Religion as a Subject for Sociology

Author(s): Andre Beteille

Source: Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 27, No. 35 (Aug. 29, 1992), pp. 1865-1870
Published by: Economic and Political Weekly
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4398817
Accessed: 01-07-2019 06:26 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Economic and Political Weekly is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Economic and Political Weekly

This content downloaded from 202.142.177.13 on Mon, 01 Jul 2019 06:26:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SPECIAL ARTICLES.

Religion as a Subject for Sociology

Andre Beteille

The sociological study of religion brings sharply into focus certain interesting questions of approach and
and a discussion of these is of wider interest in the study of society as a whole, including the study of such sub-
jects as class, gender, nation, and, more generally, politics. There is, in particular, the issue of the comparative
advantages of approaches that favour detachment, objectivity and value-neutrality as against those that favour
commitment, engagement and partisanship.

I pansion, further differentiation has come in- follows treat the two together.
to being. Some scholars have devoted them- In drawing attention to the varieties of ap-
I WOULD like to use the present occasion proaches to the study of religion, it is not
selves to the study of 'world religions' such
to discuss the sociological approach to the
as Christianity, Hinduism and Islam; I my intention to argue that there are or
study of religion. My purpose will be not should be rigid boundaries between dis-
others have studied religion among the
so much to present the principal findings ciplines. Such boundaries do not exist, and
simplest communities of hunter-gatherers,
established by the sociology of religion as
pastoralists and shifting cultivators.2 There are neither.necessary nor desirable. David
to examine the subject from the point of
have been evolutionists, functionalists, struc- Hume, who wrote incisively on religion,4
view of method. I believe that the socio- was not only a celebrated philosopher but
turalists and many others among the socio-
logical study of religion brings sharply into
logists who have undertaken the study of also an historian. His contemporary and
focus certain interesting questions of ap- friend, Edward Gibbon wrote about reliion
religion. Nevertheless, certain common
proach and method, and that a discussion
elements of approach and method are taken mainly as an historian,5 but what he wrote
of these may be of wider interest in the study
for granted when religion is made a subject is permeated by philosophical and, indeed,
of society as a whole, including the study
for sociology. These common elements stand sociological insight. The Varieties of
of such subjects as class, gender, nation, and, Religious Experience by William James is
out when we compare the sociological study
more generally, politics. I have in mind par- of religion with the study of it in other bran- a landmark both in the philosophy and in
ticularly the comparative advantages of ap-
ches of learning. the psychology of religion.6 Such examples
proaches that favour detachment, objectivity
could be multiplied almost indefinitely.
and value-neutrality as against those that
II It is easy enough to arrange the various
favour commitment, engagement and parti-
approaches on a continuum in such a way
sanship. Religion has been a subject of study and
that one can pass from one approach to the
We cannot take it for granted that simply reflection for a very long timer The sociology
next without any clear or noticeable break.
-because religion exists, it will be considered of religion is, by contrast, a very young sub-
But it is necessary also to make distinctions.
a suitable subject for sociology by all con- ject; or, if one prefers, a young branch of
I would like to begin with the distinction bet-
cerned. Some proponents of the materialist an old subject. It is necessary to stress the
ween normative and empirical-or, if one
interpretation of history might treat it lightlydiversity of approaches to the study of
prefers, judgmental and non-judgmental-
on the ground that it can tell us little about religion in order to highlight the distinctive
approaches to religious phenomena. The
the basic and hard realities of economic and features of the sociological approach to it.
theologian is concerned primarily with ques-
political life; or, they might take it into ac- The oldest branch of study devoted to
tions of truth and rectitude in religious
count only insofar as it is implicated in religion, and at least in the Christian tradi-
beliefs and practices. Questions of truth and
politics, say, in the form of communalism. tion by far the most important one for many
rectitude do not concern the sociologist in
But others might deny a claim on it not centuries, is theology. Divinity schools oc-
the same way; his primary concern is to
because they consider religion unimportant cupied a prominent place in medieval Euro-
observe, describe, interpret and explain the
but because they consider it too important pean universities such as Paris, Oxford and
manner in which religious beliefs and prac-
a subject for sociology; that is sometimes Cambridge, and continued to do so until re-
tices operate. Ah important question from
the case in societies governed by a strong cent times. Theological studies have oc-
the viewpoint of method, to which I will
religious authority. cupied an important place also in the Judaic
return later, is how deeply it is necessary to
I have spoken of the sociological approachand Islamic intellectual traditions. The
be concerned with questions of truth and
to the study of religion in the singular, but theological approach has undergone impor-
one can easily point out that there are several tant changes in the present century, parti-
rectitude if one is interested in the descrip-
tion and analysis of religious beliefs and
such approaches and not just one approach. cularly in the west, but it stili retains a cer-
practices. The same question arises with
I would not like to narrow the scope of the tain identity, and, in its pure form, it presents
regard to other systems of belief and prac-
dicussion unduly, and would like, moreover,the sharpest possible contrast to the socio-
tice, and the answers that we give to it must
to take into account the works not only of logical approach to the study of religion.
be consistent from one domain to another.
sociologists such as Durkheim and Weber Then, there is the philosophy of religion
but also of social anthropologists such as which now occupies some of the ground held The distinction between the normative
Radcliffe-Brown and Evans-Pritchard. previously by theology. The philosophy of and the empirical orientations comes out
There are many differences among the religion looks to theology on one side and most clearly in the coptrast between the
scholars w1f work within the field of the the psychology of religion on the other. We theological and the sociological approaches
sociology of religion. One has only to men- have also the very broad and assorted body to the study of religion. It is no accident that,
tion together the names of Durkheim and of work that carries the label of the history historically, the sociological approach came
Weber, the two most prominent figures in of religions.3 We come finally to the an- into its own with the decline of the theolo-
the field, to be reminded of these differences. thropological and sociological approaches gical approach. So long as the study of
The field has, moreover, expanded enor- to the study of the subject; although they religion was governed by religious faith,
mously since their time, and, with this cx- are treated separately by some, I will in what there could be little room in it for sociology.

Economic and Political Weekly August 29, 1992 1865

This content downloaded from 202.142.177.13 on Mon, 01 Jul 2019 06:26:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The sociology of religion may in this sense parison to generalisation. " We now have as on the other hand, approaches religions
be regarded as the offspring of religious a result a large body of data on religious from the outside even when he seeks to
scepticism and agnosticism, if not of beliefs and practices from all parts of the understand their inner meaning.
atheism. world. A second important feature of the socio-
In a symposium on sacrifice, conducted The accumulation of a large body of logioal approach is that it studies the facts
jointly by anthropologists and theologians, systematic data from the different parts of of religion in association with other social
the Jesuit priest M F C Bourdillon put it the world has certainly advanced our know- facts. The sociological approach, as I
thus, "When an anthropologist studies the ledge and understanding of religion, but it understand it, not only does not privilege
moral values of a culture or a society, his has not led to the discovery of the kind of one's own religion as against other religions,
aim is to try to understand them indepen- general laws that Durkheim and Radcliffe- it does not privilege the religious domain
dently of the values of his own or any other Brown had hoped to discover. What then is among the various domains of social life.
culture. . . It is, on the other hand, extremelyleft of the comparative method? The com- In the sociological perspective, no matter
tare to find a Christian theologian who does parative method remains of great value how important the religious life may be in
not hold that his discipline is concerned withbecause it forces a certain discipline that itself, it cannot be made fully intelligible
ideals for living.'7 The atmosphere of does not come naturally to us when we ex- without being brought into relationship with
religious discussion, particularly in the amine the varieties of social life. It forces domestic life, economic life and political life.
Christian world, has altered enormously bet- us to give equal consideration, at least in cer- The interconnections among the different
ween the end of the last century and the end tain respects and for certain purposes, to all institutional domains is at the centre of
of the present, so that theologians and social societies irrespective of our personal sociological attention.
theorists are more prepared to learn from, engagements. In that sense, the comparative The position is different for the theo-
or at least to listen to, each other. But this method brings all societies on a level with logian. For him, the religious domain is pre-
should not lead us to obliterate the distinc- each other; it does not admit of any privileg- eminent, in a way the only one that has real
tion between an orientation to the subject ed exceptions. This goes against our ingrain- significance. He is concerned, above all, with
that is grounded in religious scepticism and ed habits of mind when we are dealing with
the inner meaning of religion rather than its
one that is grounded in religious faith. This human societies, and particularly when our external or institutional manifestation which
distinction was presented sharply from the subject of study is religion. If fair- is what engages the attention of the socio-
viewpoint of religious scepticism by Meyer mindedness is a virtue in the study of society logist. This does not mean that there can be
Fortes, one of the two editors of the sym- and culture, then the comparative method no collaboration between the theologian and
posium volume.8 is an indispensable aid in the cultivation of the sociologist, which there has been, with
There are two important features of the that virtue. very fruitful results as in the case of Ernst
sociological approach on which I would like We have to distinguish between the aspira- Troeltsch the theologian and Max Weber the
to make a few observations; both features tions of the comparative method and its sociologist.'3 That collaboration deserves
are common to sociology and social anthro- achievements. Where individual or coilective attention, for it brings to light not only the
pology. The first is the extensive use of the biases were thrown out by the front door, differences of perspective, but also the
comparative method; and the second is the they sometimes crept in through the back possibility of a reciprocity of perspectives.
investigation of religious beliefs, practices door. For Durkheim and his generation, the Although their intellectual interests
and institutions in relation to other aspects comparative method went hand in hand with overlapped, Weber stressed the differences
of society and culture. a belief in the theory of evolution. Hence, in orientation between himself and Tloeltsch.
while all religions might be investigated by Despite his considerable erudition in mat-
The comparative method is central to the
discipline of sociology and, as such, to the the same method, some were regarded as ters relating to Christian doctrine, he spoke
sociology of religion. As Emile Durkheim, more evolved or more elevated than others. of himself as a non-expert working at
one of the key figures in the subject, wrote, Weber too differentiated among religions ac- second-hand, and of Troeltsch as the expert
"Comparative sociology is not a special cording to their degree of rationalisation, best equipped to provide an authoritative
branch of sociology; it is sociology itself:'9 placing primitive magical practices at one view.14 But he obviously believed that the
Radcliffe-Brown, who was a follower of end and Protestant Christianity at the other. 'non-expert' had an important part to play
Durkheim, spoke of social anthropology as Evolutionary theories are no longer as in clarifying the relationship of religion to
comparative sociology. This of course does popular as in the past, but this does not economy and society, and in examining that
not mean that sociologists devote themselves mean that personal or ethnocentric bias has relationship comparatively. He probably felt
only to comparisons between different been completely eliminated from the socio- that, as a sociologist, he could deal better
religious systems. In fact, most sociologists logical study of religion. with non-Christian religions than Troeltsch
and social anthropologists spend most of Theology stands at the opposite end from whose expertise lay in the field of Christian
their time in making detailed gtudies of par-sociology in its orientation to the plurality theology. Is
ticular religions, and both Durkheim and of religions. At least in its classical form, its Weber also took an interest in the prac-
Radcliffe-Brown are best known for their concern was with a particular religion which tical side of religion through his association
case studies, of the Australian Aborigines byit singled out for special attention: there was with the Evangelical-Social Congress. He
the first and the Andaman Islanders by the thus Christian theology-and within it Pro- gave freely of his time and counsel to Pastor
second.'0 But the case studies do not stand testant theology and Catholic theology- Naumann who believed that in Germany the
by themselves; they derive their significance or Judaic theology or Islamic theology. reform of religion could not succeed without
from the comparative perspective that is 'Theology will defeat its original purpose if
the reform of politics, and in particular the
characteristic of the discipline as a whole. it places all religions on the same plane, for incorporation of the working class to full
Both Durkheim and Radcliffe-Brown that purpose was to establish the truth of citizenship. What these relationships bring
believed that the application of the com- one religion and expose the errors of others. out is that there are not only many kinds of
parative method would enable them to The theologian wriz-s about religion from sociologists but also many kinds of theolo-
discover general laws about society and its within; it is difficult to think of a Christian gians. Not all sociologists are militant
institutions, including its religious institu- who is an Islamic theologian or a Hindu atheists or ostentatiously irreligious, and
tions. They believed that sociology and who is a Christian theologian. Again, as Weber certainly was neither. Nor are all
social anthropology could be developed in Bourdillon has put it, "Theologians are part theologians intransigent dogmatists, con-
the manner of the natural sciences. Their of the tradition they study, and must be con- cerned only with the letter of the creed, and,
strategy was to proceed in a systematic way vinced that their rituals have the effects that indeed, Tleltsch, who was a liberal from the
through observation, description and com- they want them to have."'2 The sociologist, beginning, moved in mid-career and on his

1866 Economic and Political Weekly August 29, 1992

This content downloaded from 202.142.177.13 on Mon, 01 Jul 2019 06:26:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
own choice from a chair in theology to one ed to'his action in every sphere of society: takes over from the anthropologist" ;
in philosophy. The point is not that no what did it mean for the priest or the pro- But Evans-Pritchard did not rest content
sociologist can be a religious believer andphet no to choose and pursue a particular way for very long with the division of labour that
theologian a religious skeptic, but that there of life? And, beyond that, what meaning didhe seemed to be proposing between anthro-
are characteristic differences of orientation the world itself have from the viewpoint of pology and theology at the end of his book
between sociology and theology as disciplines. a given religion? At the same time, Weber on Nuer religion. With the passage of time,
Sociological studies of religious beliefs, never neglected to compare and contrast, he became increasingly sceptical about the
practices and institutions vary enormously with the maximum possible detachment, the contribution that social anthropology and
in scope and emphasis. Some are based on answers given to this question in different sociology could make to the understanding
the analysis of literary materials relating to religious traditions. He also examined of religion. In his Aquinas lecture, delivered
large populations over long stretches of time; systematically and with the greatest possi- before a Catholic audience, he launched an
others are based on direct observation of life ble care the material and other external con- attack on anthropological studies of religion,
in small communities. Some deal mainly ditions associated with various religious accusing their authors of bad faith.2 A lit-
with religious phenomena; others deal with beliefs and practices. tle later, he repeated the same attack on
them only insofar as they bear upon some Collaboration between sociologists and sociological theories of religion, accusing
other aspect of life which is the primary ob- theologians has never been free from pro- Durkheim of having roughly the samne pers-
ject of attention. There are studies of the blems since it is never very easy to reconcile pective on religion as Marx and Engels.2'
religious life of natural communities such the committed and the detached points Evans-Pritchard's later writings on
as the village or the tribe, and studies of of view. Among radical social theorists, religion reveal a very great anthropologist in
specifically religious associations such as theDurkheim has been represented as a conser- a very poor light. I allude to them not out
church or the sect. vative who assigned too much importance of ill-will, but in order to suggest that there
to religion. It is true that Durkheim assigned might be a possible connection between his
A good example of the sociological ap-
great importance to religion in social life andincreasing attachment to the Catholic faith
proach is the study of religion and society
rebuked his empiricist colleagues, particular-and his growing disaffection with the
among the Coorgs of South India by M N
ly in the Anglo-Saxon world, for treating itsociology of religion. His own early essay,
Srinivas. 6 The principal objective of the
lightly. But for Durkheim, religion is impor- 'Zande Theology' of 1936 was a masterly
book is to give a coherent account of a
tant not because it is true but because it is demonstration of how such a meticulous
system of religious beliefs and practices in
useful, whereas for the theologian, the im- observer as the Dominican priest, Mgr
its social context. As such, it begins with an
portance of religion lies in its truth and not Lagae had arranged his ethnographic facts
outline of social structure and then proceeds
in its utility. to fit a theologically convenient argument,
to give an account of the ritual idiom of the
The Catholic church in France viewed creating a religious doctrine where none ex-
Coorgs. The central part of the book deals
with cults of the various social units, such Durkheim's work quite differently fromisted.22
the He had begun from the position
way in which it has come to be viewed that social anthropologists and sociologists
as household, village and region, which con-
among sociologists. His book was attacked must not claim that they can tell us every-
stitute the principal components of Coorg
social structurm The book concludes with in a long review article by Gaston Richard, thing about religion; in course of time, he
some general observations on the relation- entitled 'Dogmatic Atheism in the Sociologyfound such claims as they were making to
of Religion' Richard maintained, "In the be increasingly intolerable; in the end, he
ship between religion and society.
end, it is incontrovertible that this sociology cane very close to the position that they can
Srinivas later elaborated the distinction of religion (ssodologie religieuse), as it is call-
tell us nothing about religion in the true
between the 'book-view' and the 'field-view' ed, is incompatible not only with Christian sense of the term, or at least nothing of any
of society. In terms of that distinction, his faith, but even with philosophical theism, real value.
work on the Coorgs gives us a field-view of and indeed with any belief that recognises,
The sociology of religion always, and
Hinduism. There are innumerable accounts hypothetically at least, a divine personali- perhaps necessarily, comes to grief when it
in the ancient, medieval and modern lite- ty."18 Gaston Richard was not a theologian, moves beyond its proper empirical concerns
rature of Hinduism that tell us how religious but had begun his career as a member of
under the urge to decide on the truth or
institutions ought to work. Srinivas was less Durkheim's Annee sociologique circle. He
otherwise of a religious doctrine. Whether
interqted in discussing how they ought towas, however, a believing Christian who, or not Ram was the ideal man; whether
work than in showing how they actually though born in a Catholic family, had con-Mohammed was a true or a false prophet;
work. Such an account might be of con-
verted to the Protestant faith. Many years and whether Christ died in vain or for the
siderable interest to a theologian, but it later,
is a similar attack against Durkheim's redemption of humankind are questions that
not one that the typical theologian would sociology of religion was launched by are beyond the purview of the sociology of
himself writ
another former admirer, E E Evans-Prit- religion in the sense given to it here. But that
In studying religion, the sociologist or chard. Evans-Pritchard had in his religious does not mean that it has nothing of interest
social anthropologist tries to observe and life travelled the same road as Gaston to say about the place of religion in man's
describe how people act as well as to under- Richard, but in the opposite direction is social life.
stand and interpret the meanings they assignfather was a minister of the Prote tant
to their acts. There are important differenceschurch, but he had found his faith by em-
Ill
of emphasis here. Durkheim, for instance, bracing Catholicism.
believed in attdnding first and foremost to One of the arguments of both Richard I now return to Max Weber and, in the
the external, obs*vable characteristics of and Evans-Pritchard was that Durkheim had light of his work, make some general obser-
socal facts before attending to their inneroverreached himself, that he was claiming vations on approach and method in social
meanings. In much the same vein, Radcliffe- too much for his sociology of religion. enquiry. It is Max Weber's sociology of
Brown wrote in his Foreword to the book byEvans-Pritchard, himself the author of one religion, more than anyone else's, that has
Srinivas, "Social anthropology is behaviouri-of the finest anthropological monographs lessons to offer for sociology as a whole
stic in the sense that we seek to observe how on religion, addressed himself to this very from the viewpoint of method.
people act as a necessary preliminary to try-difficult question at the end of his book. There is something paradoxical about the
ing to understand how they think and After describing what the social anthro- life and work of Max Weber, his concern
feel" 7 pologist is able to observe and how far he with meaning and understanding on the one
Others have placed their emphasis else- is able to proceed towards an understand- hand, and with objectivity and value-
where~ For Weber, it was always importanting of the inner meaning of what he observes,neutrality on the other. Web%r had very littl
to enquire into the meaning the actor assign- he concluded, "At this point the theologian patience for the kind of nlatural science o

Economic and Political Weekly August 29, 1992 1867

This content downloaded from 202.142.177.13 on Mon, 01 Jul 2019 06:26:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 socety that fascinated Durkheim; he argued would question the advantage to be derived neutrality. At the same time, I remain un-
untiringly for an interpretive sociology. He from objectivity, detachment and value- convinced that it is in principle either easier
produced an enormous body of work on neutrality in the study of such secular sub-or more desirable to seek neutrality on mat-
religion; yet he declared that he was "ab- jects as class, gender and nation. They wouldters of religious faith than on matters of
solutely unmusical religiously".23 Surely, it say that it is only through commitment topolitical ideology.
is not unreasonable to ask of a proponent a specific set of moral values-and even a It is undoubtedly the case that neutrality
of iKterpretive sociology how far a person specific political project-that true insight does not come naturally or effortlessly to us
who is religiously unmusical can go in the into these problems can be attained. Com- in the understanding and interpretation of
interpretation of religion? mitment, according to their argument, is our own beliefs, practices and institutions.
No one who declares himself to be reli- desirable not only from the moral and Therefore to require or expect the in-
giously unmusical can possibly claim that vestigator to 'treat social facts as things'
political, but also from the intellectual point
he understands the whole of religion. But of view. The attempt to separate 'methodo-might indeed appear somewhat dis-
is it necessary for the sociologist of religion logy' from 'ideology',25 they would say, ingenuous.
is But that does not mean that the
to make such a claim? That kind of claim both disingenuous and self-defeating. effort itself to achieve neutrality is
will be made only by those who maintain The theoretical foundations of the argu- misconceived. And if my argument is right,
that we must first grasp the whole-or the ment for commitment in social enquiry are it is here that the sociology of politics of the
totality-if we are to understand any of its to be found in the writings of Marx26 and nation, class and gender may have
parts. Weber, it seems to me, would be deeply certain Marxists, such as Lukacs,27 Korsch2s something to learn from the sociology of
mistrustful of such a claim. Most persons and Gramsci,29 particularly in regard to the religion.
in fact understand some bits of life, but few study of class. In all these writings, a kind There are two lessons in particular to
would claim that they understand the whole of privileged place is assigned to the 'view- which I would like to draw attention in con-
of its inner meaning. point of the proletariat'. The position clusion. The first is that value-neutrality, no
Wber's account of himself as "absolutely adopted there is that other representations matter how desirable in principle, is very dif-
unmusical religiously" has to be seen in the of bourgeois society are incomplete and, ficult to achieve in practice, what is achiev-
light of the stand that he took on objectivi- hence, distorted and false; only the viewpoint ed being always incomplete. The exponents
ty and value-neutrality. Value-neutrality in of the proletariat provides access to a com- of value-neutrality do not all assert that the
the study of religion does not mean of plete and, hence, historically true picture ofseparation of fact and value is easy to main-
course that one ignores the part played byreality. tain in a consistent way; some do and others
values in social life; that would be quite con- In an influential essay designed to demo- do not. Here there appears to be a funda-
trary to the spirit of interpretive sociology. lish the foundations of 'value-free' social mental difference between what, for want of
It only means that it should be possible, atscience, Lukacs put forward the case for a better terms, I will call 'scientific sociology
least in principle, to understand religious in- method whose central proposition was the as against interpretive sociology. The ex-
stitutions, religious beliefs and religious unity of theory and practice.30 Similar ponents of the former, among whom we may
practices from the outside, without becom- arguments were put forward at about the include Durkheim, or at least the author of
ing personally committed to the values by same time by Korsch, Gramsci and others.3' The Rules of Sociological Method, tend to
which they are sustained within a given Their approach offered new insights into treat the problem lightly and to suggest that
,religious faith. The understanding and inter- class structure, consciousness and ideology, anyone can solve it provided he has the right
pretation of, for example, Islamic, or Hindu, politics and a host of other subjects. More
or Christian institutions does not require any than that, they put many of the proponents
An inspiration for recreating
moral commitment to the values of Islam of a value-free sociology on the defensive
or Hinduism or Christianity. Or, as Weber with their far-reaching claims about what the social organization
might put it, "One need not have been could be achieved, both theoretically and
Caesar in order to understand Caesar".24 practically, by the method they advocated. NATURE OF INDIAN CULTURE
Most contemporary social theorists would Lukacs and others have maintained that
probably agree that one does not have to there is no way in which true understanding R.N. VYAS Rs. 180
adhere to the tenets of a particular religion of social processes can be reached except
in order to understand the institutions of through an insight into the totality, an
This work is like a win
that religion: the work of Max Weber stands insight that comes, moreover, only when
a glimpse of the fine view of Indian cul-
as a living testimony to that. Indeed, they theory is combined with practice. Socio-
ture can be had. It acquints the reader
would probably recommend a healthy dose logists and social anthropologists have learnt
with all the important aspects of Indian
of religious scepticism and detachment to to be wary of that kind of claim in regard culture:
those who would make religion a subject of to the understanding of religion. Why should
* Literature and Art
sociology. The problem today does not lie they yield to its temptations in regard to the * Astronomy, Astrology and other
there, but elsewhere. If it is possible to understanding of politics? Sciences
understand and interpret religious beliefs It can of course be said that in the modern * Social Philosophy
and practices while being 'religiously un- world, politics is altogether different from
* Philosophy, Religion and Ethics
musical', is it also possible to understand and religion insofar as no one can remain truly
* Psychology in India
interpret political processes and institutions indifferent to the demands of politics
* Religious Philosophy of Kalidasa
while being 'politically unmusical'? The whereas it is possible, and sometimes even * Indian Concept of Education for
great debates in social theory that divide desirable to distance oneself from religion, Rulers
those who subscribe to objectivity, detach-although that point of view will hardly find
* Voltaire and Vedas
ment and value-neutrality from those who favour with the theologian. The attack on
* India and the Peace Ideal
recommend commitment, engagement and detachment, objectivity and value-neutrality
* Aurbindo and the Religion of
partisanship are today not about religion but has often been made on the ground that the
Humanity
about politics. At the same time, the lessonsclaims of their proponents are disingenuous
that social theorists learn from the study of since it is impossible in reality to be wholly
Publishers:
religion cannot be altogether without valueneutral on fundamental political questions,
CONCEPT PUBLISHING COMPANY
for the study of politics. and, therefore, those who profess to be so A /1 5-16, Comm ercial Bloc k. Mohan Garden
No matter what sociologists might agree are in fact promoting a particular cause or
NEW DELHI-i 10059 (India) Ph: 5554042
to abosut the study of religion, many of thema particular interest undern the cover of

1868 Economic and Political Weekly August 29, 1992

This content downloaded from 202.142.177.13 on Mon, 01 Jul 2019 06:26:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
'method' But the exponents of interpretive a certain advantage, at least initially, in mak- for intellectual rigour. But the facts of
sociology do not in general take that view. ing sense of symbols and processes that are religion and politics are different, and have
They do not suggest that there is any sim- not immediately accessible to the external to be treated differently from the material
ple recipe for success in the task which they observer. But religion, politics and other facts investigated by the physicist or the
rther see as being constantly at risk. Max aspects of social life are not merely mattersbiologist. In dealing with them, as in deal-
W*be raised and answered the general ques- of experience, they are also subjects of doc- ing with human beings generally, we have to
tion as follows "Nor need I discuss further trine A doctrine is not always the best guide be governed by considertions not merely of
whether the distinction between empirical to experience and may indeed be an obstacle intellectual rigour but also of fairness.
statements of fact and value-judgments is to it. The virtue of defining objectivity as
'difficult' to make. It iS',32 Evans-Pritchard had reason to castigate fairness is most manifest in the comparative
Not only is the prctice of detachment, his predecessors to the extent that they, or study of religion. The Catholic anthropolo-
objecvity and value-neutrality difticult, but at least some of them, appear to have decid- gist has a right to demand of a person who
those who undertake it ner achiee com- ed in advance that all religions are equally studies Catholicism that he should approach
plete success in their endeavour. This is truefalse, for one might say that that too is a his subject with respect; but he spoils his case
to less in regard to politics than it is in doctz ine But the matter does not rest there, by being peevish in the face of attempts to
regard to religion. It makes the proponents for it is both complex and delicate What deal even-handedly with the Geeta and the
of value-neutrlity permanently vulnerable reWally disturbed Evans-Pritchard was the Bible
to alleations of bad faith and duplicity. But relativism that followed from the successes Without any prejudice to whit is due to
failure to achieve complete success in prac- of comparative studies of language, myth rigour and precision, I would like to stress
tice cannot be a compelling reason for and religion. "This pointed to a relativism the perennial need in social enquiry for ob-
discadisng a pplc Here I will quote what in which Christianity was not the one true jectivity as fairness. It is this need for
Maxime Rodinson, at one time a leading faith but just one religion among others, all fairness in presenting, or at least taking into
Marxist intellectual, wrote at the end of equally false"35 He paid a back-handed account, different points of view that gives
his celebrated biography of the Prophet compliment to Max Mueller for treading to social enquiry its distinctive charactel. The
Mohammed: -"But even if pure objectivity warily on that ground, presumably because hardest part of self-discipline in social en-
is u in , it would be a sophism to sug- he did not wish to fall foul of the Bishop quiry is that which is due to the demand for
gest that it was necessary instead to be of Gloucester who had already condemned fairness. For it is not simply that the same
deliberately partial:'33 lb me it does not attempts 'o put into competition the sacred subject appears different when observed
seem accidental that a Marxist chose to be books of India and the Holy Scriptures' ".3 from different points of view, but, further,
objective rather than partial when he made It should now be clear why I regard the that the viewpoint of the observer must be
religion the subject of his study; but Rodin- matter to be both complex and delicate. constantly matched with that of the actor.
son was an exception, and not very typical While no one can hope to understand the The sociologist can at best bring these
of his generation of Marxists. meaning and significance of a religious various points of view into the open, and
The second lesson that we learn from the belief or practice unless he approaches his present the case for each one of them to the
sociology of religion is that sociology can- subject with concern and sympathy, it is best of his ability. He can be candid about
not provide a complete picture of the world neiver very easy to decide how much of thehis own values; but he cannot set himself up
as a whole in terms of either fact or value concern and sympathy is due to the desire as a judge where questions of ultimate value,
Here again, sociology stands at the opposite for understanding and how much of it to the those of his subjects as well as of other
end from theology, at least in its classical fear of a bishop or some other religious observers, are at issues.
form. It is constantly at odds with all those authority. Parallels will not be difficult to
who represent the world as a unity and find from the domain of politics. While Notes
maintain that there is a single key, within studies of, say, the nation or the working
their reach if not in their grasp, to both [This is a revised version of the O P Kaushik
class undoubtedly benefit from a sympa-
understanding and action. As we have seen, thetic concern for the subject, it sometimes Memorial Lecture delivered at Hindu CoUege
in Delhi on February 20, 1992. 1 am grateful
sociology can say something about religious happens that the concern and the sympathy
to the college for inviting me to deliver the lec-
beliefs, practices and institutions in different are mainly concessions to the demands of
ture, and to Rabi Ray and Ramchandra Guha
places at different times, but very little, if the state and the party.
for their comments on an earlier draft of the
anything, as to whether it is better to be a Being religiously unmusical is not the paper.]
Hindu, a Muslim or a Christian, a believer same thing as being hostile or even unsym-
I Max Weber is the most notable exponent.
or an unbeliever. Likewise, it can say some- pathetic to religion; being sceptical about the
Apart from his well known The Protestant
thing about political processes and institu- historical mission of the proletariat (or of
Ethic and the Rse of Capitalism (London:
tions, but very little of practical utility as to oppressed minorities) need not deprive one Allen and Unwin, 1930), there are The
whether it is better to be a liberal, a conser-
of the capacity for concern and sympathy Religion of China (Glerscoe: The Free Press,
vative or a radical in politics. These latter for their predicament. But sympathy and 1951), Ancient Judaism (Glencoe: The Free
questions may be the most important ones concern need not lead to the adoption of any Press, 1952), and The Religion of India
for a particular individual at a particular particular doctrine in either religion or (Glencoe: The Free Press, 1958).
point of time, but there is no social theory politics. Again, if one asks if it is easy to 2 A R Radcliffe-Brown, The Andaman
that can tell him- which is the best politicalcombine sympathy and concern for one's Islanders, Cambridge, Cambridge Univer-
ideology just as there is none that can tell subject with detachment and objectivity, the sity Press, 1922; E E Evans-Pritchard, Nuer
hfrn which is the best religious faith. answer is that it is not. Religion, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956.
I would not like my argument to be con- The demand for objectivity in the social 3 This approach is well represented in the
strued to mean that a Catholic or a Com- sciences is most typically made in the name journal, History of Religions, published by
munist cannot be a sociologist or that he can of intellectual rigour. lb treat social facts as the University of Chicago Press; see also
at best be a poor one. - A Catholic may things is to place oneself on the same footing Mircea Eliadce, A History of Religious Ideas,
indeed have certain advantages when he with them that the physicist or the biologist Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982,
2 vols.
studies religion and a Communist when he secures with respect to the facts that he or
4 David Hume, The Natural History of
studies politics, but it is necessary to pointshe investigates. Here objectivity is viewed
Religion, Stanford: Stanford University
out that these advantages can be easily abus- as the separability of the investigator from
Press, 1957; Discourses Concerning Natwral
ed. It is not unlikely that those who have the object of investigation, and the clearer
Religion, Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing
dirc experience of religion and politics have the separation, the greater the presumed gain-
Co., 1980.

Economic and Political Weekly August 29, 1992 1869

This content downloaded from 202.142.177.13 on Mon, 01 Jul 2019 06:26:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 S Edward Gibbon, A History of the Decline Notebooks, New York: International sworth: Nnguin Books, 1973, pp 312-3.
and Fall of the Roman Empre London: Publishers, 1971. 34 The argu ment has been made in the ps
Dent, 1910, especiay vol 2. 30, Lukacs, History and Class Conxiousn, that a Marxist cannot or en -should not
6 William James, The Varieties of Religious n 27, pticlarly the firs essay, 'What Is be a sociologist. See for instanc, L
E.qprience, London: Macnillan, 1961. Orthodox Marxism?' Goldmann, 'Y a-t-il une sociolo ma-
7 M F C Bourdilon and M Fortes (eds), 31 Outside of orthodox Marxism, but always iste?' Lcs tentps mod^ no 140, October
Scrifce, London: Academic Books, 1980, sympathetic to it is Jean-Paul Sartre, Sewch 1957. See also my 'Is Ther a Marxli A*-
p4. for a Method, New York: Alfred Knopf, thropology?' in A Beteille, EwyshI Cern
8 Ibid. pp v-xix. 1963. pwatiw Sodobg, Dehi: Oxford Un1veis-
9 Emile Durkheim, The Rules of Sociogwic 32 Max Wbe, 7he MethodoloV of the Soil ty Press 1987.
Method, London: cmillan, 1982, p 157. Scinces, New York: The Free Press, 1949, 35 Evans-Pritchard, Ewys in Social An
10 Radcliffe-Brown, 7he An a Islanders p9. thropology, n, 20, p 35.
n 2 Emie Durkheim 7The Elementary 33 Maxime R n, Mohnmed, Harmond- 36 Ibid.
Form qf the Religuw Life, London: Alen
and Unwin 1915.
11 Durkheim, The Rules of Sociologial
Method, n 9; Radcliffe-Brown, A Natural
Scinc of Sockfy, Glene Th Free Press, FORD FOUNDATION POST-DOCIrORAL
1957.
RESEARCH FELLOWSHIPS
12 Bowudillou and Fortes (eds) Sacrire, n 7,
p 6. IN ECONOMICS
13 Wolfgsang J Mommsen and Jurgen Oster-
hamme (ed), Max Weber and his Contem-
poraris, London: Allen and Unwin, 1987, Applications are invited for overseas post-doctoral research fellowships
chapter 15; see also Marianne Weber, Max in economics (maximum non-extendable duration of 12 months) for the 5th
Weber. A Biography, New York: John round of selection of scholars. These fellowships are tenable at prominent
Wiey, 1975.
14 Mommsen and Osterhammel (eds), Max
foreign universities or economics research institutions and are intended to
Weber and His Contemporaries, n 13, p 221. strengthen research and teaching capabilities in India in Macroconomics,
15 Marane Webe,Max Weber, p 13, p331. International Economics, Public Economics and provide opportunities for
16 M N Srinvas, Religion and Society among Indian scholars to improve their skills in these areas through course work.
the Coorss qf South India, Oxford: Claren-
Proposals of both empirical and theoretical research will be considered.
don Press, 1952.
17 Radciffe-Brown, 'Foreword' in Srinivas, Scholars who are awarded fellowships may be given, on their return home,
Religion and Society, n 16. p vii. financial assistance to follow up research which they would be taking up
18 Gaston Ricad, "Dogmatic Athism in the during the tenure of their fellowship.
Sociology of Religon' in W E S Pickering
(ed), Durkheim on Religion, London: Indian citizens permanently employed in Indian universities, colleges or
Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1975, p 229.
19 Evans-Pritchard, Nuer Religion, n 2, p 322.
research institutions, with a Ph.D. in economics and below 40 years of age
20 Evans-Ptchard, Essay in Social Anthro- as on the last date prescribed for receipt of completed applications, are eligi-
pology, London: Faber and Faber, 1962, ble for these research fellowships. Other things being equal, preference.will
pp 29-45.
be given to candidates teaching in a university or college. However, no one
21 Evans-Pritchard, Theorie of Primitive
Religion, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965, who has already been abroad for professional research/training for a period
chapter 3. of more than four months will be considered for the fellowship.
22 Evans-Pritchard, Essays in Social
Anthropology, n 20, pp 162-203. Only persons holding permanent positions are eligible to apply. The
fellowships will be administered in India by the National Institute of Public
23 In a letter dated February 19, 1909, quoted
m Marianne Weber, Max Weber, n 13, p Finance
324, and Policy. For an application form, please write to the Director,
he wrote, "It is true that I am absolutely
National Institute of Public Finance and Policy at the address below, giving
unmusical eligously and have no need or
ability to erect any psychic edifiocs date
of aof birth; field of primary specialisation in economics; present position;
redigi diat wihin nc But a thomgh Ph.D. thesis title; name of Ph.D. supervisor; thesis abstract, university and
self-examination has told me that I am
date of Ph.D. award; with a stamped (Rs. 4.00) self-addressed envelope of
neither anti-relious nor irreligious".
size 23 cm x 10 cm.
24 Max Weber, Economy and Society,
Berkeley: Univsity of California Press,
* LAST DATES:
1978, vol 1, p S.
25 Here I use the term 'idology' in a broad * Por requesting for application forms: October 3, -1992.
sene, for an attempt to give the term a mor* For receipt by NIPFP of completed applications: November 6, 1992.
pre n see A Betalle, 'Id ies:
Commitment and Parsanship', L'Hom,ne
vol 17, nos 34, 1978, pp 47-67.
26 The most famous cxprsso of this view
is in 'Te Theses on Feuerbachb, written by
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC FINANCE
Marx in 1845, frst published by Engels in AND POLICY
an edited form in 1888, and now available
in various editions. 18/2, Satsang Vihar Marg
27 G Lukacs, History and Class Con- Special Institution Area
sciouse, London: Merlin Press, 1971. New Delhi 110 067
.28 K Korsh, Marxism and Philosophy, New
obrk: MR, 1970.
29 A Orasci, Selections from the Prison

1870 Economic and Ptlitical Weekly August 29, 19

This content downloaded from 202.142.177.13 on Mon, 01 Jul 2019 06:26:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms