Reading Assignment for seminar 1
1) Explain how this fundamental relation in Durkheim’s universal theory of religion is
employed by Charles Taylor to describe particular dispensations (“paleo-Durkheimian
dispensation”, “neo-Durkheimian dispensation” and “post-Durkheimian dispensation”).
Would Taylor agree with Durkheim? How does Taylor employ Durkheim’s insight?
(350-400)
Taylor uses the basic relationship in Durkheim's theory (that society is the cause of the
sentiments that make up religion) to explain each dispensation. He does this by explaining
each dispensation in terms of a dichotomy between the (personal) religious experience and
a larger framework such as the church or the state.
The paleo-Durkheimian dispensation would then imply that Durkheim's classical theory is
rigidly applied in practice; a person's association with the sacred and their religious
experience would presuppose membership in a church (society). In this context, being part
of a larger context of religious practice is seen as inevitable, and as such would exemplify
how religious experiences most meaningfully arise in a cultic setting, as Durkheim
describes.
The neo-Durkheimian dispensation would mean abandoning forced integration into a
particular church, and increasingly seeing this process as obscene and undesirable. It is still
Durkheimian in its stated inevitability of choosing a church (society) to belong to, unlike
the last dispensation, namely the Post-Durkheimian dispensation. The neo-Durkheimian
dispensation makes religious experience a matter of more choice, but still holds to
Durkheim's idea that significant religious experiences are had in the context of a sect or
larger body/institution.
This post-Durkheimian dispensation speaks of the loss of the necessary connection
between religious experience and a church or community of any kind. Religious experience
becomes such a personal matter that it can be considered independent of these institutions.
Taylor's description of this last dispensation can be seen as contradictory to Durkheim, for
it is contrary to the notion that meaningful religious experiences are had in the context of a
sect or group.
An example of a progression from paleo to neo to post-Durkheimian dispensation that
Taylor explains is that of France. The Paleo-Durkheimian dispensation is exemplified by the
French church's desire to become a national church, thus making religion a matter of
community and forced integration. The neo-Durkheimian approach is seen in the
republican application of religious ideas of sacred and sacrilege. The post-Durkheimian
disposition then points to the political fragmentation of France, which individualized the
way people sought religious experiences.
2) Explain on the basis of the work of Charles Taylor what is meant by the differences
between “paleo-Durkheimian dispensation”, “neo-Durkheimian dispensation” and
“post-Durkheimian dispensation”. (350-400)
, The main difference between the dispensations is the relationship between religious
experience and a larger social context such as a church, a state, or some other form of social
organization. The general tendency expressed in these dispensations is a severing of the
ties between these two factors of religious experience and a larger social context. In
practical terms, this means that religious experience and the process of seeking it become
individualized as we move from a neo-Durkheimian to a post-Durkheimian dispensation. In
this way, the post-Durkheimian differs from the other two dispensations, as Taylor's
example of France and the fragmentation of French society shows, where ties to larger
institutions such as the church and the state are increasingly severed by individuals in the
context of French society.
The other two dispensations - the paleo and neo-Durkheimian dispensations - are similar in
that they both offer models in which individual religious experience is seen as only livable
in the context of a demographic mode of multiplicity, often in the form of a church
community, the state, or a very literal gathering in a particular place to which religious
value is ascribed.
The Paleo-Durkheimic and Neo-Durkheimic dispensations differ from each other in the
aspect of agency. In the Paleo-Durkheimic dispensation, religious experience is lived out in
a community in which one inevitably participates. Protestant children, for example, grew
up with some knowledge of an inevitable future within the Protestant church, which was
seen as the only place for religious experience.
The neo-Durkheimian dispensation differs in that it shows a stronger presence of
individual agency; individuals choose their own religious community in which to have
religious experiences of significance. Whereas in the Paleo-Durkheimian dispensation
forced integration into a particular church was seen as inevitable, in the Neo-Durkheimian
dispensation this is seen as wrong, absurd and obscene. The result of this process of
individualization is that it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain this or any other
framework.
1) Explain how this fundamental relation in Durkheim’s universal theory of religion is
employed by Charles Taylor to describe particular dispensations (“paleo-Durkheimian
dispensation”, “neo-Durkheimian dispensation” and “post-Durkheimian dispensation”).
Would Taylor agree with Durkheim? How does Taylor employ Durkheim’s insight?
(350-400)
Taylor uses the basic relationship in Durkheim's theory (that society is the cause of the
sentiments that make up religion) to explain each dispensation. He does this by explaining
each dispensation in terms of a dichotomy between the (personal) religious experience and
a larger framework such as the church or the state.
The paleo-Durkheimian dispensation would then imply that Durkheim's classical theory is
rigidly applied in practice; a person's association with the sacred and their religious
experience would presuppose membership in a church (society). In this context, being part
of a larger context of religious practice is seen as inevitable, and as such would exemplify
how religious experiences most meaningfully arise in a cultic setting, as Durkheim
describes.
The neo-Durkheimian dispensation would mean abandoning forced integration into a
particular church, and increasingly seeing this process as obscene and undesirable. It is still
Durkheimian in its stated inevitability of choosing a church (society) to belong to, unlike
the last dispensation, namely the Post-Durkheimian dispensation. The neo-Durkheimian
dispensation makes religious experience a matter of more choice, but still holds to
Durkheim's idea that significant religious experiences are had in the context of a sect or
larger body/institution.
This post-Durkheimian dispensation speaks of the loss of the necessary connection
between religious experience and a church or community of any kind. Religious experience
becomes such a personal matter that it can be considered independent of these institutions.
Taylor's description of this last dispensation can be seen as contradictory to Durkheim, for
it is contrary to the notion that meaningful religious experiences are had in the context of a
sect or group.
An example of a progression from paleo to neo to post-Durkheimian dispensation that
Taylor explains is that of France. The Paleo-Durkheimian dispensation is exemplified by the
French church's desire to become a national church, thus making religion a matter of
community and forced integration. The neo-Durkheimian approach is seen in the
republican application of religious ideas of sacred and sacrilege. The post-Durkheimian
disposition then points to the political fragmentation of France, which individualized the
way people sought religious experiences.
2) Explain on the basis of the work of Charles Taylor what is meant by the differences
between “paleo-Durkheimian dispensation”, “neo-Durkheimian dispensation” and
“post-Durkheimian dispensation”. (350-400)
, The main difference between the dispensations is the relationship between religious
experience and a larger social context such as a church, a state, or some other form of social
organization. The general tendency expressed in these dispensations is a severing of the
ties between these two factors of religious experience and a larger social context. In
practical terms, this means that religious experience and the process of seeking it become
individualized as we move from a neo-Durkheimian to a post-Durkheimian dispensation. In
this way, the post-Durkheimian differs from the other two dispensations, as Taylor's
example of France and the fragmentation of French society shows, where ties to larger
institutions such as the church and the state are increasingly severed by individuals in the
context of French society.
The other two dispensations - the paleo and neo-Durkheimian dispensations - are similar in
that they both offer models in which individual religious experience is seen as only livable
in the context of a demographic mode of multiplicity, often in the form of a church
community, the state, or a very literal gathering in a particular place to which religious
value is ascribed.
The Paleo-Durkheimic and Neo-Durkheimic dispensations differ from each other in the
aspect of agency. In the Paleo-Durkheimic dispensation, religious experience is lived out in
a community in which one inevitably participates. Protestant children, for example, grew
up with some knowledge of an inevitable future within the Protestant church, which was
seen as the only place for religious experience.
The neo-Durkheimian dispensation differs in that it shows a stronger presence of
individual agency; individuals choose their own religious community in which to have
religious experiences of significance. Whereas in the Paleo-Durkheimian dispensation
forced integration into a particular church was seen as inevitable, in the Neo-Durkheimian
dispensation this is seen as wrong, absurd and obscene. The result of this process of
individualization is that it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain this or any other
framework.
