Crisis of Meaning The Orientation of Modern Man Peter L. Berger Thomas Luckmann Bertelsmann Foundation Publishers Gtersloh 1995 cIP-Fi i hcns!!l i JD! Nl odcrnn), pl nLLsn r l hoai ssol neanLng rl ,r onenrari on or nul co tr, PqerL Bor-l cr i (i d.d.h : Bql drmrn( l .Nn(d' on 01995 tsedel smrtrd hri danon .i tersl oh Edi o. Dr ndtrr Ktrhl mrnn cory cdtor: l ti sl tr N!uPdh Prodcri otr cdnor sabr. Kl tt' nr cover desi gn IIT(i !r(b.agqtrur, Ri el erel d corerphoro Itobcd J)!Lru' 11.K' ero.n.i . I' r{l Ns Yo' k. sol oDu, R (l u$erh.hMdsn' Latour andqpessr s dgtotrcn' bl l , B,el ercl d Pri nt Ful drer vun.g$Nax, !ul da Contents lletner lYeidenleld Preface Peter L. Betger, Tbomas Luchmann Modernity, pluralism and the crisis of meaning - what basic human needs of oricntation m u s t b e s a t i s f i e d l . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1. The foundations of the meaningfulness o f h n m a n l i f e . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2. The meani ngf uhre* ol . oci al rel rt i on<hi ps. the concurrence of meaning and the g e n e r a l c o n d i t i o n s f o r c r i s e s o f n r e a n i n g . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 3 . Mo d e r n i t y a n d t h e c r i s i s o f me a n i n g . . . . . . 2 8 4 . Th e l o s s o f t h e t a k e n - f o r - g r a n t e d . . . . . . . . 4 0 5. Flabituated meaning and crises of rneaning . . . . . . . . . . 49 6. How societies deal with criscs of meaning: illusions and possibilities 7 . O u t l o o k . . . . . . . 6 4 71 73 3 57 The authors The project Preface Questions of cultural orientatioo are among the most urgenr issues of modern society. lndividualism and pluralism lead to the conse- quence that individuals more ancl more face the difficulty to define standards and values guiding their own lives. IndividuaLs require these values to be able to find orientation in a situation rvhich is de- fined by options and the necessity to take decisions. Three ccntral groups of questions clelineate crucial problems, which the Bertelsmann Foumlation intends to tackle by creating a new r, rngc o[ pro: c, rs on cuhural orrcnt at i on: - l l ow can i ndi vi dual s real i ze meani ngf ul l i ves by chosi ng f rom thc pluralistic rnultiplicity of optionsl - How do human beings coorclinate the numerous roles and social networks in which they interactl In other words: how do they stabilizc thcir own identity) V/hat value systems guide thcir ideas of good and cvil? In as much :s individuals sharc conrnron value patterns we have to raisc a consccutive question: *'hich communities do such individu- als fonn who sharc similar pattcrns of mearing and judge their lives by the same value systcrns? And finally: what do these comnrunities contributc to thc integration of the society as a whole or to what extcnt do thcy endanger such integration? How can modern societies provide dre required ligaturesl Individuals who havc acquircd stable orienrations possess an cffcc- tive panacea against cxistential thrcats to their self-perception. lhey regard themsclves as people with an undoubted identity. And they avai l t henxel ves of et hi cal st andards whi ch enabl e t hem t o j udge their actions with regard to their effect on society as a whole On all drree levels individuals have ceased to act according to what hes traditionally been regarrled as self-evident and takcn for grantcd. Thereforc the loss of the taken-for-granted has led to the possibility and cven necessity to decide -hat is meaningful, good and sociaily acceptablc. This decision is an individual one and it is debatrble if thc cohesion of society suffcrs as a consequence ofthese decisions. In addrtion the pluraiistic abundance of such decisions allows commun- i t i es t o emerge whi ch enj oy t he l oyal t i es of rhei r members but do not nccessarily take into eccount the welfare of socicty as a whole. 'fhe range of projects on "culnrral orientation" started its series of publications with a first volume on "'lhc loss of orientation - the cohesion crisis in modern society" (in German language only). In a next phase of the field of projects wc commissioned a number of expcrtises. As a first result, Peter llerger (Boston) and 'lhomas Lucknrann (Konstanz) present their analysis of the mechanisms whi ch l ead t o a cri si s of meani ng i n nodern soci et y. l hi s st udy emerged from a context of projects which are dealing with orienta tion in the immediate social neighborhood and with the orientation by communication in a workplacc environment and in company hierarchies. other sub-projects focus on the legitimacy of political iction and the limits to state control of social processes or on new challenges due to the ever increasint complexity of knowledge and the flow of information which modern individuals face. Peter Berger and Thomas Lucknrann count among the ceuses for t he modern cri si s of meani ng processcs of moderni zat i on, pLural i sm and particularly with regard to Buropean societies - seculariza- tion. fhjs leads to the conscqucnce that the validity of shared mean- ing is difficult to mailtain for larger groups of individuals in society. Patterns of meaning are being shared and maintained by smaller communities. It is therefore crucial to distinguish in which way in dividuals unite to form these communities. In addition, all of them relate to the functional macro systerns in society like politics, eco- 6 nomy and science. Interaction between these levels and communities is being regulated by intermediary institutions, media communica- tion and moralizing statements in everyday life. It will need further enquiry to establish definitc knowledge on which institutions are ef- fective in this respect and how they perform their task. The result of such a study can be evidence on the possibility to counteracr centripetal tendencies in society. Prof. Dr. Verner \eidenfeld Member of the Board of the Bertelsmann Foundation Modernity, pluralism and the crisis of meaning - what basi c human needs of ori entati on must be satisfied? Peter [.. etger Tbomas Luchmann 1. The foundations ofthe meaningfulness ofhuman life It is not apparent whether talk about the crisis of meaning in today's world really corresponds to a new form of disorientation in the life of modern pcopLe. Could it be that wc are merely hearing the Latest repetition of an old lament? Is ir the complaint *'hich cxpresses the feeLing of distress which has again and again afflicted humanity in the face of a worid become unstcady? Is this thc old lament, that hurnan life ls a life to*'ards dcath? ls this the voice of doubt, that this life could find its meaning in a transcendent history of salvationl Or is this despcration about the lack of such a meaningl \Vc are distant i n t i me f rom t hc book of t he Eccl csi ast es (' everyt hi ng i s nought l everyt hi ng i s i n vai nl ") but not di st ant f rom t he spi ri t of t hc Chroni cle of Bishop C)tto von Frcising written more than 850 ycars ago: "ln alL, wc are so depressed by thc mcmory of things past, the pres' surc of thc present and the fear of future vicissitudes that we accept the sentence of death that is in rrs and rnay become tired of lifc it- self." It is even further and all thc sanle not so far betwecn the con- cept i ons of human f at e i n hi st ory f rom Thucydi des t o Al ben Camus. On t,hat basis are modern (and post-modern) critics of present day society and culture convinced that the crisis of our tirnes is funda- mentally different from aLl past mkeries? These observers hardly start from the assumption that thcre has been a radical change in the human condition, the conditio humana. Rather they seem to suspect a new social constitutior of the meaning of human life in moder- nity, which has thrown meaning, and with it human life, into a his' torically unique crisis. Such specLations are powerfully suggestive and may appear convincing, that does not mean, however, that they will actually stand up to cmpiricaL investigation. Contemporary sociological analysis tends far too easily !o assume the existence of something like meaning and meaningfulness as fiotive of human action and as a backdrop against which the modern crisis of meaning is apparcnt. It is, therefore, necessary to begin with sonre anthropo- logical preliminaries. They shall seek to identify the general condi- tions and basic structures of mexningful human life. Only in this way is it possible to improve our understanding of chenges in par- t i cul ar st ruct ures of meani ng. Meaning is constituted in human consciousness: in the conscious ness of the individual, who is individuated in a body and who has been socialized as a person. Consciousness, individuation, the speci- ficity of the body, society and the historico'social constitution of pcrsonal identity are charactristics of our species, the phylo- and ontogenesis of which need not be considered- Flowever, we will provicle a short sketch of the generaL performances of consciousness from which the multi-layered meaningfulness of experience and ac- tion in human life is built up. Conscior.rsncss taken in itself is nothing; it is always consciousness ofsomething. It exists only in so far as it directs its attntion towerds an object, towerds a goal. This intentional object is constituted by the various synthetic achievements of consciousness and appears in i t s gcner; l st ruct ure. qherher i t bc percept i on. memory or i magi nat i on: around t he core, t he t heme' of t he i nt ent i onal obj ect , extends a thematic field that is delimited by an open horizon. This 10 horizon in which consciousness of ones own body is always given can lso be themxtizcd. The sequence of interconnected themes - lct us call them apprehensions' - is in itself stili without meaning. It is however the foundation, on which rncaning can come into ex- istence. For, apprehensions which do not occur simply and inde- pendentLy but which the ego turns its attention lowards acquire a higher degrec of thcmatic definition; thcy become clearly contoured "expcri enccs". Expericnces taken nrdividr.rally wouLd stili bc without mcaning Ilowever, as a core of expcricncc cletaches itself from the back' ground of apprehensions, consciousness grasps the rclatioD of this core to other expcnences. The srmplcst form of such relationships are "equal ' , ' si mi 1ar", "di f f crcnt ", "equal l y good' , "di f f erent and worse" etc. Thus is constituted thc most elementary level of mean- ing. Me:rning is nothing but a complex form of consciousness: it does nor exist independently. k always has a point of reference. Meaning is consciousness of the fact th:t a relationship exists between experi ences. The i nverse i s al so t rue: t he meani ng of experi ences - and, as wiLl be shon'n, of actjons has to be constructed through ' rel at i onal " perf ormances of consci ousness. 1he experi ence current ar a particular monent can be rclated to one in the immediate or distant past. GeneralLy, each expcrience is related not to one other, but to a type of experience, schenre of experience, a maxim, moral legitimation ctc. won fron many experiences and cither stored in subjective knowiedge or tkcn fronl a social store of knowledge. As convoluted as this phcnomcnology of multi-layered perform- ances of consciousness mxy scenr, its results are the simple elemeots of meaning in our daily livcs. l-or cxample, in the apprehension of a flower a typical gestalt is tied in with a typical color connected to a typical quality of snell, touch, and use. In directed consciousness this apprehension becomes experience, this experience is grasped in relation to other experiences ("so nrany flowcrs') or related to a clas' sification taken from a social stock of knowledge ("an Alpine flower') and may finally be intcgrated into a plan of action ("pick it and take it to my lovcd one!"). In this process multiple types ("A1- pi ne f l ower", "l oved one' ) are i nt egrat ecl i nt o a processual scheme (' pi ck n and t ake i t t o' ) and f used i nt o a more compl ex, but st i l l everyday unit of meening. If finrlly this project is not simply put into action because it confiicts with a morally founded maxim ("don't pick itl rare flowerl"), then a decision is arrived at and a higher level meaning is constituted through the scquential evaiuation of values and intcrcsts. 'l his example already indicates the double meaning of 'acting" and "action". Th meaning of the current act is constituted prospective- ly. A completcd action is meaningful in retrospect. Action is guided by a vi ew t o a prcconcei ved ai m. Thi s desi gn i s a ut opi a i n whi ch t he actor anticipates a future stete, assesscs its desirability and urgency and considers the steps which will bring it about - insofar as the process i s not f anri l i ar t hrough earl i er si mi l ar act i ons and has not bccome a habi t . ' I he rneani ng of t hc aci ons, "i n t he acr", i s const i - t ut ed by t hei r rcl at i on t o t he goal . The compl et ed aci on, wherher successful or not - but also the action projected as complete - can be compared to other actions, can be undersrood as the fulfillment of maxims, can be explained and justified es rhe execution of laws, can bc excused as def yi ng a norm, can be deni ed t o ot hers and i n t he l i mi t al so t o onesel f . l he doubl e meani ng and t he compl ex st ruct ure of meaning are characteristic of all action but in day-to-day routine !he chxracteristics may appear blurred. Social action, of course, shares rhis structure of meaning but ac- quires additional characteristic dimensions: it can be indirect or di- rect, it can be mutual or unilateral. Social action can be directed to- wards other pcople present or absent, dead or unborn. It can seek to address them in their individuality, or as social types of different de- grees of anonynrity, or nrercly as social categories. It can be directed towards obtaining a response or nor - there may, or may not be, an answer. It can bc intended as unique or may aim to achieve regular repetition or to be prolonged through time. The complex meaning l 2 of social action and social relations is constructed in these different dimensions of nreaning. In speaking of the constitution of nreaning in thc consciousness of the individual it rvas already clear that this could not neen the iso lated subject, thc s'indowless monad. Daily life is full of manyfold successi ons of soci i rl act i on and t he personal i dent i t y of t he i ndi vi d- ual i s f ormed onl y i n t hi s act i on. Purcl y subj ect i ve apprchensi ons are the foundation of the constitution of meaning: simplc layers of mcaning can bc created in thc s.rbjcctive expericnce of a Peison. Higher laycrs of meaning and a more complex strucnrrc of meaning depend on thc objectification of subjective meaning in social action. The i ndi vi duaL i s onl y abl e t o make compl i cat ed Logi cal connect i ons and i ni t i at e and cont rol di f f erent i at ed sequences of act i on i f he or she is ablc to draw on the vealth of experience avaiiable in a social contexr. In fact, elemcnts of meaning siraped by older streams of so- ci al act i on ("t radi t i ons' ), f l ow even i n t he l owest l evcl s of meani ng of nrdi vi dLral cxperi ence. ' I ypi f i cat i on, cl assi f i cat i on, pat t erns of ex- pcri ence and schcnl es o{ ect i on are el cnrent s of subj ect i vc st ores of knowledge that are largely takcn over ftom thc social stock of knowledge. Certainly, subjcctive constitution of meaning is the origin of all social stocks of knowiedge, historicai rcservoirs of meaning, on which peoplc born into a particular society in a particular epoch may dral . ' l he neani ng of an cxperi ence ol act i on was born ''somewherc , once upon a timc in the conscious, problenl soLving" action of an individuai relative to his or her natural and social environnrcnt. Howeverl si ce most problenrs with which the nrdividual is confronted also arise in thc lives of other pcople, the solutions to these problems arc not just subjcctively but also i nt crsubj ect i vel y rcl cvant . Ei t her t he probl cI rrs t hemsel ves ari se {rom interactive social action, so that the solutions must also be found in common. Ihcsc solutions can also be objectified in one of a number of possible ways, through signs, tools, buildings, but above all l l through thc cormnunicative fornx of a language an<i thus made available also to othcrs. I n obj ect i f i cari ons t he subj ect i ve meani ng of experi encc or act i on i s det ached f rom t he uni queness of t he ori gi nal si t uat i on and of f ers itself as a typical meaning for acceptance inro the social stock of knowledge. As different people rcact to similar challenges simiJarly, it may come to pass that they expcct dtese standard rcactions of one anothcr or evcn that they obligate cach other to dcal with this typi- cal situation in this and no other way. That is the precondition for actions to bc transformed into social institutions. The emcrgence of hi st ori caL reservoi rs of meani ng and i nst i t ut i ons rel i eves t he i ndi vi d, ual of rhe burden of solving problems of experience and action which appear in parricular situations from scratch. If dre concrete situation is Lrasically identical with constellations which are already familiar, thcn the individual is ablc to resort to familiar and prac- ticed forms of cxperience and action. However, just as all repctitious actions are not transformed into i nst i t ut i ons al l subj ect i vel y const i t ut ed and i nt ersubj ect i vel y obl ect i - fied meaning is not absorbed into social srocks of knowledge. Orher processes are inrerposed, processes in which objecificd meaning is socially "processed". These proccsses are ro a large extenr deter- mined by thc dominant socil relarions. The existing institutions of domination and labor, but above all the institutions which socialize trensactions with unusual forces direct rhemselvcs towerds rhe dif- f erent l evcl s and areas i n whi ch meani ng i s produced. Wi t h vari abl e succcss they attempr ro influencc this production or to inrervene in it. Thc differcnces in the degree of control have been and remain enormous even within a single epoch. This is obvious if one com pares the supcrvision of the production of meaning in ancient Egypt with that in Israel and Babyion, or that in today's Iran with Sweden. Even more significant are the difierences one can obscrve across suc, cessive epoches; even if one assunres that up until the onser of mo, dernity there was a comnon structural characrerisric - the tend ency towards monopolization. 14 'lhe subjective "solutions' for problenrs of experience and action, thc "primary" objcctifications of rreening rvhich became intersuLr- jcctivcly retrievable through conrrnunication with othcrs are social_ ly processed on different "paths" \ir'hich have varied enormously across history. In institutionaLly controllerl "secondary' processes much i s i gnored as t oo i nsi gni f i cant ; ot her t hi ngs are di scarded as i n appropriate or even dangerous. A part of the objectifications of nrcani g drawn on f or processi ng are nerel y st ored away, dl ose *'hich are judged to be adequate or right are given a form of ordcr, vhi l c cert ai n el ement s ac<l i re t he f uncri on of exampl es. l hc hi er archies of knowledge and value systems thus created nray be close- Iy intcrconnccted - as in the premodern world - or may develop inrlcpcndently of one anodrer. llurthermore, those elemcnts of nrcaning and systems of rneaning which are retained are cut into a shape suitable for transmission to futurc generations. There have bccn speciaLists for this function in all but the rnost simple societies. SpeciaLly trained experts takc on thc function of censorship, canoni- zation, systenatization and pedagogy. As the overall resulr of all of these activities there eflerges the spe- cific historical structure of thc social reservoir of meaning. This structurc is characterized by the proportion between that which is acccssible to all members of the society as general knr-'wledge anrl that specialist knowledge to which cccss js limited. The portion of thc reservoir o{ meaning which is gencral knowledge forms the ker- nel of everyday common scnse wrth which the individual has to copc rvith the natural xnd sociel environment of the time. 'lhis portion does not have an o"erarching systematic structure. Never- t hcl css i t i s not wi t hout st ruct ure: i t cont ai ns areas of neani ng whi ch map t he regi ons of day t o day real i t y t het have t o be managed and anot hcr regi on of meani ng -hi ch pl ums ext raordi nary real i t y. Somc of these areas of rneaning acquire a grcatcr dcgree of structure than those limjted to the practical routines of everyday life through imports fron systems of special knc'wlcdgc. The everyday of mod- ern socictics is increasingly shrpccl by such 'imports': mass media diffusc cxpcrt knowledge in populariz,cd form and people appropri- arc pi cccs of t hi s i nf ormat i on and ; nt egrat e i t wi t h t hci r st ock of The arcas of rneaning are stratificd. The "lowest', simplest typifi cations, relating to facts of namre and the social world, are thc foun- dations of different parterns of cxperience and action. Stacked on thcsc typifications are schenes of action orientatcd by maxirns of action towards higher values. Supcrordinate 'conligurations of va- luc" hrvc bcen developed since the old high culturcs by rcligious and later phiJosophical experrs into value systenN. These clainr to nrean, ingfully cxplain and regulatc thc conduct of life of thc inclividuai in relation to thc community in both routines of daily life and in over- coming criscs with reference towards realities transccnding every day lifc (thcodicy). The claiur of superordinatc conligurations of values and value sys, r ems r " f i l l r he r nr i r " r y of l i f e wr r h nr er ni ng i . nr osr r pp. r ygnl i n I schenre drat brings together models for action in the most diverse areas and fits them into a projection of meaning that srrerches from birth to death. This scheme of mcaning relates the totality of a life to a t i me t hat t ranscends dre l i f e of t he i ndi vi dual (e. g. ' ererni t y"). Biographical catcgories of ncaning, as wc call thcm, endow the mcxning of short-range actiols with long,tern significancc. 1he meaning of cvcryday routines does not disappear entirely but it is subordi nat e t o t he "meanj ng of l i f c". \ (c wi l l narne hcre, amongst the many historical constructions of biographical schcnrcs, only rhe smal l genrc of t he exempl ary l i f c' and t he l arger genrc of t he hol y l i f e", rhc anci ent hcroi c cpi c, and t hc modern heroi c l egend (e. g. Prince Eugene, Georgc Vashington, Baron von Richrhofen, Antoine dc St. Exupry, Rosa l,uxemburg, Stakhanov). All institrrtions embody an 'original' action-nealing which has proved itself in the definitivc rcgLrlation of social action in a parricu- lar functional area. Of particular irlportance are those institurions whose task includes the sociaL processing of meaning- Most import, ant of all are those institutions whose main functions consist in the l 6 coDtrol of the production of mcaning and the transmission of mean_ i ng. Such i nst i t ut i ons have exi st ed i n al most al l soci ct i es ot her t hn thc archaic. In dre old high culturcs, in the societies of the early mo' dcrn period and latcr (e. g. in todays Iran) rcLigious moral instittr tions have bcen closcLy tied to thc apparatus of domination They coLrld aim relatively successfully at both the production and distri' but i on of a rel at i vcl y consi st ent hi erarchy of meani ng. I f however t he condi t i ons bot h of product i on and di st ri but i on of soci al meani ng approximatc ro an opcn market, this has considcrable consequcnces f or t he ' nreani ng budget ' . I n t hat case a nunrbcr of suPPl i ers of mcaning compctc for the favor c,f a public that is confronted with the clifficulty of choosing the nrost suitable meaning from the wcalth of me: ni ngs avai l abl e. Wc shal l renrrn t o t hi s l at er. I nst i t ut i ons have t he t ask of st ori ng and maki ng a"ai l abl e meani ng for the actions of the individual both in particular situations and for en e[tire conduct of lifc. This function of institutions is however cs scntially related to tire rolc of dre individual as a consumer but also f i onl * e' o. , r r r . : pr odu, cr of l r cani n6. Thi s rel at i onshi p can be comparat i vel y si mpl c Ln bot h archai c so- cietics and in most traditional high cultures. In such civilizations the mcani ng of i ndi vrrhraLsphcres of act i ons i s i nt egrat cd wi t hout maj or ruptures *ith thc o"erall meaning of life conduct and this is itself rc fcrred to a rclatively coherent value systcm. The conrmunication of rneaning is joincd to thc control of the production of mcanirg. Ildu cation or direct incloctrination sccks to ensure that the lndividual only thinks and does what conforns to the basic norms of thc so- cicty. And thc corrtrol and censorship of everything that is pubLicly said, taught or preachcd aims to prevent the diffusion of dissidcnt opi ni on. l nt ernal and ext ernal compet i t i on i s auoi ded or el i mi nat ed (not always succcssfullyl). l he |re:rning o{ actions and life conduct is irlposed as a unquestioncd rule brnding on all. For examPle, the rc- lationship of marricd couples and the relationship of parents to chi l drcn i s def i ncd unambi guousl y. Parent s and chi l dren general l y conform; deviancc is clearly defincd as dcviance from thc norn. 17 In modern societies conditions are different. Of course, there are still institutions which conmunicatc the meaning of actions for their particular area of action; there are still value systcms which are ad- ministercd by some institutions as nrcaningful categories of life con, duct. Ho*'cver, as will be sho*'n, there are, by comparison with premodern societies, differences in the consisrency of value systems as in the internal and external conpetition over the production of meaning, thc communication of rneaning, and its imposition. To re- turn once morc to the example: in modern societies it would be dif- ficult to find parcnts and children for whom the relationship is equally binding on both parties and is de{ined unquestioningly by a firm valuc system. 2. Thc meaningfulness of social relationships, the concurrence of meaning and the general conditions for crises of meaning Socially objcctified and processcd stocks of meaning are "preserved" in historical reservoirs of mcaning and "administered" by institu- tions. The actions of the individual are shaped by objective meaning supplied from social stocks of knorvledge and communicated by the pressure for compliance which emanates from institutions. In this process, objectificd meaning is constantly in interaction with subjec- tively constitutcd meaning and individual projects {or acion. IIow- ever, nreaning can also be ascribed - one might even say, above all - to the intcr'subjcctive structure of social relations in which thc individual ac* and lives. From the very beginning a child is incorporated into sociaL rela- tionships: with its parents and with other significant persons. These relationships deveiop in regular, dircct and reciprocal actions. Strict- l 8 ly, an infant is not capable of action in the full meening of the word. As an individuated organism i! has, however, the bodily and con- sci ous capaci t i cs i nherent t o t hc human speci es whi ch i t empl oys i n i t s behavi or t owards ot hers. ' I hc act i ons of ot hers rel at i ve t o t he child are thcmseives largely dctennined by schemes of experience and action that are drawn frotr s<xicty's reservoir of nrcaning l'he chilcl progrcssively learns to comprchcnd the actions of its counter- parts and to understand thcir meaning. Thus jt is able to understand their actions as typical actions in thc light of historically given PF t erns of expcri ence and act i on. The chi l d pl aces i t sel f i n rcl at i on t o soci al st ocks of meani ng. I n t he proccss i t progressl vel y devel ops i t s personal iclcntity. As soon as it understands the meaning of its actions, it alrc understands that in principle it is held rcsponsible for its own actions. Ancl that is what constitutes the essence of personal identity: subjcctive control of action for which one is objectivcly responsi bl e. Let us i nragi nc f or t hi s basi c si t uat i on of t he communi cat i on of meaning ts o variants drawn as stylized ideal types. Let us flrst as- sume rhat there is a 'alue system valid for all of society with which the variors layers of the historical reservoir of meaning are well coordinatcd. Let us furthcr assumc that the parents and the other important pcrsonal rclations o{ drc child have formed their pcrsonal identities according to the patterns in the historical reservoir of meaning. ln such a case the bchavior of the child is mirrored con- t ruent l y i n t hc act i ons of t he ot hers. l f i t knocks a pl at e of f t he t abl c then it wlll not be rewarded by a smiLe from one parent and pun ished by thr: other with an angry glancc. Under such conditions the identity of thc child will develop normally without special diffi' culties - ler alonc "crises of meaning" - in the smc manncr as the identity of the parents was forrned: in concordance with the bio- graphical catcgories and the value systcm of society's reservoir of meani ng. For our sccond case let us assume, on the contrary, thxt there is no generally binding value syste'n, no adapted reservoir of meaning t 9 with biographical categories and schemes of action and rhar rhe others who enter inro sociai rclations with the child do not nrirror its behavior even approximatcly. The typical consequences for the development o{ thc child arc predictable! Pcrfect concordancc, as proj cct ed above, i s never achi eved, but rrchai c soci et i cs and t he t ra ditional high cuitures were not far removed from it. The opposite case has hovever no correspondi ng reaLi ry: a soci ery wi t hout any ki nd of val ue syst em and si t hout st ocks of mcani ng adapt ed t o i t i s hard to imagine as a "society . As a child one is born into commun- , t r c. uf l i f e ( l ebenr t emci nr hal r cnt whr , h r r e - t o \ r yi ng exi . nr s also conmunities of meaning. 'lhat means that even without a univcrsally shared stock of meaning adapted to a single, closed valuc systen conrmonalties of meaning can be developcd in communities or drawn from the historical rescrvoir o{ meaning. These comrlon meanings can then, of course, be contnrunicated to children relative- Iy consistently. Communities oflife are charactcrized by regularly repeated, dircctly reci procal act i on i n durabl c soci al rcl at i onshi ps. Thosc i nvol ved place an institutionaily or other\r,ise secured trust in thc durability of the cormnunity. Beyond these basic commonalties there are wide differenccs between societies in the differcnt forms of conrmunities which are institutionalized in them. The universalbasic form are life communities into which ole is born. However, there are also lifc communities into which one is adoptcd and those which one joins, such as partners in marriagc. Some cornmunities of life form thcftselves through adapting oncs life to the continuation of sociaL relations that were originally not intended to be prolonged, others rcqui re i ni t i at i on. Thc exampl cs i ncl ude hol y orders whi ch al so const i t ut e t hemsel ves as conrmuni t i es of rneani ng, l eper col oni es, retlrctuent homes! and Prisons. Comnunities of life presupposc a minimum of cornmon meaning. 'fhis measurc can in some societies and for some forms of conrmu- nity be very minimal: it may concern only the coincidcnce of the objcctive ncaning of the schemcs of day to day social action, as per- 2A haps in ancient slave households or in nrodern prisons. Commu' nities of life may also aspire to complcte unison in all layers of mean- lng including the categories of thc entire conduct o[ life as in some monastic orders or in the ideal of certain tyPes of marriage. How ever, most comntunities of life across diffcrent socitics and ePoches aspire to a dcgree of shared nrcaning somevhere in between this nl i ni mum and maxi nrum. l xpc. r : r on. cl o<c , u l nc nr l r nr l l r r r r r e nr ost conr nl on , n cor ' n. r l nuies institution:rlizecl through force. lheir problems are hardiy cvcr those of nreaning. tvcn where expectations are considerably above the minimurl and a ccrtain congruence even of higher lcveis of mcaning is assumed to be constitutive for the life cornmunity it is hardl y l i kel y t hxt a real non-co grucnce i n part i cul ar l ayers of meannrg vill create :rdditional difficulties beyond thc real life prob lcms of the comnrunity - insofar as the discrePancy between cxPec- tatiurs and pra.tical realization docs not becone too great Things arc different if the valuc systenr of a society prescribes that commu ni t i es of l i f e and ncani ng shoul d bc coi nci dent , i e. t hat al l pcopl e who l i ve i n commLrni t i es shoul d al so bri ng t hei r modes of expcri - ence ancl action lnto concurrence- ln such a case any apparently trivial non concurrence of meaning, any lack of agrccment can initi' atc a crisis of meaning in the life conrmunity in which it appears. A marri ed coupl c f or i nsrance m: y f ol l ow t he i deal s of t hesoci et y i n rvhich it lives and may wish for a good and happy old age together' l.ct us assume that only the man experiencs their cornmon aging as it actually occurs, in the objectificd sense, whercas the womxn expcricnces a too large discrepancy between the mcanings suggested by society and her own concrcte expcrience. If, in her society, marriages are not characterized by a perfec! con1munity of meaning t hc non concurrcnce i n t he i nt crpret at i on of t hei r common agi ng between the two partners in nr:rrriagc may Lead to disputes and serious arguments but it will hardly lead to a crisis of meaning which threatens their life community. If, howevcr, it \ras the assumpt i on of soci et y t hat a marri age shoul d be a compl et e commu 2l nity of meaning then their disagreemenr would be painful for both partncrs and the crisis of meaning would escalate into a life crisis. Let us renrain for an instant rvith our example. Let trs assume the wife encountcrs other aging nrarried women who have arrived at a si mi l ar perspcct i ve on t hei r common agi ng, a perspect i ve whi ch does not agrec *ith the dominant views shared by their hLrsbancls. In ex- changing thcir expericnces a conmunity of meaning might be formed. In thc first variant of our example this community of mean- ing remains as partial as does thc rlisagreement with the husband and there{ore servcs as compensation rather than replaccment. In the se- cond variant any partiaL disagreement is interpretcd as "total" and t he new f ound communi t y of meani ng coul d t ake t he pl ace of t he broken rnarri age. Vher e; r l i f * . ommuni r i c\ ml r \ l pr e\ ume a nr i ni mr r n . . r mmuni r y of meanrng, the inverse is not true. Communitics of meaning may under certain circumstances become communities of lifc, they may however bc built up and naintained exclusively through nrediared, reciprocal action- These conrnrunities may be founded on different not directly practical ievels of nreanrng and may concern different realms of meaning, e. g. philosophical, such as the humanist circles of the early modern period, scientific, such es the nlany E-Mail cliques of today, or the "meeting of souls" of which farnous cor- respondenccs tell, such as thar between H6loise and Ab6lard. \Ve have scen that under certain circunrstances problenrs may occur i n t he i nt er subj ect i ve const ruct i on of t he personal i dent i t y of t he child to which the term subjective crisis of meaning nray be appli- cable. lf the behavior of the child is constantly confronred in the action of significanr adults with incongruent reacrions the child will be able to discern thc objecrive social meaning of its actions only with difficLrlty or not at all. If the child does nor receive reasonably concordant answers t o t he quest i on "who am I ? posed t hroughout its behavior, then ir nrust encounrer great difficulties in taking on responsibility for itself. Even if under trore favorablc circumstances the identity of a pcrson has been unproblemarically constructed, its 22 strength can be endangcred later Lry persistent, systematlc Lrlconsrs- tency in the rcflection of its actions in the actions of others Fur l . . r nr r r . , we ha' e . ecn r h r r r r r r dcr , er t a n i r cun. r , r n, c. i nt er _ subj ecri ve cri scs of meani ng may occur. For di f f erent f orms of community of life different typicaL mcasures of coherence are to be expected - and these diffcr from society to society and from period to period. 1hc condition for a crisis of meaning is that the mcnbers of a particular life-community accept unqestioningly thc degree of coi nci dencc of neani ng expect et l of t hem, but are unabl e t o mat ch i t . ^s was al ready st at cd, t hi s di scrcpancy bet ween "i s' and ' shoul d" appears part i cul arl y of t en l f t he i dcal s <-rf a l i f e communi t y i nsi st t hat r r <hou1d I ' e . r . un' pl er . conr munr r v ul nr c; ni ng. l i ' ubj c. t i ' < and rnt er-' ubj e. , i vc crr' c. ol meani ng oi crrr en nra-e i n a society so th:rt thcy develop into a gcneral social problem, then one wi l l hauc t o seek t he cause not i n t he subj ect i t sel f nor i n t he given inter-subjectivity of human existence. It is rather to be ex- pected that the causes arc !o be found in thc socil structure itself Let us, t heref ore, cnqui re whi ch part l cul ar st ruct ures of a hi st ori cal society counteract the dcvelopment of crises of nre:rning and which encouragc such a development. More precisely: what are the struc- tural conditions for a sufficient dcgree of coincidcnce in inter-sub- jective reflections such that rhe foundation for the formation of per' sonal idcntity *ith constant merlrng is givenl \(hen do these pro- cesses create subjective criscs ol mcaningl And which structural condi t i ons promot e and whi ch hi ndcr t he suf Fi ci ent coi nci dcnce of ' ocr al r el . r r ' r nr t hr r r . he l ound. r t ' " n of l r f F communi l i e( t e' r \ t ; nr I u crisis? \(e will attempt to answer thesc questions in concrete tcrms in the light of thc historical developmcnt of nodcrn society. Flowever, we wish to prcccdc this attempt with a fcw abstract, gencral considerx tions. For it is possible - despite the prxctically endlcss multiPlicit/ and importance of differcnces between societies - to identify - with respect to our qr.lestion about the structural conditions for the 23 cnrergcnce of crisis of meaning - trvo basic types of social structure across all cpoches- 'l he first type not particularly susceptible to crises of merning are socicties which have a single and generally binding value systern into which the different layers and rcalms of rncaning are well intcgrxrcd: from cveryclay schemes of expericnce and action to the superordi- nate categories of lifc conduct and crisis managerncnt directed tovards extraordinary realiries. l he totaL stock of meaning is stored and managed i n soci al i nst rt ut i ons. Because the schemes of action objcctified and made mandatory in social institutions are directed towards a common value system superordinate to the specific nreaning it is assured in this type of so- cicty that the institutions sustain thc order of mcaning in basic con- cordance with practical life. lhcy do this directly and, so to speak, in dctail, by imprinting thenlsclves or1 thc meaning of many day to day actions; thcy do this, so to spcak, in the large by identifying bio- graphical categories of meaning with communities of life, in particu- l ar t hose s4ri ch are ent rust ed wi rh f orrni ng t he personal i dent i t y of . Lr l dr cn Br or ur ng i nr o nr enr bcr . of . oci cr y. Differcnt societies correspond to this basic type to different extents. Archaic societies correspond lrost truely to this type. The complcx, ancicnt high cultures are slightly less closc, but essential characeris- tics of this type are to be found cven in the premodern socieries of modern times. Like all other societies these societies have nrany organizational problems and their members have every life problem i nragi nabl e: i n deal i ng wi t h nat ure, work, domi nat i on, l i f e and deat h. Nat ural l y t here are al so qucsl ons of meani ng f or t he i ndi - vi dual . But t hese comparat i vel y st abl e, of t en even st at i c soci cri es communicate an order of meaning which is consistent to a large extent through congruent processcs of sociaiization and thc irxti- tutionalization of action. Thcse proccsses are located in meaning- fully rclated life communities ancl diffcrcnt social spaces. This basic type may be simplified as an ideal type, however societics whose structure even approximates to this type provide no ground for the 24 growth and extension of subjective and inter+ubjective crises of meaning. 'l'hings are diffcrent in societics in which shared and binding valucs arc no longer given for everyonc and structuraLly secured and in whi ch t hese val Lrcs do not pcrmeat e al l spheres of l i f e equal l y and bri ng t hem i nt o concordancc. Thrs Ls t he basi c concl i t i on f or t he spread of both subjective and inter-subjective crises of rneaning. In formulating this basic type of socicty "liable to crises" wc will again neglect many dctails to identify in sinplification its structural char- In such societies thcre may be a ualue systcn inherited by tradition as a stock ol nreaning from bygone periods. This value system is objectified in the socieral stock of knowledge and is here end there still administered by specialized (rcligious) institutions. 'Ihere may even bc more than one set of valucs "imported" fronr the stocks of the musc imagin:rire of meanings. Not wanting to dexl with the question of so crlled pluralisn at this point we set to one side the posibility that a multiplicity of value systems may coexist A society may even be l i abl e t o cri si s" i f i t cont ai ns onl y one si ngl e val uc sys- tem, in the firll sense of the word, a single system consisting of ele ments of mcaning (frorn schemes of experience and action all the way to gener:rl categories of life conduct) incorPorating all spheres of life arranged steprvise to{'ards superordinate valucs. Even i n such a soci et yaval ue syst cm woul dbebot h Present and not presen!. In such a society the big instirutions (of the economy, politics, and religion) have separated themselves from the superordi- nate valuc systen and determine the action of the individual in the functional arca that they administcr. Economic and political institu- tions make obligatory dre instmncntal rational, objcctive meaning of schemes of : ct j on i n t hose areas f or whi ch t hey are responsi bl e. ' On t he si dc , so t o spcak, rel i gi ous l nst i t ut i ons ' of f er" val ue- rationaL (wcrtrational) categories for life conduct. S(e use thc term ' offer' even in thc case, assumed hcre, that society contains only one ordcr of meaning orientated towards supcrordintc valucs, not muf 25 tiple, courpcting systems. Because even in this case religiorrs institu- t i ons t ransmi t t he hi gher ordcr cat egori es capabl e of gi vi ng meani ng t o t he ent i rc conduct of Li f e, but even wi t hout compet i t i on f rom ot hcr val uc syst ens t hese c: t et ori es may not be madc bi ndi ng and may not be inposed on the conduct of people. Overall, the institu- tions of tilis type of society no longer carry a well-ordered srock of meaning and value consistendy and bindingly into thc practice of life. A socicty is rnthinkable entirely without common values and shared i nt erpret at i ons of real i t y. Vhat i s t he nat ure of val ues i n such a type of society, obvrously tending towards the modern, and wherc are they to be found) It is certain that the scheDres of action institutionalized in the different functional spheres have a binding ancl objcctive meaning for those acting in them. In the organization of action within a single sphere there is definitely a community of meaning. 1'har however is not much by way of commonalties. The objective meaning of institutionalized schemes of :rction is instru- mentally orientated towards the function of this area. Apart from its generalizable aspect as instrumentally rariofial this institutionalized scheme of action cannot be transferred between sphercs and it certainly cannot be integrated into superordinate schenres of meaning. lhe objective meaning of acrion cannor in itself be inte- grated into ctegories refrring to rhe subject and simultaneously directcd towards a superordinate value system. Only rcligious and ' quasi ' rel i gi ous i nst i t ut i ons communi cat e cat egori es of meani ng with such a claim ro generality. This claim is however refuted by the obj cct i ve meani ng of t he schemes of act i on of t he ot her "bi g" i nst i - tutions. 'lhese meanings direcr t[e adion of the individual in most arcas of daily lifc, whether rhey conform ro the superordinate meanings of schemes of life cornnrunicared, for cxample by religious institutions, or not. The clai to integrate ones own life into a superordinatc value system can be realized essentially only in a sphere not t ouched by t he ot hcr ' bi g' i nst i t ut i ons, i n a sphere so- ci al i y def i ned as t he pri vat e sphere' . 26 A mi ni mum of shared meani ngs i n a soci et y i s cont ai ned i n t he t eneral agrccment gi ven t o t he "f i rnct i c, ni ng of f unct i ons' , i e. t he agreement that in each area of action condud should be directed towards instrumcntally rational requircments. Ancl this minimal consensus is sccured by the generl ccePtance that in the Private reserves of individual existencc and comnlunities of life separate meanings of Life may be pursucd, distinct from those of other indi viduals and groups. This minimum may be cxceedcd even in this typc of societics. First, it is remarkable that the "big" institutions bind their spccific meanings - beyond the rationality of the organization of action within thenr to general valucs, such as for exampl e "drc general i nt erest ". I -xceedi ng t he mi ni nl Lrm i n t hi s way may fulfill abo"e all legitimately purposes while the schemes ol action thenxclvcs may remain untouched. Furthermore, secondly, individr.rals and comrnunities of meaning may attenPt to difcct their action evcn within a sphere adnrinistcred by a 'big' institution towards supcrordinate "values' going beyond its instrumentally rational objectivc meaning. llowevcr, this can occur only in conflict with the specific instrumental rationality. 'fhe attenrpts by institutions to connct to suPerordinatc values for lcgitimatory purposes may prodrrcc only vapid fonnLriac and value- orientated conduct of life may bc limited to the reserve of the pri- vate. This would add to the conditions for the spread of subjective anrl i nt er-subj ect i vc cri ses of nrcani ng. However, t hi s al so creat es, simultaneously, the precondrtions for something clse, nanely the coexistence of different value systems anclfragments of value systems in the sanre society and thus the parallel existence of quite different communities of meaning. The state which results fronr thse pre- conditions can be called pluralism. If it itself becomes a suPerordi nate value for a socicty we may speak of modern plLrralism 27 3. Modernity and the crisis of meaning If pluralism rvere defined as a state in which people who lead their lives in vcry different ways are to bc found in thc same society, one would not be dealing with a spccifically modern phenomenon. One could find one or other variant o{ pluralism in almost all societies other than the archaic. Ancient lndia as well as the India o{ today was charactcrized by a pluralism of casts, medieval Europe by a pluralism of estates- But in thcse examplcs the different forms of life would still be related to a common value systen and thc interaction bctween the communities of life would remain limited and strictly regulrtcd. Even if one defincd pluralisrn as a state in which dif{erent forrns of lifc were to be found in a society without these different forms of life being referrcd to a common value system one would be ablc to find examples, for instance the Roman Empire which in economic and poLitical terms was a single sociery. But even here the interaction between thc different groups and peoples - insofar as they werc not regionally separatcd - was reglllated such that the dif- fercnt supcrordinate stocks of nreaning were uncoupled from the in- stitutionalized schcmes of action of the functional spheres. The dif- ferent groups could, therefore, interacr in the instrumentally ra- tional spheres o[ action while at thc same time remaining attached to their orvn value systems- For example, the relations ofJews to non, Jews rvere regul at ed by t he so-cal l ed ' f ence of t he l aw". 1f t hesc regul at i ons are no l onger, or can no l onger, be nrai nt ai ned, then a ncw situation is created, widr serious implications for the takcn-for granted starus of value systems and overarching views of the world. Thc ethnic, religious and orher groups and coDrmunities of lifc, divided by different stocks of meaning, are no longcr spatially . cp. ] rrr. d (r. f or o, ampl e i n rrgrorr ut r rori erl or ' rrrc or i n quar. ters or thetrocs of a city), nor do they interact only through the neutral tcrrain of strictly separated sequences of action in institution- al i zed f unct i onal spheres. Encount ers or, under cert ai n ci rcum- 28 stances, clashes betwcen diflerent vlue systens nd views of the world becomc inevitablc. 'l'hcre ha'e bcen approximations to this state of affairs before, c. g. in thc Ilellenic uorlcl. This form of pltralisrn is not necessarily l i nkcd t o t he spread of cri ses of meani ng, t hough part i cul ari y i n t he Hellcnic world there wcre also signs of this. This form of plLrralism has become fully flcdged only in modcrn societics. Here, the ccntral structural aspects of this pluralisnr havc been raisecl to the sttus of an cnl i ght encd val uc above t he di f f crent coexi st i ng and cont pet i ng value systcnx. So, for examplc, tc'lerance is rcckoned the "en- lightencd' virtue par cxcellence, since onLy through tolerance can in- dividuaLs and conrmunities Live side by sicle and with one anodler, whilst directing eir existence towards different values. This modcrn f orm of pl ural i sn i s, ho*cvcr, al so t hc Lrasi c condi t i on f or t i re spread of mbj cct i ve and i nt er subj ect i ve cri ses of meani ng. \Vhethcr modern pluralism neccssarily lcads to such crises is en open quest i on. Howevcr, one can say wi t h cert ai nt y t hat i n hi ghl y devcloperl indusrrial countries, i-c. where mc,dernization has progrcssecl furthcst and thc nlern form of pLuralism is fully developcd, value systems and stocks of meaning are no longcr the comnron property of ail members c'f society. 'l he individual grows up i n a norl d i n whi ch t here arc nei t her conrmon val ues whi ch det ernri ne act i on i n di f f erent sphcres of l i f e, nor a si ngl e rcal i t y identical lor all. The 'ndividual is incorporated into a suPcrordinate system of meaning by thc cornmunity of life in which it grows up. Howcvcr, this canrot be assuned to bc the nrcaring system of odler pcopl e (Mi t mcnschen). l hcse ot hers may ha"c been shaped by quhe different sysrens of nrcaning in the communities of life in which they grew up. In Europc, shared and overarching systems of in- terprctation werc already shakcn in the early phase of modcrni- zation. The history of totalitarian ideologies in the last hundred ycars has shorvn th:rt nothing, not cven radical regrcssion, can re store such interpretativc schemes pcnnanently or make thcnr the structLrral charactcristic of a modern society. lt is, by the way, also questionable whcther fundamentalist attempts in rhe countries ofthe so called Third Vorld will be more successlul regardless of the in- tensiry rvuh *'hrch overarching and universally binding stocks of meaning are defended today. It has been notcd that such conditions pronrote the spread of sub- jective and intcr-subjective crises of meaning. ut while some condi- tions accelerate such crises there are others which hinder them. The pal c superordi nat e val ues of modern pl ural i sm do not have t hi s power. They nray have other useful effects in that they promote the peaceful coexistence of diffcrent forms of life and value systems. lhey are, howevcr, not suitable to dircctly counteract the spread of crises of meaning. They tell the inclividual how to behave towards other people and groups who differ in their view of life. They do not, however, tell one how one should lead onc's life when the un- questioned validity of the traditional order is shaken. That may be achieved by diffcrent means. As the degree to which socially valid conditioning of shared interpretations ol reality decreases different communities of life can develop increasingly into quasi-autononrous comnunities of meaning. insofar as these communities prove rhem- selves relatively stable they may preserve their nrembers from crises of meaning. Stability is particularly important for the role played by such life communities in the coherent formation of personal identity of children grorving up in them, who may thereby be protected f rom subj ect i ve cri ses of meani ng. Concret e communi t i es of l i f e as qasr'autonomous conmunities of nreaning, and nrore stable, "pure" conrmurnitics of like minded peoplc (Gesinnungsgemeinschaften) counteract the pa demic spread of crises of meaning. However, they cannot t ranscend t he precondi t i ons whi ch prornot e t he spread oF cnscs of meaning anchored structurally in modern society. Iiur- themore, to rcpeat this point, communities of ljfe nr which the dis, crepncy between the expectcd and factual community of mcaning is too great can themselves become the trigger for inter-subjective cri ses of meani ng. This dialectical relationship bctween the loss of meaning and the 30 nev creat i on of nreani ng or bet ween t he erosi on of nrcani ng and i t s rebuilding can most clcarly be observed in the case of religion. 'lhis is, in any case, thr: most important form of a comprehensive pattern of experiencc and values, systematically structurcd and rich in mean_ ing. For the largest part of human history a society was unthinkable without a single rcligion encompassing everything and everyone 'lhc gods of nry ancestors verc nanrrally also nry own gods; my gods were naturally aLso the gods of all the members of my tribe or ry town. Most archaic societies wcre like this. Across long periods of time high culnrres with rnany differentiated social institutions wcre l i ke t hi s as wcl l . Then t hi s uni t y bet ween t he i ndi vi dual , hi s or her soci et y and t he gods, embodyi ng t hc hi ghest aut hori t y i n t he or- dcr of vaiue, rvas shaken in diffcrcnt piaces and at diflerent types by religious schisms. This happened long before the beginning of mo- dernity, as for exarnple in the exodus of lsrael from the unified sym bolic order of the Middle East, or even more radically in the separa- tion of Christianity from the symbolic order of classical antiquity. After such schisnrs there were rcpeated attempts to restore a super ordinate sysrem of oreaning on a new basis, perhaps of a smaller scope ("subculture' instead of culturc) - as in the unity of the tribe of Isracl with its God or in the constant search for thc unity of the Chri st i an church. Vith the concept of Christendom in the European middle ages an anempt was made to irring together all the people in a certrin space of power under a single, common and superordinate system ol meaning, and to h,-,ld thcm there. \Vc know that this attemPt was never entircly successful. \ithin Christendom nrinorities preserved their special symbolic systerls -Jews, heretics, cults deriving from a pagan part. At ti'res thc symbolic unity of Christendom was broke up f rom wi t hout (l sl am) or f rom wi t hi n (Greek Ort hodoxy, Al bi n- gensians). It was most severely shakcn by the Rcformation- The con- sequences of thn quake were not intended, for the reformers wanted to restore and prcscrve a uni{ied Christendom on r ncw basis. The schism of thc church foiled this attempt at thc European level. l 1 Alongside thc Orthodox church two new "Christcndoms" emerged - onc C:rtholic, the othcr Protcstant. The formula rvirh which the religious wars in central Europc were ended - cuius rcgio, eius reli- gio - wis thc foundation for an attcnrpt to restorc symbolic unity at l east wi t hi n smal l spaces of rul e. Ll owcver, due t o t he onset of mod ernization cven this territorial solution was only short lived. In- dustrialization, urtranization, nrigration and mass communications could not be clcanly divided into Catholic and Protestant channels. In nodcrn central Europc Catholics and Protestants (and increas- ingly membcrs of many faiths, not to speak of incrcasing numbers of peopl e ni t hoLu rel i gi on) encount er each ot her and are mi xed up, e. g. t hrough rrarri age. The conccpt ofregio in thc formula of the Peace of Vestphalia thus loses its spatial mening. ltcgio becomes the sphcre of cotrmu nication for a community of meaning and conviction rrsually not limited to a particular area. One is Catholic by belonging to a Catholic rcligious community and taking part in other Catholic i nst i t ut i ons evcn i f one' s nei ghbors are prot est ant s. ' l hese subcuf tures, generally voluntary conrntunities of convrction, no longer offer the security of earlier comnrunities of life and nreaning which were embcdded in societai ordcrs of value and meaning. Never, rheless, through various fornrs of comnrunication and social rela- tions they can save the individual from unmasterablc crises of meaning. If they do not turn radically against socicty and are at ieast toierated by it, they act, so to spcak, on aggregate to stenr the spread of crises of mcaning in society. linlightened rulers wcre wise enough to recognizc this and left their subjects to seek happiness where they find it". It turned out that the hope tirat Catholics could be loyal supporters of the Prussian crorvn was well founded. Vhat has been said about religion holds, mutatis mutandis, for other conprehcnsive orders of meaning. Moderniz-ation has made the assertion ol thc monopoly of localized sysrems of nreaning and value across entire socicties more tlifficult if not entirely impossible. Ar the safle time it has creatcd e posibility for the formation of 32 communitics of conviction transcending spacc (e. g. through com- prchcnsive ideologies) and from drcse stocks of meaning the shared nreanings of smaller coolmunities mxy be derived. Despite this pos sibility the overall deuelopmcnt cngenders, above all, a great degree of insecurity; both in the orientation of individual actions and the ent i re di rect i on of l ; f e. Nevert hel ess, i t ' oul d be mi sl cadi ng t o draw t he concl usi on, f rom this alone, that nrodern societies suffer from comprehensive crises of rneaning. There are still people who cven under these conditions are able to establish a meaningful relationship between the experiences of thcir own lives and the various interpretive possibilities offcred to them and who are therefore able to conduct their lives relatively meaningfully. Furthertrore, there are the institntions, sub-cultures and communities of convictiol wirich transport transcendent values and stocks of mcaning into concrete social relationships and life conrmunities and support rhenr there. The succcss of modern socicty beyond t hcse "i sl ands of meani ng" i s duc t o a l egal i zat i on of t he rules of social iife and its "old fashioned nrorality", lurthermore through the formal moralization of certain more or less profession- alizcd sphercs of action- Legalization means that the functionaL sys- tem is rcgulatcd by abstract nonns, fixed in writing and binding on ali members of a society. Moralization is an attempt to solve con- crcte cthical qucstions that appear in individual spheres of action. |or example, in the USA academic disciplines such as "mcdical etirics' or "business ethics' have cmerged. Legalization ignores the different value systenrs of thosc affected. The nroralization of pro- fessional spheres does without a conrprehensive order of meaning. Iloth creatc thc conditions in which people manage their daily lives wi t hout a comprehensi ve and shared nroral rt y. Such a society can be comparcd rvith a system of traffic rules. One stops on red and drives on grcen and the maintenance of these rrrles is in the intcrest of all participants. One can therefore normally rely on people abiding by the rules without the rules themselves being legitinrated in deep moral tcnns. If the rules are inlringed, one can 33 bring those who have infringcd thc 'traffic rules" to reason, by laws or by non state rules, rlaintained by trade associations or medical as- sociations. Char:rcteristically, groups with rival interest in demo- crtic societies attcmpt to havc the "traffic rules' which are most im- portant for them legalizcd by thc state. Obviously, the analogy is only partial: 'traffic rul""s" can rcfcr only to the practical issues of individual spheres of social lifc. Lven there a moralizing, value- orientared rhetoric must bc enrployed. Particularly if groups with an intcrest in a particular set of rules wish to use the denrocratic proccss to legalize these rules, then they must seek t o l egi t i mi ze t hese rul cs by ref erence t o vxl ues rel evant t o all of society - however vaguely thesc may be formulated. Beyond t he i nf l uence of t he l aw and t he "et hi cs' of part i cul ar sphere individuals are lcft to their own devices. Systems of ethics let alone the laws which rcgulate conduct in professional life or in the publ i c sphere - arc of l i nl e rrse i n overcomi ng cri ses of meani ng and conf l i ct s i n person: l l i f c. I l owcvcr, even i f we i gnore t he f act t hat the analogy wnh traffic rulcs is incomplete, it is in any case valid onl y f or t hc ' normal case . Vhat docs t hat mean? h means t hat t he analogy assumcs a society which has achievcd a high degree of eco- nomic prospcrity, experiences no inrDlcdiatc threat from outside and has netotiated relations betwccn diffcrent group interests relatively peacefully. h is one of thc saddcning experiences of this century that such "normal i t y' i s al ways f ragi l e. l f condi t i ons are "abnormal " and particularly if it is dcmanded of individuals that they should place their interests bchind those of socicty as a whole, then "traffic ru1es" are no longcr cnough. In such a situation, an overarching morality, regardless of how it is founded, bccorncs e societal imperative. \{rhat we have just claimed draws on a tradition of sociological theory which can be traced back abovc all to Emile Durkheim and the French school founded by hin. Flowever, it rejects one of their basic assumptions. Durkheim bclicved that no society can survive without an overarching morality; ire named that overarching morat-symbolic c,rder 'religion". \e diverge frorn Durkheim in that wc clo not accept this necessity for thc "norrnal case". lhe dialogue with Durkheirn rcquires us to specify this "normal case" more pre cisely. Durkheim devoted much effort to the study of the phenom- enon of sacrifice because he considercd that the willingness to sacri' ficc oncs own interests and in extrcnris ones life for thc social whole was a decisive characteristic for thc ability of a society to survivc. Durkhci nr' s assumpt i on hol ds f or a soci et y rvhi ch i s exposcd t o an cxi st cnt i al reat . But i t rs preci sel y t h t hreat whi ch i s mi ssi ng i n t hc normal case . The t raf f i c part l crpant s need t o f ol l ow t he rui es i n t hci r orr, n i nt erest ; no wi l l i ngncss i or sacri f i ce i s presumed. Modcrnization makes the occurrcrrce of such "normal cases" nruch morc 1ikely than it was in carlicr pcriocls: rnodernizarion brings with it cconomic growth which is typically associared with rclative politi- cal stability. The citizenry is much lcss tcnrpted to question the le- gitinracy of an order lvhcn its survival is sccured by matcrirl prosperiy. However, it should bc cmphasized that it would be a gravc crror to assume that this statc could be regarded as secure and i rreversi bl e. ' l hc rveakeni ng and even t he col l apse of an overarchi ng order of nrcani ng wi t h t he onset of moderni t y i s hardl y a novel t heme. The cnlishtcnmcnt and its successors n,clconrcd this process as thc over- turc for thc crcation of a new onler bascd on freedom and rcason. 'l hc postrevohLtionary French traclitioralists and other conservative thinkers have bewailed the same procss as decadence and declinc. Vhcthcr modcrnity and its conset1ucnce arc welcomed or rcjected thcrc ;s widespread conscnsus on tbe facts of the matter. !e feel thet t hi s conscnsus t hough not compl ct cl y unf ounded does undul y si nr pl i f y a conrpl cx si t uat i on. ' l hcrc i s wi despread consensus not onl y anrong* experts but also in conrnxrn sense understanding about the cause, perhaps even the main crusc of this breaking apart of the conrprehensive order of meaning. 'l his is to be found in the retreat of religion. Religion here is not understood in the wider sense enployed by DLrrkheim, i.e. as any comprehensive order of meaning and world order, but rather in the narrower more corventionl t 5 mcaning - religion, as belief in god, in another world, salvation and the bcyond. $(ith reference to thc n)odern \Vest this implies that the declinc of Christianity has causcd thc modern crisis of meenint. This nor very original interpretation was accepted as fact and wel- comed by progrcssive philosophers anrl intellectuals and mourned by almost all conservative ideological thinkers. Put simply the main thesis of this argument, well established in the socioiogy of religion as the "secularizetion thesis' is that modernhy leads inescapably to sccularization secularization in the sense of a loss of influence of religious institutions on socicty as well as the ioss of credibility of religious interpretations in peoplc's consciousness. Thus comes into being a historically new species: "the nrodern person" who believes that one can cope both in ones own life and in social existence with- out rel i gi on. The conf ront at i on wi t h t hi s ' nrodern person" hes become an i m- port ant t opi c f or whol e gcnerat i ons of Chri st i an t heol ogi ans and a cent ral poi nt i n t he progranrme of t he Chri st i an churches i n west ern count ri es. l ; or t hi s t hesi s, as wel l , a nLrmber of argrrmen* can be de- pl oyed. I l i st ori cal evi dence suggcst s t hat at Least si nce t he 18t h cen- t ury t he soci al i nf l uence of t hc church has decl i ned, at l easr i n wes- t ern Europe, and t hat i mport ant i nst i t ut i ons (e. g. t he enri re educa- tional systcm) have liberated thcmselvcs from their earlier religious ties. In addition, the term 'modern person" is not entirely divorccd from reality. It is likcly that there are a considerablc number of peoplc who cope with thcir lives without religious faith (in the sense defined carlier) or religious practice. Vhether this type of secular exjstence is an absolute novelty is questionable. It is likely that there have always been pcople who have found thcir happiness in this v'orld without churches - before and after they came into ex- istence. But even disregarding this, dre equation of modernity and secularization must be treated skeptically. I{ the secularization thesis applies anywhcre, then in westcrn l-urope. (Even there it would have to be questioned sr'hethcr thc institutional retreat of the churches can be equatcd with the rctreat of rcligious interpretations 36 in consciousness.) Observers of the European religious scene (incLLrd- ing one of the two authors of this study) have for a long time pointed out that declericalization shouLd lot be confused with the loss of religion. In any case the convcntional secularizalion dlesis rapidly loses credibility as soo as oue leaves \Western Europc. A particular irritant for this theory is the state of religion in the United States. American society crn hardly be described as un- modern. I Io*'ever, religion is forccfully alive and present therc. And t hi s i s t rue bot h at t he i nst i t ut i onal l euel as q' el l as i n t he consci ous- ness anrl life conduct of millions of peoplc. There are fcw signs that this situation is changing in thc dircction suggcsted by the scculariza- tion thesis. Outside l:,urope and North America it is in any case nonscnse. The so called l'hird Vorlcl is in fact shaken by thc onrush of religious rnovements. The Islauric rereissxnce has attracted most attention but it is far from bcing the only case. \Vorldwide one can tracc thc success story of evangelical Protestantism, the most striking chapter of which is Evangelism. l his new Protestantism spreads like a prairie fire - in s-ide stretches of East and Southeastern Asia, in Af ri ca sout h of t he Sahara and most surpri si ngl y - i n al l coun- trics of Latin America. Often it is precisely those layers of society most touched by modernization which are most susceptible to reli gious cndrusiasm. The troops of todays religious mass movcnrents arc to bc found in the new citics of the Third Vorld, not in thc tra- ditional villages. People traincd at tbe nrodern universitics are olten t he l cadi ng cadres of t hi s movemcnt . ln short: the European model of secularized modernity has only l i mi t ed export val Lre. The most i nrport ant f act or i n t he creat i on of cri ses of meani ng i n soci ct y as i n dre l i l c of t he i ndi vi dual i s prob- abl y not t he supposedl y modcrrr secul ari t y but modern pl ural i snr. Modcrnity means a quantitative as lvellas qualitative increase in plu raliz:uion. 'fhe structural causes of this fact are well known: popula- tion growth and migration and, associated with this, urbanization; pluralization in the physical, dcrrogr:rphic sense; the market eco- nomy and inclustriaLization which throw together people of the most different hinds and force them to deal with each other reason- ably peacefully; the rule of law and denrocracy which provide insti- tutional guarantces for this peaceful coexhtence. The media of mass communi cat i on const ant l y and emphari caLl y parade a pl ural i ry of ways of life and thinking: both prlnted material riding on mass li, teracy spread across the entire population by compulsory schooling and the nes-est electronic media. If the interactions enabled by this pluralization are not restricted by 'fenccs' of one kind or another, rhis plurlism takes full effect, bringing with it one of its conse- quencesr the "structural' crisis of meaning. 'lhe "fence of the law" was alrcady mentioned. Rabbinical Judaism erected this fence to distinguish practicing Jews from their profane surroundings. It was this 'fence" which made possible the survival of the Jewish community over many centuries in a mainly hostile Christian or Islamic society- One nlight also sey: the "fence of the law" protected those people livnrg within it from pluralism. This protection collapsed with the emancipation of the Jews in wesrern societies and the people affccted were consequently particularly liable to crises of meaning. It is not mere happenstance lhat modern Jewish thinkers and writers hav e con cern ed th emselves particularly in- tensively with such crises of meaning. Conversely one can say that any group that wishes to protect itself from the consequences of pluralism must erect its own 'fence of the law'. As was mentioned, there have been instances of pluralisur throughout history, for in, stxnce in the large towns of late antiquity and probably at times along the trade routes and the urban cenrers of Asia. The modern processes of pluralization distinguish themselves from their pred- ccessors not only by their immense extent (much wider circles are affected by them), they are also distinguished by their acceleration: whiLst their effects progressively extend to "new" countries, they do not remain static, in already highly modernized societies they are accelerating. Modern pluralism leads to a thorough relativization of systems of values and schemes of intcrpretation. Put differently: the old value 38 systems and schemes of interpretation arc ' decenonized '. The result- ing disorientation of the individual and of whole groups has for years bccn the main theme of socixl and cultural criticism. Catego- ries such as 'alienation" and "anorrie' arc proposed to charctcrize thc difficulty experienccd by people trying to find their way in the modcrn world. fhe weakness of such common place concePtions is not that they exaggerate the crisis of meaning. Their weakness is t hei r bl i ndncss t owards t he capaci t y of i ndi vi dual s as wel l as di f f er ent conrmunities of life and meaning to preserve their own values and intcrpretations. Existential philosophy from Kicrkegaard to Sartrc has developed the most imprcssive conception of the alienatcd human being. Other versions xrc to be found throughot recent \festcrn literanrre (one need mention only Kafka). However, it can- not bc doubted that this imagc of humanity applies to only a small portion of the population in rnodern societies (though this portion may be in certin respecrs an important one). Most people in these societies do not vander around likc characters in a Kafha novel. They are not plagued by fear and are not tempted to make desperate lcaps of faith , nor do they co sider themselves "condemned to frcedonr'- One x-ay or anothcr, with or without religion, they cope with their lives. It is important to understand how they mnagc this. But before we attempt !o pursue this question we wish to return oncc more to or.rr clain that pluralism is the cause of the crisis of mcaning ir modernity. We must cxamine more closely the signifi' cance for the stock of meaning end the process through which meaning is lost, of the social psychological status of meaning and knowlcdge as taken'for granted. J9 4. The loss of the taken-for-granted lf communities of life and mc:ning rcally overlap to the extent that is demanded by social cxpectariols, rhen social life and the existence of t hc i ndi vi dual procced habi t u: l l y al nrost "by t hemsel ves". Thi s does not necessarily imply drat drc individuals have no life problems or that they are happy with thcir fate. However, rhey a! least "kno\ir" about the world, how tr-, bchave in it, what is reasonable to cxpect and, iast but not least, indiviclLrals know who they are. For exrmple, the role of a slavc was presurnably never a pleasant one. Nevertheless, however unpleasant it may have been the individuals who occupied this role livcd in a steady and clearly identifiable world in which they could orientate their behavior, rheir expecta- tions and their iden!ity rvith sonrc dcgree of confidence. They were not lorced to daily rcdefine the nrcaning of their existence. This un anbi guous def i ni t i on of exnt cnce i n t he worl d was shared by t he siaves ard their owners, though it must be assurned that the latter f el t more at ease i n t hei r cxi st ence t han di d t he sl aves. Nei t her rhe slavc nor the slavc orvner were, as Sartre rvould say, "condemned to freedom". (Thc possibilrty that the slaves might rebel or the slave on'ner abandon his property to bccome a monk nccd not concern us here - quite apart from the f:ct that such cases were rare.) Modern pluralism undcrmines this conrnron-sense "knowledge". The world, society, life and personai identity are called ever more into question. They may be subjcct to nrultiple interpretations and cxch interpretation defines its own perspcctivcs of possible action. No irterpretrtion, no rangc of possiblc actions can any longer be ac cepted as the only true and unquestionably right one. lodividuals are thus frequently faced with thc question whether they should not have iived their lives in a completely different manner than they have hitherto. 1'his is expericnced on dre one hand as a great libera- tion, as an opening of new horizons and possibilities of life, leading out of the confines of the old, unquestioned mode of existence. The 40 sanre process is, however, often exPerienced as oPPressive (often by the sanre peoplc) - as a pressure on individuals to repeatedly make sensc of the new and the unfamiliar in their realities. Thcre are pcople who withstand tllis pressure; thcre are some who evcn seem to rclish it. One might call thcnr v,rtuosos of pluralism. However, the najority of people feel insccure and lost in a confusing world full of possibilities of interpretation of l'hich some arc linked to al rernat i ve ways of l i f e. The concept s devel oped by Arnol d Gehl en i n hi s t heory of i nst i t Lr lions help us to understand this anrbivaLent situation. Vc have al- ready made rcfcrence to this body of theory in the introductory cirapter with reference tc, the inrportmce of institutions for hunran oricntation in reality. Institutions are designed to relieve individuals of thc nccessity of reinventing thc world and reoricntatiog thcm selves in it evcry day. Instittltions create 'programmes" for the con duct of social interaction and for the 'execution" of particular cur- ri cul um vi t ae. They provi de t cst cd part erns t owards whi ch peoPl e may rl i rect behavi or. By pract i ci ng t hese prescri bed" nodes of be' havi or t he i ndi vi dual l earns t o nat ch t he expect at i ons t hat go wi t h ccrtain roles: c. g. as husbancl, father, employec, tL\ Paycrl Particr' pant in traffic, consumer. If institutions are functioning reasonably norm:rlly, thcn individuals fuLfill the roles assigned to them by so' cicty in the form of institutionalizcd schemes of action and lead their livcs accorcling to insritutionally sccurcd, socially shaped curricula which arc largely accepted unqucstioningly. in their effccts institutions are substitutes for instincts: they allow act i on ni t hcrut a1l al t ernat i ves havi ng t o be consi dered. Many soci - et al l y i nport ant soci al i nt cract i ons arc carri ed out quasi aut omat i calLy. Every timc slaves receive an order from their mastcr they do not need to consider whcthcr to obey or Dot. Nor does the slave orvner pause to consider whether he is entitled to give orclers to his slaves. Neither the slaves nor the slve owner queslion their own ac- tions or the actrons of dre other; typiclly, their action is unreflec- tivc. Connecting Gehlen's theory of institutions with the social psychology of Georgc I Icrbert Mcadc (to which the preceding dis- cussion of the formation of pcrsonal idcntity is also indebted) one can say that the institutional "programmcs' are ' internaiized ' ir in- dividual consciousness and dircct thc indivldual's acrions not as alicn but as t he i ndi vi dual ' s own mcani ngs. ' Programmes" are i nt ernal - ized in multi-laycred proccsscs: first in "primary sociliztion", in which the Ioundations are laid for the formation of personal iden- tityi then in "sccondxry socializ-ation" which directs the individual towards the rolcs of social rcality, above all in the world of work. The structurcs of society bccomc structures of consciousness. Slave and master do not mcrcly behave in conformity with their roles, they think, feel and conccive of thcnxclves in ways that conform to their rolc behavior. 'I hc srrbjectivc world of the individual does not necessari)y have to coincide complctcly s,ith socially objectified rea- lity - this is impossible. In the process of socialization there are if not real breaks then at least snrall cracks. In the fornration of person- ality there can be at best an :pproxinration to the complete con- gruence of meani ngs. A scanrl ess t ransi t i on f rom pri mary t o sec ondary soci al i zat i on j s t hc cxcepri o i n nrost soci et i es, not t he rul e. The individual has idiosyncratrc inrpulses and dares ro transfer dreams into day to day life and to seek adventures outside the pro- grammes of socicty. Neverthclcss, even is can be spoken of as ' ' nonnat i t y' . Devi at i ons f rom t he i nst i t ut i onal programmes and di - vergences from the society's historical rescrvoirs of meaning (and re serves of meaning) are relativc)y rare and remain limited to the indi- vrrl rul : and rhi ' rncan' t h: u rl . y Jo nor enrer i nro communi carrve processcs anri that "censordlip" opcrares even at the lowest level of objectification and conrmunication of "dangerous" thoughrs. If "censorship" is unable to contain the deviation within the interior life of the individual thcn special institutional programmes are ap- plied in the treatment of the deviant. 'lhis rrearment has both an ex- ternal and an internal aspect. DxternalLy tllc range of treatments ex- tends from the physical liquidation of those who have deviated from the true path to loving spiritual care for "lost sheep". One way or 42 another the deviant bchavior must bc rendered harmless - harmless for the execution of thc progrannre. fhe obstacle to the smooth functioning of the machinery must be removed. The internal aspect of t hi s process of soci al cont roL i s t he at t empt t o st op devi ant thought and to restorc the previoLrs 'mindless" acceptance of nor malrty. Instinrtions draw thcir power from the naintcnance ol unqlres- tioned vaLidity. An institution is endangered fronr the moment in which the people Living within it or with it begin to think about in- stitutional roles, identities, schenres of interpretation, values and ways of viewing thc worlcl. Conscrvative philosophers have always sensed dris; senior police mcn know it from practical experiencc. In t he normal case" dangerous t hought can be reasonabl y cont roi l ed. However, pluralism makes this controL more difficult. 'Ihere is here a cLear sociafpsychological dialectic - from liberation to burden- some frccdom: it is extremely hard to be forced to lead ones own life without being able to hold on to' unquestioned patters of interpre- t at i on and norms of bchavi or. Thi s l eads t o a cl amorous nost al gi a for the good oLd days of unfreedom. Liberation is an xmbituous thing. As GehLen puts it: freedom is born out of alienation - and Modern l i t erat urc i s f ul l of exampl es of t hi s. One need t hi nk onl y of t hc t heme of "provi nci al i sm", of t hc bi ographi cal di al ect i c bet ween town and city, of thc many possiblc 'paths to freedom' (Arthur Schnitzlcr). Madame Bovary suffers in her narrow, provincial world. But if she had had the chance to move to Paris she would not have remai ned happy f or l ong. Al i enat l on woul d have been t he pri ce of her grcrt er l re"dom. rhe l -, ' ' cl r. br"r cen, rrnl y l rer "roorl c- chilclrcn would probably have conceived the idea that the old pro- vincial world had its good sides after all which at the time were so taken for grantcd drat they were not noticed at ali. A physicalreturn to that world is usually no longer possible. There is however no shortagc of suggested routes for an internal return (religious, po' litical, therapeutic), *.ays of healing the pain of alienation. Projects 43 aimed at restoring the good "old world" almost always include the suppression or linitation of pluralism - and with good reason: pluralism constantly suggcsts alternatives, alternatives force people to think, thinking undermincs the foundation of all versions of a "good oLd world'; the assumption o[ its unquestioned existence. Modernization inplies the radrcal transformatjon of all external conditions of hunan existence. l he motor of this giant transforma- tion, as has often been said, is drc science-based technology of the last centuries. In purely matcrial terms this dcvclopment hes brought rvith it a huge expansion of the range of possibilities. Vhereas in thc past a few technologies, passed on from generation to generalion, wcre the foundation of material cxistence, there is now an apparently endless and constantly improving plurality of technological systems. Both individuals and huge organizations face the nccessity of choosing one or other option from amongst this plurality. This conpulsion for choice extends fronr trivial consumer goods (which brand of tooth pastel) to basic technological alterna tives (which raw nTaterial for the motor vehicle industryl). The in- crease in the rangc of options also extends to the social and intellcc- tual sphere. I Icrc, nodernization meam the change from an exist- ence dctermined by fate to onc consisting of a long series of possible choices. l:ate previously determined almost atl phases of life, the in- dividual movcd frorr phase to phasc according to prcdetermined pat- terns, childhood, rites of passagc, employment, marriage, child rear ing, ageing, illncss and death. Fate also determined the internal life of the individual: feelings, interpret;rtions of the world, values and personal identity. The gods were "already preselt" at birth, as was the sequence of social roles that followed. Put diffcrently: the range of pregiven, unqucstioned assumptions exrendcd to lhe largest part of human exi st ence. Modernization fundamentalLy changed this. Birth and death are still - only just - determined by fate. In parallel to the plurality of pos- sible choiccs at a natcrial level multilayered processes of moderni- zation open up x rarge of options at thc social and intellectual levcl: 44 which job should I take up) Vhom shall I marry? Ifow shorrld I bring up nry children? Even the gods can be sclected fronr a range of possible options. I can change my rcligious allcgiance, my citizen- ship, ny life style, my image of nrysclf and my sexual habitus. The rangc of taken for-granted assumptions shrinks to a relatively small core whi ch i s hard t o def i ne. ' l hc t echnol ogi cal economi c f ounda t i ons of t hi s changc are at t he l evcl of t he mat cri al , but i t s soci al di - nrcnsi ons are i nt ensi f i ed, above al l , by pl ural i sm. Pl ural i sm not onl y pcrmi t s one t o rnakc choi ces (j ob, hud; and or i vi f e, rel i gi on, part y), i t forces one to do so as the moclcrn range o[ consumer goods forccs onc to choosc (Persil or ArieL, VV or Saab). One can no longcr choosc not to choose: it has bccome in)possible to close ones eyes to the frct that a decision that onc nrirkes could also have been made diffcrcndy. Two central instirutions of modern society Promote this transition from rhe possibility of choice to the comPulsion to choosc: the ruarket econorny and denrocracy. Both institr.ltions are f oundcd on t he aggregat i on of i ndi vi dual choi ce - and t hemsel ves cncorage cont ; ouous choi ce and scl cct ron. Thc et hos of dcmocracy nrakcs choi ce i nt o a f undament al human nght . f ire taken-for-granred resides in thc reaLm of unquestioned, securc knowledge. lhe loss of the taken for-granted unsettles this realm: I know less and lcss. Instead I have :r ralge of opinions. Some of thesc opinious condcnsc into sornething that one night call bclief. Thesc are opinions for vhich I an prcparcd to make sacrifices in the lirrrit, even today, to sacrifice my lifc, but probably no longer unquestion- i ngl y. I t l i cs i n t he nat ure of t hi ngs t hat i n t he ' normal " l i f e of so ci ct y and t he i ndi vi dual such l i nri t cascs are rel at i vel y rare l n t he ' nornral process of moderni zat i on i anr i n any case no l onger forcecl to decide v.hcther I am preparcd to wager my life for faith or evcn nrcre opinions. Unqucstioncd, secure knor'ledge dissolves into a no longer very compclLing aggrcgate of loosely connccted opi ni ons. Fi rm i nt erpret at i ons of reai i t y bccome hypot heses. Con- victions become matters of tastc. Conrmandments become sugges 45 t i ons. These changes i n consci ousness crcat c t he i mpressi on of a cer- t ai n' f l ar ess. One can rmaginc the conscioLrsncss of the individual as different levcls layered on top of each othcr. In the "depths" (this term is not r.rscd here in thc |reudian scnsc of depth psychology) lie those inter- prctations drat arc taken for granted. This is the sphere of unques- tioned, certain knowlcdge. Alfrcd Schtitz called dris the level of the "world-taken for-grantcd'; Robcrt and Ilelen Lynd meant some- thing of the same kind with their concept of "of-course-statements". The other pole, thc uppermost lcvcl of consciousness (uppermost in the sensc of closest to thc "surfacc'), is the sphere of insecurity, that which is not taken for grantcd, opinions which I am in principle prepared to revise or evcn retract. This sphcre is ruled by the motto "chacrrn son gut . In this layer rlodel, thc modernization of con- sci ousness appears as a l oss of ' dept h' . More engagi ngl y one can view consciousness as a huge coffee nraker the contents of con sciousness of all types have evaporated upwards, the residual grounds has senousl y shrunken, t hc cof f ce has become prert y rhi n. The l oss of t he t akcn-f or-grant ed rvi t h al l i t s soci al and psychol ogi cal consequerces rs most pronounced - as one woui d expect - i n t he sphere of religion. Modern pluralism has undercut the monopoly enjoyed by religious institurions. Vhether they like it or not the religious institutions :rc suppliers in a nrarket of religious options. The "church-going peoplc has drvindlcd to a mernbership which can in nany churches bc countcd on the fingers of two hands. Membership in a particulxr church is no longcr taken for granted, bur rather dre result of a delibcrate choice. Evcn those who decide to renain with thc confession of their parcnts are making such a choice: they could, after all, havc changed confcssion or religion or simply left the church altogethcr. This fundamentally changes the social position of the churchcs, whether their theological self-image is willing to acknowledge dris state of aff:rirs or not. If they wish to survive, churches increasnrgly necd to consider the wishes of their membcrs. The church must provc irself in the free markct. The pcoplc x'ho 'buy" a particular faith become a group of consuners. Regardlcss of how stubbornly the thcologians refuse to acknowledge it, the wisdom of thc old connercial nraxirn - "the customer is al- ways right' - has forced itself on the churchcs. They do not always abidc by this maxirn, but often enough they do. ' l hc churches have i ncreasi ng di f f i cul t y i n hangi ng c' nt o unmarket - abl c dogmas and pract i ces. l hc sanre process changes t he rel at i on shi p of t hc churches t o one anot hcr. They can no l onger count on t hc st at c ci t her t o dri ve t he f l ock i nt o church servi ces or t o deel wi t h their rivals. The pluralistic situxti<>ll forces thc rival churchcs to get aLong. Initially, this forced tolcr:rnce is grLrdging, later it is lcgiti- ruized theologically (it bccomcs oecunrenical). The American church historian Richard Niebuhr introducecl the corcept of 'dcnollinx- t i ons" whi ch hc def i ned as f ol l ows: ' A denomi nat i on i s a church, which has achnowlcdgcd dre right of othcr chr.rrches to exist." It is no acci dent t hat t he t erm "dcnon)rDat i on" ori gi nat ed i n t hc USA - f ronr a soci et y rvhi ch can be secn as rhe p; oneer of modern pl ural - i snr. l hc i ncreasi ng si mi l ari t y of t hc rel i gi ous si ruat i on i n ot hcr modern soci ct i cs n i t h rhe si t uat i on i n t he USA cannot be expl ai ncd by a proccss of cul t ural Aneri cani zat i on - as somc, f or obvi ous idcological reasons, wish to bclicve. The simiLarity is only superfi- cially due to American inflLrences. I* real cause is the global sprcad of nrodern pl ural i sm. 'l hLs shift has i* correspondent rt the level of individual conscious- ncs. Religion also "evaporatcs rrpwards'; it loscs its status as taken for granted. This shift creatcs for faith the status of 'possibility", bascLl on t he sent encc: I do rot hal c ! o bcl i eve vhat I know. ' l hi s rel i gi ous possi bi l i t y' i s usual l y ovcrl ooked when t heol ogi ans l anrcnt t hc t ri vi al i zat i on of rel i gi on i n moderni t y. I l owever, such drcol ogi ans are not keen t o ednl i t t hat t hey mi ght wi sh t o sce a si t u- ation in which one could bc * Christian in the same taken'for- grantcd way in which one is man or woman, one has brown or blue cycs and suffers from hay fevcr since birdr. This posibility of faith mst howcvcr be plausible particularly to protestant theologians. 47 Prot est ant i snr, f ronr Lrrt her' s comprchensi on of consci ence (Ver st ndni s des Ge\ \ ' l sscns) t o Ki erkcgord' s l cap of f ai t h' , has been t he modern rel i gi on par cxcel i ence. I hcol ogi ans coul d acknowl edge t hese i deas wi t h hopc rat her t hal pessi mi sl . From t hc soci al sci ent i fic perspective one nru$ howrvcr recotnize that modcrn society has not scen a great accumulation of Kierkegaardirn "knighCs of fairh . More typical is a typc of pcrson l,ith "Ohristian opinions" - a per son who belongs ' sonrchow' to r church, but in a loose way, which for theologians must be r.rnconlfortably closc to other realms of con- sun]ption. People with 'rcligious opinions change their opinions relatively easily evcn if they do not thcrcforc aLways change their membershi p i n a "denomrnat i ou . l radi t i onal Chri st i an churches, particularly il F.uropc, stiLl h.rvc grcrt difficulty in accepting this change. They, in fact, wLsh to closc their eyes to it. For examplc, the Roman Catholic ChLrrch refuscs to understand i*elf as a "denomina- t i on . Those branches of Prot cst ant i sm whi ch st i l l underst and t hem sel vcs as appeal i ng t o t hc popul at i on at l arge have si mi l ar di f f i cul t i es. The excepri on are di sest : bl i shcd churches, above al l i n t he Angl o- sa-ron world, *'hich have exisred in a pluralistic situation from the The loss of depth in religious consciousness can be traced (not co- incidentally) in the ^nerican languagc. 'l he nost common exprcs- sion for belonging to a religion in thc United States is "religious prcf crence", as i n ' my rcl i gi ous prcf crcncc i s I -ut heran"; i n German this transLates into: "ich 7-jehe es vor, l,uthcrancr zu sein". By com- parison, the expression still comnrcn in Contincntal Europe is 'con, fession" - "I anr of the Luthcran confession". The exprcssion 'con fession" refcrs to bearing witness, cven to the wilLingness to make the sacrjfice of a martyr. .lhe American cxprcssion, by contrast, comes from thc realm of the languagc of consunption (and from the realm of economic sciencc - "prcferences' and "prcference scales" detenninc the market for a commodity or a service). k implies a lack of comnl t ment and ref ers t o t he possi bi l i t y of prcf erri ng somet hi ng else in future. It is a historical irony of the current European situa 48 tion, that, for cxarnple, Gennans also mean nothing more than a "re- ligious prefercncc' when they say that they are of the Luthcran con- fession. Thc Ioss of the takcnJor-granted is today a global phenom- 5. Habituatcd meaning and crises of mcaning Day-t o day act i ons are carri ed on habi t ual l y. Thei r i mpl i ci t rneani ng i s unt ouched. Hard, t hrcat eni ng ri nres can l ead t o t he eppearance of crises of nreaning in some areas of life. Even then orher arcas remain under the inflLLcncc of old habinratcd rneanings. liven during civil wars and earthquakcs people bmsh thcir teeth if thc water supply has not beer cut off. Thc litcratrrrc c,n such periods, c. g. memoirs about Gcrnrany in the last years of the war and its imnrediate after n1at h cont ^i n i mpressi ve t est i mony of t he rvay i n whi ch apocal ypse and norm:rlity coexist side'by side. Even in hard tirnes, crises of meaning rarely afflict all arcas of life sinultaneously and vith dre same forcc. Particularly when habitu- ated action has become difficult or irnpossible in many areas, it pro- tects x8ainst crises of meaning in those areas where one can continue according to habit. In societies in rvhich crises of meaning occr.rr not in the rvakc of serious catastrophcs and total wars the range of ha- bi t ual norrnal i t y vhi ch i s mai nt ai ncd i s of course much wi der. But takenJor-granted habits are not just thrextened by serious events in thc fate of the collectivity, but also by radical changc in the life of the individual. In all societies there arc certain typical changcs which may unlcash crises of meaning if thcy are not socially acknowledged. In archaic and traditional societics there are ritcs of passage which give mcaning to these changes. Puberty, sexual initiation, cntry into a job, agc and death could be cxpccted with less uncertainty because codes of behavior existed for dealing with these biographical breaks. 49 l he societal foundation of tue:ning c sured that these changes were not experielced by the incli"idual pcrson as deep crises let alone existcntial threats. 'lhc weakenirg or even complete absence of such ritcs of passage in modern societies can be read as a symptom - and a co-cause - of a slowly rising crisis of meaning. In part, this devel- opr r r . nt r . wel l i . oued r o moJer n pl ur al i zr t i on. 'lo clarify what has been saicl, let us consider two spheres of life in t he exi st ence of t he i ndj vi dual t hat are part i cul arl y i mport ant bur al so cri si s ri dden: sexual i t y and occupat l on. That human sexual i t y couLl alv'ays and everywhere lcad to crises of meaning is adequately documented in popular sayings and the entirety of human literamre. 'l he main theme of popular songs in all countries is lovc, love sick- ncss and disappointed love. The institutions that were fonncriy re- rluired to dealwith such troubles are still in business today, foretrost amongst these the churches. Ve will return to this point. Churches were, however, never the only institutions which were and have re- nrai ned act i ve i n t hi s area. Rel ari onal nerworks of i nt erect i on - rvhcrever t hcy cont i nue t o cxi st - bel ong t o t he soci al i nsri t ut i ons whi ch scrve f or t he producri on and communi cat i on of nreani ng. Young pcople in this or that fornr of sexual trouble mey still rrn to a well treaning uncle, aunt, grand-parent or godparent. However here as wcll, like for the churchcs, there has been a decided loss of crcdlbility. Geographic and social mobility has very much weakenerl the network of relational intcraction. Furthermore, it is more and more likely that, for example, the well-meaning uncle not only lives far away but is also hopelessly confused by his own love life. The same can be said for problems in the arca of work - worrics about sui t abl e rrai ni ng, t roubLes wi t h t he boss and wi t h col l eagues, unem- pl oyment and at some poi nt , usual l y i n t he mi ddl e of a career, t he incscapable rcalization that cvcrything has becn achieved that could be hoped for and that from can at bcst hope ro evoid downward social mobility. In both areas, modern socicty has 'invented" new institutions for the production and communication of meaning - psychotherapy of 50 different sorts, sexual and professional counsellors (both already pre- sent within schools), special courscs and seminars for adult educa- tion, departrnents of the welfare state, psychologically trained (or ra- t her, hal f t rarned) personnei of f i ccrs, and l : st but no! l easr t he mass media. The piest and the old aunt may sometimes sti1l be heLpfuL. But it is more probable that 'modern pcople turn towards the new institutions of orientation. For this purpose one often does not even have to visit an office, an institution or a practice. Simply turning on the television, one is faced with a widc range of therapeutic pro- granrmes. ^lternatively one goes to thc bookshop and chooses from the shelves packed with Self-Help litcrature the volume that is best tuned to ones crrent difficulties, whcthcr they be in ones outer or inner life. A word on the mcdia of mass conrnrunication from publishing to tclcvision: as has often and rightly been said these institutions play a kcy rolc in modern mcaningful orientation - or more precisely in the communication of meaning. lhey mediate between collective and i ndi vi dual experi ence by provi di ng t ypi cal i nt erprerat i ons f or probl ems whi ch are dcf i ncd as t ypi cal . Vhat ever ot her i nst i t ut i ons provi dc by way of i nt crprct t i ons of real i t y and val ues, t he medi a select and peckage these products, transform them in the process and decide on the form of dissemination. Modern society has a nunber ofspecialized insritutions for the pro- duction and communication of nrcaning. Even though an adequate typology of these institutions and nn enalysis of their mode of opera- tion would be helpful, social scicntists have only tentatively begun to deal -ith this problem. lly way of a first approximation one could distinguish betwecn thosc instittrtions which offer their inter pretivc scrvices on an opcn nrarkct (e. g. psychotherapy) and those institutions which cater to a smaller, often strictly closed commu- ni t y of mcani ng and spi ri t (scct s, cul t s and communes wi t h st ri ct l y defined styles of life). The distinction into new and old institutions of meaning-production has its uscs. There are old institutions (the mos! important are the churchct who continue to cultivate their 5 1 established interpretations of rcality as best as thcy can and to offer t hem compet i t i vel y i n a pl ural i st i c si t uat i on. Newer i nst i ut i ons have to start from scratch, but thcy h;rve the "advantage" that they can take unrestraincdly fronr the traditional meanings of the differ- ent cr.rltures and epochcs. llven though such institutions xre free to draw on a single, well tlefined, ancicnt stock of meaning, they are without exception highly syncrctic. Techniques of meditation imporrcd from Asia are to be found alongside the newest practices of psychotherapy, dizzrying scxual cxperiments alongside a restricted petit-bourgeois ideal of f:rmily happiness. And all of this can be distributed through the mass advcrtising nrcthods of late capitalism. Juggling with these discrepant intcrpretations of reality requires a ccrtain skill and consequently a number of professions have emcrged specialized in this aptitude. These are the professions of the "know- ledge industries", as econonlists call this sector. Helmut Schelsky has characterized them as occupations which arc conccrned with the educat i on, counsel i i ng and pl anni rg of ot her peopl e- The i nst i t ut i ons of meani ng product i on have a range of possi bl e options. Hos'ever, in tcrnrs of the strategy they chose to enforce their inrerpretive perspective in society they are limited to two main possi bi l i t i es. On t hc onc hand t hcy may ent er t he market i n whi ch they must survive m compctition with old and new suppliers. On the other hand they may mobiliz-e the state for their purposes. Pro- duccrs nray acquire a monopoly position through lcgislation - only qualified psychologists may practice psychotherapy or their pro duction attracts a statc subsidy - public health insurance pays for psychotherapy - or thcir product may be dlstributed by means of state - certain categorics of delinqrrcnts are obliged to submit to a psychotherapist treatment. lhis dcvclopnrent does nor lack a certain irony. The monopoly position which was taken from the churches by the democratic, law-bound statc is now confcrrcd by thc demo- cratic wlfare state on a number of new institutions for the produc- tion of meaning. There arc no longcr established churches in the old sense. Instcad there is official therapy, to paraphrase Philip Rief, a 52 therapeutic state. 'Ihis observation, however, leads to considerations which lie beyond the theme of this essay. One can dcscribe all these institutions elso in Arnold Gehlen's ter- minology as "secondary institutions". lly this is mcant that these institutions no longer, as in the past, stand at the centre of society - as t he church once di d "i n t hc nri ddl e of t he vi l l age . I nst ead, t hey pcrfonn limited and often highly specialized functions. A further distinction may bc uscful in this contcxt: on the one side we find in- stitruions which cnable individuals to transport their pcrsonal vaiues from privatc lifc into different sphcres of society and to apply them in sLrch a way as to nrakc them a forcc shaping the rest of society. On t he ot her si dc t here are i nst i t ut i ons whi ch t rcat t he i ndi vi dual mercl y as a more or l ess passi ve obj ect of t hei r symbol i c servi ccs. Only the first mcntioned are 'intcrrnediary institutions' as they have been known to sociology since Durkheim. lhcy are "inter- medi ary" i n t hc sense t hat t hey rucdi at e bet wcen t he i ndi vi duel nd the pattcrns of cxperience and action established in society. Through t hcsc i nst i rurl ons, i ndi "i dual pcopl e act i vel y corl t ri but c t o t he pro- duction and processing of the social stock of meaning. It is the effect of these institutions that the existing stock of mcining is not ex- perienced as rthoritatively given and prescribcd lrut as an rep- ertoire of possibilities that has bcen shaped by the individual members of socicty and which is opcn for further chauSes. -l ' he di st i nct i on bet seen i nt crnrcdi ary and non-rnt ernrcdi ary i nst i tutions cennot bc made in the abstract. It has to bc made through the cmpiricial analysis of the concretc mode of operation of a sphere of action. A local parish community, a psychotherapist group, even an agency of the wclfare statc may be a true, mediating structure in the midst of the pcoplc associated wilh it. l hc same fornr of institution rlay, however, also appear as imposed, as a force alien or even hos tile to the iife world of thosc indivLduals associatecl with it. Both forms are "secolclary", both conrnrunicate meaning- I Iowever, only in the first mentioned fornr arc thcy suitablc to soften the negative aspect s of mocl erni zat i on ("al i cnat i on", "anomi e") or cven t o over- 53 conre crises of meaning. If such institutions take the sccond form, t hey cont ri but e t o "al i cnat i on' . One fLrrther rcmark should L'c made about the churches. Amongst the prinrary institutions" of practically all premodern societics re ligion takes a central place. This centrality was essenrial to Durk- heirl's conception of "religion". Religion was a symbolic remedy spreacling throughout all of society, collecting all shared interpreta- tions of reality (repr6sentations collectives) into a cohercnt view of the world, and in the process providing the foundation for e societxl moral i t y (consci ence col l ect i "e) - bot h consci ousness and con- sciencc. As was already nrentioned, rcligious institutions in modern soci et i cs can no l onger cl ai m t hi s posi t i on. They are no l onger t he solc bcarers of supcrordinate ordcrs of value and meaning. 'fhey are increasingly reduced to secondary institutions. They are pushed from the centre to rhe periphery of the 'village". The pompous cer- emonial buildings that stiil stand appcf,r as museums and the theo- l ogi cal i y l egi t i mi zed sel f -def i ni t i ons ("Cat hol i ci sm", "una sanct a' , "peopl c' s church") no l onger f i t t he empi ri cal f act s. The chLrrches abandon eir (empty) public rolc and take on a private role in the lives of thosc who still continue to be members of the church or who havc recent l y j oi ncd. l hi s change i n rol e need not be j udgcd merely ncgatively. Despitc losing its central role in society overall - in some cases precisely because of this loss - the church can still perfornl ao cxtremely positivc function as an intermcdiary institu- t i on, posi t i vc bot h i n t erms of t he l i f e of t he i ndi vi dual and t hat of soci et y as x whol e. For t hc i ndi vi cl LraL t he church can be t he most i mport ant communi t y of meani ng; t hrough t he church t hc i ndi vi d' ual may establish a meaningful bridge between private Jife and par- ticipation in socieral institutions. 'lhe church provides mcaning both to family life and to citizenship. The church makes en important contribution for society as a whole. It supports the stability and crcdibility of the "big' institutions (above all the statc) and reduces t he ' al i enat i on" of i ndi vi dual s f rom soci et y. That was of course al ways t hc bi g soci al rol e of rel i gi on. Fl owever, t oday, when t he 54 church perfornls its function as an intcrrnediary institution, it does so without compulsion. By contrast with its former role, that is significant diff erence. The church may also fulfill an important, purely religious function with no or minimal associated soci:l functions. This is true in the case of a l onel y ol d person, wi t hout f ami l y and a j ob and wi t h pol i - ticaL interests limited to occasional reading of a newspaper. For thcsc people participation in church Life nray be of decisive importxncc - in the church scrvice, in prayer, rn bible class and in other actions which transccnd socially defnred rolcs, such peoplc may exPerience thenselves as mcmbers of a comrlrrnity of nreaning. If the church also fulfiLls social functions, these uray communicate meaning in the manncr discussed above, or may rcmail effective only in thc private spherc of thc church's members. I hc iatter functions were for a long time cultivated by the Pietist and cvangelical branches of Protestnt isrl. But even such 'privatizcd" religion may have indirect social conscqucnces and these may be inrportant (as Ma-x \fleber already rvas aware). For example, it is an open question to what extent a f amLl y l i f e regul at ed by rel i gi ous val ues may i nf l uence ' on t he i ob' behavi or (and t hus t hc economy) t , r bcha"i or i n t he pol i t i cal real m. in any case, the church as an intermcdiary institution has immcdiate social conscquences by directing thc rndividuaL !o think his Public rolc through the church's view of the world and then to act in ptLblic in concert with othcr nrenrbcrs of thc religious cornmunity of mcaning. This role of the church otrvic,usly has a particular imPor- tancc in dernocratically constitutcd societies. Alexis de Tocqueville alrcady arrived at this conclusion iu his worh on democracy in the Uni t ed St at es. Lct us sLrmmari zel The st ruct urel con(l i t i ons f or t he spread of sub- j cc! i ! c and i nt er-subj ect i ve cri srs of rncani ng t hat we have deduccd lrom thcorctical considerations arc to be found in a1l western soci- clics of the present, though thcy manifest themselves quite differ- cndy. The most irnport:nt oi thesc conditions is modern pluralism, sincc it tcnds to destabilize the takcn-for-granted slatus of the systcnl 55 of meani ng and val ue t hat ori cnt at cs act i on and underpi ns i dcnt i t y. Neverthcless, modern socictics tlo not "normally" experience the drarnatic spread of criscs of mcaning. Both subjcctive and inter- subjectivc crises of meaning occur much more cornmonly in such societies, however they do not conclcnse into a general crisis of meaning affecting al1 of society. 'I'his characteristic condition of 'nornrality" in modern societics Dtay bc termed a latent crisis of mcaning. The reasons for this condition are the various factors which act xgainst thc conscqnences of nrodcrn pluralisnr most liable to produce crises of mcaning. In our opinion thc most inportant of these factors is a basic stock of intermediary institutions. These insti, ' Ur i orr. . . rvc ro gener Lre m"*rrrng' . rnJ r" . rrpport exi sri ng meani ngs i n t he l i ves of i ndi vi du: rl s and i n t he cohesi on of communi t i es. They provi de peopl c wi t h ori ent at i on cvcn when soci et y as a whol e no longer supports an overarching ordcr of meaning and values, but instead acts as a kind of rcgulating instance for thc differenr systens of val ue. ' l hose rul es whi ch arc val l d f or al l of soci ery serve ro enabl e t he coexi st cnce and neccssary cooperat i on of di f f erent com- munl t res of nreani ng, wi t hout i nrposi ng on t hem a comnon order of val ues. Vc therefore suggcst dre hypothesis dtat as long as the immune systenr of intermediary institutions rer:rains effective, "normal" mo- dern societies will not suffer the pandenric spread of crises of mean, ing. As long as thrs condition holds, the crisis-of-rneaning virus which is at home in the organism of all modern socicties will be suppressed. Howcver, if the immune system is sufficiently weakened by othcr influences, thcre is nothing to stop the spread of the virus. (Characteristically, it is the state which hclps to weaken inrermcdi ary institutions - as a form of corlpetition?) This hypothesis seems plausible to us, howcvcr simplificd its formulation, but it, of course, rcquires careful cmpirical invcstigation. In the last section we return to this. 56 illusions and possibilities Compl ai nt s about t he "decay of cl t ure", t he l oss of meani ng i n moderni ry", t he' al i cnat i on of hunrani t y i n l at e capi t al i sm' , t he' i n- f l at i on of mc: rni ng i n mass soci et y", ' t he di sori ent at i on of peopl c i n thc irodern rvorld" and suchlike arc hardly new. Theokrgians, phi- losophcrs, sociol;gists, quitc apart fronr non academjc moral entre- preneurs fronr far right to farleft havc been making thcse com pLai nt s l or r nl . rmber of Benerat i ons. Under di f f erent i deol ogi cal signs all inuginable renredies have bccn advertiscd for thesc illnesses of t he i ndi vi dual and soci et y, f rom dre nroral st rcngt heni ng of t he individLral to the revolutionary transformation of the entire poiiti- cal econonric system. C)ur doubts about the most cxaggcrated "diag' noses" c,f thc cultural conrlition were hintcd at in the introductory section. Lct us add here that q."e rceard the proposed "therapies" wi t h equal skept i ci sm borh t he radi cal -col l ect i vi st opt i ons whi ch are in the r:nd always totalitarirn as *eli as radical individualism whi ch i s i n t hc cnd a sol i psi sm. 'Lo see whethcr a core of truth is to be found behind the ex:rggcra- tions and whedrer thc diagnosis rrrs only in the seriousness of the specifically nrodcrn crisis, we havc attempted to describc the organ- isn in its healthy state. Ve first refcrrcd to the meaningfulness <-,f ac- t i on and l i f e const i mt i ve of t he human speci es and t he way i n whi ch it is conditionecl by social processcs and structures. In a sccond step we could then clefine the historicaL changes which definc the specifi- cally nodcrn construction, conrrnunication and sccuring of the rncaning of life ud acrion nr nrodcrnity. Before formuLating our own, co]nparatircly modest "thcrapeutic' suggestions, we will br i cf l y. u, r ' , r r , r i , . r l - , r c. u . , , l or r r " dr ; gn. r . i ' . Al l soci ct i es are i nvol ved i n proccsses of generat i ng n)eani ng, even i f they hxvc not de"elc,ped spccialized institutions for the prodction of neaning. In any case, thcy control the process through which 57 clcments of meaning are absorbccl into social stocks of knowledge and organi ze t he conrnl uni cari on of hi st ori caL st ocks of meani ng t o the members of society, adapting to cw needs. Through institurions soci et i es preserve t he basi c el enrcnrs of t hei r st ocks of mcani ng. They communi cat e meani ng t o rhc i ndi vi dual and t o t he commu, nities of lifc in vhich thc individual grows up, works and dies. l hey determine subjective neaning in rvide areas of acrion, whilst the objcctified meaning of these actions is dictated by the big institutions of domination and the econorly. All dris gocs on in all socieries in one way or another, but it occurs with diffcring degrees of succcss. Vc therefore first pursued the qucstior whethcr there are gencral reasons fbr these diffcrences. Our first concern was wirh pcrson:rl identity, the individual refe- rence point of the mcaning of action and life. The personal identity of dre child is shaped through sccing its behavior mirrored in the actions of those closc to it. A certin congruence in the actions of these persons is thereforc the nrosr ir:rportant condition for the un t roubl ed devel opment of pcrsonal i dent i t y. I f rhi s condi t i on i s not nrct, the probabiiity of subjective criscs of meaning incrcases. Fur- thermore, we have attcmpred to show rhat communities of life re, quire a minimal ovcrlap in intcrprctations of reality. Only under this condition can conmunities takc on a supporting role in the gc- neration and sustenance of rDcannrg in the life of their melrbcrs. 'lhe degree of congruencc betwccn the expected community of mca ing ard the community actually rcalized appeared of particular inrportance. \ffc suggesr that the greatcr the degree of discrepancy, the larger is the likelihood that intcr subjective crises of meaning will result. 'When we turned our atrention to nrodern societies it became clcar thxt it is those features which make them different from their prcd- ecessors rvhi ch al so prevent t hc st abi l i zat i on of meani ng. t he mri n tenance ol congruence ln thosc processes through which personal identity is shaped bccomes morc difficult as docs the promotion of shared meanings in life communitics. I'he frequency of both subjcc- 58 tive :rnd inter subjectivc criscs of nreaning is intelligiblc once we considcr thc consequences of the structural charecteristics of nrodern societies, in particular modern western societies. Taik of identity crises and the mounting figurcs of the divorcc statistics confirm both A gencral, fundamental feature of modern societies is the thorough di f f erent i at i on of act i ons (t hat 1n ot hcr t ypes of soci et i es were st i l l connect ed and rel at ed i n meani ng) i nt o t hei r own i nst i t ut i onal spheres: each of drcse airls for, ancl is largely successful in achieving, autonomy in setting its own orrls, i. e. enrancipation fronr super- ordinate social valLres. Schernes r-,f actjon defined by these sets of instinrtions (economy, political clourin:uion, reLigion) have an objec- tificd meaning that is related tc, thcir main function. Since, with thc except;on of rcLigion this 1rea[ing is instrumentaliy rtional, it must bc uncouplcd from subjective schtrlcs for nrterpreting life. lndivid' rrals nrust subordinate themselves to the goals of the organization rat hcr t han adapt i ng t he demands madc on t hem t o t hci r own con- ccpt i ons of yal ue. The st ruct ural di f f erent i at i on of modern soci ct i cs i s t hus not compat i bl e ri t h t hc cont i nued exi st ence of superordi nat c and generally binding systems of meaning and value. This is, how- cver, the condition for a socially guaranteed congruence in the for- malion of personal identity and fc,r a hi6h degree of shared meanings ' 1 lile comnunities. To this rnust be added a furthcr characteristic of the structurc of modern, above all western socictics, th:rt is ciosely related to thcir basic characteristic. This is nrodcrn pluralism, a pluralism, in 'vhich the protectivc fcnccs around the stocks of mcaning within commun- i t i cs oI l i f c (t hc ' f ences of t he 1aw' ) can no l onger be compl et el y mai nt ai ned. Through t he gaps i n t he f ence peopl e pear at what l i es beyond. l hi s l cads t o t he l oss of t he t akcn-f or-grant ed st at us i n cer' t : ri n l ayers of rncani ng whi ch ori ent at e act i on and l i f e. \ Ve hope t o have shown t har t hi s i s a t ypi cal cause of t he out break of cri ses of oleaning, 'l-here are t\|o extremc allcl contradictory reactions to no- dern pluralism. 59 One might say that thcre $,hcre some desperately attcnrpt to close the holcs in the protectivc fcncc, othcrs rvish to tear down trore of the fence. These reactions are forrndcd i| trvo diffcrcnt attitudes, not only in individuals, but also in institutions, cornmunities and social movcments. The "fundanrcutalist" position aims ro rcconquer all of society for the old valLrcs and traditions. Politicians have again and again attcmpted to exploit thc attitude link to this affect for their own purpose, in westcrn socicties with little succcss. Prine Minister John Maj or wnh hi s ' back t o basi cs" i s onl y t he rnost recent pol i t i - cian to have discovered thrs to his cost. Ily "contrast', reiativist posi- tions abandon the attempt to asscrt any kincl of common valucs and stocks of meaning. Postnrodern thcorists nlake a virrue of necessity and di spl ace t he pl ural i sm of soci ct y cvcn t o wi t hi n t he harassed i n- dividual. Both reactions are wrong and may cven becontc dangerous. In irs radi cal vari ant t hc f und; rnrent al i st posi t i on l cads t o sel f dest ruct i on *' hen i t det ermi nes t hc act i on of weak groups. Thc' ot her' i s de- st royed i f st rong groups put t hi s at t i t ude i nt i r act i on. I n i t s moder- at ed f orm t hi s at t i mrl e l eads t o t hc ghct t oi zat i on of t he ' own' group wi t hi n soci et y rs a B, hol c. i hi s rs hard t o achi eve and i s associ at ed l ' i t h vari abl e cost s, as t hc cxampl es of rhe Pcnnsyl vani a Ami sh, t he Hassi di c I ews i n Nes, York, t he Al gcri ans j n l i rance, t he Turks i n Berl i n-Kreuzberg et c. dcnronst rat c. Nei t her t hc "f undament al i st " nor the 'relativist" position can bc rcconciled with practical reason. But the "relativist" position is cvcn internally inconsistent. If it rvere put i nt o act i on j t woul d l ead t o t hc i ndi vi dual l eavi ng soci ct y. A per son who cqually accepts quite different mutually contradictory norms will not be capablc of cohercnt acrion for which he or she can assume responsi bi l i t y. Such a pcrson wi l l not be abl e t o gi vc rea sons for acting in onc rvay r:lthcr thitn anodlcr; his or her actions must appear compl et cl y arbi t rary al d no onc woul d be abl e t o expect that hc or she *-ould not conrplctely change in character in t hc next moment . l hcref ore, i ncl i vi dual s no l onger responsi bl e f or t hei r ac! i ons cannot mai nt ai n rhc urut uaL obl i gat i on o{ soci al rel a- 60 tionships.'fhc nrinimum of nutual respect that is essential for thc existetce of communities of life and therefore for the whole of a so' cicty would be lost. Howevcr, whcreas "fundamentalist' act on their bel i ef s, ' rcl at i vi st s" remai ned conf i ncd t o t at t <. To considcr how the crisis of nreaning of modern societies may bc count ered, i f at al l , i t i s essenri al t o rcal i ze t hat t wo qui t e di f f erent strr.rctural characlcrislics of modern society have quite different con scquences. Stmctural differentiation of function (and thcir instru- mentaLly-rational organization in thc economy, administration and La-r') ancl modern pluralism are amongst the preconditions for the long list of advantages which nrodern socicties are able to offer their mcmbers: economic prospcrity and the not merely material, but also psychic security of a law'bc,uud welfare state and parliamentary denrocracy. The same structural charicteristics are however also rc_ sponsiblc for the co[dition drat nodern societies are no longer to perfc,rm a basic anthropological function rvhich all societies havc f ul f i l l ed, namcl y rhe generat i on of l reani ng, communi cat i on of mcannrg and preservat i on of meanLng, or, at l east , modern soci et i es no longer perfornr this fLurction in thc same, relatively successfrrl rvay in which orher, earlier so.ial formations did. Modern societics may havc spccialized institutions for the production and cornmuni- cat i on of nreani ng, or have permi t t cd t he devcl opment of such i n- ' r ' . r r i or r . . bur , r e n" l ong, r ahl ( l u. or r r r r , uni ( al c or Pr r \ cr vc \ y_ tcnx of rneaning and valuc to all r-rf society in a gcnerally binding fashion. The srructure c,f mcrdcm societics alongside wealth and othcr advantages also creates thc conditions for the enrcrgence of snj c. t r ve r nd r r r r enubr r . r . c . r , ' ' uf n, r ; ni ng. lf there *'ere no proccsscs and structures in modern society that coLrnt eract ed t he en)crgcncc and sprcad of cri ses of meani ng, t hen t hese soci ct i cs woul d be t he most f crt i l e host s f or pandemi c cri ses of nreani ng. l hat woul d cert ai nl y bc a hi gh pri ce whi ch rnodern soci eties paid for thc blessings and securities that rest on the sxme causes 1s the criscs. lly focusing exclLrsiveiy on this high price and iSnoring thc advantages achieved at thc same tirne, radical cures have been 6 l proposed f or t hc supposedl y scri ous i l l ness of modern soci et y. l n those cases in g,hich such curcs l crc acnrally atternpted by regimes of totalitarian rcgression, it turncd out that the cures wcre more deadly than the discasc. Ilouever, one nccd not ever'r attcmpt to judge the advantages and disadvantages of such a calcularion even handcdly, since its premises are false. The reconstrction of prernodern structurcs with a singie, generally valid and t:rkel for-grantccl stock of meanings and values cannot be contrasted with a socicty whose material wcalth is washed over by a general crises of nrcaning. The artenrpts to restore pre- modern structures of socicry, which are possiblc only with modern means of compulsion, havc all failed in the short- or long run. But this point is less important in this contcxt than the fact that the image of the character of modern socictics is distorted. Precisely, in those societies rvhose basic strucnrre provides thc conditions for the emergence of cri ses of mcani ng and t hc possi bi l i t y o{ t hese cri ses spreading, specific countcracring processcs have produced structures i vhi ch have prevent ed t he unhi ndcred spread of cri ses of meani ng and prevent ed a cri si s of mcani ng af f ect i ng al l of soci et y. The most i mport ant of t hese st rucmres sc havc at t cnpt ed t o underst and usi ng t he concept of i nt ermedi ary i nst i t ut i ons . 1he previ ous sect i on di s- cussed their strengths and weaknesses. To simplify: the basic struc- turc of modern societies is thc causc of incipient criscs of meaning- In nodern societies thcre are, howcvcr, also parrial srructures, above all the "intermediary institutiorls" that prcvent these crises of mean ing flaring up into criscs of the cntirc socicty. 'Ihey are norc or less successful depending on their quality and qLrantity in modern soci- eties. Given similar basic stmi:tural conditions the failure of counter ecting forces to develop or their dccisivc rveakening can lead to the spread of crises of meaning, whereas strengthening these forces can help to dam thc crisis. Irronr this argunrent we can dcrlrrce one ofthe fcw, reasonably reaLis- t i c met hods wi t h whi ch soci ct i cs can deal ' drcrapeut i cal l y" wi t h crises of meaning. One should have no illusions about the main 62 cause of crises of mcaning, i. e- the basic structures of modcrn so ci et y. ' l herc i s no ant i dot e t o di f f crent i at i on and pl ural i m whi ch has not revealcd itself to be a deadly poison. Intermediary institu' tions can only administer honrcopathic doscs. These cannot renrove the cascs, however they may softcn the ppearance of the illness and incrcase the po-er of resistancc to it. They kccp the crisis of meaning 'n its incipicnt form and prcvcnt it from fLaring up. fhe pa ticnt is kcpt alive in a state s'hich apart from the constant tendency t o cri ses of mcani ng i s not part j cul arl y di sagreeabl e. Benecn t hc i mpossi bi l i t y of t hc rcl at i vi st i c" react i on t o moderni y and the frightening possibilitics of funrlamentalism' , there is an- ot her posi t i on. As best one can, one reconci l es onesel f t o t he nega- tive consequenccs of structural diffcrentiation and modcrn Plural- ism. Onc opposes the dangcr of the destruction of modern socicty by totalitarian rcgression, but sees no reason to join in thc celebrx_ ri on of , l odern pl Lrral i sm. Thi s programme i s modcst , but , wc f eel , real i st i cr i nt ermedi ary i nst i t ut i ons shoul d be support cd wherc t hey do not cnrbody f undat rent al i st at t i t udes, $' here t hey support t he ' ' l i t t l e l i f c *orl ds" (a t erm coi ned by Beni t a Luckmann nrAny ye{rs ago) of conrmunities of meaning and faith and where thcy develoP t hei r nrcrnbcrs as carri ers of a pl ural i st i c ' ci vi l soci et y' . I n t he "l i t t l e life worlds" thc various meanings olfered by agcncies for commr.rni- cating nlcanin8s arc not simply "consumed'; rthcr they arc appro- priated communicatively and selectively processed into elcments of t he comnruni t y of meani ng and l i f c. Thi s unspect acul ar bnt by no means passi vc basi c posi t i on al so has i mpl i cat i ons f or mcdi a pol i cy rv: ry bcyond t he soci al and cuhural poi i ci es of t he st t c. l t i s t he ' , ' pon. l , r h 1 " I r h, l eaJer ' of t l . . ' gcr . , r ' . or nnr uni . r t i r r g r r ' c. r r r i r r g. c. t. the miss nredia, to supporr irtcrnrcdiary institutions within the context r:f :r dcrcgulated market in mcaning. And this is a policy which lics within the rcalm of the possible. In terms of content they nus! stcl'r a middle -ay bctwccn the dogmatic collectivisnr of the ' ' f i rndrnrcnt al i st s" ard dre l at ri l c sol i psi sm of "post modcrni t y". I n nodern s, cst crn soci et i es soci al and cul t ural pol i cy have nrany, i n 63 part contradictory functions. If our considerarions are close to thc mark, i t shoul cl be cl ear i n whi ch di rect i on t he mai n soci al and culnrral policy efforts of the srate - and rcsponsibie and capable non-st at e agenci es - shoul d be ci i rcct ed i n deal i ng wi t h t he i nci pi cnt crlsis of meaning: to thc promotion and development of the intcr- medi ary i nst i rut i ons of a pl urrl i st i c "ci vi L soci et y" and t owards sup- port i ng t hem as sourccs of meani ng f or communi t i es of l i f e and faith. As was already said, thc idcntification of inrermediary institutions is not aLways easy. Thcy can be rccognizcd in their effects, bur not by thc way in which they refer to thcmsclves. Furthermore, thcrc is no simple formula which tclls us how sLrch inslirtrtions can most ef- fcctively be supported. Howcvcr, these twin problems seem open to solution by empirical research. l(hcther there is the will to actually support these intcrrnediary institttions is another matter. This de pends on both the big ideologies and thc little day,today policics of the parties and thc comfiercial interests of the agencies responsible lor comnuricating rneanings. A.adcnlics can at best gcncrate rhe rvill of politics and business, thcy cannot be responsible for actually di rect i ng such a commi t ment . / - (rut l ook In the preceding discussion we have on a number of occasions pointed to questions which could be ansvered only by extensivc empirical research. Our discussion dealt with a many layered and compl ex probl emat i c: t he st rLrct ure of meani ng i n modern soci et i es, from the anthropological basis of the constitution of meaning in human action and life ro the spccific conditions of crises of meaning in thc modern world. It is, thercforc, hardly surprising that the statc of research in most of the varior.rs problern areas is characterized by 64 open rat hcr t han ansrvered quest i ons. That means t hat aPart f ron1 the rescarch questions \\,hich s'e havc already referred !o, a long seri es of probl crns requi re cl ari f i cat i <, n t hrough emPi ri cal enqui ry. At t he begi nni ng of t hi s enqui ry *e cl escri bed t hc const i t ut i on of meani ng, f rorn t he separat i on of i ndi vi dual experi ences i n t he gen- eral strcam of consciousncss to thc process through which they are related to othcr experiences. \Ve have said thet thc meaning of indi- vi dual expcri cnces l i es i n schcrres of expcri cnce, t hat t he mcani ng of schemes of cxpcri ence l i es i n pat t crns of act i on and t he mcani ng of pat t erns of act i on i s l ocat ed i n gencral cat egori es of t he conduct of l i f e. Vc have seen t hat drc meani ng of t he di f f erent schemes, Pat - terns and catcgorics is located et different distances from thc super ordinatc configuration of vaiues. One can say that the meaning of all expericncc and action and certainly the meaning of lifc conduct is deternrincd rvith reference to supcrordinate values, i. e. that it is moral l y rel evxnt . l l owever, t hc ureani ng of some schemes of ex' peri encc and act i on i s expl i ci t l y and di rect l y rel at ed t o vxl ues, whi l st i n oer cases t hc rcl at i on t o supcrordi nat e val Lres i s i ndi rect and i m pl i ci t - Thc moral rel evance of t hc l at t er can onl y be madt cl e: rr by anaLyzing the links n'hich leall from the scheme to the suPerordinxte vaLr.res ancl by makilg the inplicit relations of valuc expLicit. The moraL ciraracter of an action which is in breach of the maxnl "If I find a wallct on the street I hand it in at the lost property office" is obvious. Ily contrst, if someone nrakcs the comment "'lhe soup is hot thc (rroral) implication is clcar only if one knorvs that the speakcr has not cooked t hc soup and t he cook i s wi t hi n earshot l he i ssue woul d be cl earer i f t he speakcr had sai dr "You' ve gi ven me my soup roo hot agai nl " Such dLstinctions with rcgard to thc moral connotations of differ- cnt schees of expcrience and action are useful 1f one wishes to ana_ lysc systcms of rneaning and valuc and one is centrally concerned with thc moral aspecls of meanint. These distinctions are useful in allowing one to trace the transformation of superordinate configura- 65 tiols of value into norrns of :rctions and maxinr, step lor step down to the level of ordinary, cvcrlday action. The analysis of systcnrs of valuc and meaning in rnodern societies has t o overcome part i cui ar di f f i cul t i cs. We have seen t hrt i t i s not possible to speak in modern socicties of a single and generally bind- i ng order of val ues. k may be t rue t hat beyond t he l egal i zed syst enl of behavi oral norns t here are st i l l cl cnl ent s of a general moral i t y. However, qithout careful research it is not easy to decide -hat these might consist of and whetlrer togcther they make up a frame- work of established morality. lt ccrtainly seerns that there are a multiplicity of moralities, distributed across different communities of lifc ancl faith, which can bc iclcntified in the form of "partial cat- echisms" and particularistic idcological programmes. To what extcnt these diffcrent moralitics - we spcak here not o{ the ethics of par ticular functional sphercs (medical ethics, business ethics etc.), which *c h rve ; l ready di ' cu*. d - r. rre cl crrrenr. i n c, rmmon rr an open qucstion, to vhich the existing research has not given a satisfactory answer. Even i f rhere were no such comnron el ement s: i t does not follon' that people in modern socictics do not orientate their action antl conduct of life towards supcrordinate values, values which havc validity in their communities of Iife anct faith. Lven those acting "immorally" will generally conform to the prevailing morality by attempting to hide or make excoscs for their breach of the noflIs (hypocrisy is hotrage paid by vice to virtue). In any case, individuals in modern society have to overcornc both insecurity of meaning and uncertainty in moral jusrification. First, thcy cannot assume that t hat they consider good and right is con- sidcred good and right by others; sccond, individuals do not always knov what i s good and ri ght cvcn f or t hemsel ves. The i nst i , t ut i ons have t hei r i nst rument al l y rat i onal organi zat i on whl ch obj ec- tively dctermines action and pcrhaps some kind of specific cthics. (lommunities of life vith diffcrcnr stocks of meaning are not divided from onc another by high protcctive walls and communities of faith run, so to spcak, crisscross across society. Furdrermore, through thc 66 means of mass communication thc different stocks o[ rneaning have h" . ^ - " " " " " , . . , . " " . . i h1" Research nrust be directed towards three levels c'f the production, \ or nmuni cr l i on ; r r J r e. epr i or of r r l eani nS: m, l \ \ Lonr Dl uni cr l i on: day-t o' day conrmuni cat i on Ri t hi n communi t i es; i nt ernedi ary i n- , r i r r r . on' whr , h r r ' cdr r r e b. r w. r n t l r " b, g i r . r . r l i on. . commur , r . " ' and t he i ndi vi t l ual . 'I he ievelof m:lss conrmunication: the cofltents of mass communica- tion arc morally chargcd, in part implicitly ft. g. in advertising and news reporting), sometimes more direcdy (e. g. in police films and nature films), ancl sometirnes moral :spects of individual life and so' ci et y arc consci ousl y addressed (c. g. t el evi si on sermons, pol i t i cal con1mentary). In this respcct there are some differenccs between public" media organizations and purely private media, but we do not yet kno{'how big this differencc really is. It is, however, clcar that the nredii of nrass communicatioo are employed explicitly by moral cntreprerrerrrs of different dcgrees for thcir own purposes, by the state, by churches, by voluntary associations as rcpresentatives of cornmunities of opinion *'ith qLrite diversc progranrmes (environ- mentalism, protcction of cthnic, sexual or other mi11oritics). The levci of the individual in thc daily life of commr.rnities of vari- ous kinds: in evcryday verbal conrmunication (in thc family, at the bar, in conversations betl'een ncighbors, at the workPlace and in commLl ni t i cs of opi ni on t o t hc ext ent t hat t hese are not al ready i n_ t ermedi ary i nst i t ut i ons of a hi gher l cvcL of organi zat i on and t herc- fore to bc treated xt the next state) thcre is constant moralizing: in conrpLaints, apologics, references to specific sets of norms, gossip ctc. The moral aspccts of conmunication may refer to thosc present (e. g. in munral rccrimination) or may be directed towerds absent others (e. g. in gossip) or nray rcfer rn a general way to examples (e. g. in argunrcnts bet*-een mcnrbcrs of a famiiy ovcr a case on tele- vi si on, e. g. Maradona). The lcvcL of intermediary institlrtions: this qucstion is, as was af rcady argued, particularly problcnlatic since one must first answer 67 the qucstion as to what belongs to this category, but c:nnot do so unct l ui vocal l y pri or t o bcgi nni ng rcsci rch. Vi t h somc conf i dence onc can say t hat t he i nt crnedi ary i nst i t ut i ons i ncl ude communi t i cs of opinion organized locally, e. g. ecological groups; institutions srrch as the church, to the cxtcnr that they have local roots strong cnougll to serve as sources of mcaning for communities of lifc; pos- sibly loctl party organizations; associations of various kinds. Vhich of thesc organizations deservcs the title intermediry institution can onLy be decided when their local mode of operation has been ex- ami ned. I f t hcy do not mcdi at e bct rvccn t he bi g i nst i t ut i on of soci et y and t he i ndi vi dual s i n t hei r l i f e communi t i es rhen rhey ere nor t rue intcrnrediary institutions. In the ideal case intermcdiaq, insrirutions areJanus faced. 'l'hey look "upwards' to the big institutions and ' downwards' to rhe cxisrence of the individual. lhen rhcy comrnunicatc not iust srocks of meaning frorn thc "top' to drc "bottorn" but also, as is suggestecl by t he i dca of "ci vi l soci et y' , f ronr t hc "bonom" ' up' . k appears as t hough t hi s i s qui t e rare; an exami nat i on of t hi s sphere shoul d be able to conclude r','hether thc general skepticisn is justified equally in diffcrcnt societies. An answer to this qucsrion would bc inrporr- art. On the basis of sorne rcscarch and prior considerations it seems that onc nrust assume there arc usually large discrepancics between t he moral i t i es of f cred by t hc st at e, t he church and ot hcr' moral entrcpreneurs', which reach dre individual via the nr:rss nlcdia, and t he val ucs hcl d by t he i ndi vi cl ual s t hemsel ves- On t he l evel of dy ro day conrnruni cat i on, e. g. i n f anri l i es, rhcse ' moral opt i ons' are not nerely consumcd . They arc processed conrmunicativcly, selected, rejectecl and adaptcd to individual's own circumstances. Still the gap that ya\,Ds between the moral recornmendations of thc media and day to day rcality should not bc nderestimated. If tolcrance is preachcd "from above" it rarely bccomes significant in thc attitucles of indivicluals if it has not been absorbed inro the shared mcanings of "their' conmunity through cc'nrmon communicative effort. Wi t h rcf crence t o i nt ermedi ary i nst i rut i ons t he i mport ant qucst i on 68 is, as was already said: do they really mediate xnd do they mediate in both dircctionsl fhc empirical anss,/er to this question will deter- rrrinc whcthcr, on thc whole, rnodern societies can reign-in the ever Iatcnt crisis of mcaning, as wc suspect they probably can. Only if intcrmediary institutions cnsurc that the subjective patterns ofexperi- ence and action of the individuals contribute to the social negotia- tion and objectification of meaning, will individuals not find thcm' selves in the modern world as complete strangcrs; and only then will it be possible to avoid the identity of the individual person and thc intcr-sr.rbjcctive cohcrcnce of socicty being threatened or even de- stroyed by crisis ridden modernity. 69 The authors Pcter L. Berger llronr 1955 56 Research Dircctor, Acadenry of the Protestant Church, Bad Bo1l, Germany; fron 1956 58 ?rofessor at thc \(oman's College, University of Nordr Carolina; frorn 1958 63 Director at the Institute of ChLrrch and Community, Hartford Theological Instilutc of Church anrl Conrmunity, Hartford Theo- logical Senrinary; frarn 19637a Professor at thc Graduate Faculty, Ncw School for SocialResearch, Ncw York; from 1920-79 Professor at thc l{utgers University; from 1979-81 Prolessor at the Boston Col l egc; si ncc 1981 Prof essor at t he Dost on Uni versi t y; si nce 1985 I)irector of the Institute for the Snrdy of Economic Cul!re, Boston University. Publ i crt i ons: Invitation to Sociology: A Llumarristic Perspectivc, 1963; The Social Construction of Reality (with Tironras Luckmann), 1966; The Se' crcd Canopy: El ement s of a Soci ol ogi cal l heory of Rel i gi on, 1967i A Rt rmor of ngel s: Modern Soci ct y and t he Rcdi scovery of t hc Su- pernat ural , 1969; The I l omel ess Mi nd; Moderni zat i on and Con- sciousncss (with Brigitte Berger and Hansfried Kellner), 1973; Pyramids of Sacrifice: Pc,litical Uthics and Social Change, 19l5; 'thc Heretical Imperative, 1979; Sociolc,gy Reinterpreted (with I Iansfried Kellner); The l(ar Over the Family (with Brigitte Bergcr), 1983; The Capi t al i st Rev<. rl ut i on, 1986; A Far GLory, 1992. 7l Thomas Lucknann I : ro r 1958 60 Prof essor at t he I I obart CoLl ege, Depart ment of An- thropology and Sociology, Gencva, N.Y.; from 1960-65 Professor at the Graduate Faculty, Departnrcnt of Sociology, New School for Social Rescarch, New York; lrom 1963 65 Co-Director of thc N.l.M.H. Fellos'ship l'rogram; from 1965-/0 ?rofessor for Sociolo- gy and Director of the Departrncnt of Sociology, from 1966-68 Man' aging Director of the Departmcnt of Sociology at the Johann- \f olfgang Goethe-University, FrankfLrrt/Main; since 1970 Professor of Sociology, Univcrsity of Konstanz. Publications: The Social Construction of l{eality (with Peter L. Berger), 1966; The Invisible Religion, 1970; Ihc Structurcs of the Life-\orld I (with Alfred schtz), 1973, II, 1984i sociology of Language, 1975; LebeDs- wclt und Gesellschaft, 1980; Theorie cles sozialen Handelns, 1992. 72 The proj ect The Bertekmann lourulation ts targeted to be an operative, con- cepnral l y norki ng f oundat i on. l t i s obl i ged by i t s st at ut es and i t s mandat c t o promot e i nnovat i on, rai se ncw i dcas t o t he l evel of prac t i ce, hel p t o i dent i f y sol rui ons t o pressi ng probl ems of our t i me. ' l he proj ect s are bei ng conccpt ual i zcd and i nrt i at ed by t hc f oundat i on i t - se1f . St art i ng f ronr t hc dcf i ni t i on of t he probl em t o t he pract i cal i m- pl ement at i on t he f oundat i on runs i t s proj ect s i n cl ose cooperat i on l , i t h compet ent part ners i n acadcnri c, st at e and pri vat e i nst i t ut i ons. Followint rhis intcntion the Berrelsn)ann Foundation has initiated the project Cuhrral Orientation.h wrll rnake efforts to elaborate so Irrtions and conccpts in repll to thc crises of modern societies which can be summariz-cd as a decline of orientation. It will be one of the questions decisivc for our firture how we can overcome these crises related to the transition of values nLl the loss of patterns of mcani ng. Certainties of oricntation are erodrng, identities are being ques tioned- Thc increasing velocity of social dcvelopmenr gives rise to this tendcncy by an intensifiecl changc of familiar structures and experience-bascd ccrtainties. Traclitional k'rowledge, which is being passed on from one generation to thc next by the church, the state, ' . hool . or f unrl i c. . bc. orn. . . rrrrJat cJ i r rn evert rowi ng pr. e. ' f he t radi t i onal i nst i t ut rons of ori ent at i on are bei ng suppl ement ed by recent l y cnrcrgcd ones. Conf l i ct s bct rvccn compet i ng ori ent a t i ons on t hc suppl y si de are rcsol vcd at t he "market ", di f f erent definitions of one's lives may Lrc incompatible. Functional elites are being called upon to contributc their share to dre stabilization of social funrre. Effective orientation has to master the challenge of reconciling individually meaningful concepts for life and necessities to maintain the cohesion of socicty. The Bertelsmann Foundation is ainrilg at responses to three crucixl questions: - \fhat can bc an cxplanation of this dcclinc of orientation? - $(hich instiutions contribute to coherent and stable oricntations? - How can a solution to dre oricntation crisis be designed) As a first step in thc field of projects on "cultural orientation" the volum on 'The loss of oricntation the cohesion crisis in modern soci et y" (i n German l anguage onl y) was rel eascd t o open a seri es of publications. The next phase consistcd of a series o{ expertises of which the present snrdy by Pctcr L. Ilerger and Thomas Luckmann was completed in the first instancc. \farnfried Detding (Munich) will present his concept of thc immediate social environment and orientation in cornmLrnication with ncighbors in a few months time. Other sub-projec* consist of a study by Gerhard Schmidtchen (University of Zurich) on oricntation in intra-firm communication, an expertise by Martin Grciffcnhegen (University of Snrttgart) on political legitimation and thc liurits of strte control and an investiga- tiofl of the episte[rological conclitions of orientation under condi- tions of an increased complexity of knowlcdge and information by cerhard Schulze (University of anrberg). The Bert el snann Foundat i on publ i shes t hi s vol ume i n t he i nt en- tion to provide a forum for a dcbate on the future of modern society and perspectives of developnlent. 74