Douglas, M. Passive Voice in Religious Sociology

7/30/2019 Douglas, M. Passive Voice in Religious Sociology

1/12

Religious Research Association, Inc.

Passive Voice Theories in Religious SociologyAuthor(s): Mary DouglasSource: Review of Religious Research, Vol. 21, No. 1, Theory and Policy (Autumn, 1979), pp.51-61Published by: Religious Research Association, Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3510155 .

Accessed: 14/08/2013 13:08

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.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 [email protected].

.

Religious Research Association, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Review of Religious Research.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 144.92.120.137 on Wed, 14 Aug 2013 13:08:21 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rrahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3510155?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3510155?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rra


2/12

51The1978H. PaulDouglass ecturePASSIVE VOICE THEORIES IN RELIGIOUS SOCIOLOGY

MARY DOUGLASRussellageFoundationReview fReligious esearch,ol.21,No. 1 (Fall, 1979): 51-61

"Passive Voice Theories"nclude ll sociological nd psychologicalapproacheswhichmply passivehuman bject nfluenced y mper-sonalforces. hispaper rgues hat sociology f religion hich ur-ports o takeaccount fhuman ntentionsnddo justice o individualbeliefs an develop n active voice theoreticalpproach.Thiswouldproceed y tracinghe ccountabilityystems hich ndividualsevelopwhentheymake claims gainst ach other, nd which hey einforcebyappealsto unseen owers r attributesf thepersonality.ccount-ability ystems est on moralassumptionsut can be investigatedanthropologicallyy testedmethods. heycan provide basis forobjectiveomparisonf beliefs etweenifferentultures.A widerange fcriticismsfsociologyndpsychologygree n protest-ing againstmechanisticroceduresnd naive determinism. ne form fcomplaints that the theoreticalpparatus reats hehumanagentas apassivearena in which mpersonal orcesare allegedto contend.Thepassivityttributedo theagentgivesme mytitle ndfocuses questionI wishto address bout the relations etweenanguage nd theory. omeof thesecriticsmaintain hat f terminologyere to be changed, ightthinking ouldfollow. I do notagreethat switchnto,he activevoicein speakingbout he human gent s enough; here tillwouldhaveto benewtheoreticalpproacheso match he new form f language."Sociologicaldeterminism"tands for an attitude n the part of thesociologist.We can treat t as a kindofbelief, otonenecessarilydoptedbythesociologistersonally,utan attitude hich s implicitn thetermsin which he nquirys set. It assumes, orthesakeofinquiry,hat omesocialforces xternalo the ndividual re acting ponhim. The external

agencies reactive; he ndividuals a passive espondent.he sociologist'sbelief r attitudes itselfikea passive esponseo a theoreticalrameworkwhichrequires t. By usingthis theoreticalramework,he sociologistexpects o carryout an importantociological nterprise. e intends odiscover ndmeasure heextent f socialpressuresponbelief.However, yone of theseveral aradoxesnherento thecase,he can-notuse thetheoreticalrameworko investigateis ownprofessionaltti-tude. Themachineryfanalysis as theseblind pots.It cannot tudyhevalidity f religious eliefs n theway that t is designed o study hevalidity f beliefs hatthe weatherwill change. The methods f naturalscienceseemto have thisdisadvantagen religioustudies: theycannotsay anythingboutsubjectivexperience.This givesthesociology f re-ligionfourfamousdisadvantages.t is intended orstudyingeliefs, et

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/12

52beliefs re what t cannot tudy. t is intendedoibe objective, ettheobserver'sias belittleshe status f the belief. t tries o studymeaning,by a method hatreducesmeaning o behavioral esponse.And,it elimi-natesthe subject s an activeagent. The dignityf thehuman ubjectand of the beliefs spousedby himare both reduced o epiphenomenaldisturbancesf a normal tate. The social causes of beliefs re just ascrude a bludgeon s thephysiologicalausesof states f mind. In eithercase,theautonomityf thesubject nd thevalidityf thesubject's tate-ments s irrelevantlympugned y a whole system f causation: "Youdon'treallymean t,your ndigestion akesyouirritable;"It is notsur-prisinghatyoushould ubscribeo theEpiscopalchurch, ivenyourup-wardsocialmobility." elieversan certainlyry o shrug ff he nsult,with tuquoque,"You onlybelittlehe activehuman ubject nd distortbeliefs ecauseyou retalkingociology."

Butmud-slingingillnot ave the ociologyfreligion. oo many eriousthinkers orried y thesewell-knownroblems ave givenup thesocio-logical enterpriseltogethernd turned o a literarymode forthinkingmoreprofoundlyn the humanestate. The resulthas been a shift fsociologys a rigorousxplanatoryisciplinento richlyvocativeiterarymode,full of insight nd beauty.However, he new mode completelyshirks he nitial roject fdiscoveringnd estimatinghepowerof socialpressures pon individual elief. A century f sociological ndeavor srolled back and, insteadof analysis,we are offeredssaysthat are asabsorbingnd elegant s excerptsmight e fromWar and Peace, TheBrothersKaramazov, even Pride and Prejudice in modern dress. The oldsociological uestionsboutbeliefie rustilyn theshelf.PROPOSAL

If we are to staywith heoriginalmportantroblems-assessingocialfactors n belief-we needto changeour theoreticaltanceand our lan-guageas well. The problems notconfined o thesociology f religion.Socialpsychologynd thesociology fknowledgeoth tudy ocialfactorsin belief nd botharewithout strongheoreticalpproach.An agnosticor deterministiciewdoesnotundermineheirwork o drastically. heycan honorablyhipawayat part-problems.ut the troubles muchmoreacutefor thesociology f religionhan foranyotherbranch f inquirybecause t losesall itsclaims o serious cholarshipnless t can surmounttheseveraldifficultiesimultaneously.or can religioustudies e greatlyhelpedby those who believethat careful ttentiono an activevoiceterminologyillbe enough o turn hedirectionfthoughtowards akinginto ccount heautonomousuman gentntheanalysis.This belief, hat anguage s stronglyeterminantf thought,ddressesour problemsn what can be called the passivevoice. It is almostaparableforthis ssay. It assumes,mplicitly,hat o correct he anguagewill correct hethinking: he thinkers reduced o a passiveelementowhom inguistichings appen. t is another xemplificationf the errorwe are examining. he hidden ssumptions thatthe speakerdoes not



4/12

53exert n independentontrol verhisthought;tis channellednddirectedby thestructuref his language. Onlyone stepremoved rom ulturaldeterminism,peechdeterminisms an uncomfortablessumptionwithwhich o attackmechanistic,eterministichinkingn the social sciences.I would ike to takeRoySchafer'shallengingookThe New LanguageofPsychoanalysis1976) as a modelforthisdiscussion. chafers fullyapprised f theseproblemsnd has expressedhemveryforcefully. ow-ever,his ownsolutions to change hevocabulary.He maintains hat ftheform fwords ives iveagents hecredit or heir wnactions, learerthinkingndbetterheorizing ill result.Most ofhisexamples ftheuseof thepassivevoice comefrom hepsychoanalystn theclinical ontext,whenthepatients given mechanistic odel of theselfstrugglingithextraneousorces.The analystwill saymildly:"You brokethroughheinternal arriers gainstyour feelings f love." Since Schaferdoes notbelieve n internal arriers,he new action anguagethathe advocateswould ay nstead:"You finallyid notrefrainrom ctingovingly,"huspinning n thepatienthe fullresponsibilityor his ownemotions.Usingpassivevoicelanguage heanalystwillsay: "Your chronic eep senseofworthlessnessomes fromthe condemningoice of yourmother."ButSchafer oesnotbelieve hat hevoiceofthemothers really here.Actionlanguagewould translate:"You regularlymagineyourmother's oicecondemningou,andyou, agreeing ith t,regard ourselfs being ssen-tiallyworthless." assiveanalyticanguage ays: "You are afraid fyourimpulse o throw aution o the winds." Schafer oesnotbelieve n im-pulses s entities o be afraid f anymore hanhe believes n barriers,ohis ctionanguage etranslates.

Shafer xpects areful dherence o action anguagewill pin responsi-bilitywhere t belongs. t recognizeshe human gency f will and pur-pose. It wouldaccuratelyonvey sychoanalytichinkingnstead f con-doning rcolluding ith hepatient's ish o denyhis own ntentions.orexample:If one ooks t the dea of slipof the ongue' romhe tandpointfdis-claimed ction, ne notices everal acts mmediately:irst,t is beingmaintainedhroughircumlocutionhat t is thetongue, ot theperson,who that)hasslipped-as fthe ongue egulatestsown ctivity.econd,it is beingmaintainedhatwhathashappeneds an accident-a lip-andnot meaningfulxtendedction. . In psychoanalyticractice e do notaccept hese isclaimers.edonotbelievehat here asbeen n accident."(Schafer,976:130)

The slip is not a disruptedction,but a specialkind of action n whichtwo courses re taken imultaneously,orrespondingo ambivalencen thespeaker.Onceactionanguages fullydopted, range fpicturesqueetaphorswillbe dropped,ecause heymisleadinglyllowthespeakero split le-ments ff rom imself,o endow hemwithnitiativendenergy,ndthustodisclaimisownresponsibility.ngeran nolonger etreateds a sub-stance-liquid hen t spills ver, olidwhent crushesr penetratesheconsciousness,r gaseouswhenthechallenges to keepthe lid on it(Schafer,976:281).



5/12

54To love ndact ovinglyre theproperocus or enderinghe deaof ovein actionanguage. aving herebyost ts status s an entitynthis an-guage,ovecan no longermake heworld oround;t can no longer low,grow, rwither;nd t canno longer e lostorfound,herished,oisonedor destroyed . . it is we who glow, ove moreor love less, ove at all orstop oving."Schafer,976:279)The reasonfor radical criticism f the currentanguage n psycho-analysiss thatphysicalciencedeals with orces, auses,determinantsndeffects. t cannotdeal withmeaning ndwith ubjects ntertainingean-ings.The analysis fthehuman syche eeds o focusonsituations, ean-ings,actionsand reasons. These fourterms o-define ach other. Nosituationanbe envisagednless t s interpreteds such orgivenmeaning;norcan it ariseunlesshuman ctionshavecreatedt;nor can the humanactionsbe explained xceptby the nterpretationf situations hichgen-erate easons or cting.This samefoursome hich chafer roposes o putin place ofmecha-nistic auses and forcesnpsychologyilldo well for he quivalentwitchin terminologyn thesociology freligion.ButSchafer llowshimself orest here, hereas ociologymustgo on. Schafer as only he imitedimof reconcilinglinicalpracticewithhighpsychoanalyticheory, roposingthesame anguage oreach. Benefitsurelywouldflow utomaticallyromany such reconceptualizingxercise. But theremust be real concep-tualizing, ot merevocabularyhange. Schafer hinks hat fwe changethe entencesrom hepassive otheactive oice, new theoreticalchemewillemerge.Butthis s surely mistake. irst, e onlyproposeso change

the clinicalpractice f speaking s if to a passivepatient.This will donothingo change hehightheoryfwhichhe is mainly ritical. t alsowill create wkwardnessnd counter-productivetrainn the clinical itu-ation. For thepassivevoice correspondso a particularocial intention.Sociologistswho use mechanisticheories nd passivevoice language nrespect f individual eliefs lso have an explicit ntentionet by theirtheories. he psychoanalystnhisclinichas a social situationo dealwith,whichwouldgetout of hand fhe wereto use activevoice language orexplainingo thehypersensitiveatienthefull xtent fhisownresponsi-bility.An activevoicetheory f therelation f words o thought ouldtakesystematicccount f the ntentionsf speakerswhohave chosen ouse thepassive oiceto describe heir wnthinking. o,hearSchaferub-scribingo a passivevoicetheory f language onvinces ne that hinkingtheproblemhroughequiresmore heoreticalnergy, ore uestioningndrethinkingf thebasisof the tudyhanhe is preparedogive t this tage.

ANALYSISI will illustrateurtherhe contrast etweenpassiveand active voicetheories y drawing n impressionisticontrast etweenMuller's 1873)

theory f the diseaseof language nd Whorf's1956) theory f there-strictionslacedby anguagenthought.



6/12

55Mullervs.WhorfMuller, hegreat hilogist,asbecome n antique uriositynthehistoryofreligion. is theorybouthowsomepeculiar eligious eliefs riginatedis relevant ere.Mullerneverdoubted hehumanpower o reach piritualheights f imaginationr to conceive bstract deas.He was prepared ocredit umanswith uchpowers.nsofar s thegodsof classical ntiquitywere lleged obehavewithustice nddecorum, efeltno needtoexplainreligious eliefs y any pathologicalendency. ut to explain tories bouttheirmorediosyncraticnd usty eats, edeveloped is heoryfmythologyderivingrom disease f anguage. hisdiseasehe attributedo a universalhumanweakness,nabilityo retain n abstractdea as firstonceived:work nce devised o carry complexmeaning ould oon fallawayfromabstractionnd spiritualitynd be usedonly o convey crass,particular,materialense. hisdisease f anguagewould lways e leaving aily peechclutteredith reatwordsdemeaned.mpty ftheir riginalonnotation,hostof hybrid nthropomorphicgenciesposes puzzlesforworthyexi-cographers hosetradedrives hem o invent tories bout them. n thisway, heodder arts fGreek ndRomanmythologyouldbe seenas lateradditionsopurelyntellectualndmoral hilosophy.The diseaseoflanguage heory as dismissed ormany easons. urpris-ingly,nthewidermodernontext,twasheldutterlymplausible.et otherlinguistshohaveproposed qually nconvincingheories bout herelationofthoughto anguage avebeen aken ery eriously. horfpeculatedhatsyntactictructuresouldtend o limit hepossibilitiesfthought. e pre-sented houghts a kindofmoving low f traffichroughhestructuresflanguage, hanneledndrestrictedythe atter. he implications that oreach kind of language,only certainways of thinkingre possible. nWhorf's iew, houghts limited ylanguage. n Muller's iew, houghtslimited yitself;anguage an say anythinghathumanswantto saybut,unfortunately,heirwants hange.Theydo notalwaysneedthemorediffi-cultconcepts orwhichtheyhave developedwords.This seemsto,havesome ong-runlausibility.ontrasted ithWhorf, e canplaceMuller ntheside of those who takemeanings s priorand speechconstraintsssecondary. e did not ee anguagetselfs a barrierrconstraintothoughtand heldfailuresn thinkingesponsibleor a processbywhichabstracttheogoniesegeneratentomechanistic, aterialmodels. syche ecomesseductive irl;Zeus a lecher n comicoperadisguises. oingbeyondmorespeculativeeneralizations,uller ctually roposed isrule as a tendencyinlanguage.He can be credited ith theoryfdownwardemantic rift.In likefashion,ociologists homeant o investigatehe ntellectualndemotional ife of humanbeingshave driftedwayfrom heir ntentions.Theytalk abouthuman gencies,meanings,nd actions. heyhavenot ettheirgrammaread their hought, uttheir hought as lefttheirwiderintentionstranded, oing ustice nly o their atural cience ssumptionsand methodology.he use of natural ciencemethodologynd its termshaveproduced ich nsightsntoreligiousociology. ut ourfailureo holdto theoriginal omplexitiesfthe nterpriseave eft swith xtraordinaryentitiesn ourdictionary,elittlingf thebelievers nd thebeliefswhich



7/12

56we would ike to understand. e nowhaveto copewith auses (such asrelativeeprivation,rupwardocialmobility)ndeffectssuchas routiniza-tion and secularization). t thesametime, here s no reason o supposethatwe cannot hrow utthedistractinglements f our anguage ndstartwith neweffortf willto reinstateeus andPsyche n their ullmajesty.To justifyMuller's dea further,e can easilyfindwordswhichreifystrangemechanical orces redited ith nthropomorphicntentions.Whenwe view these arefully, e recognizehat he words renotdoing ome-thing o our thoughts;ur intentionsave weakened nd narrowed,urthinkingas lost tssharp dge.We havefallen nto nertia ndexemplifythedisease f anguage.Ordinarypeech ttributeso other ntities heagencywhichbelongs oourselves.n everydayocutions, e attributepatial ropertieso themind:"Itwent leanoutofmymind"; Murder nteredmymind"; Suicidewasat thebackofmymind." heseareexamples iven ySchafer. ecallalsothe egalformulawhich peaksofthe mind s a machinewith definiteequilibrium:While hebalanceofhis mindwas disturbed."hensome-timeswereferothemind s an autonomousgent: Mymindplays ricksonme";"I wish knewmyownmind"; I am ntwoiminds." hesephrasesdo notmislead he istener.heyare coucheddeliberatelys disclaimersfresponsibilitynwhich he peaker's oodwills guaranteed,ndguaranteedall themorebecause, y mplication,hat hemindwill do is left ndoubtand outside he speaker's ontrol Schafer,1976:132). Thereis nothingirrationalbout uchdisclaimers:A madimpulseeizedme";"The wordspoured ut ofmymouth." verydaypeechhasgoodreasons or nterposinganothergent etween he peakerndhisownactions.t ismore ourteousto say: "It musthaveescapedyourmemory"han o suppresshe "it"andsimplyccuse:"You forgotme."Somecarefor hefeelingsf othersustifiesthese olite isclaimers.Thissensitivityo our owneverydayse of thepassive oicegives clueto theapproachn the ociologyfreligion hich wish opropose.Manyofthereligionsftheworld avedoctrinesfmultipleersonalityccordingtowhich he ndividuals divided etweeneveralmoreor lesscoordinatedpersons. heseconstituentersonsftheperson end ohave differentnten-tions nd capacities ttributedo them.A personwhohas incurred lameis allowed o feel tsforce, oftenedyknowinghat heactionofwhichhewasguiltyanbe attributedo onebutnotto all ofhis ownconstituentpersonalities.histime, hepolitedisclaimeromesfrom thers n an ordi-narycontext,nstead f from hepsychoanalystpeaking o the patient.The human ubject lmost isappearsrom ight,mong throngfotheractive pirits hoare udging, illing,ccepting,rrejectingn hisbehalf;the ubject,ndeed,nmany eligious octrinesecomes n object, passivearenawhere izarre orces ontend. utwe should ot nterprethismultipli-cationof personalitiess a mistake, form f inertia, r another ase ofthedisease flanguage.fwetake tas ourprincipalssumptionhatnoth-ing s donebymistake,hat he ubjectsre ncontrol ftheir wnthoughtsand their wn anguage ndhave adapted he anguage o their houghts,wecanreach betternderstandingftheirtated eliefs.



8/12

57PhenomenologyThe activevoice anguage s appropriateora phenomenologicalheory.As sociologists, e have engaged n an investigation. e are determinedthat tbe an investigationfreligious ehaviorwhich, ully ociologicalnits ntentions,tillnsists pon recognizingheactive ndependentgency fthepeoplewearestudying.nce,when describedhese ssumptionssnec-essary, studentskedwhetherhey chievednybetternalysis,rwhethertheymerelymademefeelgood.The claim s preciselyhat heanalysissimproved.At thispoint, introduceheconcept f theaccountabilityystem. s aconcept,t owesmuchto the ethnomethodologists.s a method,t wasdeveloped y anthropologistsorthecomparisonf moralprinciples.hemethod onsistsn setting eople'sbeliefs ack intothe social context ftheirives, ycareful,ntensiveield esearch.With hismethod, o allegedbeliefn strangenvisiblentitiess allowed o qualify s a belief ntil hereis evidencehat t s actedupon nsome ociallyntelligibleay.Themoraljudgmentsresupposed ottoexistmerelys noble entiments;he nterestlies in thewaythey redaily nvoked s meansofholding ther eopletotheir romises,nforcingontracts,xtractingenient emissionsndso on.By systematicesearchntoeverykind of confrontation,hegeneral rin-ciplesbywhichpeopleholdeach other ccountable an be laid bare.Ac-countabilityystemsary.The moralprinciples heynvokediffernd theinstitutionsinto, hich hey re ncorporatediffero that xtent. yfasten-ingon moralprinciplesndtheir se inbuildingystemsf accountability,the sociologist as a way of giving alue to individuals' reenegotiatingactivities.tthe ametime, rom he imited utfirmtandpointfa com-moncognitiventerprise,e canreckonwhat rethekinds fsocial nstitu-tions hat rebuilt pondifferentutcomesfmoraludgment.Each accountabilityystem,o be sufficientlyoherento function,astocreate xplanations,ndattributeualitiesuchas vengefulness,aprice, rkindness o invisible owers.Each accountabilityystems likely o calluponthemaliceofghosts r on a HighGod's justice, r use other evicesto make tssternerudgmentscceptable.n modernndustrialulture, ehave developed complex ypologyf personalitiesnd talents o justifyour procedures f exclusion r promotion.High IQ" is a concept hatrespondso ourneedtomeasurendscale criteriafadmission.fwe couldagreea measure f mental tability,t wouldenter herepertoiref per-sonalityttributes.ometimeshefullresponsibilitys nailed to theculprit;sometimeshetheory f causationwillmitigateesponsibilityo that theoffense hich s being udged s softenedntosomethinghat ithermighthappen o anyone r theperson ouldhave committednknowingly-"orthesake of living ogethern peace,each societywillcombine he activevoiceandthepassive oice n differenteasures,olmakeharshudgmentsacceptableounfortunateersonswhoaskwhydisastersavebefallen hem.Accountabilityystems ary,of course, n their nternal onsistencyndcompletenessnd in manyotherwaysthatreflect heir se within ocialinstitutions.



9/12

58The first laborateexamplesof this methodwere Evans-Pritchard's(1937) analyses fAzandeand Nuermoral ndpolitical ystems. -aimen-dorf's omparisonfHindusand Buddhistsn Nepal is another aluableexercise.The essence f themethods to tracebeliefs n divine ttributesto the moralvalues which re institutionalizednd actionable.Thesebe-liefsare partand parcelof the social life,fully rediblewithint, sub-scribed o whenever person n such a societywishes ither o exercisehisrightsr to charge notherwithdefault.At thatpoint,when nsistingon moralclaims, ndividuals eclaretheir utonomywithin ociety ndreveal heir wnconstructiveffortso maintainr change he ocal worldview. Theiractiveagency s a necessary tartingointforthe analysis.Moreover,he old sociological erspectives still nview.

AfricanBeliefsLet me describe comparison f two belief ystems hichcould besubmittedo theold style nalysis f sociological eterminism.he cul-tures f theWestCoast of Africa ave variant orms f a belief nmultiplepersonalities.he thinking, illing, cting artsof an individual re splitoff rom ach other n variousways, ulturallytandardizedn each case.One such set of beliefshas been described rilliantlyy Fo~rtes1959)writingboutthe Tallensi n theVoltaregion fGhana. Their ultoftheancestors nd theirbelief n Destiny ombine o,givethemexplanationsof misfortunehichare muchmorethanpureintellectualpeculations.They channel heTallensi deas of moralresponsibilitynd set them owork n thesocial context o efficientlyhat ction, nstitutions,nd beliefsare partsof one process.Fortes takes theTallensibeliefs n their om-positepersonalitys.seriouslys theydo. He showshow their oncept fthegoodpersons inculcatedhrougharly raining,ndhowitintegratesthe ndividualnto thepatrilinealineage tructuref their ociety,t thesame timeas finely djusting he pattern f rewards nd punishments(whichthe dead ancestors dminister)o theirmoral deas and to,thesocial structure. ver and above,the relation fthe ive ndividualo, hejustice nd vigilance f his ancestors,heTallensihave to reckonwithpartof thepersonalityhichexistedbefore heywere born-their ndi-vidualDestiny-whichs thoughtto,have accepted r rejected hemoralrequirements.f theDestinys a bad one,then heywill notconsciously)tendto behave n deviantways, ackingn respect ortheirkinsmen,ndso bringingown the misfortuneshichpunish heunfilial.In a paperwhich houldbe readbyevery tudent freligiousociology,Horton 1961) makes a parallel analysis f similar eliefs.AmongtheKalabari jo of theNigerDelta,wordsofDestiny pokenbytheprenatalselfexplain he misfortunesf an individual.Butin this ase,the choicesoftheprenatal elf re udgedgoodor bad fordifferentinds fdeviance.In the Tallensicase,thebad Destinywas chosenbytheman whopittedhimselfgainst aternal uthoritynd refused heprescriptionsfTallensisocial institutions.n the Kalabari case, thebad Destiny s chosenpre-natallyby thepersonwhohas no tastefortheratrace of an entrepre-



10/12

59neurial, individualistsociety; their good Destiny is that of the ruthlesscompetitive ishermannd merchant.So here would seem totbe a case for sociological determinism.Giventhe social institutions,he beliefsare differentiateddaptive responses. ButHorton's essay is a vehementcriticism f such argumentation.One of thestaunchestupholders of the independent tatus of beliefs, Horton makesa programfor the comparativestudyof religion,which I seek to expandand to emulate. The simple questionto follow is this: if the Tallensi andthe Kalabari are given their beliefs as part of one packetwiththeir nsti-tutions,where do the institutions ome from? The usual ways in whichsociological determinism nswers this question are eitherby maintaininga thorough-goingconomic determinismwhich assumes only one possibleadaptive strategy o physical conditions,or by allowing for blind chancein the particular et of adaptationsmade in any one case. The first olu-tion carries all the limitationsto any sociology of religion that deniesagency to humans and validityto belief. The second, of course, is anabdication from explanation. I shall proceed on another basis. I shallassume there s a full programfor a sociologyof religion: the interactionof human agentsmust be its subject; and insofaras theychoose beliefs,theychoose their nstitutional ormsand tryto make sense of them, usti-fying heir hoicesat thesametime.Fortes' Oedipus and Job in West AfricanReligion and Horton's elabo-ration of its theme demonstratewhat the sociological exercise could stilldo in itsold comparative rogram.

Writing f Fortes' approach to Tallensi beliefs,Horton says:A great irtue fthis ssay s that tis one of thefewrecent ocio-anthro-pologicalworks o takereligious elationshipseriously. ythis meanthatit treats alkaboutgods and their nvolvements ithmenat itsfacevalue,rather hanassuming hat suchtalk is 'merely way of referringo socialstructure.'BecauseFortes ccepts hepsychologicaleality f suchrelation-ships o far s thepeople nvolvednthem reconcerned, e is led to exploretheir ualityn Talle religionwith fullnessnddepth arely eenelsewhere.Again,though e follows well-wornath n correlatingultstructure ithsocial structure,isrelation freligious otions pecificallyo features ftheindividual's assagethroughocietys a new and excitingpproach. Horton,1961:111).When he makes a summary omparisonof thetwo similarbeliefsystems,Horton draws attention o the local ideas of personality.

It is interestingo compareKalabari ideas about the locus of theseper-sonality onflictsirstly ithTallensi deas and thenwith he classicalFreud-ian ideas themselves.n Kalabari thought,he conflict enters bout thedesire o engage n status ompetition: hilst heconscious elfpursues ndapproves ompetition,heunconsciousmayabhor t. There s, however, ofocuson conflict f attitudeso particular eople. In Tallensithought, ycontrast, he conflict enterson a specific erson,the father:whilsttheconsciousself submits o parentalauthority,he unconscioushates andrejects t. Switchingo Europe,classicalFreudiandoctrines lay downcon-flict verstatus ivalrynd layheavy mphasis n conflictversexualdrives;thought shouldbe notedthattheAmerican choolof 'Neo-Freudians' asrejected he overwhelmingexualemphasis f classicaldoctrine n favorofconflictsenteringn status ompetition.'These differencesre revealing, ortheyreflectwiderdifferencesf cul-tural and structuralmphasis. n Kalabari communities,tructuralrrange-



11/12

60ments re suchthat hepeople nvolvedmost ntensivelyn status ivalry tanyone time re never n any setrelationshipo one another; hisbecausein questions f accession o leadership f a group,great atitudes allowedforachievementrrespectivef ascribed haracteristicsf age, pedigree, rrelationshipo othercompetitors. gain,whilstaggressive ompetitionsformally njoined n thisculture,t is at thesame timediscouragedn fact,because current eliefs ay suchheavy tress n theuse of lethal orcery yway of reprisal.Correspondingly,alabari personalityheory eatures naggressive onscious nd a timidUnconscious. n Tallensicommunities,ntheotherhand, tatus dvancementan onlytakeplace at theexpense f aspecificallyelated, igure-thefather.Hence the ambivalent ttitudes e-scribed n Tallensipersonalityheory eaturehim in person;as where heyin 'Destiny,'UnconsciousWishes)of a son s said to, e in chronic pposi-tionto theyinof hisfather. nother ointof contrast ithKalabari s thathere amity nd non-competitivenessre formally njoined n all the mostimportant elationships,hilst he culturemakesno real provision or thefrustrationsf a son who remains juralminor illtheday of his father'sdeath. In consonancewiththis,Tallensi personality heory ostulates hereverse f Kalabari theory-an amicable Consciousand an aggressive n-conscious Horton,1961:113-114).The Tallensi use a passive voice theoryof responsibilityo help a victimof misfortune ot take the full weightof guiltupon himself. At least hecan believe that some limitedpart of himself ntertained he initial ll-willfromwhich his destiny prang. The Kalabari use the passive voice theoryof personality o focus a victim'swill to conquer his fate: he is helped toidentify hat part of himselfwhich is not fullycommitted o social com-petition. Horton goes on to call for a systematic tudy in West Africa,which would note the number of divisions of the personality, he desireattributed o each, and the power relations betweenthem. The variations

which emergecould be correlatedwith structural nd cultural variables asdemonstratedn Horton's comparisonof Kalabari and Tallensi.CONCLUSIONS

Whereas Horton suggestshis programmodestly, s an improvement orethnographicpractice, t is also suggestive or the developmentof psycho-analysisat the pointwe left t after onsidering chafer's inguistic eforms.Psychoanlytic heory eems too much like a ship at anchor,once fitted utfor a greatvoyage, but sails now furled,ropes flapping,motionstilled. Itis not as if theoreticalwindswere lackingto drive t. But the motiveto gosomewhereis missing. As Muller said, sometimes the will to hold to agreat notion can fail. A mere linguistic witchfrom the passive to theactive voice is not going to give psychoanalysis purpose or plan. Thegrand conceptionmust be recalled. The original enterprise f psychologywas to, chart the human psyche. But that can never be done withoutcharting, t the same time,the range of possible social constraints aid byone person upon another or by hundreds acting in concert. For goodsuccess, the psychologicalapproach to meaning surelywill have to keepin stepwith hesociological approach.We can agree easily enough upon a common language; the termsthat

deal withmeaning,action, situationand reasons are good for both disci-plines. But we still need to agree upon methods for using the language.



12/12

61We also need to agree upon whatever t is we want to say. We will notlie down passivelyunder the constraints f a natural science language ofcauses and determinants. We believe we are free agents and so free topick up and work at our original idea. In the sociology of religionthatidea was to examine the social factors n belief.

This program requires the investigator o trace the controlsthat thehuman subjects of his research are laying upon each other. If the soci-ologist nvestigator lways checks the constraints pon actionwhich appearas penaltiesand moral judgments, he investigationtself s protectedfromhis own imported subjective interpretations.The Kalabari and Tallensimake differentudgmentsof failure; they deploy different esources forexplaining,reconcilingand reinstating r washingtheir hands of less for-tunate fellowmen. This is the essence of the powerfulmethod in whichaction terminology an be used. Never denyingactive human agency,wecan trace how people work their nstitutions s well as create the condi-tions n which theirbeliefsgetplausibility.The task of carefulcomparisonis a heavy one. It can achieve the same ends as those forwhich the con-ceptual apparatus of sociological determinants f belief was devised. Itis a muchmore exacting programthan anything hathas been tried n thesociology of religion. But it is a programfor our times,both methodo-logically sophisticated nd phenomenological n its assumptions.

REFERENCESEvans-Pritchard,.1937 Witchcraft racles and Magic AmongtheAzande,Oxford: ClarendonPress.Fortes,Meyer1959 Oedipus and Job in West AfricanReligion, Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityress.Haimendorf,hristophonFurer1967 Morals and Merit: A Studyof Values and Social Controls n SouthAsianSocieties, hicago:UniversityfChicagoPress.Horton,Robin1961 "Destiny nd the Unconscious n WestAfrica,"Africa, 1(2): 110-116.Milller,Max F.1873 Introductiono the Scienceof Religion, ondon: LongmensGreen.Schafer, oy1976 A New Language for Psychoanalysis, ew Haven: Yale UniversityPress.Whorf, enjamin ee1956 Language, Thoughtand Reality: SelectedWritings f BenjaminLeeWhorfed.,J.B. Carroll),NewYork:JohnWiley.

Documents

Douglas, M. Passive Voice in Religious Sociology