Peter Bergers Heretical Imperative - Essay Example

Peter Berger’s “Heretical Imperative” In “The Heretical Imperative,” Peter Berger accepts the challenge that modernity imposes on religion. His contention is that religious thought should be based on inductive reasoning, a process that initiates with human experience and transcends to theological assertions about reality. According to Berger, pluralism presents the crisis into which modernity has exposed religion (Woodhead Heelas & Martin, 2001). Berger focuses on modernity and its implications on religion. The contemporary society is characterized by plurality of institutions, consciousness and choices, which yield uncertainty. According to Berger, pluralism is “a situation in which there is competition in the institutional ordering of comprehensive meanings of everyday life” (Oldmeadow, 2010, p.33). Because of uncertainty, there are unsteady, inconsistent and erratic plausibility structures, particularly those of religion. Berger argues that religion becomes a matter of choice, which he best refers to as a “heretical imperative” (heresy). According to Peter Berger, there are three contemporary responses to the crisis that modernity thrusts religion into, which include deduction, reduction as well as induction. Berger denounces deduction, which entails the reaffirmation of influence of a sacred ritual against secular authority (Esposito, Fasching & Lewis, 2011). He also rejects reductionism, which reinterprets a sacred ritual on the basis of secular authority. In rejecting the two responses, Berger supports the third approach, which is induction. His belief is that the crisis facing religion is a product of the sterile antithesis of neo-orthodoxy and secularism (Woodhead Heelas & Martin, 2001). He believes that by shunning both deductive and reductive approaches and adopting inductive approach, the crisis can be triumphed. In The Sacred Canopy: elements of a sociological theory of religion, Berger explore the relationship between human religion and world-building. The society is presented as dialectic because it is considered as a human invention. Society is produced by man. Also, man is also portrayed as a product of the society. Society precedes human life and also succeeds it. That is, society existed before human birth and will persist after his death. Man cannot exist without society and without man, society cannot exist. This exhibits the dialectic nature of the society. Berger argues that pluralism undermines stable belief (Berger, 1979). Pluralism is the cause of secularisation. According to Berger, the basic dialectic process of society entails three steps. These include externalisation, objectivation as well as internalisation. The three moments are crucial for effective comprehension of empirical dimension society. Externalisation refers to “the ongoing outpouring of human being into the world, both in the physical and the mental activity of men” (Berger, 1979, p. 4). Objectivation refers to the achievement by the products of man’s activity of an authenticity that faces its initial makers. Internalisation on the other hand, refers to men’s manipulation of reality, in which they change the reality into structures of objective and subjective consciousness. Externalisation is a prerequisite for anthropology. It deals with the biological development of man, where he interacts with extra-organic surrounding of both physical human worlds. Human being must create his own world. As such, the world-building activity does not qualify as a biological superfluous occurrence, but a direct product of man’s biological composure. Man creates his own world through biological means. This human world is characterized by uncertainty unlike animals’ world. Because humanly established structures tend to be unstable, man creates culture to ensure stable structure that cannot be attained biologically. However, culture needs to be progressively changed by man. The instability of cultural structures posses a significant challenge to man’s process of world-building. Culture is objective and guides the inanimate and the animate (Esposito, Fasching & Lewis, 2011). According to Cochran (2004), Berger holds that individuals’ thoughts roam liberally across cultural boundaries. The consequence of modernity is pluralism and not secularisation. Individuals are enabled to choose what to believe rather than inherit the beliefs. The society dictates the manner in which people behave and imposes punishments for unwanted human conduct. As such, society has the capacity to destroy a person. Human roles are determined by the society, which also assigns human identity (Berger, 1979). Social objectivation, which is a product of externalisation, confronts consciousness. In the dimension of internalisation, the society operates as a decisive entity for human being consciousness. After internalisation, people rely on the objectivated world as an inner factor to human consciousness as well as external reality. Socialisation presents a big challenge for the society in transmitting its objectivated meanings to future generations. Socialisation teaches fresh generations how to cope with institutional plans of the society. The balance between the objective and subjective worlds determines the success of socialisation. If any of the steps or moments, for instance internalisation, fails to occur, the presented image of the society becomes a distorted one. The processes of internalisation, externalisation and objectivation are all interconnected in the overall dialectic world. Cosmisation refers to the recognition of humanly consequential world. Modernity has resulted into secular attempts at cosmisation. Religion has been pivotal in human world-building. Religion is a brave move to understand the universe as a vital phenomenon to humanity (Berger, 1979). Modernity can be defined as the high ratio between lifeless and living. Technology forms the core of modernisation. The definition of modernity makes it to appear more like a summation of traits, which portray distinct frequencies in history. The traits encompass variety of human concerns that are aggregated by technology. The existence of a person occurs under some external conditions such as technology, economy as well as political structures. However, some of these external factors become internalized. Internalisation is a situation in which one is perceived to have been lucky through modern consciousness. The situation of modern life and reasoning is not determined by external forces, but the modern consciousness, which aligns internal world of people. As such, establishing the link between external and internal dimensions of modernity is one of the most crucial areas of assessment (Berger, 1967). In the explanation of the connection between internal and external situations, (Berger, 1967) argues that the two form an integral part of technology. In his illustration, a person who uses a telephone (external fact) to communicate with another must learn how to use the gadget, which is externalisation. Similarly, the person must master some ways of thinking-internalisation. Every person in the modern world is positioned within the structures of modern consciousness. Similar to modernity, modern consciousness is an external factor, which is a sophisticated summation of numerous elements. The existence of multiple choices is one of the features that are inseparable with modernity (Esposito, Fasching & Lewis, 2011). Modern consciousness entails a “movement from fate to choice” (Berger, 1967, p.10). Pre-modern man’s life was dictated immensely by fate. Technology brought in so many choices that were never available before. Also, the life of a pre-modern man was also dictated by tradition such that even if many choices prevailed, he would most likely remain within the confines of traditions. Traditional society has clear traditions guiding the actions of its members. According to (Berger, 1967), modernity replicates choices and concurrently diminishes the scope of what is perceived as destiny. As concerns religion, like other aspects of human life, the modern man has both chances and the necessity to choose what he or she believes. This logic is what amounts to the heretical imperative in the modern state. Heresy becomes universal “once the occupation of marginal and eccentric types, a much more general condition” (Berger, 1967, p.28). References Berger, P.L. (1967).The Sacred Canopy: elements of a sociological theory of religion. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Berger, P.L. (1979). The heretical imperative: contemporary possibilities of religious affirmation. Garden City (N.Y.): Anchor Press. Cochran, P. (2004). Evangelical feminism: a history. New York: New York University Press. Esposito, J.L., Fasching, D.J. & Lewis, T. (2011). World Religions Today, 4th Ed. Oxford University Press. Oldmeadow, H. (2010). Crossing religious frontiers. Bloomington, Ind.: World Wisdom. Woodhead, L., Heelas, P. & Martin, D. (2001). Peter Berger and the Study of Religion. New London: Routledge. Read More