Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Luckmann Revisited ~
A n d r e w J. W e i g e r t
University of Notre Dame
An analysis of Thomas Luckmann's The Invisible Religion uncovers five meanings of the
term "religion." The primary meaning refers to the process of socialization whereby man
I
Thomas Luckmann's persuasive functional presentation (The Invisible Religion,
1967) of the nature of religion has quickly become a near classic statement in
contemporary sociology and even in socio-theology of religion. T h e reason may
lie in the fact that I~uckmann's statement answers c u r r e n t needs of some
sociologists and other students of religion: it puts religion, and thus the sociology
ofreligion, at the center of the question o f m a n and his location in society; it offers
an exciting alternative to the sociography of traditional religious institutions; and
it leads to theoretical reflection which frees sociologists from the ethnocentric
concern of Western institutional religion and may inspire more cross-cultural
research (a definite gap at present, Buehler, et al., 1972). By legitimating the
language of the sociology of religion for the investigation of all social phenomena,
Luckmann's statement is a handy tool for those alienated from traditional reli-
gious institutions, but still religiously concerned. This paper, however, argues that
Luckmann's approach is a theoretical cul de sac for the sociology of religion and
may lead to excessive conceptual confusion.
Among the difficuhies in formulating a useful definition, there are two gener-
ally accepted criteria for a successful concept: 1. at the level of theory, it should
contain logical characteristics which distinguish it from other concepts; 2. at the
level of observables, it should be operationalizable in such a way as to allow
phenomena to be named and classified in an orderly and unambiguous manner.
11 would like to thank C. Lincoln J o h n s o n , J o h n C. Gessner, and the discussants at a 1972 roundtable of
the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion for critical and stimulating reactions to ara earlier version
of this paper.
181
182 SOCIOLOGICALANALYSIS
2Luckmann (1971) repeats his argument in a slightlydifferent and summary fashion in his position
paper in Caporale and Grurnelli.
WHOSE INVISIBLE RELIGION? 183
thrust is to locate the primary predicative meaning of religion in the social process
whereby man becomes human, i.e., in the emergence of the self, or in socializa-
tion. Socialization in both the ontogenetic and phylogenetic sense is the an-
thropologically necessary and essentially religious process which grounds h u m a n
existence. An immediate deduction from this assumption is that the socially
objectivated meaning system, or worldview (Berger and Luckmann, 1966), which
is constitutive of the socialization process, and the individually internalized rele-
vance system which is constitutive of personal identity, are, anthropologically,
both derivatively and necessarily religious. But worldview and identity are
sociologically the elementary, universal, and nonspecific forms of religion which
are taken as axiomatic. T h e sociologically derivative forms of religion, then, are
the specific, empirical, and non-universal contents of particular historical or
FIGURE 1
Sense and F o r m s of " R e l i g i o n " A c c o r d i n g to L u c k m a n n ( I 9 6 7 )
Primary Sense: The socialization process by which mala transcends biological nature
With these senses of religion, Luckmann can complete his critique of contem-
porary work in the sociology of religion. Sociologists mainly study the tertiary
senses of religion, viz., specific and substantive forms such as the "Church." This
undue restriction of the form of religion according to Luckmann, leads to eth-
nocentrism, mere sociography, and erroneously formulated debates, e.g., the
issue of secularization (23). Since, for Luckmann, it is axiomatic that man is
everywhere and always religious to the extent that he is h u m a n (i.e., socialized and
normal), the question, "Is man religious?" and the myriad questions from history
and quantitative research such as, "Is man or society more or less religious now
than in the past?," or "Is the disinherited class more or less religious than the white
collar class?," are otiose or even erroneous. Luckmann insists that the only real
question is a qualitative one, viz., "How is man religious?" (cf. Yinger, 1970:33, for
a similar functional question), since the "Is" question is answered axiomatically,
and the comparative, substantive questions are in principle unaskable, because by
definition all normal functioning societies and socialized individuals are essen-
tially religious. Thus, the central empirical task is the search for qualitative themes
which constitute the universal and necessary anthropological process of socializa-
184 SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS
3Th phrase, "functional ipsative definition" is coined by analogy with ipsative procedures in measure-
ment, viz., measures which are not independent within individual respondents (cf. Rokeach,
1973:42-3). Functional ipsative procedures construct definitions in a way which is not independent
within the investigator, i.e., the investigator decides what phenomena belong in which category with
only one criterion: bis perception of its function. Contrast this with an investigator who first
categorizes phenomena according to substantive c¡ and subsequenfly analyzes the functions of
these phenomena.
4We are excluding purely operational "definitions" from the discussion. Operationalism presents us
with another set of issues.
WHOSE INVISIBLe: RELIGION? 185
curred by means of symbols and processes which some theorists identify as religious
does notjustify the inference that the subsequent socialization or "ontogenesis" of
each h u m a n also occurs by means of symbols, and processes which are "religious."
Even if the origin of h u m a n identity was a religious p h e n o m e n o n (an untestable
proposition), it does not follow that every subsequent acquisition of h u m a n
identity is also a religious p h e n o m e n o n . Social ontogeny does not necessarily
recapitulate assumed social phylogeny, in spite of Luckmann's assertion that
"socialization... is fundamentally religious" (51).
F u r t h e r m o r e , for comparative longitudinal purposes, an investigator relies on
the structure or institution as the historical referent of predication, e.g., such
statements as: religious institutions or the family are losing their functions to
educational or political institutions. We do not ordinarily say, " T h e function is
IV
If the cogency of this critique 5 of L u c k m a n n ' s position is granted, what conclu-
sions would be d r a w n concerning his five forms (see Figure 1). F r o m the perspec-
tive of an interpretive sociology the universal process of socialization may be
defined as a symbolic process investing value (worldvŸ and identity (Weigert
and T h o m a s , 1971). T h e r e is no theoretical necessity or empi¡ for
defining socialization as an essentially "religious" process. Similarly, L u c k m a n n ' s
universal a n d nonspecific forms of religion, viz., worldview and identity, may be
labeled with formal terms such as value orientations (Glock a n d Stark, 1965:7ff),
or relevance structures (Schutz, 1970). T h e labelof religion would be reserved for
substantive types of religion (in L u c k m a n n ' s tertiary sense o f the term), which are
e i t h e r socially o b j e c t i v a t e d or p e r s o n a l l y a p p r o p r i a t e d o r b o t h ( B e r g e r ,
1967:175-177). Thus, such issues as secularization and comparative studies of
religion r e - e m e r g e more clearly as empirical historical questions. Likewise, the
universality ofreligion is no longer axiomatic for society o r a n individual, but must
be formulated a n d a r g u e d empirically.
T h e sociologist of religion faces the possibility that in a particular society or era
5Berger (1967:177-178) briefly adumbrates many of the points made here. We do not, however, agree
with his dismissal of definitional issues as merely "deg~stibus," though it is possible to have too much of
even a tasty issue.
] 88 SOCIOLOGICAI. ANALYSIS
the subject matter of one's discipline may indeed be peripheral to the society and
its members, and therefore to the profession of sociology which studies the society
and its members. No axiomatic assertionsjustify locating religion as a central issue
in society, in biography, or in the individual's place in society without regard to
empirical evidence. To argue that the founders of sociology, Weber and Durk-
heim, saw religion as central is not to say that were they alive today they would not
be arguing for the centrality of ideology, nationalism, technocracy, science, etc.,
and for the peripherality of religion. The founders did not, it seems, deny the
historicity of their subject matter, nor were they primarily interested in religion as
a putative universal, but rather as an historically important creator and carrier of
values.
The argument of the present paper suggests a label such as "Sociology of
REFERENCES
Bellah, Robert N. 1970. Beyond Belief. New York: Harper.
Berger, Peter L. 1967. The Sacred Canopy. New York: Doubleday.
Berger, Peter L., and Thomas Luckmann. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality. New York:
Doubleday.
Buehler, C., G. Hesser, and A. J. Weigert. 1972. "A study of articles on religion in major sociology
journals: some preliminary findings." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 11:165-170.
Caporale, Rocco, and Antonio Grumelli (eds.). 1971. The Cuhure of Unbelief. Berkeiey: University of
California
Dewey, John. 1934. A Common Faith. New Haven: Yale University.
Geertz, Clifford. 1966. "Religion as a cultural system." Pp. 1-46 in Michael Banton (ed.)Anthropological
Approaches to the Study of Religion. London: Tavistock.
Glock, Charles Y., and Rodney Stark. 1965. Religion and Society in Tension. Chicago; Rand McNally.
Luckmann, Thomas. 1967. The Invisible Religion. New York: Macmillan.
1971. "Belief, unbelief, and religion." Pp. 21-37 in-Rocco Caporale and Antonio Grumelli (eds.),
The Culture of Unbelief. Berkeley: University of California.
Rokeach, Milton. 1973. The Nature of Human Values. New York: Free Press.
Schutz, Alfred. 1962. The Problem of Social Reality. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
1970. Reflections on the Problem of Relevance. New Haven: Yale University.
Weigert, A.J., and D. L. Thomas. 1971. "Family asa conditional universal."Journal ofMarriage and the
Family 33 (February): 188-194.
Yinger, J. Mihon. 1970. The Scientific Study of Religion. New York: Macmillan.
Zetterberg, Hans. 1965. On Theory and Verification in Sociology. Totowa: Bedminster.