Definitions of religion diverge considerably from those which see religion as a particular ideology to those which, on the contrary, see ideologies as “secular” (or “civil”) religions. Historically, they have ranged from a tendancy to reductionism, typical of positivism and marxism, to quite the reverse, as can be seen in “ultimate” definitions, influenced by theology. If only to differentiate the “secular” religions from the others, we do not see how “substantive” criteria can be dispensed with. At the end of the analysis, a plural and heuristic approach to definitions is put forward.
References
1.
Bellah, R.N. , 1957, Tokugawa Religion: The Values of Pre-industrial Japan, p. 6, Glencoe, IL, Free Press.
2.
Bellah, R.N. , 1964, “Religious Evolution”, American Sociological Review29(3), p. 359.
3.
Bellah, R.N. , 1967, “Civil Religion in America”, Daedalus, p. 96.
4.
Bellah, R.N. , 1976, Beyond Belief, p. 21, New York, Harper and Row.
5.
Berger, P.L. , 1967, The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion, p. 26, New York, Doubleday.
6.
Berger, P.L. , 1974, “Second Thoughts on Substantive versus Functional Definitions of Religion”, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion13, pp. 125-134.
7.
Bouquet, A.C. , 1953, Comparative Religion, pp. 15-16, London, Penguin.
8.
Coleman, J.A. , 1970, “Civil Religion”, Sociological Analysis 31, p. 69.
9.
Davis, K. , 1948, Human Society, New York, Macmillan.
10.
Durkheim, E. , 1912, Les formes élémentaires de la vie religieuse, p. 65, Paris, Alcan.
11.
Evans-Pritchard, E.E. , 1937, Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic among the Azande, London.
12.
Firth, R. , 1959, “Problem and Assumption in an Anthropological Study of Religion”, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute89(2).
13.
Frazer, J.G. , 1890/1955, The Golden Bough, New York, St Martins.
14.
Geertz, C. , 1972, “La religion comme système culturel”, in Essais d'anthropologie religieuse, p. 23, Paris, Gallimard.
15.
Goody, J. , 1961, “Religion and Ritual: The Definitional Problem”, British Journal of Sociology 12, pp. 142-164.
16.
Hardin, B. and Kherer, G., 1985, “Sociological Approaches (2)”, dans F. Whaling (ed.) Contemporary Approaches to the Study of Religion, Vol. 2, Berlin/New York/Amsterdam, Mouton.
17.
Hill, M. , 1973, A Sociology of Religion, p. 42, London, Heinemann.
18.
Hill, M. , 1985, “Sociological Approaches (1)”, dans F. Whaling (ed.) Contemporary Approaches to the Study of Religion, Vol. 2, Berlin/New York/Amsterdam, Mouton.
19.
Horton, R. , 1960, “A Definition of Religion and Its Uses”, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute90(2).
20.
Lessa, W.A. and Vogt, E.Z., ed., 1958, Reader in Comparative Religion, New York, Harper and Row.
21.
Luckman, T. , 1967, The Invisible Religion: The Problem of Religion in Modern Society, New York, Macmillan.
22.
Luhmann, N. , 1977, Funktion der Religion, Frankfurt, Suhrkamp.
23.
Malinowski, B. , 1925/1948, Magic, Science and Religion and Other Essays, New York, Free Press.
24.
Marett, R.R. , 1900, The Structure of Social Action, Glencoe, Free Press.
25.
Marx, K. et Engels, F.“L'idéologie allemande', in Sur la Religion, p. 74, Paris, Ed. Sociales, 1972.
26.
Nottingham, E.K. , 1954, Religion and Society, New York, Random House.
27.
Otto, R. , 1923/1968, Le sacré, p. 21, Paris, Payot.
28.
Parsons, T. , 1937, The Structure of Social Action, Glencoe, Free Press.
29.
Parsons, T. , 1951, The Social System, p. 2, Glencoe, Free Press.
30.
Parsons, T. , 1966, Societies: Evolutionary and Comparative Perspectives, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall.
31.
Radcliffe-Brown, A.R. , 1969, Structure et fonction dans la société primitive, pp. 247 et 275, Paris, Minuit.
32.
Robertson, R. , 1970, The Sociological Interpretation of Religion, p. 47, New York, Schocken.
33.
Schmid, G. , 1979, Principles of Integral Science of Religion, La Haie, Mouton.
34.
Spiro, M.E. , 1966, “La religion: problèmes de définition et d'explication”, dans Essais d'anthropologie religieuse, p. 121, Paris, Gallimard.
