Menue phone



Erdoğan und die "Fromme Generation". Religion und Politik in der Türkei

Markus Dreßler

Die Genese des türkischen Säkularismus führt bis in die erste Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts zurück. Schon vor der Etablierung eines säkularen Staates in der frühen Republik Türkei bewegte die Frage des Verhältnisses von Religion und Politik osmanische Staatsmänner und muslimische Intellektuelle. Im Folgenden werden die wesentlichen Stationen dieser Auseinandersetzung nachgezeichnet: von der Entstehung des türkischen Säkularismus über die Etablierung des kemalistischen Laizismus bis hin zur aktuellen Religionspolitik der Partei für Gerechtigkeit und Entwicklung (AKP), die anhand verschiedener aktueller Spannungsfelder verdeutlicht wird. So offenbaren sich trotz inhaltlicher Gegensätze zwischen der postkemalistischen jungen Republik Türkei und der AKP-Ära auch erstaunliche Parallelen.

Dreßler, Markus (2017). "Erdoğan und die "Fromme Generation". Religion und Politik in der Türkei." Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte 9-10: 23-9.

Download pdf

The Social Construction of Reality (1966) Revisited: Epistemology and Theorizing in the Study of Religion

Markus Dreßler

This paper takes the social constructivist approach, formulated by Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann, as a starting point for an investigation into epistemology and theorizing in the contemporary study of religion. It discusses various strands of scholarship in dialogue with social constructivism and questions in particular the reductionism of radical constructivist positions. Exploring the boundaries of the classical social constructivist paradigm, the article argues that students of religion should consider the implication of social, historical, embodied and material structures in the production of knowledge about religion. For that purpose, it draws on various soft realist approaches to stress the importance of remaining attentive to positionality (reflecting on the sites from where we theorize) and contextuality (reflecting on the inter-relation of discourse and materiality) in theorizing “religion”. Finally, the article suggests that soft realist positions can be integrated in a slightly broadened social constructivist framework for the study of religion.

Dreßler, Markus (2017). „The Social Construction of Reality (1966) Revisited: Epistemology and Theorizing in the Study of Religion.” Method and Theory in the Study of Religion (forthcoming).


The Dynamics of Religions and Cultural Evolution: Worshipping Fuxi in Contemporary China

Hubert Seiwert

The paper discusses the theme of the congress ‘Dynamics of Religions’ in the theoretical context of cultural evolution. In contrast to the prevailing progression model of culturalevolution, it proposes adiversification model thatallows for consideringthe dynamics of religions on the micro-level. In this view,a central element of cultural evolution is the dialectical relationship between cultural production and culturalenvironment,which is the outcome of culturalproduction and at the sametime enables and restricts further production. The approach is exemplified by the religious dynamics in contemporary China focusing on the worship of Fuxi in popularand state rituals. The example also serves to illustrate divergent views of what counts as religion.

Keywords: cultural evolution, religious dynamics, China, Fuxi, popular religion, state rituals, ancestor worship

Seiwert, Hubert (2017). “The Dynamics of Religions and Cultural Evolution: Worshipping Fuxi in Contemporary China.” In Dynamics of Religion: Past and Present. Edited by Christoph Bochinger, and Jörg Rüpke, 9–30. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110450934-002.

Download pdf

Niklas Luhmann und die Religionswissenschaft: Geht das zusammen

Christoph Kleine

This article discusses the usefulness of Niklas Luhmann’s systems theory for the study of religion. Postcolonial deconstructivism, sometimes labelled ‘critical religion’, in the style of R. McCutcheon, T. Fitzgerald, and others doubts the applicability of this highly complex and abstract theory as such. Their proponents argue that the idea of an ‘autopoietic’ social system called ‘religion’ is a genuinely modern Western concept by which ‘religion’, as a generic term, is inappropriately projected or imposed onto non-Western and premodern cultures. Furthermore, they claim that Luhmann proposes a sui generis concept of religion. While due to a lack of shared theoretical premises, it seems to be all but impossible to reconcile a systems-theoretical approach to the study of religion with this strand of a radical postcolonial deconstructivism, other critiques of Luhmann’s concept of religion deserve a closer look.

As is well known, Luhmann defines religion as one social sub-system among others (such as politics, economy, sport, law, family, art). Social systems, he claims, are constituted, upheld, and reproduced by communication which demarcates the borders of the respective system and thus generates a system environment. Communication is possible only between the elements within a given system but not between the elements of different systems. Accordingly, Luhmann defines social systems as self-generating, or ‘autopoietic’. Social systems are operationally closed but cognitively open as they perceive irritations from their environment and react to them. Each social system, according to Luhmann, has its own binary code along which all communication within the system is structured. In the case of religion this code is transcendence/immanence. Furthermore, in modern society, Luhmann claims, social systems are primarily differentiated in accordance with their specific functions for society as a whole. The function of religion is to transfer indeterminability (transcendence) into determinability (immanence).
Some sociologists, such as Rudi Laermans and Gert Verschraegen (2001), as well as scholars of religion, such as Peter Beyer (2001, 2006) have criticized Luhmann for defining transcendence/immanence as the religious code. Laermans and Verschraegen accuse Luhmann’s view of religion of being “all too obviously based on the theological self-observations – or the self-descriptions – of (Christian!) religion”. From a somewhat different perspective, Peter Beyer also blames Luhmann’s approach for being deductive and “theological”. He proposes to replace the code transcendence/immanence with the code blessed/damned or salvation/damnation.
In my view both Laermans/Verschraegen and Beyer miss the point because they misinterpret Luhmann’s concept of ‘transcendence’. Not only is Beyer’s code ‘blessed/damned’ much more ‘theologically’ charged than the code ‘transcendence/immanence’. Luhmann repeatedly notes that he uses ‘transcendence’ in a non-theological way, entirely disconnected from religious semantics. ‘Transcendence’ in his theory is simply the horizon of an appresented indeterminability that emerges as soon as communication takes place. Because every communication in every social system by necessity selects between what is chosen (presented) and what is rejected or ignored (but still appresented), it produces an indeterminable remainder, causing uncertainty and irritation. The special social function of the religious system is to deal with this fundamental communicative operation of differentiating between the presented and the appresented. Therefore, to dismiss or replace the binary code transcendence/ immanence means to deprive the religious system of its social function. In my view Luhmann’s functional theory of religion can only work as long as the fundamental premise of transcendence/immanence being the religious code is maintained.
Even though Luhmann’s critics – in my view – clearly misinterpret his theory, it cannot be denied that the application of systems theory in the study of religion poses some serious problems. These problems largely result from the high degree of abstraction of Luhmann’s theory which makes it difficult to relate it to real people. On the other hand, viewed from the perspective of historical discourse analysis, which is based on the assumption that there is no way to go behind the discourse anyway, systems theory may provide valuable heuristic tools and concepts for analyzing emic negotiations regarding the boundary between ‘religion’ and ‘the secular,’ irrespective of the actual usage of the term ‘religion’ in the emic discourses. This is what distinguishes a historical discourse analysis informed by Luhmann’s systems theory from recently proposed approaches of a ‘discursive study of religion’.

Keywords: Luhmann, systems theory, historical discourse analysis, transcendence/immanence function of religion

Kleine, Christoph (2016). “Niklas Luhmann und die Religionswissenschaft: Geht das zusammen?” Zeitschrift für Religionswissenschaft 24/1: 47–82. doi:10.1515/zfr-2016-0005 .


Ancestor Worship and State Rituals in Contemporary China: Fading Boundaries between Religious and Secular

Hubert Seiwert

The paper argues that the distinction between religious and secular realms of society is not as clear-cut in modern societies as it appears in theories of functional and institutional differentiation. The data used are mainly from China with a short excursion to the United States. The starting point is ancestor worship, which is a central element of traditional Chinese religion. The significance of ancestor worship in Chinese history and culture is briefly explained to illustrate on the one hand its central importance as a ritual practice and on the other hand the ambiguities of interpretation. On this basis, some theoretical considerations about the existence of ancestors are presented. This is followed by a report on contemporary temple festivals focusing on the worship of Fuxi, a mythic figure considered to be the first ancestor of the Chinese people. The next step is the description of official state rituals devoted to the worship of the very same mythological hero in contemporary China. Against this backdrop, the last part of the paper discusses the theoretical questions of classification and distinguishing between the religious and the secular.

Keywords: Secularity, ancestor worship, China, state rituals, Fuxi

Seiwert, Hubert (2016). “Ancestor Worship and State Rituals in Contemporary China: Fading Boundaries between Religious and Secular.” Zeitschrift für Religionswissenschaft 24/2: 127–52. doi:10.1515/zfr-2016-0013.

page 1 from 1