheims legacy

Durkheim published his first article about the foundation of sociology of morality in 1887, claiming the need for a Moral Science (1887, p.24). He then offered courses at Bourdeaux, and then at the Sorbonne that were posthumously published in the volume Leons de Sociology and in LEducation Morale. I totally agree with those scholars, such as Bellah, who think that the whole work of Durkheim is connected to the analysis and exploration of the question of morality (1973). Durkheim, witnessing the deep transformation of the society of his times1, posed a whole set of crucial questions concerning change in social and existential conditions. He considered the analysis of morality fundamental for understanding the deep social change caused by the process of modernization. The main question addressed by Durkheim was the moral nature of society. We shouldnt forget that Durkheim, the scientist, had two goals: to establish sociology as a science in its own right, and to understand the deep changes that were occurring with the process of modernization. He wanted to analyze social change with the instruments of the new science, sociology, aiming, at the same time, to confirm that sociology was an autonomous field. We find then in all Durkheim's works a combination of an epistemological-methodological interest with a substantive issue concerning social transformation. Considering Durkheims main interests, the following question spontaneously arises: were Durkheims explanation of social change and then of the foundation of morality affected by his epistemological and methodological interests? I believe only partially. Surely, Durkheim overemphasized the role of society with respect to the role of the individual: for instance, when he states that moral facts are social facts, he is giving less attention to the role of the individual conscience. However, he emphasized the social nature of morality because previously only the individual nature of morality was taken into consideration, disregarding the central role of society in

the development of morality. Nevertheless, I dont believe Durkheim would deny the role of the individual in the development of morality. Recently Bauman has criticized Durkheims explanation of the social nature of morality sustaining that the foundations, the roots are in the individual; furthermore, he believes that history has shown that society can separate the individual from the moral roots making him an a-moral social being. This has been the case, Bauman argues, of Germans with respect to the Holocaust. (Bauman, 2000). I am not in total disagreement with Bauman, however I dont think that Durkheim would disagree either. The Holocaust has shown how a social group can pursue a-moral goals and how its members accept them. The majority follows the rules because it is safe, because the rules are justified in the name of the survival of the group, or of the superiority of the group. This shows how the moral role of society is stronger than that of the individual. The individuals who have the courage to disagree are very few because they find themselves questioning their belonging to the group, which leads to an identity conflict. It is not easy to find yourself alone against those whom you consider your own kin. The historical fact that the Holocaust was accepted by many Germans as a legitimate political goal to pursue shows, then, how Durkheim was right in underlying the central moral weight of the group; however, it also shows that society can pursue a-moral ends, as Bauman underlines but Durkheim never considered. Bauman suggests that the main reason the Nazis succeeded in their a-moral goal of destroying the Jews, was that the process of rationalization had a crucial role in the destruction of the pietas that human beings usually feel in front of the suffering of other human beings. It seems to me that the abolition of pietas did not occur only during the Holocaust, but has in other times as well. Any time a society has endorsed a system of values in which the Other is considered the enemy, the majority of the members have accepted the system of values, and have behaved according to them, without questioning either values or the goals derived from them 2. As sociologists we cannot doubt that societies are formed on the base of a moral code that is internalized by the members of the group, 3

with the consequence that it will affect their actions and perceptions; but as sociologists we also have to raise the question concerning the morality of a moral code, which Durkheim never addressed. In conclusion, I agree with Bauman and with those philosophers who inspired him that the individual conscience carries the impulse of morality, but I also believe, as stated by Durkheim, that only a social group can formulate an ethical code thanks to which the individual moral impulse will develop into a moral conscience. At this point its crucial to explore two questions: first, are all ethical code moral? Second, is it possible the existence of a society that relies on individual moral impulse rather than on an ethical code? I agree with de Benedittis s distinction between moral impulse and moral action. The first one being a generic disposition (de Benedittis, 2005). I believe however that moral impulse can be explained with the Junghian concept of archetype. Archetype is a cultural pattern inherited, who forms the collective unconscious and at the same time, can be seen as the foundation of the collective consciousness. As I will explore it more later, the formation of a moral ego independent from the ethical code is possible because its foundation is in the collective unconscious, and for this reason it can be partially autonomous from the ethical code. The moral ego is connected with feelings, compassion, love, than with the law.

Are all moral codes Ethical? What can Antigone teach Durkheim?

Sophocles in his tragedy Antigone addresses the question of the existence of two moralities: one that expresses the necessity of the group to define and defend itself with respect to the Other, whether it be the internal or the external enemy; and the other that, instead, has its roots in the individual conscience, in the ontological level where the feelings toward the other originate. In

the confrontation between Antigone and Creonte we see the struggle between the two opposite moralities. Sophocles's tragedy describes what happens when the two moralities clash. The group does not accept those who follow their conscience against the dominant ethical code, and their destiny is to be both victims and heroes, in order to remain faithful to themselves. Those who, instead, are motivated by the will to power must confront the deep feeling of guilt that originates from the betrayal of the imperatives of their conscience, which, as Antigone reminds Creonte, are laws older than those of Zeus3. Zeus is the symbol of the patriarchal social order, while the imperatives imposed by the individual conscience do not belong to any social order, but are rather the expression of the deep connection with the Other, which is previous to any social order. In junghian terms, the archetype of the Self is the origin of those old laws, who comes before the code of the city. Sophocles' tragedy ends with the sacrificial act of Antigone who accepts facing death in order to follow what her conscience tells her, and with the tragic discovery made by Creonte that his will to power has brought him to lose what was most dear to him: his wife and his son, in other words, his soul. Sophocles does not say who is right, Antigone or Creonte: he describes the tragic destiny of both, that is the impossibility to act differently than they did because each has its own reasons: Antigone her imperative, Creonte the ethical code of the city. Sophocles' tragedy shows that it is necessary to recognize the difference between the moral impulse that comes from the individual conscience and the ethical code of a group. The first is based on compassion, love and empathy, while the second has its reason to be in the interest of a group to find a social cohesion that guarantees its own unity (Graziosi, 2006). Sophocles has stated very clearly the existence of the two moralities and the antinomy between them. Sophocles, however, wrote as a member of an ancient society in which the presence of an individual conscience opposed to the collective one was considered a threat. In modern society 5

and, in particular, in contemporary society the process of individualization has created the existence of an individual conscience that can depart from the collective conscience and can become a critical conscience without facing the death penalty. Within the frame work of modern society, the struggle between Antigone and Creonte assumes, then, a tone less tragic: Antigone can represent the possibility of the individual conscience to confront the ethical code, judging it in the name of compassion and respect for human dignity. Durkheim expressed the affirmation of these two values in his analysis of the process of the birth of the civil religion connected to the development of individualism. Nevertheless, Durkheim could not think in terms of individual conscience, he continued to think in terms of law. The reasons behind his intellectual positions are two: a) for him the individual was internally divided and could find his cohesiveness only through the internalization of the morality of the group; b) he was not interested in explaining reality, history considering exceptional people. He wanted to explain average people, how they behaved, how they felt and thought. With respect to this aspect he stated his intentions clearly in his Address to the Lyceens of Sens, at the debut of his career as a high school Professor 4. The average people need rules, laws of behaviour in order to find orientation, meaning in life, for this reason morality, defined as a set of rules of behaviour, is perceived both as duty and as desirable. Durkheims mistake is to have disregarded the possibility for a mature individual to achieve internal unity through contact with that layer where the feelings toward the other are, that is the ontological level. He was the first to speak of the interrelation between the ontological and the social level; however for him the ontological level could be experienced only as member of a group. With the development of individualism, the possibility of an individual conscience to reach the moral impulse which gives it the strength to confront the ethical code is feasible, because the process of secularization has left the experience of the sacred to the individual, therefore he can live the connection between the sacred and morality as an autonomous experience (Weber, 6

1918); this gives him the grounds for judging whether the dominant ethical code is moral or not. This I believe is the foundation of the civil religion, which Durkheim has theorized, but for him the foundations were in the laws of the group rather than in individual inner maturity. In the pre-modern societies the ties with the group were very strong, therefore social and moral man coincided. In modern society these ties are no longer strong, as Durkheim forecasted, and consequently social and moral man do not coincide any more. The possibility of a civil religion lies in the dialectic between a strong moral individual and the ethic of the group. The strong moral individual can be that critical conscience that judges if the dominant ethical code is moral. A society cannot exist without an ethical code, this is true even of contemporary society, however we cannot accept a code as moral only because it is dominant. Durkheim never confronted the question of the content of the ethical code. He limited himself to recognizing the relativism of the ethical code and was at peace saying that every ethical code reflects the interest of a society.

Contemporary society and the crisis of values: reason and morality

The development of individualism has reached a peak in contemporary society. Bauman in his two books, Liquid modernity and Liquid love has pointed out that the main effects of contemporary individualism are the formation of a personality totally free from any links and bonds, as well as free from the capacity to recognize the other. Durkheim had already spoken of de-moralization, also defined as a crisis of values, as the main tendency of modern society. Can we still speak of a crisis of values in late modernity?

I believe we are facing a deep transformation that has involved both the individual personality and the nature of social relationships. The process of individualization that has characterized modern society since the beginning has meant more freedom, but recently the process of globalization has taken away old securities, making change, flexibility the other face of freedom (Sennett, 2001). A series of social indicators support the theory that the loss of securities has made social crisis a fact, not just a tendency: the spread of the use of drugs among adolescents and adults; the high divorce rates in every country with divorce laws, the widespread violence and crimes in highly developed countries; the very large number of cases of depression in highly developed countries. Depression does not affect only one person, but millions of people. It is definitely a disease that makes us spontaneously think of a pathological society, as suggested by different authors such as Ehrenberg, Richard Sennet, Miguel Benasayag, Grard Schmit5. Benasayag and Schmit, for instance, analyze the interconnection between the crisis of the individual and the crisis of the society, and they sustain that the individual crisis and the family crisis are parts of the general social crisis: We are facing, in contemporary western civilization, the transition from a unlimited trust to a similar extreme mistrust in the future...Today there is an atmosphere of pessimism that evokes a less bright tomorrow...pollution of every kind, social inequalities, economic disasters, new diseases: the long list of threats has transformed the view of the future from extreme positive to extreme negative... we live in an era dominated by those that Spinoza called the sad passions. With this expression the philosopher did not refer to the sadness of crying, but to the impotence and to the disgregation (Benasayag, Schmit , 2003, pp 18 -20). Social scientists and philosophers are not the only ones to speak of social crisis for contemporary society; artists also denounce the same phenomenon. For example, Woody Allen with his movie Match Point has given a good example of the crisis of values in contemporary society. Allen describes the absence of a moral conflict in a man who kills his lover. A series of coincidences allows him not to be caught, and then he is left alone with his conscience. The key images of the film, which, in my view, show Allens intentions to explore a moral issue in the film, 8

are those in which the protagonist reads Dostoyevskys book Crime and Punishment. Contrary to Raskolnikov, the main character of Crime and Punishment 6, Chris, the protagonist of Allens film does not go into a mystical crisis from which only punishment can save him. The ability of Chris to live with his sins is shown by the scene in which he confronts his ghosts, the two women he has killed, and he says: . I can push the guilt under the rug and go on; and when the old lady who lived next door to his lover asks: why me and your son, the child your lover was carrying he says Always innocent people have been slain to make a grand scheme. He then confirms his ruthlessness when the ghost of his lover tells him to prepare himself to pay the price: he answers with a total pessimism that, invoking Sophocles as support, claims that life has no meaning, even though we yearn for meaning: it would be fitting to be punished, some signs of justice, of measures of hope for the possibility of meaning. He is a young Irish man, who comes from a Catholic family whose father had found Christ after losing his legs, that speaks those words. The young man, in despair for meaning, has lost his faith, and consequently his morality. Chris has lost his morality due to the social success he has achieved thanks to the marriage with a rich woman. Once inside a family of the upper class, he assumes the moral attitudes of the new family, expressed very clearly by the brother in law who, commenting on Chriss fathers faith, says: to lose your legs and to find Christ is not a fair trade off. For Chris to keep his legs has meant to go beyond guilt, beyond good and evil, a condition that allows him to say: when I had to push the trigger I knew I could do it. Allen tells us that contemporary society has reached that stage where men can push guilt under the rug and live without meaning, the will to power is sufficient to find a reason to exist. Nevertheless at this stage he is totally a-moral, the new man, the man of many yeses, that Nietzsche saw as the next step is yet to come. I believe that differences between Chris and Raskolnikov can be attributed to the different societies in which they lived. Raskolnikov belonged to a traditional society were the moral code had a strong hold on the individual conscience and for this reason the guilty man could not confront his crime 9

with any justification. Dostoyevsky believed that Russia could be the leading country in defeating the materialistic attitudes of the western countries and in bringing a new era of spirituality. His novels describe the existential crisis caused by the loss of values (Bouckaert, Ghesquiere, 2004). Contrary to Dostoyevskys expectations, western countries have been able to pursue their process of secularization, a polytheism has replaced the old traditional religious view, bringing in moral relativism where before there was moral absolutism. The connection Bauman makes between utilitarianism and morality is correct: the utilitarian attitudes dominant in the market society do not allow the development of the moral attitudes. If society recognizes instrumental rationality as central we cannot think that the individual will be able to abandon it easily for moral attitudes that require sacrifice of self-interests. Chris, the protagonist of Match Point, represents the postmodern subject who above all wants to make something of his life, which for him means success measured in terms of wealth. Once he has succeeded in his escalation to the upper class he defends it at any cost, even that of committing a crime. Before the crime and after we see a person who thinks in purely utilitarian terms, no emotions or feelings comes into the way. This leads us to the central question, can society be a-moral while the individual develops his own morality? As Camus said: Can we be saints without God? Sennett, in his analysis of the personal consequences of work in the new capitalism, tells the story of Rico, a successful Italo-American, who has broken the ties with his working class family. His financial success is due to his acceptance of change and flexibility in his work. He has a different view with respect to the education he wants to give to his children. In opposition to the weak relationships in the working place and in the neighbours, he wants to pass on permanent values. As Sennett underlines All values he has mentioned are rigid rules: a parent must know to say no; a community requires commitment; being dependent from others is bad....But it is difficult to follow such abstract rules (Sennett, 2001, p. 26). Rico wishes to be a saint, at least for the sake of his children, but he is just a man who cannot make his children to believe in his rigid ethical rules of 10

conduct, because they are denied by his own working behaviour that follows the predominant rules of conduct: flexibility and change.

Moral Ego vs. Ethical code, freedom and morality

The moral relativism of contemporary society has brought forward the question of the link between freedom and morality. Existentialists have seen the origin of morality in the possibility to make a choice. Kierkegaard, who inspired modern existentialists, was the first to consider such question, and for him to exist as a human being means to exist ethically and to face perpetually new moral choices (Hubben, 1952, p. 26). For Kierkegaard, to be a moral man is a necessity, is part of the process of becoming, but it is not an automatic stage that everybody gets to. It is, instead, a matter of individual moral striving and tension. He does not consider the contribution of society to the birth of moral man. He speaks of the Single One, leaving the masses outside of his concern. As sociologists we need to consider both the individual who is able to go beyond the collective and the great majority. To recognize the presence of a moral impulse in human beings, as Kierkegaard, and some of the modern existentialists do, does not give an answer with respect to the masses. The masses follow rules, and without them they go back to a pre-ontological level where fear dominates them and a regressive ego brings them under the rule of a leader 7. Adorno, who has analyzed the regressive process beyond the formation of the masses, believes that anxiety is not a state that the majority can stand. In this state the majority develops a regressive ego that searches for a group in order to find security and to be relieved from the state of ambiguity and anxiety the need to make a choice provokes. The freedom to make choices is not a condition lived pleasantly by all. For this reason in spite of the development of 11

individualism, in the last century we have seen the formation of Fascist Regimes that have recreated a strong collective conscience, which has freed man from the burden of making choices. As Escobar suggests, in contemporary society we have to speak of individualism without individuals, therefore we have to think of individualism as an ideology (Escobar, 2006, p. 122). In my view it is necessary to distinguish between the Single One who enters into the process of becoming and the majority formed by those who the moment they do not have rules of conduct, enter into a state of meaninglessness that triggers the loss of identity. The alienation they experience pushes them to seek to belong to a group in order to reconnect to the others and then to themselves. In order to explain the difference between the majority and the Single One it is necessary to distinguish between the moral ego and the ethical ego. The moral ego develops as part of the individual striving and the Single One achieves it after confronting anxiety and nothingness. In junghian terms, the formation of the moral ego is the result of the process of individuation, which cannot be accomplished without the re-connection with the Self. Jung defines the Self as the center of the psyche, where the experience of the sacred lies (Jung, C. W. vol 10; 14; Graziosi, 2004). The Ethical Ego instead is the ego that develops following the moral conduct of a group. While for the moral ego freedom is the dominant experience of his existence, for the ethical ego the feeling of belonging is the dominant experience of his existence. More and more the need to be part of a group emerges as the dominant tendency in contemporary society. An example of the need to be part of a group is found in the recent explosion of religious groups in the USA, the most individualist and secularized society: The worlds leading economic and military power is also-no one can misread the data-the worlds leading Bible-reading crusader state, immersed in an Old Testament of stern prophets and bloody Middle Eastern battlefields (Phillips , 2006, p.101; 103)8. 12

Phillips confirms that the possibility to make choices is used by many Americans for joining a religious group: Conversion on the part of adults-the deep personal experience of being born again in Christ- is also far more important in the United States, with its emphasis on individual choice and personal experience, than elsewhere (Phillips, 2006, p. 106)9. Contemporary man has learned how to push guilt under the rug, however, to live with the burden of a moral choice to make, takes too much responsibility, and the masses flee the anxiety of the ambiguity of making a choice by joining a group in order to feel secure and strong. When this choice can not be made, depression is the other solution (Ehrenberg, 1998). The ghost of Durkheim seems to come back strongly, for he predicted the necessity of the group as a way to avoid anomy. The main requirement of a moral ego is to be for the others, but the majority prefer being for themselves with the others. We can think, however, that in contemporary society the possibility of the formation of strong subjectivity is not totally lost thanks to the process of secularization. Those who are able to develop a moral ego can have the role to reflect on the morality of the ethical code in order to avoid the a-moral tendencies of the group.

Sociology of morality as a central field

In my paper I have underlined the necessity to explore deeply a series of questions relating to the morality in the contemporary society that justify Durkheims belief that the sociology of morality is a central field of enquiry. While Durkheim considered crucial to explore the social nature of morality, today is crucial to explore questions such as : 1) is the ethic of a group always moral? 2) how to evaluate the morality of a social code? 3) which are the criteria for evaluating an ethical code: human dignity or the need of social cohesion for the survival of the 13

group ? 4) Last but not least, feelings must play a role in moral questions10? This last question was already posed by the Comte in his late years, when he openly stated the necessity to consider solidarity as the central question of modernity and gave to the new science, Sociology, the task to formulate a laic morality.

References
Bauman, Zygmunt, 1992. Modernit e Olocausto, Bologna, Il Mulino. Bauman, Zygmunt, 2003. Liquid love, Cambrdige, Polity Press Bauman, Zygmunt, 2000. Liquid modernity, Cambridge, Polity Press. Bellah, Robert N., 1973 Emile Durkheim, on Morality and society, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Bouckaert, Luk, Chesquiere, Rita, 2004, Dostoyeskys Grand Inquisitor as a Mirror for the Ethics of Institutions, Journal of Business Ethics, Kluwer Academic Publisher, 53: 29-37. de Benedittis, 2005, E possible una sociologia di Schindler? Appunti per una sociologia dellazione morale, Working papers del Dipartimento di Studi Sociali e Politici. Dostoyevsky, Fyodor, [1866] 2004. Crime and Punishment, Philadelphia: Chelsea House Publishers. Durkheim, Emile, [1887] 1969 La science positive de la morale en Allemagne, Journal sociologique, Paris, Presses universitaires de France. Durkheim, Emile, 1898. Reprsentation individuelle et reprsentations collective Revue de mtaphysique et de morale, 6: 273-302. Durkheim, Emile, [1898-1911]1953. Sociology and Philosophy, Glencoe, Ill, Free Press. 14

Durkheim, Emile, [1902-1906] 1961. Moral Education, New York, Free Press. Durkheim, Emile, 1[1888] 1967. Discours aux Lycens de Sens Cahiers Internationaux de sociologie 43: 25-32. Gallup Poll, 2004. Ehrenberg, Alain, 1998, La fatigue dtre soi. Depression and socit, Paris, Editions Odile Jacob. Escobar, Roberto, 1997, Metamorfosi della paura, Bologna, Il Mulino. Escobar, Roberto, 2006, La libert negli occhi, Bologna, Il Mulino. Freud, S. ([1921]1959) Group Psychology and the analysis of the Ego. New York-London: W.W. Norton & Company. Graziosi, Mariolina, 2006, Amore e Misericordia, Anima, Bergamo, Moretti e Vitali, pp. 45-63. Graziosi, Mariolina, 2004, Simone Weil, in cerca delle radici eterne, Anima, Moretti e Vitali. Hubben,Williem, 1952. Four Prophets of our destiny, New York the Macmillan Company. Carl Gustav Jung, 1951, Psychology and Religion, , Collected Works, vol. 11, Princeton, University of Princeton Press. Philips, Kevin, 2006. American Theocracy, New York:Viking. Newsweek Poll, December 2000, 2004. Pizzorno, Allessandro. 1963. Lecture actuelle de Durkheim Archives de sociologie europennes, 4: 1-36. Sophocles, 1954. Antigone, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press. Sennett Richard, 2001, Luomo flessibile, Milano, Feltrinelli. Zambrano Maria, [1983] 2001. La tomba di Antigone, Milano, La Tartaruga. Weber, Max, 1918 [1966], Il lavoro intellettuale come professione, Torino, Einaudi.

15

Footnotes
1

About the period when Durkheim lived, Bellah says: He was a high priest and theologian of the Third Republic and a

prophet calling not only modern France but modern Western society generally to mend its ways in the face of a great social and moral crisisThe social context in which Durkheim came to define his life was decisively affected when he was twelve years old by the crushing defeat of France by Germany in the War of 1870 and by the subsequent fall of the second Empire and the establishment of the Third French Republic. This great social change became the objective reference point to his developing sense of calling (1973: x xi-xii).
2

Escobar in his book Metamorfosi della paura analyzes the social and individual process of formation of the Other. It

seems particularly important his statement that in the process of making the Other it isnt involved just a simple and superficial moral question concerning tolerance or rejection, but much more. It is involved the ability to tolerate the view of an abyss that makes in danger to b ourselves (Escobar, 1997, p. 157.
3

Zambrano in her analysis of Antigone has spoken of auroral conscience. It is the conscience that has not reached the

level of separation between feelings and logos, between love and logos. Life in its retrieving does not leave something abstract, a truth without heart but the knowledge that is born in the inner being that opens it and at the same time transcends it ( 2001,p. 27).
4

Address delivered at prize-day ceremonies on 6 August 1883 at the Lyce of Sens, where Durkheim taught before

going to Bordeaux. (Bellah, 1973, p. 25).

5

Depression is not a biological disease, even if there is a chemical imbalance involved, but a psychological disease

rooted in the dominant social conditions of contemporary society. Ehrenberg sustains the theory that depression is the natural result of the social interaction predominant in contemporary society which is not any more based on norms grounded on guilt and discipline but on responsibility and the ability to take decisions. Depression is the individual answer to the frustration and fatigue people suffer in the process to become themselves (Ehrenberg, 1998).
6

Dostoyevskys novel tells the story of a crime committed by Raskolnikov who murdered an old moneylender and her

sister. After the crime he goes completely to pieces. What torments him is the pangs of his conscience. He feels he has done something beyond redemption; something that cuts him off from his fellows and it is this knowledge, which motivates all his thoughts and all his actions ([1866] 2004).
7

Freud has analyzed the formation of the masses focusing on the libidinal ties between the leader and the masses. He

also sees a regressive ego in the case of the mass, however he considers the role of the ego ideal rather than a primitive emotion like fear (Freud, 1921).

16

Data from a series of survey show that 55% of a national sample answered yes to the question Is the Bible literally

accurate; 94% of the national population believed in God in 2000, while 92% believed in God in 2004; 84% believed in miracles in 2000, while 82% believed in miracles in 2004; 81% believed in Heaven in 2004, 78% believed in Angels in the same year, 77% believed in Hell, 70 % believed in Satan/the Devil. Newsweek Poll, December 2000, 2004. Gallup Poll, 2004. (Philips, 2006,p. 102).
9

In the mid-1980s some 33 percent of the respondents told the Gallup Poll they had been born again; by the early

2000s the number had climbed to 44 to 46 per cent. George Bushs own tale of coming to God struck a chord in the churchgoing Unites States that would have been impossible in less-observant Europe. Even in kindred Canada, supposedly no prime minister has ever claimed to be born again. Phillips, op.cit., p.106. Polls seem to have found the highest percentages of Americans claiming to have been born again in 2001-2003 in the wake of September 11. By 2005, the number was down to 42 per cent. (Phillips, 2006, p. 405) .
10

de Benedittis in his working paper E possibile una sociologia di Schindler? Appunti per una sociologia dellazione

morale, underlines the need to include emotions and passions in the analysis of moral actions. (de Benedittis, p. 10).

17