Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-21T21:22:23.580Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reflexive Traditions: Anthony Giddens, High Modernity, and the Contours of Contemporary Religiosity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2008

Philip A. Mellor
Philip A. Mellor
Affiliation:
Department of Theology and Religious Studies, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The following discussion is an attempt to make an initial assessment of the value to Religious Studies of certain aspects of the social theory of Anthony Giddens. I suggest that debates centred on the nature of ‘high’ or ‘late’ modernity have substantial implications for the study of contemporary religion. The theoretical work of Giddens encourages us to reconsider the nature of ‘tradition’ as it is expressed and deployed in modern religious contexts. He notes the centrality of ‘reflexivity’ in modernity and suggests that traditions which have passed through the reflexive filterings and critical questions of modernity should be called ‘sham traditions’. In the following discussion I explore this argument, and outline the potential value of a great deal of it to the scholar of contemporary religion. Nevertheless, I also suggest that we should talk not of ‘sham’ traditions but merely of ‘reflexive’ ones. I argue that the incorporation of modern reflexivity into religious traditions does not mean that they become false representations of traditions which have, in actuality, been discarded. On the contrary, I suggest that reflexive traditions can provide new, dynamic forms for the expression and development of religion within the context of high modernity. In the course of this discussion, I hope to establish the value of the term ‘reflexive traditions’ for scholars of modern religion.

Type
Research Article
Information
Religious Studies , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , March 1993 , pp. 111 - 127
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Habermas, , ‘Modernity – An Incomplete Project’, in Foster, H., ed., Postmodern Culture (London: Pluto Press, 1989).Google Scholar

2 Owens, , ‘The Discourse of Others: Feminists and Postmodernism’, in Foster, op. cit. pp. 57–82.Google Scholar

3 Habermas, op. cit. p. 6.

4 Foster, , ‘Postmodernism: A Preface’, op. cit. pp. xi–xii.Google Scholar

5 Giddens, , The Consequences of Modernity (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1990), pp. 45–6.Google Scholar

6 Ibid. p. 47.

7 Ibid. p. 178.

8 Ibid. p. 50.

9 Ibid. pp. 2–3.

10 Ibid. p. 3.

11 Giddens, , Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991), pp. 20–1.Google Scholar

12 Ibid. p. 21.

13 Giddens, op. cit. 1990, p. 38.

14 Ibid. p. 39.

15 Bauman, , Intimations of Postmodernity (London: Routledge, 1992), p. viii.Google Scholar

16 Giddens, , ‘Uprooted signposts at century's end’, The Higher, 17 01 1992, p. 21.Google Scholar

17 Giddens, , op. cit. 1991, p. 175.Google Scholar

18 Ibid. This attention to human empowerment is reflective of wider theoretical concerns which are central to Giddens's social theory. His much debated ‘structuration theory’ is centred on a particular analysis of human agency, which examines the tensions between social ‘constraints’ and ‘enablements’ with reference to a ‘duality of structure’. He distinguishes between the social structure, the paradigmatic rules and resources of a society, and the social system, which is the set of interactions between human agents in a particular time and space. Stressing the knowledgeability of social actors, Giddens argues that even the paradigmatic social structure which constrains human agency is itself created and sustained through the ‘recursive’ activities of individual and collective human agents. (Cf. Giddens, , The Constitution of Society (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1984)Google Scholar for his major outline of structuration theory. For criticisms of it, see Archer, , Culture and Agency (Cambridge: C.U.P., 1988);Google ScholarBryant, and Jary, , Giddens' Theory of Structuration (London: Routledge, 1991);Google Scholar and Mouzelis, , ‘Restructuring Structuration Theory’, The Sociological Review, XXVII, 4 (1989).Google Scholar)

19 Giddens, , op. cit. 1990, p. 53.Google Scholar

20 Ibid. p. 37.

21 Ibid. pp. 37–8.

22 Giddens, op. cit. 1991, p. 82.

23 Ibid. p. 83.

24 Ibid.

25 Ibid.

26 Cf. Goffman, , The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (London: Penguin, 1969);Google ScholarMellor, , ‘Regionalisation and the Theology of Space’, New Blackfriars, LXXIII, 860 (05 1992).Google Scholar

27 Cf. Mellor, , ‘Protestant Buddhism? The Cultural Translation of Buddhism in England’, Religion, XXI (1991);Google ScholarMellor, , ‘The FWBO and Tradition: A Reply to Dharmachari Kulananda’, Religion, XXII (1992).Google Scholar

28 Ibid. p. 87.

29 Giddens, , op. cit. 1990, p. 38.Google Scholar

30 Shils, , Tradition (London: Faber and Faber, 1981).Google Scholar

31 Hill, , The Religious Order (London: Heinemann, 1973).Google Scholar

32 Weber, , ‘Luther's Concept of the Calling’, in Robin Gill, ed., Theology and Sociology: a Reader (London, Geoffrey Chapman, 1987), p. 28.Google Scholar

33 Mellor, , op. cit. 1991, 1992.Google Scholar

34 Cf. Schopen, , ‘Archaeology and Protestant Presuppositions in the Study of Indian Buddhism’, The History of Religions, XXXI, 1 (1991).Google Scholar

35 Shepard, , ‘“Fundamentalism’ Christian and Islamic', Religion, XVII (1988).Google Scholar

36 Giddens, , op. cit. 1991, p. 75.Google Scholar For further discussion of this area of Giddens's work cf. Mellor, and Shilling, , ‘Modernity, Self-Identity and the Sequestration of Death’, Sociology (1993), forthcoming.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

37 Ibid. pp. 75–6.

38 Ibid. p. 76.

39 This is a point also made by Stauffer, D. A., English Biography before 1770 (New York: Russell and Russell, 1964),Google Scholar and Tambiah, S. J., The Buddhist Saints of the Forest and the Cult of Amulets (Cambridge: C.U.P., 1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

40 Giddens, , op. cit. 1991, p. 79.Google Scholar

41 Lawless, , ‘Rescripting their Lives and Narratives: Spiritual Life Stories of Pentecostal Women Preachers’, Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion, VII, (1991).Google Scholar

42 Titon, J. T., ‘The Life Story’, Journal of American Folklore, XCIII (1980), p. 190.Google Scholar

43 Lawless, , op. cit. p. 61.Google Scholar

44 Ibid.

45 Ibid. p. 70.

46 Ibid. pp. 58–9.

47 Ibid. p. 61.

48 Ibid. p. 71.

49 Giddens, , op. cit. (1990), p. 53.Google Scholar

50 Cf. Martin, David, Some Utopian Aspects of the Concept of Secularisation', International Yearbook for the Sociology of Religion, II (1966); Robin, Gill, Competing Convictions (London: SCM Press, 1989).Google Scholar

51 Beckford, J. A., Religion and Advanced Industrial Society (London: Unwin Hyman, 1989), p. 31.Google Scholar

52 Ibid. p. 33.

53 Wilson, , Contemporary Transformations in Religion (London: O.U.P., 1976), p. 1.Google Scholar

54 Giddens, op. cit. 1990, p. 7.

55 Wilson, op. cit. 1976, p. viii.

56 Giddens, op. cit. 1991, p. 2.

57 Archer, op. cit. 1988, p. 87.