Modernity,

Pluralism
andthe
Crisis
of Meaning
The Orientationof ModernMan
PeterL. Berger
ThomasLuckmann

Bertelsmann
FoundationPublishers
Gtersloh1995

cIP-Fiihcns!!liJD!

Nlodcrnn),plnLLsnr lhoaissolneanLng rl,r

onenrarionor nulco tr, PqerL Bor-lcri
(i d.d.h : Bqldrmrn( l.Nn(d'on

01995tsedelsmrtrd
hridanon
Edio. Dr

.itersloh

ndtrr Ktrhlmrnn

cory cdtor: ltisltr N!uPdh

Prodcriotr
cdnor sabr. Kltt'nr
cover designIIT(i !r(b.agqtrur, Rielereld
corerphoro Itobcd J)!Lru'11.K'ero.n.i. I'r{l
Ns Yo'k. soloDu, R (lu$erh.hMdsn'
Latour andqpessr s dgtotrcn'bll,
Print Fuldrer vun.g$Nax, !ulda

B,elercld

Contents

lletner lYeidenleld
Preface

PeterL. Betger,TbomasLuchmann
Modernity,pluralismandthe crisisof meaningwhat basichumanneedsof oricntation
m u sbt es a t i s f i e d l
............9
1. The foundationsof the meaningfulness
o f h n ml ai fne
............9
2. The meaningfuhre*
ol .ocialrelrtion<hips.
the concurrence
of meaningandthe
g e n e rcaol n d i t i of on rsc r i s eo sf n r e a n i n .g. . . . . . . . . . 1 8
3 . M o d e r n i at yn dt h ec r i s iosf m e a n i n g
4 . T h el o s os f t h et a k e n - f o r - g r a n t e d

......28
........40

5. Flabituatedmeaningandcrisesof rneaning . . . . . . . . . . 49
6. How societies
dealwith criscsof meaning:
illusionsandpossibilities
7 .O u t l o o k

57
.......64

The authors

71

The project

73
3

Preface

Questionsof cultural orientatiooare amongthe most urgenrissues

of modernsociety.lndividualismand pluralismleadto the consequencethat individualsmore anclmore facethe difficulty to define
standardsand valuesguiding their own lives. IndividuaLsrequire
thesevaluesto be ableto find orientationin a situationrvhichis definedby optionsandthe necessity
to takedecisions.
Three ccntral groups of questionsclelineatecrucial problems,
which the Bertelsmann
Foumlationintendsto tackleby creatinga
newr,rngco[ pro:c,rson cuhuralorrcntation:
-

llow can individuals

realizemeaningful
livesby chosingfrom
thc pluralisticrnultiplicityof optionsl
How do humanbeingscoorclinate
the numerousrolesandsocial
networksin which they interactl In other words:how do they
stabilizcthcir own identity)
V/hat value systemsguide thcir ideasof good and cvil? In as
much :s individualssharcconrnronvalue patternswe haveto
raisca consccutive
question:*'hich communitiesdo suchindividuals fonn who sharcsimilar pattcrnsof mearingand judgetheir
lives by the samevalue systcrns?
And finally: what do these
comnrunitiescontributc to thc integrationof the societyas a
wholeor to what extcntdo thcy endanger
suchintegration?
How canmodernsocieties
providedre requiredligaturesl

Individualswho havc acquircdstableorienrationspossess

an cffcctive panacea
againstcxistentialthrcatsto their self-perception.
lhey
regardthemsclves
aspeoplewith an undoubtedidentity. And they

which enablethem to judge

of ethicalstandards
availthenxelves
their actionswith regardto their effecton societyasa whole
to act accordingto what
On all drreelevelsindividualshaveceased
and takcnfor grantcd.
hestraditionallybeenregarrledasself-evident
hasled to the possibility
Thereforcthe lossof the taken-for-granted
to decide-hat is meaningful,good and sociaily
and cven necessity
This decisionis an individualone and it is debatrbleif
acceptablc.
In
ofthesedecisions.
thc cohesionof societysuffcrsasa consequence
allows
communof suchdecisions
addrtionthe pluraiisticabundance
but do
of rheirmembers
itiesto emergewhich enjoythe loyalties
takeinto eccountthe welfareof socictyasa whole.
not nccessarily
'fhe
"culnrralorientation"startedits seriesof
rangeof projectson
"'lhc lossof orientation- the
publicationswith a first volumeon
cohesioncrisisin modernsociety"(in Germanlanguageonly). In a
a number of
next phaseof the field of projectswc commissioned
'lhomas
expcrtises.As a first result, Peter llerger (Boston)and
Lucknrann (Konstanz)presenttheir analysisof the mechanisms
which leadto a crisisof meaningin nodern society.lhis study
emergedfrom a contextof projectswhich are dealingwith orienta
tion in the immediatesocialneighborhoodand with the orientation
by communicationin a workplacc environmentand in company
focuson the legitimacyof political
hierarchies.other sub-projects
or on new
iction and the limits to statecontrol of socialprocesses
and
complexity
of
knowledge
due to the everincreasint
challenges
the flow of informationwhich modernindividualsface.
for
PeterBergerand ThomasLucknranncount amongthe ceuses
pLuralism
of modernization,
the moderncrisisof meaningprocesscs
and particularlywith regardto Buropeansocieties secularizathat the validity of sharedmeantion. fhjs leadsto the conscqucnce
ing is difficult to mailtain for largergroupsof individualsin society.
Patternsof meaningare being sharedand maintainedby smaller
communities.It is thereforecrucialto distinguishin which way in
dividualsunite to form thesecommunities.In addition,all of them
relateto the functionalmacrosysternsin societylike politics,eco6

nomy andscience.
Interactionbetweentheselevelsand communities
is beingregulatedby intermediaryinstitutions,mediacommunication and moralizingstatements
in everydaylife. It will needfurther
enquiryto establishdefinitcknowledgeon which institutionsareeffectivein this respectandhow they performtheir task.The resultof
such a study can be evidenceon the possibilityto counteracr
centripetaltendencies
in society.
Prof.Dr. Verner \eidenfeld
Memberof the Boardof the
Bertelsmann
Foundation

Modernity, pluralismandthe crisisof meaningwhat basichumanneedsof orientation

must be satisfied?
Peter [.. etger
TbomasLuchmann

1. The foundations
ofhumanlife
ofthe meaningfulness
It is not apparentwhethertalk aboutthe crisisof meaningin today's
world really corresponds
to a new form of disorientationin the life
of modernpcopLe.
Could it be that wc are merelyhearingthe Latest
repetitionof an old lament?Is ir the complaint*'hich cxpresses
the
feeLingof distresswhich has againand againafflictedhumanity in
the faceof a worid becomeunstcady?Is this thc old lament,that
hurnanlife ls a life to*'ardsdcath?ls this the voiceof doubt,that this
life couldfind its meaningin a transcendent
history of salvationlOr
is this despcrationaboutthe lack of sucha meaningl\Vc are distant
in time from thc book of the Ecclcsiastes
('everythingis noughtl
everything
is in vainl")but not distantfrom the spiritof thc Chroni
cle of BishopC)tto von Frcisingwritten more than 850 ycarsago:
"ln alL,wc are so depressed
by thc mcmory of thingspast,the pres'
surc of thc presentand the fearof futurevicissitudes
that we accept
the sentenceof deaththat is in rrsand rnay becometired of lifc itself."It is evenfurther and all thc sanlenot so far betwecnthe conceptionsof human fate in history from Thucydidesto Alben
Camus.

On t,hat basisaremodern(andpost-modern)
criticsof presentday
societyand culture convincedthat the crisisof our tirnesis fundamentally different from aLlpast mkeries?Theseobservershardly
startfrom the assumption
that thcrehasbeena radicalchangein the
humancondition,the conditiohumana.Ratherthey seemto suspect
a new socialconstitutior of the meaningof human life in modernity, which hasthrown meaning,and with it humanlife, into a his'
torically uniquecrisis.SuchspecLations
are powerfully suggestive
and may appearconvincing,that doesnot mean,however,that they
will actually stand up to cmpiricaLinvestigation.Contemporary
sociologicalanalysistendsfar too easily!o assumethe existence
of
somethinglike meaningand meaningfulness
as fiotive of human
actionandasa backdropagainstwhich the moderncrisisof meaning
is apparcnt.It is, therefore,necessary
to beginwith sonreanthropologicalpreliminaries.They shallseekto identify the generalconditions and basicstructuresof mexningfulhuman life. Only in this
way is it possibleto improveour understanding
of chengesin particularstructures
of meaning.
Meaningis constitutedin humanconsciousness:
in the conscious
nessof the individual,who is individuatedin a body and who has
beensocializedasa person.Consciousness,
individuation,the specificity of the body, societyand the historico'socialconstitutionof
pcrsonalidentity are charactristics
of our species,the phylo- and
ontogenesis
of which need not be considered-Flowever,we will
proviclea short sketchof the generaL
performances
of consciousness
from which the multi-layeredmeaningfulness
of experience
and action in humanlife is built up.
Conscior.rsncss
takenin itself is nothing;it is alwaysconsciousness
ofsomething.It existsonly in so far asit directsits attntiontowerds
an object,towerdsa goal.This intentionalobjectis constitutedby
the varioussyntheticachievements
of consciousness
and appearsin
qherher
structure.
its gcner;l
it bc perception.
memoryor imagi
nation:aroundthe core,the theme' of the intentionalobject,
extendsa thematicfield that is delimitedby an open horizon.This
10

horizon in which consciousness

of ones own body is always given
can lso be themxtizcd. The sequenceof interconnectedthemes lct us call them apprehensions'- is in itself stili without meaning.
It is however the foundation, on which rncaning can come into existence. For, apprehensionswhich do not occur simply and independentLybut which the ego turns its attention lowards acquire a
higher degrecof thcmatic definition; thcy becomeclearly contoured
"expcrienccs".
Expericncestaken nrdividr.rallywouLd stili bc without mcaning
Ilowever, as a core of expcricncc cletachesitself from the back'
ground of apprehensions,consciousnessgraspsthe rclatioD of this
core to other expcnences.The srmplcst form of such relationships
"different
"equal', 'simi1ar", "diffcrcnt", "equally
and
are
good',
level
of
meanThus
is
thc
most
elementary
worse" etc.
constituted
it does
ing. Me:rning is nothing but a complex form of consciousness:
nor exist independently.k always has a point of reference.Meaning
is consciousnessof the fact th:t a relationship exists between
The inverseis alsotrue: the meaningof experiences
experiences.
and, as wiLl be shon'n, of actjons has to be constructed through
'
current
relational"performances
of consciousness.
1he experience
ar a particular monent can be rclated to one in the immediate or
distant past. GeneralLy,each expcrienceis related not to one other,
but to a type of experience, schenreof experience,a maxim, moral
legitimation ctc. won fron many experiencesand cither stored in
subjectiveknowiedge or tkcn fronl a social store of knowledge.
As convoluted as this phcnomcnology of multi-layered performancesof consciousness
mxy scenr,its results are the simple elemeots
of meaning in our daily livcs. l-or cxample, in the apprehensionof a
flower a typical gestalt is tied in with a typical color connectedto a
typical quality of snell, touch, and use. In directed consciousness
this apprehensionbecomesexperience,this experienceis graspedin
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 processmultiple types("A1pine flower","lovedone') are integratecl
into a processual
scheme
('pick n and takeit to') and fusedinto a more complex,but still
everydayunit of meening.If finrlly this project is not simply put
into action becauseit confiicts with a morally founded maxim
("don't pick itl rare flowerl"), then a decisionis arrived at and a
higherlevelmeaningis constitutedthroughthe scquential
evaiuation
values
of
andintcrcsts.
'l
his examplealreadyindicatesthe doublemeaningof 'acting"and
"action".Th meaning
of the currentact is constitutedprospectively. A completcdactionis meaningfulin retrospect.Action is guided
by a viewto a prcconceived
aim.Thisdesign
is a utopiain whichthe
actor anticipatesa future stete,assesscs
its desirabilityand urgency
and considersthe stepswhich will bring it about - insofaras the
process
is not fanriliarthroughearliersimilaractionsand hasnot
bccomea habit.'Iherneaning
ofthc acions,"in the acr",is constitutedby their rclationto the goal.The completed
acion, wherher
successful
or not but alsothe actionprojectedascomplete- can
be comparedto other actions,can be undersroodasthe fulfillment
of maxims,can be explainedand justifiedesrhe executionof laws,
canbc excused
asdefyinga norm,canbedeniedto othersandin the
limit alsoto oneself.l he doublemeaning
andthe complexstructure
of meaningare characteristic
of all action but in day-to-dayroutine
!he chxracteristics
may appearblurred.
Socialaction,of course,sharesrhis structureof meaningbut acquiresadditionalcharacteristic
dimensions:it can be indirect or direct,it can be mutualor unilateral.Socialactioncan be directedtowardsother pcoplepresentor absent,deador unborn.It canseekto
address
them in their individuality,or associaltypesof differentdegreesof anonynrity,or nrerclyassocialcategories.
It can be directed
towardsobtaininga response
or nor - theremay,or may not be,an
answer.It can bc intendedasuniqueor may aim to achieveregular
repetitionor to be prolongedthrough time. The complexmeaning

l2

of social action and social relations is constructed in thesedifferent

dimensionsof nreaning.
of
In speakingof the constitution of nreaningin thc consciousness
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
successions
of sociirlactionand the personalidentity of the individare
apprchensions
ual is formedonly in this action.Purcly subjective
layers
of
the foundation of the constitution of meaning: simplc
mcaning can bc created in thc s.rbjcctive expericnce of a Peison.
Higher laycrs of meaning and a more complex strucnrrc of meaning
dependon thc objectification of subjectivemeaning in social action.
The individuaLis only ableto make complicatedLogicalconnections
of action if he or
sequences
and initiate and control differentiated
she is ablc to draw on the vealth of experienceavaiiablein a social
contexr. In fact, elemcntsof meaning sirapedby older streamsof social action ("traditions'),flow even in the lowest levclsof meaning
'Iypification,
patternsof excxperience.
classification,
of nrdividLral
pcrienceand schcnleso{ ection are elcnrentsof subjectivcstoresof
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.'lhe
neaning of an cxperienceol action was born
''somewherc
, once upon a timc in the conscious, problenl
action
soLving"
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
themselves
arise{rom
intcrsubjectively
rclcvant.Either the problcIrrs
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

ll

through thc cormnunicativefornx of a languagean<ithus made

availablealsoto othcrs.
In objectificarions
the subjective
meaning
of experiencc
or action
is detached
from the uniqueness
of the originalsituationandoffers
itself as a typical meaningfor acceptance
inro the socialstock of
knowledge.As differentpeoplercactto similarchallenges
simiJarly,
it may cometo passthat they expcctdtesestandardrcactionsof one
anothcror evcnthat they obligatecachother to dcalwith this typical situationin this and no other way. That is the preconditionfor
actionsto bc transformedinto socialinstitutions.The emcrgence
of
historicaL
reservoirs
of meaning
andinstitutions
relieves
the individ,
ual of rhe burden of solving problemsof experienceand action
which appearin parricularsituationsfrom scratch.If dre concrete
situationis Lrasically
identicalwith constellations
which are already
familiar, thcn the individualis ablc to resort to familiar and practicedformsof cxperience
andaction.
just
However,
as all repctitiousactionsare not transformedinto
institutions
all subjectively
constituted
andintersubjectively
oblectified meaningis not absorbed
into socialsrocksof knowledge.Orher
processes
are inrerposed,processes
in which objecificd meaningis
"processed".
socially
Theseproccsses
are ro a large extenr determined by thc dominantsocilrelarions.The existinginstitutionsof
dominationand labor,but aboveall the institutionswhich socialize
trensactions
with unusualforcesdirect rhemselvcs
towerdsrhe differentlevclsandareasin whichmeaning
is produced.
With variable
succcss
they attemprro influenccthis productionor to inrervenein
it. Thc differcncesin the degreeof control have beenand remain
enormousevenwithin a singleepoch.This is obviousif one com
paresthe supcrvisionof the productionof meaningin ancientEgypt
with that in IsraelandBabyion,or that in today'sIran with Sweden.
Even more significantarethe difierences
one canobscrveacrosssuc,
cessiveepoches;
evenif one assunres
that up until the onserof mo,
- the tend
dernity there was a comnon structuralcharacrerisric
encytowardsmonopolization.
14

'lhe
and action,
subjective"solutions'for problenrsof experience
"primary"
thc
objcctificationsof rreeningrvhich becameintersuLrjcctivcly retrievablethrough conrrnunication
with othcrsare social_
"paths"\ir'hichhave varied enormously
ly processed
on different
"secondary'processes
acrosshistory. In institutionaLlycontrollerl
asin
otherthingsarediscarded
muchis ignoredastoo insignificant;
appropriateor even dangerous.A part of the objectificationsof
are nerely storedaway,dlose
nrcanig drawn on for processing
*'hich arejudgedto be adequate
right
are givena form of ordcr,
or
lhc hier
vhilc certainelements
ac<lirethe funcrionof examples.
thuscreated nraybe closearchiesof knowledgeandvaluesystems
- as in the premodernworld - or may develop
Iy intcrconnccted
inrlcpcndentlyof one anodrer.llurthermore, those elemcntsof
nrcaningand systemsof rneaningwhich are retainedare cut into a
There have
shapesuitablefor transmissionto futurc generations.
for this function in all but the rnostsimplesocieties.
bccnspeciaLists
canonitrainedexpertstakc on thc functionof censorship,
SpeciaLly
zation,systenatization
andpedagogy.
As the overallresulrof all of theseactivitiesthereeflergesthe specific historicalstructureof thc social reservoirof meaning.This
structurcis characterized
by the proportion betweenthat which is
anrl
acccssible
to all membersof the societyas generalknr-'wledge
js
knowledgeto which cccss limited.The portion of
that specialist
thc reservoiro{ meaningwhich is gencralknowledgeforms the kernel of everydaycommon scnsewrth which the individualhas to
'lhis
copc rvith the natural xnd sociel environmentof the time.
portion doesnot havean o"erarchingsystematicstructure.Neverit is not withoutstructure:
it contains
areas
of neaningwhich
thclcss
and
mapthe regionsof day to day realitythet haveto be managed
-hich plumsextraordinary
reality.Somc
anothcrregionof meaning
of
structure
than
of theseareasof rneaningacquirea grcatcrdcgree
those limjted to the practicalroutines of everydaylife through
imports fron systemsof specialknc'wlcdgc.The everydayof mod'imports': massmedia
ern socicticsis increasinglyshrpcclby such

diffusccxpcrt knowledgein populariz,cd

form and peopleappropriarc picccsof this informationand ;ntegrate
it with thcir stockof
The arcasof rneaningare stratificd.The "lowest', simplesttypifi
cations,relatingto factsof namreandthe socialworld, arethc foundationsof differentparternsof cxperienceand action.Stackedon
thcsctypificationsare schenesof action orientatcdby maxirnsof
action towardshigher values.Supcrordinate'conligurationsof valuc" hrvc bcendeveloped
sincethe old high culturcsby rcligiousand
later phiJosophical
experrsinto valuesystenN.Theseclainrto nrean,
ingfully cxplainand regulatcthc conductof life of thc inclividuaiin
relationto thc communityin both routinesof daily life and in overcoming criscswith referencetowards realitiestransccndingevery
day lifc (thcodicy).
The claiurof superordinatc
conligurationsof valuesand valuesys,
r e m sr " f i l l r h er n r i r " r yo f l i f ew r r hn r e r n i nig. n r o s r p p . r y g innl I
schenredrat bringstogethermodelsfor action in the most diverse
areasand fits them into a projectionof meaningthat srrerches
from
birth to death.This schemeof mcaningrelatesthe totality of a life to
a time that transcends
dre life of the individual(e.g. 'erernity").
Biographicalcatcgoriesof ncaning, as wc call thcm, endow the
mcxning of short-rangeactiols with long,tern significancc.1he
meaningof cvcrydayroutinesdoesnot disappearentirely but it is
subordinate
to the "meanjng
of lifc". \(c will narnehcre,amongst
the many historicalconstructionsof biographicalschcnrcs,
only rhe
smallgenrcof the exemplary
lifc' andthe largergenrcof theholy
life", rhc ancienthcroic cpic, and thc modern heroic legend
(e.g. Prince Eugene,Georgc Vashington,Baron von Richrhofen,
Antoine dc St. Exupry,Rosal,uxemburg,Stakhanov).
All institrrtionsembodyan 'original' action-nealingwhich has
proveditselfin the definitivcrcgLrlation
of socialactionin a parricular functionalarea.Of particularirlportanceare thoseinstiturions
whosetask includesthe sociaLprocessing
of meaning-Most import,
ant of all are thoseinstitutionswhosemain functionsconsistin the
l6

of mean_
coDtrolof the productionof mcaningandthe transmission
otherthn
haveexisted
in almostall socicties
ing.Suchinstitutions
the
earlymo'
societies
of
thc archaic.In dre old high culturcs,in the
dcrn period and latcr (e.g. in todaysIran) rcLigiousmoral instittr
tions havebcencloscLytied to thc apparatusof domination They
at both the productionand distri'
coLrldaim relativelysuccessfully
If however
hierarchyof meaning.
butionof a relativclyconsistent
meaning
of
social
bothof production
anddistribution
theconditions
consequcnces
approximatcro an opcn market,this hasconsidcrable
'nreaning
of
for the
budget'.In that casea nunrbcrof suPPliers
with
is
confronted
favor
c,f
a
public
that
mcaningcompctcfor the
the clifficultyof choosingthe nrostsuitablemeaningfrom the wcalth
Wc shallrenrrnto thislater.
of me:nings
available.
meaning
havethetaskof storingandmakinga"ailable
Institutions
for the actionsof the individualboth in particularsituationsand for
en e[tire conductof lifc. This functionof institutionsis howevercs
scntiallyrelatedto tire rolc of dre individualasa consumerbut also
f i o n l * e ' o . , r r r . : p r o d uc, r o f l r c a n i n 6 .
sosimplcLnboth archaic
This relationship
canbe comparatively
cieticsand in mosttraditionalhigh cultures.In suchcivilizationsthe
withoutmajor
of actions
is integratcd
mcaning
of indivrrhraLsphcres
ruptures*ith thc o"erall meaningof life conductandthis is itselfrc
of
fcrredto a rclativelycoherentvaluesystcm.The conrmunication
rneaningis joincd to thc control of the productionof mcanirg.Ildu
cation or direct incloctrinationsccksto ensurethat the lndividual
only thinks and doeswhat conforns to the basicnorms of thc soof everythingthat is pubLicly
cicty. And thc corrtroland censorship
said,taughtor preachcdaimsto preventthe diffusionof dissidcnt
is auoided
or eliminated
competition
opinion.lnternalandexternal
l he |re:rningo{ actionsandlife conductis
(not alwayssucccssfullyl).
the rcrule brndingon all. For examPle,
irlposedasa unquestioncd
lationshipof marricd couplesand the relationshipof parentsto
Parentsand childrengenerally
childrcnis defincdunambiguously.
conform;devianccis clearlydefincdasdcviancefrom thc norn.
17

In modernsocietiesconditionsare different.Of course,there are

still institutionswhich conmunicatcthe meaningof actionsfor their
particularareaof action;there are still valuesystcmswhich are administercdby someinstitutionsasnrcaningfulcategories
of life con,
duct. Ho*'cver, as will be sho*'n, there are, by comparisonwith
premodernsocieties,
differences
in the consisrency
of valuesystems
as in the internal and externalconpetition over the productionof
meaning,thc communicationof rneaning,and its imposition.To return oncemorc to the example:in modernsocietiesit would be difficult to find parcntsand children for whom the relationshipis
equallybindingon both partiesand is de{inedunquestioningly
by a
firm valucsystem.

2. Thc meaningfulness
of socialrelationships,
the concurrenceof meaningand the general
conditionsfor crisesof meaning

Sociallyobjcctifiedandprocesscd
stocksof meaningare "preserved"
in historicalreservoirsof mcaningand "administered"by institutions.The actionsof the individualareshapedby objectivemeaning
suppliedfrom socialstocksof knorvledgeandcommunicated
by the
pressurefor compliancewhich emanates
from institutions.In this
process,
objectificdmeaningis constantlyin interactionwith subjectively constitutcdmeaningand individualprojects{or acion. IIowever,nreaningcan alsobe ascribed- one might evensay,aboveall
- to the intcr'subjcctivestructureof socialrelationsin which thc
individualac* andlives.
From the very beginninga child is incorporatedinto sociaLrelationships:with its parentsand with other significantpersons.These
relationships
deveiopin regular,dircct and reciprocalactions.Strictl8

ly, an infant is not capableof action in the full meening of the word.
As an individuated organism i! has, however, the bodily and conwhich it employsin
inherentto thc human species
sciouscapacitics
its behaviortowards others.'Ihc actionsof others relativeto the
child are thcmseiveslargely dctennined by schemesof experience
and action that are drawn frotr s<xicty's reservoir of nrcaning l'he
chilcl progrcssivelylearns to comprchcnd the actions of its counterparts and to understandthcir meaning.Thus jt is able to understand
their actions as typical actions in thc light of historically given PF
terns of expcrienceand action.The child placesitself in rclationto
developsits
socialstocksof meaning.In the proccssit progresslvely
personal iclcntity. As soon as it understandsthe meaning of its
actions,it alrc understandsthat in principle it is held rcsponsiblefor
its own actions.Ancl that is what constitutesthe essenceof personal
identity: subjcctive control of action for which one is objectivcly
responsible.
Let us inragincfor this basicsituationof the communicationof
meaning ts o variants drawn as stylized ideal types. Let us flrst assume 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 assumcthat the parents and the other
important pcrsonalrclations o{ drc child have formed their pcrsonal
identities according to the patterns in the historical reservoir of
meaning. ln such a casethe bchavior of the child is mirrored contruently in thc actionsof the others.lf it knocksa plateoff the tablc
then it wlll not be rewarded by a smiLefrom 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'
"crises
of meaning" - in the smc manncr as the
culties - ler alonc
identity of the parents was forrned: in concordancewith the biographical catcgoriesand the value systcm of society's reservoir of
meaning.
For our sccondcaselet us assume,on the contrary, thxt there is no
generally binding value syste'n, no adapted reservoir of meaning

t9

with biographical categoriesand schemesof action and rhar rhe

others who enter inro sociai rclations with the child do not nrirror
its behavior even approximatcly. The typical consequencesfor the
development o{ thc child arc predictable! Pcrfect concordancc, as
projcctedabove,is never achieved,but rrchaicsocieticsand the tra
ditional high cuitures were not far removed from it. The opposite
casehas hovever no correspondingreaLiry:a socierywithout any
kind of valuesystemand sithout stocksof mcaningadaptedto it is
hard to imagine as a "society . As a child one is born into commun, t r c .u f l i f e( l e b e n r t e m c i n r h a l r cw
nh
t r , h r r e - t o \ r y i n ge x i . n r s
'lhat
also conmunities of meaning.
means that even without a
univcrsally sharedstock of meaning adaptedto a single,closedvaluc
systen conrmonaltiesof meaning can be developcd in communities
or drawn from the historical rescrvoir o{ meaning. These comrlon
meaningscan then, of course,be contnrunicatedto children relativeIy consistently.
Communities oflife arecharactcrizedby regularly repeated,dircctly
reciprocalaction in durablc social rclationships.Thosc involved
place an institutionaily or other\r,isesecuredtrust in thc durability
of the cormnunity. Beyond thesebasiccommonaltiesthere are wide
differenccsbetween societiesin the differcnt forms of conrmunities
which are institutionalized in them. The universalbasicform 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
rcquire initiation. Thc examplcsinclude holy orders which also
constitutethemselvesas conrmunitiesof rneaning,leper colonies,
retlrctuent homes! and Prisons.
Comnunities of life presupposca minimum of cornmon meaning.
'fhis
measurccan in some societiesand for some forms of conrmunity be very minimal: it may concern only the coincidcnce of the
objcctive ncaning of the schemcsof day to day social action, as per2A

haps in ancient slave householdsor in nrodern prisons. Commu'

nities of life may also aspireto complcte unison in all layersof meanlng including the categoriesof 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 acrossdiffcrent sociticsand ePoches
aspire to a dcgree of shared nrcaning somevhere in between this
nlinimum and maxinrum.
l x p c . r : r o n .c l o < c, u l n c n r l r n r l l r r rr r e n r o s ct o n r n l o n, n c o r ' n . r l
nuies institution:rlizeclthrough force. lheir problems are hardiy
cvcr those of nreaning. tvcn where expectationsare considerably
above the minimurl and a ccrtain congruenceeven of higher lcveis
of mcaning is assumedto be constitutive for the life cornmunity it is
hardly likely thxt a real non-co grucnce in particularlayers of
meannrgvill create :rdditional difficulties beyond thc real life prob
lcms of the comnrunity - insofar asthe discrePancybetweencxPectatiurs and pra.tical realization docs not becone too great Things
arc different if the valuc systenrof a society prescribesthat commu
nitiesof life and ncaning shouldbc coincident,i e. that all pcople
should also bring their modesof expcriwho live in commLrnities
ence ancl action lnto concurrence- ln such a case any apparently
trivial non concurrenceof meaning, any lack of agrccmentcan initi'
atc a crisisof meaningin the life conrmunity in which it appears.
m:y follow the idealsofthesocietyin
A marriedcouplcfor insrance
rvhich it lives and may wish for a good and happy old agetogether'
l.ct us assumethat only the man experiencstheir cornmon aging as
it actually occurs, in the objectificd sense, whercas the womxn
expcricncesa too large discrepancybetween the mcaningssuggested
by society and her own concrcte expcrience. If, in her society,
marriagesare not characterizedby a perfec! con1munity of meaning
thc non concurrcncein the intcrpretationof their common aging
between the two partners in nr:rrriagc may Leadto disputes and
serious arguments but it will hardly lead to a crisis of meaning
which threatens their life community. If, howevcr, it \ras the
assumptionof societythat a marriageshouldbe a completecommu

2l

nity of meaningthen their disagreemenr

would be painfulfor both
partncrsandthe crisisof meaningwould escalate
into a life crisis.
Let us renrainfor an instantrvith our example.Let trsassumethe
wife encountcrsother agingnrarriedwomenwho havearrivedat a
similarperspcctive
on theircommonaging,a perspective
whichdoes
not agrec*ith the dominantviewssharedby their hLrsbancls.
In exchangingthcir expericncesa conmunity of meaning might be
formed.In thc first variantof our examplethis communityof meaning remainsaspartialasdoesthc rlisagreement
with the husbandand
there{oreservcsascompensation
ratherthan replaccment.
In the second variant any partiaLdisagreement
is interpretcdas "total" and
the new foundcommunityof meaningcouldtakethe placeof the
brokenrnarriage.
V h e r e ; rl i f * . o m m u n i r i cm\ l r \ lp r e \ u m a
e nrinimrrn
..rmmuniry
of meanrng,the inverseis not true. Communiticsof meaningmay
under certaincircumstances
becomecommunitiesof lifc, they may
howeverbc built up and naintainedexclusivelythrough nrediared,
reciprocalaction-Theseconrnrunities
may be foundedon different
not directly practicalievelsof nreanrngand may concerndifferent
realmsof meaning,e. g. philosophical,suchas the humanistcircles
of the early modern period, scientific,such es the nlany E-Mail
cliquesof today, or the "meetingof souls"of which farnouscorrespondenccs
tell, suchasthar betweenH6loiseandAb6lard.
\Vehavescenthat undercertaincircunrstances
problenrsmayoccur
in the intersubjective
construction
of the personal
identityof the
child to which the term subjectivecrisisof meaningnray be applicable.lf the behaviorof the child is constantlyconfronredin the
actionof significanradultswith incongruentreacrionsthe child will
be able to discernthc objecrivesocialmeaningof its actionsonly
with difficLrltyor not at all. If the child doesnor receivereasonably
concordant
answers
to the question"who am I? posedthroughout
its behavior,then ir nrust encounrergreatdifficultiesin taking on
responsibilityfor itself.Even if undertrore favorablccircumstances
the identity of a pcrsonhasbeenunproblemarically
constructed,
its
22

strength can be endangcredlater Lry persistent,systematlcLrlconsrstency in the rcflection of its actionsin the actionsof others
F u r l . . r n r r r . , w e h a ' e . e c nr h r r r r r r d c,re r t an i r c u n . r , r nc,. i n t e r _
subjecrivecriscs of meaning may occur. For different forms of
community of life different typicaLmcasuresof coherenceare to be
expected- and thesediffcr 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 acceptunqestioningly thc degreeof
coincidenccof neaning expectetlof them, but are unableto match
"is'
'should"
and
between
it. ^s was alreadystatcd,this discrcpancy
a life community insistthat
appearsparticularlyoften lf the idcals<-rf
r r < h o u 1Id' e. r. u n ' p l e r .c o n r m u n r ruvl n r c ; n i n g .
ivc crr'c. ol meaningoicrrren nra-e in
li 'ubjc.ti' < andrnter-'ubje.,
a society so th:rt thcy develop into a gcneral social problem, then
one will hauc to seekthe causenot in the subjectitself nor in the
given inter-subjectivity of human existence.It is rather to be expected that the causesarc !o be found in thc socil structure itself
Let us, therefore,cnquirewhich partlcularstructuresof a historical
society counteract the dcvelopment of crisesof nre:rningand which
encouragcsuch a development. More precisely:what are the structural conditions for a sufficient dcgree of coincidcnce in inter-subjective reflectionssuch that rhe foundation for the formation of per'
sonal idcntity *ith constant merlrngis givenl \(hen do these processescreate subjective criscs ol mcaningl And which structural
coincidcnceof
conditionspromote and which hindcr the sufFicient
n f l r f Fc o m m u n i l i et(e ' r \ t ; n rI u
' o c r a rl e l . r r ' r n r t h rrr. h e l o u n d . r t ' " o
crisis?
\(e will attempt to answerthescquestionsin concretetcrms 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- despitethe prxctically endlcssmultiPlicit/
and importance of differcnces between societies- to identify with respectto our qr.lestionabout the structural conditions for the

23

cnrergcnce
of crisisof meaning- trvo basictypesof socialstructure
acrossall cpoches'l
he first type not particularlysusceptible
to crisesof merningare
socicties
which havea singleandgenerallybindingvaluesysterninto
which the differentlayersand rcalmsof rncaningarewell intcgrxrcd:
from cveryclayschemes
of expericnceand action to the superordinate categoriesof lifc conduct and crisis managerncntdirected
tovards extraordinaryrealiries.l he totaLstockof meaningis stored
andmanaged
in socialinstrtutions.
Because
the schemes
of actionobjcctifiedand mademandatoryin
social institutions are directedtowards a common value system
superordinate
to the specificnreaningit is assured
in this type of socicty that the institutionssustainthc order of mcaningin basicconcordancewith practicallife. lhcy do this directly and,so to speak,
in dctail,by imprinting thenlsclves
or1thc meaningof many day to
day actions;thcy do this,so to spcak,in the largeby identifyingbiographicalcategories
of meaningwith communitiesof life, in particular thoses4richareentrusted
wirh forrningthe personal
identityof
. L r l d r cB
n r o r u r ni ngr on r e n r b cor f. . o c i c r y .
Differcntsocieties
correspond
to this basictypeto differentextents.
Archaicsocieties
correspondlrost truely to this type. The complcx,
ancicnthigh culturesare slightlylessclosc,but essential
characeristics of this type are to be found cvenin the premodernsocieries
of
modern times. Like all other societiesthesesocietieshave nrany
organizational
problemsandtheir membershaveeverylife problem
inraginable:
in dealingwith nature,work, domination,life and
death.Naturallythereare alsoqucslonsof meaningfor the individual.But thesecomparatively
stable,often evenstaticsocicries
communicatean order of meaningwhich is consistentto a large
extent through congruentprocesscs
of sociaiizationand thc irxtitutionalizationof action.Thcseproccsses
are locatedin meaningfully rclatedlife communitiesancldiffcrcnt socialspaces.
This basic
type may be simplifiedas an ideal type, howeversocieticswhose
structureevenapproximates
to this type provideno groundfor the
24

growth and extensionof subjectiveand inter+ubjectivecrisesof

meaning.
'l'hings
in which sharedandbindingvalucs
arediffcrentin societics
arc no longer given for everyoncand structuraLlysecuredand in
of life equallyand
which thesevalLrcs
do not pcrmeate
all spheres
Thrs Lsthe basicconclitionfor the
bring them into concordancc.
crisesof rneaning.In
spreadof both subjectiveand inter-subjective
"liableto crises"wc will again
this
type
of
socicty
formulating
basic
neglectmany dctailsto identify in sinplificationits structuralcharIn suchsocieties
thcremay be a ualuesystcninheritedby tradition
as a stock ol nreaningfrom bygoneperiods.This valuesystemis
objectifiedin the socieralstockof knowledgeand is hereend there
'Ihere
may
(rcligious)institutions.
still administeredby specialized
"imported"fronr the stocksof
evenbc more than one setof valucs
the muscimagin:rireof meanings.Not wanting to dexl with the
questionof so crlled pluralisn at this point we set to one sidethe
may coexistA society
posibility that a multiplicityof valuesystems
only onesinglevalucsysmay evenbe liableto crisis"if it contains
tem, in the firll senseof the word, a singlesystemconsistingof ele
mentsof mcaning(frorn schemesof experienceand action all the
way to gener:rlcategories
of life conduct)incorPoratingall spheres
valucs.
of life arrangedsteprvise
to{'ardssuperordinate
wouldbebothPresent
andnot
systcm
Evenin sucha societyavalue
presen!.In such a societythe big instirutions(of the economy,
from the superordithemselves
politics,and religion)haveseparated
natevalucsysten and determinethe actionof the individualin the
functionalarcathat they administcr.Economicand politicalinstitutions makeobligatorydre instmncntalrational,objcctivemeaning
of:ctjon in thoseareasfor whichthey areresponsible.
of schemes
'offer" value'On
the sidc, so to spcak,religiouslnstitutions
for life conduct.S(eusethc term
rationaL(wcrtrational)categories
'
even
in
case,
assumed
hcre,
that societycontainsonly one
offer'
thc
valucs,not muf
ordcr of meaningorientatedtowardssupcrordintc
25

tiple, courpctingsystems.Because
evenin this casereligiorrsinstitutionstransmitthe higherordcrcategories
capable
of givingmeaning
to the entircconductof Life,but evenwithout competition
from
othcr valucsystensthesec:tetoriesmay not be madcbindingand
may not be inposed on the conductof people.Overall,the institutions of tilis type of societyno longercarry a well-orderedsrockof
meaningand value consistendyand bindingly into thc practiceof
life.
A socicty is rnthinkable entirely without common valuesand
sharedinterpretations
of reality.Vhat is the natureof valuesin
sucha type of society,obvrouslytendingtowardsthe modern,and
wherc are they to be found) It is certainthat the scheDres
of action
institutionalizedin the differentfunctionalsphereshavea binding
anclobjcctivemeaningfor thoseactingin them.In the organization
of action within a singlespherethere is definitelya communityof
meaning.1'harhoweveris not much by way of commonalties.
The
objectivemeaningof institutionalizedschemesof :rctionis instrumentallyorientatedtowardsthe functionof this area.Apart from its
generalizable
aspectas instrumentallyrariofialthis institutionalized
schemeof action cannot be transferredbetweensphercsand it
certainly cannot be integrated into superordinateschenresof
meaning.lhe objectivemeaningof acrioncannorin itself be integratedinto ctegoriesrefrringto rhe subjectand simultaneously
directcdtowardsa superordinate
valuesystem.Only rcligiousand
'quasi'
religiousinstitutionscommunicate
categories
of meaning
with sucha claimro generality.This claimis howeverrefutedby the
objcctive
meaning
of the schemes
of actionof the other "big"insti'lhese
tutions.
meaningsdirecr t[e adion of the individualin most
arcasof daily lifc, whether rhey conform ro the superordinate
meaningsof schemes
of life cornnrunicared,
for cxampleby religious
institutions,or not. The clai to integrateones own life into a
superordinatcvalue systemcan be realizedessentiallyonly in a
spherenot touchedby the othcr 'big'institutions,
in a spheresocialiydefinedasthe privatesphere'.
26

in the
in a societyis contained
A minimumof sharedmeanings
"firnctic,ning
of functions',ie. the
givento the
teneralagrccment
agreementthat in eachareaof action condud shouldbe directed
towards instrumcntallyrational requircments.Ancl this minimal
that in the Private
is sccuredby the generlccePtance
consensus
reservesof individual existenccand comnlunitiesof life separate
meaningsof Lifemay be pursucd,distinctfrom thoseof other indi
vidualsand groups.This minimum may be cxceedcdeven in this
"big" institutions
typc of societics.First, it is remarkablethat the
bind their spccific meanings- beyond the rationality of the
organizationof actionwithin thenr to generalvalucs,suchasfor
"drc
in thisway
interest".
I-xceeding
the mininlLrm
example general
ol
while
the
schemes
may fulfill abo"e all legitimatelypurposes
action thenxclvcsmay remain untouched.Furthermore,secondly,
andcomrnunities
of meaningmay attenPtto difcct their
individr.rals
'big' institution
action evcn within a sphereadnrinistcredby a
"values' going beyond its instrumentally
towards supcrordinate
rationalobjectivcmeaning.llowevcr, this canoccuronly in conflict
with the specificinstrumentalrationality.
'fhe
valuesfor
attenrptsby institutionsto connctto suPerordinatc
valueand
vapid
fonnLriac
may
prodrrcc
only
lcgitimatorypurposes
orientatedconductof life may bc limited to the reserveof the private.This would add to the conditionsfor the spreadof subjective
However,this alsocreates,
anrlinter-subjectivc
crisesof nrcaning.
the precondrtionsfor somethingclse,nanely the
simultaneously,
of valuesystems
of differentvaluesystemsanclfragments
coexistence
of quite different
in the sanresocietyand thus the parallelexistence
communitiesof meaning.The statewhich resultsfronr thsepreconditionscan be calledpluralism.If it itself becomesa suPerordi
natevaluefor a socictywe may speakof modernplLrralism

27

3. Modernity and the crisisof 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 samesociety,one
would not be dealing with a spccificallymodern 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 examplcsthe 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 statein 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 systemone would be
ablc to find examples,for instance the Roman Empire which in
economic and poLiticalterms was a single sociery.But even here the
interaction between thc different groups and peoples - insofar as
they werc not regionally separatcd- was reglllatedsuch that the differcnt supcrordinatestocks of nreaningwere uncoupled from the institutionalized schcmesof action of the functional spheres.The different groups could, therefore, interacr in the instrumentally rational sphereso[ action while at thc sametime remaining attachedto
their orvn value systems-For example,the relations ofJews to non,
'fence
ofthe law".
Jewsrvereregulatedby the so-called
1f thescregulations
are no longer,or canno longer,be nraintained,
then a ncw situation is created, widr serious implications for the
takcn-for granted starusof value systemsand overarching views of
the world. Thc ethnic, religious and orher groups and coDrmunities
of lifc, divided by different stocksof meaning,are no longcr spatially
.cp.]rrr.d(r. for o,amplein rrgrorr ut r rorierl or 'rrrc or in quar.
ters or thetrocs of a city), nor do they interact only through the
neutral tcrrain of strictly separatedsequences
of action in institutionalized functional spheres.Encountersor, under certain circum28

stances,clashesbetwcendiflerent vlue systensnd views of the

world becomcinevitablc.
'l'hcre
to this stateof affairsbefore,c. g.
ha'e bcenapproximations
in thc Ilellenic uorlcl. This form of pltralisrn is not necessarily
in the
of meaning,
thoughparticulariy
linkcdto thespreadof crises
Hellcnic world there wcre alsosignsof this. This form of plLrralism
Here, the ccntral
hasbecomefully flcdgedonly in modcrnsocietics.
raisecl
to the sttusof
structuralaspects
of this pluralisnrhavcbeen
andcontpeting
an cnlightencdvalucabovethe diffcrentcoexisting
"envalue systcnx. So, for examplc,tc'leranceis rcckoned the
lightencd'virtue par cxcellence,
sinceonLythroughtolerancecanindividuaLs
and conrmunitiesLivesideby sicleand with one anodler,
whilst directing eir existencetowards different values. This
conditionfor
modcrnform of pluralisnis, ho*cvcr,alsothc Lrasic
crisesof meaning.
tire spreadof mbjcctiveand intersubjective
\Vhethcrmodernpluralismneccssarily
lcadsto suchcrisesis en open
question.Howevcr,one can say with certaintythat in highly
devcloperl indusrrial countries, i-c. where mc,dernizationhas
progrcssecl
furthcst and thc nlern form of pLuralismis fully
developcd,valuesystemsand stocksof meaningare no longcr the
'l
comnronproperty of ail membersc'f society. he individualgrows
up in a norld in which therearc neitherconrmonvalueswhich
deternrine
actionin differentsphcres
of life, nor a singlercality
identicallor all. The 'ndividualis incorporatedinto a suPcrordinate
systemof meaningby thc cornmunityof life in which it growsup.
Howcvcr, this canrot be assunedto bc the nrcaringsystemof odler
by quhe
l hcseothersmay ha"cbeenshaped
pcople(Mitmcnschen).
which
life
in
of
nrcaning
in
the
communities
of
differentsysrens
they grew up. In Europc, sharedand overarchingsystemsof interprctationwerc alreadyshakcnin the early phaseof modcrnization. The history of totalitarianideologiesin the last hundred
can re
ycarshasshorvnth:rt nothing, not cven radicalregrcssion,
store such interpretativcschemespcnnanentlyor make thcnr the
structLrral
charactcristic
of a modernsociety.lt is, by the way, also

questionable
whctherfundamentalist
attemptsin rhe countriesofthe
so calledThird Vorld will be more successlul
regardless
of the intensiry rvuh *'hrch overarchingand universallybinding stocksof
meaningaredefended
today.
It hasbeennotcd that suchconditionspronrotethe spreadof subjectiveand intcr-subjective
crisesof meaning.ut while someconditionsaccelerate
suchcrisesthereare otherswhich hinderthem.The
palc superordinate
valuesof modernpluralismdo not havethis
power.They nrayhaveother usefuleffectsin that they promotethe
peacefulcoexistence
of diffcrent forms of life and value systems.
lhey are,howevcr,not suitableto dircctly counteractthe spreadof
crisesof meaning.They tell the inclividualhow to behavetowards
other peopleand groupswho differ in their view of life. They do
not, however,tell one how one shouldleadonc'slife when the unquestioned
validity of the traditionalorder is shaken.That may be
achievedby diffcrentmeans.As the degreeto which sociallyvalid
conditioningof sharedinterpretationsol reality decreases
different
communitiesof life candevelopincreasingly
into quasi-autononrous
comnunitiesof meaning.insofarasthesecommunitiesproverhemselvesrelativelystablethey may preservetheir nrembersfrom crises
of meaning.Stabilityis particularlyimportantfor the role playedby
suchlife communitiesin the coherentformationof personalidentity
of children grorvingup in them, who may thereby be protected
from subjective
crisesof meaning.
Concretecommunities
of life as
qasr'autonomous
conmunitiesof nreaning,andnrorestable,"pure"
conrmurniticsof like minded peoplc (Gesinnungsgemeinschaften)
counteractthe pa demicspreadof crisesof meaning.However,they
cannottranscend
the preconditions
which prornotethe spreadoF
cnscsof meaninganchoredstructurally in modern society.Iiurthemore, to rcpeatthis point, communitiesof ljfe nr which the dis,
crepncybetweenthe expectcdand factualcommunityof mcaning
is too greatcan themselves
becomethe trigger for inter-subjective
crises
ofmeaning.
This dialecticalrelationshipbctweenthe lossof meaningand the
30

andits
the erosionof nrcaning
nev creation
of nreaning
or between
'lhis
of
religion.
can
most
be
observed
in
the
case
rebuilding
clcarly
pattern
is, in any case,thr: mostimportantform of a comprehensive
rich
in
mean_
of experiencc
and values,systematically
structurcdand
ing. For the largestpart of humanhistory a societywasunthinkable
without a single rcligion encompassing
everythingand everyone
'lhc
verc
nanrrallyalso nry own gods;my
godsof nry ancestors
godswerenaturallyaLsothe godsof all the membersof my tribe or
wcre like this. Acrosslong periods
ry town. Most archaicsocieties
of time high culnrreswith rnany differentiatedsocialinstitutions
his or
the individual,
wcrelikethisaswcll.Thenthisunitybetween
in
the
orhighest
authority
hersocietyandthegods,embodying
thc
dcr of vaiue,rvasshakenin diffcrcntpiacesand at diflerenttypesby
religiousschisms.This happenedlong beforethe beginningof modernity,asfor exarnplein the exodusof lsraelfrom the unifiedsym
bolic order of the MiddleEast,or evenmore radicallyin the separaantiquity.
tion of Christianityfrom the symbolicorder of classical
After suchschisnrs
therewere rcpeatedattemptsto restorea super
ordinatesysremof oreaningon a new basis,perhapsof a smaller
scope("subculture'insteadof culturc)- asin the unity of the tribe
of Israclwith its God or in the constantsearchfor thc unity of the
Christianchurch.
Vith the conceptof Christendomin the Europeanmiddleagesan
anemptwasmadeto irring togetherall the peoplein a certrin space
of power under a single,common and superordinatesystemol
meaning,and to h,-,ldthcm there.\Vc know that this attemPtwas
neverentircly successful.
\ithin Christendomnrinoritiespreserved
their specialsymbolicsysterls-Jews, heretics,cultsderivingfrom a
paganpart.At ti'res thc symbolicunity of Christendomwasbroke
up from without(lslam)or from within (GreekOrthodoxy,AlbinIt wasmostseverelyshakcnby the Rcformation-The congensians).
of thn quakewerenot intended,for the reformerswanted
sequences
to restoreand prcscrvea uni{iedChristendomon r ncw basis.The
schismof thc church foiled this attempt at thc Europeanlevel.
l1

Alongsidethc Orthodox church two new "Christcndoms"emerged

- onc C:rtholic,the othcr Protcstant.The formula rvirh which the
religiouswarsin centralEuropcwereended- cuiusrcgio,eiusreligio - wis thc foundationfor an attcnrptto restorcsymbolicunity at
leastwithinsmallspaces
of rule.Llowcver,
dueto the onsetof mod
ernizationcven this territorial solution was only shortlived. Industrialization,urtranization,nrigrationand masscommunications
could not be clcanlydividedinto Catholicand Protestantchannels.
In nodcrn centralEuropc Catholicsand Protestants(and increasingly membcrsof manyfaiths,not to speakof incrcasingnumbersof
peoplenithoLureligion)encounter
eachother and are mixedup,
e.g. throughrrarriage.
The conccptofregio in thc formulaof the Peaceof Vestphaliathus
losesits spatial mening.ltcgio becomesthe sphcre of cotrmu
nication for a community of meaningand convictionrrsuallynot
limited to a particular area. One is Catholic by belongingto a
Catholic rcligiouscommunity and taking part in other Catholic
'lhese
institutions
evcnif one'sneighbors
are protestants.
subcuf
tures, generallyvoluntary conrntunitiesof convrction,no longer
offer the securityof earliercomnrunitiesof life and nreaningwhich
were embcddedin societaiordcrs of value and meaning.Never,
rheless,through variousfornrs of comnrunicationand socialrelations they can savethe individual from unmasterablccrisesof
meaning.If they do not turn radicallyagainstsocictyand are at ieast
toieratedby it, they act,so to spcak,on aggregate
to stenrthe spread
of crisesof mcaningin society.linlightenedrulerswcre wiseenough
to recognizcthis and left their subjectsto seekhappinesswhere
they find it". It turned out that the hope tirat Catholicscould be
loyal supportersof the Prussiancrorvnwaswell founded.
Vhat hasbeensaidaboutreligionholds,mutatismutandis,for other
conprehcnsiveorders of meaning.Moderniz-ationhas made the
assertion
ol thc monopolyof localizedsysrems
of nreaningandvalue
acrossentire socictiesmore tlifficult if not entirely impossible.Ar
the safle time it has creatcde posibility for the formation of
32

communiticsof convictiontranscending
spacc(e.g. through comprchcnsiveideologies)
and from drcsestocksof meaningthe shared
nreanings
of smallercoolmunitiesmxy be derived.Despitethis pos
sibility the overalldeuelopmcntcngenders,
aboveall, a greatdegree
of insecurity;both in the orientationof individualactionsand the
entiredirection
of l;fe.
from
Nevertheless,
it 'ould bemislcading
to drawtheconclusion,
crisesof
this alone,that nrodernsocieties
sufferfrom comprehensive
rneaning.Therearestill peoplewho cvenundertheseconditionsare
ableto establisha meaningfulrelationshipbetweenthe experiences
of thcir own livesandthe variousinterpretivepossibilities
offcredto
them and who are thereforeable to conducttheir lives relatively
meaningfully.Furthertrore,there are the institntions,sub-cultures
values
and communitiesof convictiol wirich transporttranscendent
and stocksof mcaninginto concretesocialrelationshipsand life
conrmunities
of modernsocicty
andsupportrhenrthere.The succcss
beyondthcse"islands
of meaning"is duc to a legalization
of the
"old
rules of social iife and its
fashionednrorality", lurthermore
through the formal moralizationof certainmore or lessprofessionalizcdsphercsof action-Legalizationmeansthat the functionaLsystem is rcgulatcdby abstractnonns,fixed in writing and bindingon
ali membersof a society.Moralizationis an attemptto solveconcrcte cthical qucstionsthat appearin individualspheresof action.
|or example,in the USA academicdisciplinessuch as "mcdical
etirics' or "business
ethics' havecmerged.Legalizationignoresthe
differentvaluesystenrsof thosc affected.The nroralizationof professionalspheresdoeswithout a conrprehensive
order of meaning.
Iloth creatcthc conditionsin which peoplemanagetheir daily lives
withouta comprehensive
andshared
nroralrty.
Sucha societycanbe comparcdrvith a systemof traffic rules.One
of theserrrles
stopson red and driveson grcenand the maintenance
is in the intcrestof all participants.
One canthereforenormallyrely
on peopleabidingby the ruleswithout the rulesthemselves
being
one
can
legitinratedin deepmoral tcnns. If the rulesare inlringed,
33

bring thosewho haveinfringcdthc 'traffic rules"to reason,by laws

or by non staterules,rlaintainedby tradeassociations
or medicalassociations.Char:rcteristically,
groups with rival interestin democrticsocieties
attcmptto havcthe "trafficrules' which aremostimportant for them legalizcdby thc state.Obviously,the analogyis
only partial: 'traffic rul""s"can rcfcr only to the practicalissuesof
individual spheresof social lifc. Lven there a moralizing,valueorientaredrhetoricmustbc enrployed.
Particularlyif groupswith an intcrestin a particularset of rules
wish to usethe denrocraticproccssto legalizetheserules,then they
mustseekto legitimize
theserulcsby reference
to vxluesrelevant
to
all of society- howevervaguelythescmay be formulated.
"ethics'
Beyondtheinfluence
of thelawandthe
ofparticular
sphere
individualsare lcft to their own devices.Systemsof ethics let
alonethe lawswhich rcgulateconductin professional
life or in the
- arcof linlerrsein overcoming
publicsphere
crises
of meaning
and
conflictsin person:llifc. I lowcvcr,evenif we ignorethe factthat
the analogywnh traffic rulcs is incomplete,it is in any casevalid
only for thc 'normalcase. Vhat docsthat mean?h means
that the
analogyassumcs
a societywhich hasachievcda high degreeof economic prospcrity,experiences
no inrDlcdiatcthreatfrom outsideand
hasnetotiatedrelationsbetwccndiffcrentgroup interestsrelatively
peacefully.h is one of thc saddcningexperiences
of this centurythat
such"normality'is alwaysfragile.lf conditions
are"abnormal"
and
particularlyif it is dcmandedof individualsthat they shouldplace
their interestsbchindthoseof socictyasa whole,then "trafficru1es"
are no longcr cnough.In sucha situation,an overarchingmorality,
regardless
of how it is founded,bccorncs
e societalimperative.
\{rhat we havejust claimeddraws on a tradition of sociological
theory which can be tracedbackabovcall to Emile Durkheim and
the Frenchschoolfoundedby hin. Flowever,it rejectsone of their
basicassumptions.
Durkheim bclicvedthat no societycan survive
without an overarching morality; ire named that overarching
morat-symbolic
c,rder'religion".\e divergefrorn Durkheim in that

wc clo not acceptthis necessity

for thc "norrnalcase".lhe dialogue
with Durkheirnrcquiresus to specifythis "normal case"more pre
cisely.Durkheim devotedmuch effort to the study of the phenomenon of sacrificebecause
he considercd
that the willingnessto sacri'
ficc oncsown interestsandin extrcnrisoneslife for thc socialwhole
was a decisivecharacteristic
for thc ability of a societyto survivc.
Durkhcinr'sassumption
holdsfor a societyrvhichis exposcd
to an
cxistcntial
reat. But it rs precisely
th threatwhich is missingin
thc normalcase. The trafficpartlcrpants
needto follow the ruies
in thcir orr,n interest;no willingncssior sacrificeis presumed.
"normal
Modcrnizationmakesthe occurrcrrce
of such
cases"nruch
morc 1ikelythan it wasin carlicrpcriocls:rnodernizarion
bringswith
it cconomicgrowth which is typicallyassociared
with rclativepolitical stability.The citizenry is much lcsstcnrptedto questionthe legitinracy of an order lvhcn its survival is sccuredby matcrirl
prosperiy. However, it shouldbc cmphasized
that it would be a
gravccrror to assumethat this statccould be regardedassecureand
irreversible.
'l
hc rveakening
and eventhe collapse
orderof
of an overarching
nrcaning
with the onsetof modernityis hardlya noveltheme.The
cnlishtcnmcntand its successors
n,clconrcdthis processasthc overturc for thc crcationof a new onler bascdon freedomand rcason.
'l
hc postrevohLtionary
Frenchtraclitioralistsand other conservative
thinkers havebewailedthe sameprocssas decadence
and declinc.
Vhcthcr modcrnity and its conset1ucnce
arc welcomedor rcjected
thcrc ;s widespread
conscnsus
on tbe factsof the matter.!e feelthet
this conscnsus
not
doesundulysinr
though
complctclyunfounded
'lhcrc
plify a conrplcxsituation.
is widespread
not only
consensus
anrong* expertsbut alsoin conrnxrnsenseunderstanding
aboutthe
cause,perhapseven the main crusc of this breakingapart of the
'l
conrprehensive
order of meaning. his is to be found in the retreat
of religion. Religion here is not understoodin the wider sense
enployedby DLrrkheim,i.e.asany comprehensive
orderof meaning
and world order, but rather in the narrower more corventionl

t5

mcaning- religion,asbeliefin god,in anotherworld, salvationand

the bcyond.$(ith reference
to thc n)odern\Vestthis impliesthat the
declincof Christianityhascauscdthc moderncrisisof meenint.
This nor very originalinterpretationwasaccepted
asfact andwelcomedby progrcssivephilosophersanrl intellectualsand mourned
by almostall conservative
ideologicalthinkers.Put simply the main
thesisof this argument,well established
in the socioiogyof religion
"secularizetion
as the
thesis'is that modernhyleadsinescapably
to
sccularization secularization
in the senseof a lossof influenceof
religiousinstitutionson socictyas well as the iossof credibilityof
religiousinterpretations
in peoplc'sconsciousness.
Thus comesinto
"the
beinga historicallynew species:
nrodernperson"who believes
that onecancopeboth in onesown life and in socialexistence
without religion.
The confrontation
with this 'nrodernperson"hesbecomean importanttopicfor wholegcnerations
of Christiantheologians
and a
centralpointin theprogranrme
of the Christian
churches
in western
countries.
l;or thisthesis,
aswell,a nLrmber
of argrrmen*
canbe deployed.Ilistoricalevidence
suggcsts
that at Least
sincethe 18thcentury the socialinfluence
of thc churchhasdeclined,
at leasrin wesEurope,
(e.
tern
andthat importantinstitutions g. the enrireeducational systcm)haveliberatedthcmselvcs
from their earlierreligious
'modern
ties.In addition,the term
person"is not entirelydivorccd
from reality. It is likcly that there are a considerablcnumber of
peoplcwho copewith thcir liveswithout religiousfaith (in the sense
definedcarlier)or religiouspractice.Vhether this type of secular
exjstence
is an absolutenoveltyis questionable.
It is likely that there
have alwaysbeen pcople who have found thcir happinessin this
v'orld without churches- before and after they came into existence.But evendisregarding
this, dre equationof modernity and
secularization
must be treatedskeptically.I{ the secularization
thesis
appliesanywhcre,then in westcrn l-urope. (Even there it would
have to be questionedsr'hethcrthc institutional retreat of the
churchescan be equatcdwith the rctreatof rcligiousinterpretations
36

in consciousness.)
Observers
of the Europeanreligiousscene(incLLrding one of the two authorsof this study) have for a long time
pointed out that declericalization
shouLdlot be confusedwith the
dlesis
lossof religion.In any casethe convcntionalsecularizalion
rapidlylosescredibilityassoo asoue leaves\Western
Europc.
A particularirritant for this theory is the stateof religion in the
United States.American societycrn hardly be describedas unmodern.I Io*'ever,religionis forccfullyaliveandpresenttherc.And
this is trueboth at the institutional
leuelasq'ellasin the consciousnessanrl life conductof millionsof peoplc.There are fcw signsthat
by the sccularizathis situationis changingin thc dircctionsuggcsted
tion thesis.Outside l:,uropeand North America it is in any case
nonscnse.
The so calledl'hird Vorlcl is in fact shakenby thc onrush
of religiousrnovements.
The Islauricrereissxnce
hasattractedmost
\Vorldwide
one can
attentionbut it is far from bcingthe only case.
the moststriking
traccthc success
story of evangelical
Protestantism,
spreads
like
chapterof which is Evangelism.
l his new Protestantism
Asia, in
a prairie fire - in s-idestretchesof Eastand Southeastern
- in all counAfricasouthof the Sahara
and mostsurprisingly
trics of Latin America.Often it is preciselythoselayersof society
to reli
most touchedby modernizationwhich are most susceptible
giouscndrusiasm.
The troops of todaysreligiousmassmovcnrents
arc to bc found in the new citicsof the Third Vorld, not in thc traditionalvillages.Peopletraincd at tbe nrodernuniversiticsare olten
the lcading
cadres
ofthismovemcnt.
modernity hasonly
ln short: the Europeanmodel of secularized
limitedexportvalLre.
The mostinrportantfactorin the creationof
crisesof meaningin socictyas in dre lilc of the individualis probmodcrrrsecularity
ably not the supposedly
but modernpluralisnr.
in plu
Modcrnity meansa quantitativeaslvellasqualitativeincrease
'fhe
raliz:uion.
structuralcauses
of this fact arewell known: population growth and migrationand, associated
with this, urbanization;
pluralizationin the physical,dcrrogr:rphicsense;the market economy and inclustriaLization
which throw together people of the

mostdifferenthindsand forcethem to dealwith eachother reasonably peacefully;the rule of law and denrocracywhich provideinstitutional guarantces
for this peacefulcoexhtence.
The mediaof mass
communication
constantlyand empharicaLly
paradea pluraliryof
ways of life and thinking: both prlnted materialriding on massli,
teracyspreadacrossthe entirepopulationby compulsoryschooling
and the nes-estelectronicmedia.If the interactionsenabledby this
pluralizationare not restrictedby 'fenccs' of one kind or another,
rhis plurlismtakesfull effect,bringing with it one of its consequencesr
the "structural'crisisof meaning.
'lhe "fence
of the law" wasalrcadymentioned.RabbinicalJudaism
erectedthis fenceto distinguishpracticingJewsfrom their profane
surroundings.
It wasthis 'fence"which madepossiblethe survivalof
the Jewish community over many centuriesin a mainly hostile
Christianor Islamicsociety-One nlight alsosey:the "fenceof the
law" protectedthose peoplelivnrg within it from pluralism.This
protectioncollapsedwith the emancipationof the Jewsin wesrern
societiesand the people affcctedwere consequentlyparticularly
liableto crisesof meaning.It is not merehappenstance
lhat modern
thinkers
and
writers
hav
e
con
cern
ed
th
emselves
particularly
inJewish
tensivelywith suchcrisesof meaning.Converselyone can saythat
any group that wishesto protect itself from the consequences
of
pluralismmust erectits own 'fenceof the law'. As wasmentioned,
there havebeen instances
of pluralisurthroughouthistory, for in,
stxncein the large towns of late antiquity and probably at times
alongthe trade routesand the urban cenrersof Asia. The modern
processes
of pluralizationdistinguishthemselves
from their predccessors
not only by their immenseextent(muchwider circlesare
affectedby them),they are alsodistinguished
by their acceleration:
whiLsttheir effectsprogressively
extendto "new" countries,they do
not remain static,in alreadyhighly modernizedsocietiesthey are
accelerating.
Modern pluralismleadsto a thoroughrelativizationof systemsof
valuesand schemes
of intcrpretation.Put differently:the old value
38

'.
'
systemsandschemes
of interpretationarc decenonizedThe resulting disorientationof the individual and of whole groupshas for
yearsbccnthe main themeof socixland culturalcriticism.Catego"anorrie'
ries suchas 'alienation"and
arc proposedto charctcrize
thc difficulty experienccd
by peopletrying to find their way in the
is
modcrnworld. fhe weakness
of suchcommonplaceconcePtions
weakness
is
Their
not that they exaggerate
the crisisof meaning.
aswell asdiffer
their blindncss
towardsthe capacity
of individuals
preserve
their own values
ent conrmunitiesof life and meaningto
and intcrpretations.Existentialphilosophy from Kicrkegaardto
Sartrchasdeveloped
the mostimprcssiveconceptionof the alienatcd
human being.Other versionsxrc to be found throughotrecent
\festcrn literanrre(oneneedmentiononly Kafka).However,it cannot bc doubtedthat this imagcof humanityappliesto only a small
portion of the populationin rnodernsocieties(thoughthis portion
may be in certinrespecrs
an importantone).Most peoplein these
societiesdo not vander around likc charactersin a Kafha novel.
They arenot plaguedby fearand arenot temptedto makedesperate
"condemnedto
lcapsof faith , nor do they co sider themselves
frcedonr'-One x-ay or anothcr,with or without religion,they cope
with their lives.It is importantto understand
how they mnagcthis.
But beforewe attempt!o pursuethis questionwe wish to return
oncc more to or.rrclain that pluralismis the causeof the crisisof
mcaningir modernity.We must cxaminemore closelythe signifi'
cancefor the stock of meaningend the processthrough which
meaningis lost, of the socialpsychologicalstatusof meaningand
knowlcdgeastaken'forgranted.

J9

4. The lossof the taken-for-granted

lf communities of life and mc:ning rcally overlap to the extent that

is demandedby social cxpectariols, rhen social life and the existence
of thc individualproccedhabitu:lly alnrost"by themselves".
This
doesnot necessarilyimply 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 reasonableto
cxpect and, iast but not least, indiviclLralsknow who they are. For
exrmple, the role of a slavc was presurnably never a pleasantone.
Nevertheless,however unpleasantit 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 expectations and their iden!ity rvith sonrc dcgreeof confidence.They were
not lorced to daily rcdefine the nrcaningof their existence.This un
anbiguous definitionof exntcncein the world was sharedby the
siavesard their owners, though it must be assurnedthat the latter
felt more at easein their cxistencethan did the slaves.Neither rhe
slavc nor the slavcorvner were, as Sartre rvould say, "condemnedto
freedom". (Thc possibilrty that the slavesmight 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 caseswere 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 perspcctivcsof possibleaction.
No irterpretrtion, no rangc of possiblcactionscan any longer be ac
ceptedasthe only true and unquestionablyright 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 expericncedon dre one hand as a great liberation, as an opening of new horizons and possibilitiesof life, leading
out of the confines of the old, unquestionedmode of existence.The
40

sanreprocessis, however, often exPeriencedas oPPressive(often by

the sanrepeoplc) - as a pressureon individuals to repeatedlymake
senscof 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 possibilitiesof interpretation of l'hich some arc linked to al
rernativewaysof life.
The conceptsdevelopedby Arnold Gehlenin his theory of institLr
lions help us to understand this anrbivaLentsituation. Vc have already made rcfcrence to this body of theory in the introductory
cirapter with referencetc, the inrportmce of institutions for hunran
oricntation in reality. Institutions are designedto relieve individuals
of thc nccessityof reinventing thc world and reoricntatiog thcm
'programmes"
for the con
selvesin it evcry day. Instittltions create
'execution"
of particular curduct of social interaction and for the
riculum vitae.They provide tcstcdparternstowardswhich peoPle
may rlirectbehavior.By practicingthese prescribed"nodes of be'
that go with
havior the individuallearnsto natch the expectations
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 assignedto them by so'
cicty in the form of institutionalizcd schemesof action and leadtheir
livcs accorclingto insritutionally sccurcd, socially shaped curricula
which arc largely acceptedunqucstioningly.
in their effcctsinstitutions are substitutesfor instincts: they allow
Many sociaction nithcrut a1lalternatives
havingto be considered.
etally inportant socialintcractionsarc carriedout quasiautomati
calLy.Every timc slavesreceive an order from their mastcr they do
not need to consider whcthcr to obey or Dot. Nor does the slave
orvner pauseto consider whether he is entitled to give orclersto his
slaves.Neither the slavesnor the slveowner queslion their own actions or the actronsof dre other; typiclly, their action is unreflectivc. Connecting Gehlen's theory of institutions with the social

psychologyof GeorgcI Icrbert Mcadc(to which the precedingdiscussionof the formation of pcrsonalidcntity is alsoindebted)one
can saythat the institutional"programmcs'are ' internaiized' ir individualconsciousness
anddircctthc indivldual'sacrionsnot asalicn
'Programmes"
but as the individual's
own mcanings.
are internal"primary
ized in multi-laycredproccsscs:
first in
sociliztion",in
which the Ioundationsare laid for the formationof personalidentityi then in "sccondxrysocializ-ation"
which directsthe individual
towardsthe rolcsof socialrcality,aboveall in the world of work.
The structurcsof societybccomcstructuresof consciousness.
Slave
and masterdo not mcrcly behavein conformity with their roles,
they think, feel and concciveof thcnxclvesin waysthat conformto
'I
their rolc behavior. hc srrbjectivc
world of the individualdoesnot
necessari)y
haveto coincidecomplctclys,ith sociallyobjectifiedreality - this is impossible.In the processof socializationthere are if
not realbreaksthen at leastsnrallcracks.In the fornrationof personality there can be at best an :pproxinrationto the completecongruenceof meanings.
A scanrless
transitionfrom primaryto sec
js thc cxceprioin nrostsocieties,
ondarysocialization
not the rule.
The individual has idiosyncratrcinrpulsesand daresro transfer
dreamsinto day to day life and to seekadventures
outsidethe programmesof socicty.Neverthclcss,even is can be spokenof as
''nonnatity'.
Deviations
from the institutional
programmes
anddivergences
from the society'shistoricalrescrvoirsof meaning(andre
servesof meaning)arerelativc)yrareand remainlimited to the indivrrlrul:and rhi' rncan'th:u rl .y Jo nor enrerinro communicarrve
processcs
anri that "censordlip"opcraresevenat the lowestlevel of
objectificationand conrmunicationof "dangerous"thoughrs.If
"censorship"
is unableto containthe deviationwithin the interior
life of the individualthcn specialinstitutionalprogrammesare appliedin the treatmentof the deviant.'lhis rrearmenthasboth an externaland an internalaspect.DxternalLy
tllc rangeof treatmentsextendsfrom the physicalliquidationof thosewho havedeviatedfrom
the true path to loving spiritualcarefor "lost sheep".One way or
42

- harmless
anotherthe deviantbchaviormustbc renderedharmless
for the executionof thc progrannre. fhe obstacleto the smooth
functioningof the machinerymustbe removed.The internalaspect
of this processof socialcontroLis the attemptto stop deviant
thought and to restorcthe previoLrs'mindless"acceptance
of nor
malrty.
Instinrtionsdraw thcir power from the naintcnanceol unqlrestioned vaLidity.An institutionis endangered
fronr the moment in
which the peopleLivingwithin it or with it beginto think aboutinstitutional roles, identities,schenresof interpretation,valuesand
ways of viewingthc worlcl.Conscrvativephilosophershavealways
senseddris;seniorpolicemcn know it from practicalexperiencc.
In
the normalcase"dangerous
thoughtcanbe reasonably
controiled.
'Ihere
is here
However,pluralismmakesthis controLmore difficult.
a cLearsociafpsychological
dialectic from liberationto burdensomefrccdom:it is extremelyhardto be forcedto leadonesown life
without beingableto hold on to' unquestioned
pattersof interpretationand normsof bchavior.This leadsto a clamorous
nostalgia
for the good oLd daysof unfreedom.Liberation is an xmbituous
thing. As GehLenputs it: freedomis born out of alienation- and
Modernliteraturc
isfull of examples
ofthis.Oneneedthinkonlyof
thc themeof "provincialism",
of thc biographical
dialectic
between
'paths
town and city, of thc many possiblc
to freedom' (Arthur
Schnitzlcr).MadameBovarysuffersin her narrow,provincialworld.
But if shehad had the chanceto moveto Parisshewould not have
remained
happyfor long.Alienatlonwouldhavebeenthe priceof
"roorlcher grcrter lre"dom. rhe l-,''clr. br"r cen,rrnlylrer
chilclrcnwould probably haveconceivedthe ideathat the old provincial world had its goodsidesafter all which at the time were so
takenfor grantcddratthey werenot noticedat ali. A physicalreturn
to that world is usuallyno longer possible.There is howeverno
shortagcof suggested
routesfor an internal return (religious,po'
litical, therapeutic),*.aysof healingthe pain of alienation.Projects
43

"old
aimed at restoring the good
world" almost always include the
suppressionor linitation of pluralism - and with good reason:
pluralism constantly suggcstsalternatives,alternativesforce people
to think, thinking undermincs the foundation of all versions of a
"good
oLdworld'; the assumptiono[ its unquestionedexistence.
Modernization inplies the radrcal transformatjon of all external
conditions of hunan existence.l he motor of this giant transformation, 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,passedon from generation
to generalion, wcre the foundation of material cxistence,there is
now an apparently endlessand constantly improving plurality of
technologicalsystems.Both individuals and huge organizationsface
the nccessityof choosing one or other option from amongst this
plurality. This conpulsion for choice extendsfronr trivial consumer
goods (which brand of tooth pastel) to basic technological alterna
tives (which raw nTaterialfor the motor vehicle industryl). The increasein the rangc of options also extendsto the social and intellcctual sphere. I Icrc, nodernization meam the change from an existence dctermined by fate to onc consistingof a long seriesof possible
choices.l:ate previously determined almost atl phasesof life, the individual movcd frorr phaseto phascaccordingto prcdeterminedpatterns, 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 sequenceof social roles that followed. Put diffcrently: the range
of pregiven, unqucstioned assumptionsexrendcdto lhe largestpart
ofhuman existence.
Modernization fundamentalLychangedthis. Birth and deathare still
- only just - determined by fate. In parallel to the plurality of possible choiccs at a natcrial level multilayered processesof modernization open up x rarge of options at thc social and intellectuallevcl:
44

which job should I take up) Vhom shall I marry? Ifow shorrld I
bring up nry children? Even the gods can be sclectedfronr a range of
possible options. I can change my rcligious allcgiance,my citizenship, ny life style, my image of nrysclf and my sexual habitus. The
rangc of taken for-granted assumptionsshrinks to a relatively small
'l
economicfounda
core which is hard to define. hc technological
tions of this changcare at the levcl of the matcrial,but its socialdiaboveall, by pluralism.Pluralismnot only
nrcnsionsare intensified,
(job, hud;andor ivife,religion,party),it
rnakc
choices
pcrmitsone to
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)possibleto close ones eyesto
the frct that a decision that onc nrirkescould 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.ltionsare
foundcdon the aggregation
of individualchoice- and themselves
Thc ethosof dcmocracy
cncoragecont;ououschoiceand sclcctron.
humannght.
nrakcschoiceinto a fundamental
f ire taken-for-granredresidesin thc reaLmof unquestioned,securc
knowledge. lhe loss of the taken for-granted unsettlesthis realm: I
know lessand lcss.InsteadI have :r ralge of opinions. Someof thesc
opinious condcnscinto sornething that one night call bclief. Thesc
are opinions for vhich I an prcparcd to make sacrificesin the lirrrit,
even today, to sacrificemy lifc, but probably no longer unquestion'normal" life of so
ingly. It lics in the nature of thingsthat in the
cicty and the individualsuch linrit cascsare relativelyrare ln the
'nornral
processof modernizationi anr in any case no longer
forceclto decidev.hcther I am preparcd to wager my life for faith or
evcn nrcre opinions. Unqucstioncd, secureknor'ledge dissolvesinto
a no longer very compclLing aggrcgate of loosely connccted
Conopinions.Firm interpretations
of reaiity bccomehypotheses.
victions become matters of tastc. Conrmandments become sugges

45

tions.Thesechanges
in consciousness
crcatcthe impression
of a certain'flaress.
One can rmagincthe conscioLrsncss
of the individualas different
levclslayeredon top of eachothcr. In the "depths"(this term is not
r.rscd
herein thc |reudian scnscof depthpsychology)lie thoseinterprctationsdrat arc taken for granted.This is the sphereof unquestioned,certainknowlcdge.Alfrcd Schtitzcalleddris the levelof the
"world-taken
for-grantcd';Robcrt and Ilelen Lynd meant something of the samekind with their conceptof "of-course-statements".
The other pole,thc uppermostlcvcl of consciousness
(uppermostin
the senscof closestto thc "surfacc'),is the sphereof insecurity,that
which is not taken for grantcd,opinionswhich I am in principle
preparedto reviseor evcnretract.This sphcreis ruled by the motto
"chacrrn
son gut . In this layerrlodel, thc modernizationof consciousness
appears
as a lossof 'depth'.More engagingly
one can
view consciousness
as a huge coffeenraker the contentsof con
sciousnessof all types have evaporatedupwards, the residual
grounds
hassenously
shrunken,
thc coffcehasbecome
prertyrhin.
Thelossofthetakcn-for-granted
rvithallitssocial
andpsychological
- asonewouid expect- in the
consequerces
rs mostpronounced
sphereof religion. Modern pluralismhas undercutthe monopoly
enjoyedby religiousinstiturions.Vhether they like it or not the
religiousinstitutions:rc suppliersin a nrarketof religiousoptions.
The "church-goingpeoplc has drvindlcdto a mernbershipwhich
can in nany churchesbc countcd on the fingers of two hands.
Membershipin a particulxrchurch is no longcr taken for granted,
bur ratherdre resultof a delibcratechoice.Evcnthosewho decideto
renain with thc confessionof their parcnts are making such a
choice:they could, after all, havcchangedconfcssionor religionor
simply left the church altogethcr.This fundamentallychangesthe
socialpositionof the churchcs,whethertheir theologicalself-image
is willing to acknowledge
dris stateof aff:rirsor not. If they wish to
survive,churchesincreasnrgly
necdto considerthe wishesof their
membcrs.The church must provc irself in the free markct. The

'buy"
pcoplc x'ho
a particular faith become a group of consuners.
Regardlcssof how stubbornly the thcologiansrefuseto acknowledge
"the
it, the wisdom of thc old connercial nraxirn customer is always right'
has forced itself on the churchcs.They do not always
abidc by this maxirn, but often enoughthey do.
'l
hc churcheshaveincreasing
difficulty in hangingc'ntounmarketablc dogmasand practices.lhc sanreprocesschangesthe relation
ship of thc churchesto one anothcr.They can no longercount on
or to deelwith
thc statccitherto drive the flock into churchservices
their rivals. The pluralistic situxti<>llforces thc rival churchcs to get
aLong.Initially, this forced tolcr:rnce is grLrdging,later it is lcgitiruized theologically (it bccomcsoecunrenical).The American church
'dcnollinxhistorian Richard Niebuhr introducecl the corcept of
tions" which hc definedas follows:'A denominationis a church,
which has achnowlcdgcddre right of othcr chr.rrchesto exist." It is
"dcnon)rDation"
no accidentthat the term
originatedin thc USA fronr a societyrvhich can be secnas rhe p;oneerof modern pluralisnr. lhc increasingsimilarity of thc religioussiruationin othcr
modernsocicticsn ith rhe situationin the USA cannotbe explaincd
by a proccssof cultural Anericanization- as somc, for obvious
idcological reasons,wish to bclicve. The simiLarity is only superficially due to American inflLrences.I* real causeis the global sprcad
of nrodernpluralism.
'l
hLsshift hasi* correspondentrt the level of individual consciousncs. Religion also "evaporatcsrrpwards'; it loscsits statusas taken
'possibility",
for granted. This shift creatcs for faith the status of
'l
bascLlon the sentencc:
I do rot halc !o bclievevhat I know. his
religious possibility' is usually ovcrlooked when theologians
lanrcntthc trivializationof religion in modernity.Ilowever, such
drcologians
are not keento ednlit that they might wish to scea situation in which one could bc * Christian in the same taken'forgrantcd way in which one is man or woman, one hasbrown or blue
cycs and suffersfrom hay fevcr since birdr. This posibility of faith
mst howcvcr be plausible particularly to protestant theologians.

47

Protestantisnr,
fronr Lrrther's comprchensionof conscience(Ver
stndnisdesGe\\'lsscns)
to Kierkcgord's lcapof faith', hasbeenthe
modern religion par cxcelience.Ihcologianscould acknowledge
theseideaswith hopc ratherthal pessimisl.From thc socialscienti
fic perspectiveone 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 theologiansmust be r.rnconlfortablyclosc to other realmsof consun]ption. People with 'rcligious opinions change their opinions
relatively easily evcn if they do not thcrcforc aLwayschange their
"denomrnatiou
membershipin a
. lraditional Christian churches,
particularly il F.uropc, stiLl h.rvc grcrt difficulty in accepting this
change.They, in fact, wLshto closctheir eyesto it. For examplc,the
Roman Catholic ChLrrchrefuscsto understandi*elf as a "denomination . Thosebranchesof Protcstantism
which stillunderstandthem
selvcsasappealingto thc populationat largehavesimilardifficulties.
The exceprionare disest:blishcd
churches,aboveall in the Anglosa-ronworld, *'hich have exisredin a pluralistic situation from the
The loss of depth in religious consciousness
can be traced (not co'l
incidentally) in the ^nerican languagc. he nost common exprcssion for belonging to a religion in thc United Statesis "religious
prcfcrence",asin 'my rcligiousprcfcrcnccis I-utheran";in German
this transLatesinto: "ich 7-jehees vor, l,uthcrancr zu sein". By comparison, the expressionstill comnrcn in Contincntal Europe is 'con,
"I
fession"anr of the Luthcran confession".The exprcssion'con
fession" refcrs to bearing witness, cven to the wilLingnessto make
the sacrjfice of a martyr. .lhe American cxprcssion, by contrast,
comesfrom thc realm of the languagcof consunption (and from the
realm of economic sciencc- "prcferences' and "prcferencescales"
detenninc the market for a commodity or a service).k implies a lack
of comnltment and refersto the possibilityof prcferringsomething
else in future. It is a historical irony of the current European situa
48

"retion, that, for cxarnple,Gennans also mean nothing more than a

ligious prefercncc' when they say that they are of the Luthcran confession.Thc Ioss of the takcnJor-granted is today a global phenom-

5. Habituatcd meaningand crisesof mcaning

Day-to day actionsare carriedon habitually.Their implicit rneaning

of
is untouched.Hard, thrcateningrinrescan leadto the eppearance
crisesof nreaningin some areasof life. Even then orher arcasremain
under the inflLLcnccof old habinratcd rneanings.liven during civil
wars and earthquakcspeople 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
n1athcont^in impressive
testimonyof the rvay in which apocalypse
and norm:rlity coexistside'by side.
Even in hard tirnes, crisesof meaning rarely afflict all arcasof life
sinultaneously and vith dre same forcc. Particularly when habituated action has becomedifficult or irnpossiblein many areas,it protects x8ainstcrisesof meaning in those areaswhere one can continue
according to habit. In societiesin rvhich crisesof meaning occr.rrnot
in the rvakc of serious catastrophcsand total wars the range of habitual norrnalityvhich is maintaincdis of coursemuch wider. But
takenJor-grantedhabits are not just thrextenedby serious eventsin
thc fate of the collectivity, but also by radical changc in the life of
the individual. In all societiesthere arc certain typical changcswhich
may unlcashcrisesof meaning if thcy are not socially acknowledged.
In archaic and traditional societicsthere are ritcs of passagewhich
give mcaning to thesechanges.Puberty, sexualinitiation, cntry into
a job, agc and death could be cxpccted with lessuncertainty because
codesof behavior existedfor dealing with thesebiographical breaks.

49

l he societalfoundationof tue:ningc suredthat thesechanges

were
not experielcedby the incli"idualpcrson as deepcriseslet alone
'lhc
existcntialthreats.
weakenirgor evencompleteabsence
of such
ritcs of passage
in modernsocieties
can be readasa symptom- and
- of a slowly risingcrisisof meaning.In part, this devela co-cause
o p r r r . nr t. w e l li . o u e dr o m o J e r np l u r a l i z r t i o n .
'lo
clarify what hasbeensaicl,let us considertwo spheres
of life in
the existence
of the indjvidualthat are particularlyimportantbur
alsocrisisridden:sexualityand occupatlon.
That humansexuality
alv'ays
couLl
and everywherelcadto crisesof meaningis adequately
documentedin popularsayingsandthe entiretyof humanliteramre.
'l
he main themeof popularsongsin all countriesis lovc, love sickncssand disappointed
love. The institutionsthat were fonncriy rerluiredto dealwith suchtroublesarestill in business
today,foretrost
amongstthesethe churches.Ve will return to this point. Churches
were,however,neverthe only institutionswhich were and haverenrainedactivein this area.Relarional
nerworksof interection
rvhcrever
thcy continueto cxist- belongto the socialinsritutions
which scrvefor the producrionand communication
of nreaning.
Young pcoplein this or that fornr of sexualtroublemey still rrn to
a well treaning uncle, aunt, grand-parentor godparent.However
hereas wcll, like for the churchcs,there hasbeena decidedlossof
crcdlbility.Geographicandsocialmobility hasvery muchweakenerl
the network of relationalintcraction.Furthermore,it is more and
more likely that, for example,the well-meaning
unclenot only lives
far away but is alsohopelesslyconfusedby his own love life. The
samecan be saidfor problemsin the arcaof work - worricsabout
rraining,troubLes
suitable
with the bossandwith colleagues,
unemploymentandat somepoint,usuallyin the middleof a career,the
incscapable
rcalizationthat cvcrythinghasbecnachievedthat could
be hopedfor and that from
can at bcst hope ro evoid
downwardsocialmobility.
In both areas,modernsocictyhas 'invented"new institutionsfor
the productionandcommunicationof meaning- psychotherapy
of
50

(both alreadypredifferentsorts,sexualandprofessional
counsellors
sent within schools),specialcourscsand seminarsfor adult educatrained(or ration, departrnents
of the welfarestate,psychologically
ther,halftrarned)
personnei
officcrs,andl:st but no! leasrthe mass
media.The piest and the old aunt may sometimessti1lbe heLpfuL.
But it is more probablethat 'modernpcople turn towardsthe new
institutionsof orientation.For this purposeone often doesnot even
haveto visit an office,an institutionor a practice.Simplyturning on
the television,one is facedwith a widc rangeof therapeuticprofrom
granrmes.
^lternatively one goesto thc bookshopandchooses
the shelvespackedwith Self-Helplitcraturethe volume that is best
tunedto onescrrentdifficulties,whcthcr they be in onesouter or
inner life.
A word on the mcdiaof massconrnrunication
from publishingto
tclcvision:ashasoften and rightly beensaidtheseinstitutionsplay a
kcy rolc in modernmcaningfulorientation- or more preciselyin
the communicationof meaning.lhey mediatebetweencollective
for
and individualexperience
by providingtypicalinterprerations
problemswhicharedcfincdastypical.Vhateverotherinstitutions
the media
providcby way of intcrprcttions
of realityand values,
selectandpeckage
theseproducts,transformthem in the processand
decideon the form of dissemination.
Modernsocietyhasa nunber ofspecialized
insritutionsfor the production and communicationof nrcaning.Even though an adequate
typologyof theseinstitutionsandnn enalysisof their modeof operation would be helpful,socialscicntistshaveonly tentativelybegun
to deal -ith this problem. lly way of a first approximationone
could distinguishbetwecnthoscinstittrtionswhich offer their inter
pretivcscrviceson an opcn nrarkct(e.g. psychotherapy)
and those
institutionswhich cater to a smaller,often strictly closedcommunity of mcaningandspirit(sccts,
with strictly
cultsandcommunes
definedstylesof life). The distinctioninto new and old institutions
hasits uscs.There are old institutions(the
of meaning-production
mos! important are the churchct who continueto cultivatetheir
51

establishedinterpretations of rcality as best as thcy can and to offer

them competitivelyin a pluralisticsituation.Newer instiutions
"advantage"
have to start from scratch,but thcy h;rve the
that they
can take unrestraincdly fronr the traditional meaningsof the different cr.rlturesand 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 alongsidethe newest practices
of psychotherapy,dizzryingscxual cxperiments alongsidea restricted
petit-bourgeois ideal of f:rmily happiness.And all of this can be
distributed through the massadvcrtising nrcthods of late capitalism.
Juggling with these discrepant intcrpretations of reality requires a
ccrtain skill and consequentlya number of professionshave emcrged
"knowspecializedin this aptitude. These are the professionsof the
ledgeindustries", as econonlistscall this sector.Helmut Schelskyhas
characterizedthem as occupations which arc conccrned with the
education,counseliingand plannirg of other peopleThe institutionsof meaningproduction have a rangeof possible
options. Hos'ever, in tcrnrs of the strategy they chose to enforce
their inrerpretive perspectivein society they are limited to two main
possibilities.
On thc onc hand thcy may enterthe market in which
they must survive m compctition with old and new suppliers. On
the other hand they may mobiliz-ethe state for their purposes.Produccrs nray acquire a monopoly position through lcgislation- only
qualified psychologistsmay practice psychotherapy or their pro
duction attracts a statc subsidy - public health insurance pays for
psychotherapy - or thcir product may be dlstributed by meansof
state - certain categoricsof delinqrrcntsare obliged to submit to a
psychotherapisttreatment. lhis dcvclopnrentdoes 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 democratic wlfare state on a number of new institutions for the production of meaning.There arc no longcr establishedchurchesin the old
sense.Instcad there is official therapy, to paraphrasePhilip Rief, a
52

'Ihis
therapeuticstate.
however,leadsto considerations
observation,
which lie beyondthe themeof this essay.
One candcscribeall theseinstitutionselsoin Arnold Gehlen'sterminology as "secondaryinstitutions".lly this is mcant that these
institutionsno longer,asin the past,standat the centreof society"in
they
asthe churchoncedid
thc nriddleof the village. Instead,
functions.A further
pcrfonn limited and often highly specialized
distinctionmay bc uscfulin this contcxt:on the one sidewe find institruionswhich cnableindividualsto transporttheir pcrsonalvaiues
from privatc lifc into differentsphcresof societyand to applythem
in sLrcha way as to nrakcthem a forcc shapingthe rest of society.
On the othersidcthereare institutions
whichtrcat the individual
merclyas a more or lesspassive
objectof their symbolicserviccs.
Only the first mcntionedare 'intcrrnediaryinstitutions' as they
have been known to sociologysinceDurkheim. lhcy are "intermediary"in thc sense
that they rucdiate
betwcenthe individuelnd
in society.Through
the pattcrnsof cxperience
andactionestablished
instirurlons,
thcsc
indi"idualpcopleactivelycorltributcto the productionandprocessing
of the socialstockof meaning.It is the effect
of theseinstitutionsthat the existingstock of mcining is not experiencedas rthoritatively given and prescribcdlrut as an repertoire of possibilitiesthat has bcen shapedby the individual
membersof socictyandwhich is opcnfor further chauSes.
-l'he
insti
distinction
betseenintcrnrcdiary
andnon-rnternrcdiary
tutionscennotbc madein the abstract.It hasto bc madethroughthe
cmpiricialanalysisof the concretcmodeof operationof a sphereof
group,evenan
action.A local parishcommunity,a psychotherapist
agencyof the wclfarestatcmay be a true, mediatingstructurein the
midstof the pcoplc associated
wilh it. l hc samefornr of institution
rlay, however,alsoappearasimposed,asa force alienor evenhos
with it. Both
tile to the iife world of thosc indivLduals
associatecl
"secolclary",
forms are
both conrnrunicate
meaning-I Iowever,only
in the first mentionedfornr arc thcy suitablcto softenthe negative
"anomie")or cvento over("alicnation",
aspects
of moclernization
53

conrecrisesof meaning.If such institutionstake the sccondform,

theycontribute
to "alicnation'
.
One fLrrtherrcmark shouldL'cmadeaboutthe churches.Amongst
the prinrary institutions"of practicallyall premodernsocieticsre
ligion takesa centralplace.This centralitywas essenrial
to Durk"religion".
heirl's conceptionof
Religion was a symbolic remedy
spreacling
throughoutall of society,collectingall sharedinterpretations of reality (repr6sentations
collectives)
into a cohercntview of
the world, and in the processprovidingthe foundationfor e societxl
morality (conscience
collecti"e)- both consciousness
and consciencc.As was alreadynrentioned,rcligiousinstitutionsin modern
societics
canno longerclaimthisposition.They are no longerthe
'fhey
solcbcarersof supcrordinate
ordcrsof valueand meaning.
are
increasinglyreducedto secondaryinstitutions.They are pushed
from the centreto rhe peripheryof the 'village".The pompousceremonialbuildingsthat stiil standappcf,ras museumsand the theo"una sancta',
logicaliylegitimizedself-definitions
("Catholicism",
"peoplc's
church")no longerfit the empiricalfacts.The chLrrches
abandoneir (empty)public rolc and take on a privaterole in the
lives of thoscwho still continueto be membersof the church or
who havcrecentlyjoincd. lhis changein role neednot be judgcd
merely ncgatively.Despitclosingits centralrole in societyoverall
- in somecasespreciselybecause
of this loss- the churchcanstill
perfornl ao cxtremelypositivcfunction as an intermcdiaryinstitution, positivcboth in termsof the life of the individualandthat of
societyasx whole.For thc indiviclLraL
the churchcanbe the most
importantcommunityof meaning;
throughthe churchthc individ'
ual may establisha meaningfulbridgebetweenprivateJifeand par'lhe
ticipationin socieralinstitutions.
churchprovidesmcaningboth
to family life and to citizenship.The church makesen important
contribution for societyas a whole. It supportsthe stability and
crcdibility of the "big' institutions(aboveall the statc)and reduces
the 'alienation"of individualsfrom society.That was of course
alwaysthc big socialrole of religion.Flowever,today,when the
54

churchperfornlsits function as an intcrrnediaryinstitution,it does

so without compulsion.By contrastwith its former role, that is
significantdifference.
The churchmay alsofulfill an important,purelyreligiousfunction
with no or minimal associated
soci:l functions.This is true in the
caseof a lonelyold person,withoutfamilyanda job andwith poliFor thcsc
ticaLinterestslimited to occasional
readingof a newspaper.
peopleparticipationin churchLifenraybe of decisiveimportxnccin the churchscrvice,in prayer,rn bible classand in other actions
which transccndsociallydefnredrolcs,suchpeoplcmay exPerience
thenselvesas mcmbersof a comrlrrnity of nreaning.If the church
alsofulfiLlssocialfunctions,theseuraycommunicatemeaningin the
manncrdiscussed
above,or may rcmail effectiveonly in thc private
sphercof thc church'smembers.I hc iatterfunctionswerefor a long
time cultivatedby the Pietistand cvangelical
branchesof Protestnt
'privatizcd"
religion may have indirect social
isrl. But even such
and thesemay be inrportant(asMa-x\fleber already
conscqucnces
rvasaware).For example,it is an open questionto what extent a
valuesmay influence'on the iob'
famLlylife regulated
by religious
t,r bcha"iorin the politicalrealm.
behavior(andthusthc economy)
in any case,the churchasan intermcdiaryinstitutionhasimmcdiate
by directingthc rndividuaL!o think his Public
socialconscquences
rolc through the church'sview of the world and then to act in
of thc religiouscornmunityof
ptLblicin concertwith othcr nrenrbcrs
mcaning.This role of the churchotrvic,uslyhasa particularimPorconstitutcdsocieties.
Alexis de Tocqueville
tancc in dernocratically
alrcadyarrivedat this conclusioniu his worh on democracyin the
UnitedStates.
for the spread
of subLct us sLrmmarizel
The structurel
con(litions
jcc!i!c andinter-subjective
crisrsof rncaning
that we havededuccd
lrom thcorcticalconsiderations
arc to be found in a1lwesternsociquite differthough
thcy
manifestthemselves
clics of the present,
cndy. The most irnport:nt oi thescconditionsis modernpluralism,
the takcn-for-granted
slatusof the systcnl
sinccit tcndsto destabilize
55

of meaningandvaluethat oricntatcs
actionandunderpins
idcntity.
Neverthcless,
modern socicticstlo not "normally" experiencethe
drarnaticspreadof criscsof mcaning.Both subjcctiveand intersubjectivccrisesof meaningoccur much more cornmonlyin such
societies,however they do not conclcnseinto a generalcrisis of
'I'his
meaningaffectingal1 of society.
characteristiccondition of
'nornrality"
in modern societicsDtay bc termed a latent crisis of
mcaning.The reasonsfor this condition are the various factors
which act xgainstthc conscqnences
of nrodcrnpluralisnrmost liable
to producecrisesof mcaning.In our opinion thc mostinportant of
thesefactorsis a basicstockof intermediaryinstitutions.Theseinsti,
'Uriorr...rvc ro generLrem"*rrrng'.rnJr" .rrpportexisring
meanings
in the livesof individu:rls
andin the cohesion
of communities.
They
providepeoplcwith orientationcvcn whensocietyas a whole no
longer supportsan overarchingordcr of meaningand values,but
insteadactsasa kind of rcgulatinginstancefor thc differenrsystens
'lhose
of value.
ruleswhich arc valld for all of socieryservero
enablethe coexistcnce
and neccssary
cooperation
of differentcommunltres
of nreaning,
withoutinrposing
on thema comnonorderof
values.
Vc thereforesuggcstdre hypothesisdtat as long as the immune
systenrof intermediaryinstitutionsrer:rainseffective,"normal" modern societies
will not sufferthe pandenricspreadof crisesof mean,
ing. As long as thrs condition holds, the crisis-of-rneaning
virus
which is at home in the organismof all modern socictieswill be
suppressed.
Howcver,if the immunesystemis sufficientlyweakened
by othcr influences,
thcre is nothing to stopthe spreadof the virus.
(Characteristically,
it is the statewhich hclpsto weakeninrermcdi
ary institutions- asa form of corlpetition?)This hypothesisseems
plausibleto us,howcvcrsimplificdits formulation,but it, of course,
rcquirescarefulcmpiricalinvcstigation.
In the lastsectionwe return
to this.

56

illusionsand possibilities
"decay
of clture", the loss of meaningin
Complaintsabout the
moderniry",the' alicnationof hunranityin latecapitalism',the'inflation of mc:rningin masssociety",'the disorientationof peoplcin
thc irodern rvorld" and suchlike arc hardly new. Theokrgians,philosophcrs, sociol;gists, quitc apart fronr non academjcmoral entrepreneurs fronr far right to farleft havc been making thcse com
Under different ideological
pLaintslor r nl.rmberof Benerations.
signsall inuginable renredieshave bccn advertiscdfor thesc illnesses
of the
of the individualand society,from dre nroral strcngthening
individLralto the revolutionary transformation of the entire poiiti"diag'
cal econonric system.C)ur doubts about the most cxaggcrated
noses"c,f thc cultural conrlition were hintcd at in the introductory
"therapies"
section. Lct us add here that q."erceard the proposed
optionswhich
with equalskepticism borh the radical-collectivist
are in the r:nd always totalitarirn as *eli as radical individualism
which is in thc cnd a solipsism.
'Lo
seewhethcr a core of truth is to be found behind the ex:rggcrations and whedrer thc diagnosisrrrs only in the seriousnessof the
specificallynrodcrn crisis, we havc attempted to describcthe organisn in its healthy state.Ve first refcrrcd to the meaningfulness<-,facand the way in which
tion and life constimtiveof the humanspecies
it is conditionecl by social processcsand structures.In a sccond step
we could then clefinethe historicaLchangeswhich definc the specifically nodcrn construction, conrrnunication and sccuring of the
rncaning of life ud acrion nr nrodcrnity. Before formuLating our
"thcrapeutic'
suggestions,we will
own, co]nparatircly modest
"
d
r
;
g
n
.
r
.
i'
.
b r i c f l y . u , r ' , r r , r i , . r l -r ,c . u . , , l o r r r
evenif
ofgeneratingn)eaning,
Allsocictiesareinvolvedin proccsses
they hxvc not de"elc,pedspccializedinstitutions for the prodction
of neaning. In any case,thcy control the processthrough which

57

clcments of meaning are absorbcclinto social stocks of knowledge

and organizethe conrnlunicarion
of historicaL
stocksof meaningto
the membersof society,adaptingto cw needs.Through institurions
societiespreservethe basic elenrcnrsof their stocks of mcaning.
They communicatemeaningto rhc individualand to the 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 theseactionsis dictatedby the big institutions
of domination and the econorly. All dris gocs on in all socieriesin
one way or another, but it occurs with diffcring degreesof succcss.
Vc therefore first pursued the qucstior whethcr there are gencral
reasonsfbr thesediffcrences.
Our first concern was wirh pcrson:rl identity, the individual reference point of the mcaning of action and life. The personalidentity
of dre child is shaped through sccing its behavior mirrored in the
actions of those closc to it. A certin congruencein the actions of
these personsis thereforc the nrosr ir:rportant condition for the un
troubled developmentof pcrsonalidentity. If rhis condition is not
nrct, the probabiiity of subjective criscs of meaning incrcases.Furthermore, 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 gcneration and sustenanceof rDcannrgin the life of their melrbcrs.
'lhe
degree of congruencc betwccn the expected community of
mca ing ard the community actually rcalized appearedof particular
inrportance. \ffc suggesrthat the greatcr the degreeof discrepancy,
the larger is the likelihood that intcr subjective crises of meaning
will result.
'When
we turned our atrention to nrodern societiesit becameclcar
thxt it is those featureswhich make them different from their prcdecessors
rvhichalsopreventthc stabilizationof meaning.the mrin
tenance ol congruence ln thosc processesthrough which personal
identity is shapedbccomesmorc difficult as docs the promotion of
sharedmeaningsin life communitics. I'he frequency of both subjcc58

tive :rnd inter subjectivc criscs of nreaning is intelligiblc once we

considcrthc consequences
of the structural charecteristicsof nrodern
societies,in particular modern western societies.Taik of identity
crisesand the mounting figurcs of the divorcc statisticsconfirm both
A gencral,fundamentalfeature of modern societiesis the thorough
differentiationof actions(that 1n othcr types of societieswere still
connectedand related in meaning) into their own institutional
spheres:eachof drcseairls for, anclis largely successfulin achieving,
autonomy in setting its own orrls, i. e. enrancipationfronr superordinate social valLres.Schernesr-,f actjon defined by these sets of
instinrtions (economy, political clourin:uion,reLigion)have an objectificd meaning that is related tc, thcir main function. Since,with thc
except;onof rcLigionthis 1rea[ing is instrumentaliy rtional, it must
bc uncouplcd from subjectiveschtrlcs for nrterpreting life. lndivid'
rrals nrust subordinate themselvesto the goals of the organization
rathcr than adaptingthe demandsmadc on them to thcir own conccptionsof yalue.The structuraldifferentiationof modern socictics
ofsuperordinatc
is thus not compatiblerith thc continuedexistence
and generally binding systemsof meaning and value. This is, howcver, the condition for a socially guaranteedcongruencein the formalion of personalidentity and fc,r a hi6h degreeof sharedmeanings
'
1 lile comnunities.
To this rnust be added a furthcr characteristicof the structurc of
modern, above all western socictics,th:rt is ciosely related to thcir
basiccharacteristic.This is nrodcrn pluralism, a pluralism, in 'vhich
the protectivc fcnccsaround the stocksof mcaning within commun'fences
itics oI lifc (thc
of the 1aw') can no longer be completely
maintained.Through the gapsin the fencepeoplepear at what lies
statusin cer'
beyond. l his lcadsto the lossof the takcn-for-granted
layers
rncaning
which
and
life.
\Ve hope to
t:rin
of
orientateaction
have shown thar this is a typical causeof the outbreakof crisesof
'l-here
oleaning,
are t\|o extremc allcl contradictory reactionsto nodern pluralism.

59

One might say that thcre $,hcre some desperatelyattcnrpt to close

the holcs in the protectivc fcncc, othcrs rvish to tear down trore of
the fence.These reactionsare forrndcdi| 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 valLrcsand traditions. Politicians have again and
again attcmpted to exploit thc attitude link to this affect for their
own purpose, in westcrn socictieswith little succcss.Prine Minister
'back
to basics"is only the rnostrecentpolitiJohn Major wnh his
cian to have discoveredthrs to his cost. Ily "contrast', reiativist positions abandonthe attempt to asscrtany kincl of common valucs and
stocks of meaning. Postnrodernthcorists nlake a virrue of necessity
and displacethe pluralismof socictycvcn to within the harassed
individual.
Both reactionsare wrong and may cven becontc dangerous.In irs
radicalvariantthc fund;rnrentalist
positionlcadsto selfdestruction
*'hen it determinesthc action of weak groups.Thc'other'is destroyedif strong groupsput this attitudeintir action.In its moderatedform this attimrleleadsto thc ghcttoizationof the 'own' group
within societyrs a B,holc. ihis rs hard to achieveand is associated
l'ith variablecosts,as thc cxamplesof rhe Pcnnsylvania
Amish, the
jn
HassidicIews in Nes, York, the Algcrians lirance,the Turks in
Berlin-Kreuzbergetc. dcnronstratc.Neither thc "fundamentalist"
'relativist"
nor the
position can bc rcconciled with practical reason.
"relativist"
But the
position is cvcn internally inconsistent.If it rvere
put into actionjt would leadto thc individualleavingsocicty.A per
son who cqually accepts quite different mutually contradictory
norms will not be capablc of cohercnt acrion for which he or she
can assumeresponsibility.
Sucha pcrsonwillnot be ableto givc rea
sons for acting in onc rvay r:lthcr thitn anodlcr; his or her actions
must appearcompletcly arbitrary ald no onc would be able to
expect that hc or she *-ould not conrplctely change in character in
thc next moment. lhcrefore, inclividuals
no longer responsible
for
their ac!ionscannot maintain rhc urutuaLobligationo{ socialrela60

tionships.'fhc nrinimum of nutual respectthat is essentialfor thc

existetce of communities of life and therefore for the whole of a so'
"fundamentalist' act on their
cicty would be lost. Howevcr, whcreas
'rclativists"
remainedconfincdto tatt<.
beliefs,
To considcr how the crisis of nreaningof modern societiesmay bc
to rcalizethat two quite different
countered,if at all, it is essenrial
strr.rcturalcharaclcrislicsof modern society have quite different con
scquences.Stmctural differentiation of function (and thcir instrumentaLly-rationalorganization in thc economy, administration and
La-r')ancl modern pluralism are amongst the preconditions for the
long list of advantageswhich nrodern socictiesare 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 samestructural charicteristics are however also rc_
sponsiblc for the co[dition drat nodern societiesare no longer to
perfc,rm a basic anthropological function rvhich all societieshavc
fulfilled, namcly rhe generationof lreaning, communicationof
mcannrgand preservation
of meanLng,
or, at least,modern societies
fLurction
in
thc
same, relatively successfrrl
no longer perfornr this
rvay in which orher, earlier so.ial formations did. Modern societics
may havc spccializedinstitutions for the production and cornmunication of nreaning,or have permittcdthe devclopmentof such in' r'.rriorrb
. .u r , r e n " l o n g , r a h l ( l u . o r r r r r , u n i ( a locr P r r \ c r v c\ y _
tcnx of rneaning and valuc to all r-rfsociety in a gcnerally binding
fashion. The srructure c,f mcrdcm societics alongside wealth and
othcr advantagesalso createsthc conditions for the enrcrgenceof
s n j c . t r v er n d r r r r e n u b r r r. . c . r , ' ' u f n , r ; n i n g .
lf there *'ere no proccsscsand structures in modern society that
coLrnteracted
the en)crgcnccand sprcadof crisesof meaning,then
thesesocicticswould be the most fcrtilehostsfor pandemiccrisesof
nreaning.lhat would certainlybc a high price which rnodernsoci
etiespaid for thc blessingsand securitiesthat rest on the sxmecauses
1s the criscs.lly focusing exclLrsiveiyon this high price and iSnoring
thc advantagesachieved at thc same tirne, radical cures have been
6l

proposedfor thc supposedlyscriousillnessof modern society.ln

those casesin g,hich such curcs l crc acnrally atternptedby regimes
of totalitarian rcgression,it turncd out that the cures wcre more
deadlythan the discasc.
Ilouever, one nccd not ever'rattcmpt to judge the advantagesand
disadvantages
of such a calcularion even handcdly, sinceits premises
are false.The reconstrction of prernodern structurcs with a singie,
generally valid and t:rkel for-grantcclstock of meanings and values
cannot be contrastedwith a socicty whose material wcalth is washed
over by a general crises of nrcaning. The artenrpts to restore premodern structuresof 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 characterof modern socicticsis distorted. Precisely,in
those societiesrvhosebasicstrucnrre provides thc conditions for the
emergenceof crisesof mcaningand thc possibilityo{ thesecrises
spreading,specificcountcracring processcshave produced structures
ivhich have preventedthe unhindcredspreadof crisesof meaning
and preventeda crisisof mcaningaffectingall of society.The most
importantof thesestrucmressc havcattcnptedto understandusing
the conceptof intermediaryinstitutions. 1he previoussectiondiscussedtheir strengths and weaknesses.To simplify: the basic structurc of modern societiesis thc causcof incipient criscs of meaningIn nodern societiesthcre are, howcvcr, also parrial srructures,above
"intermediary
all the
institutiorls" that prcvent thesecrisesof mean
'Ihey
ing flaring up into criscsof the cntirc socicty.
are norc or less
successfuldepending on their quality and qLrantity in modern societies.Given similar basicstmi:tural conditions the failure of counter
ecting forces to develop or their dccisivc rveakeningcan lead to the
spreadof crisesof meaning, whereasstrengtheningthese forces can
help to dam thc crisis.
Irronr this argunrentwe can dcrlrrceone ofthe fcw, reasonablyreaListic methodswith which socicticscan deal 'drcrapeutically"with
crises of meaning. One should have no illusions about the main
62

causeof crisesof mcaning,i. e- the basicstructuresof modcrn so

'lherc
and pluralim which
ciety.
is no antidoteto diffcrentiation
has not revealcditself to be a deadlypoison.Intermediaryinstitu'
tions canonly administerhonrcopathicdoscs.Thesecannotrenrove
of the illness
the cascs,howeverthey may softcn the ppearance
and incrcasethe po-er of resistancc
to it. They kccp the crisisof
meaning'n its incipicntform andprcvcntit from fLaringup. fhe pa
ticnt is kcpt alivein a states'hich apartfrom the constanttendency
to crises
is not partjcularly
disagreeable.
of mcaning
reaction
to moderniy
Benecnthcimpossibility
ofthc rclativistic"
and the frighteningpossibiliticsof funrlamentalism'
, there is anoneself
to the negaotherposition.As bestone can,onereconciles
tive consequenccs
of structuraldiffcrentiationand modcrn Pluralism. Onc opposesthe dangcrof the destructionof modernsocicty
but seesno reasonto join in thc celebrx_
by totalitarianrcgression,
This programme
is modcst,but, wc feel,
rion of,lodern plLrralism.
whercthey
realisticr
intermediary
institutions
shouldbe supportcd
$'herethey supportthe
do not cnrbodyfundatrentalist
attitudes,
''little
lifc *orlds" (a term coinedby BenitaLuckmannnrAnyye{rs
ago)of conrmunitiesof meaningand faith and where thcy develoP
"little
'
theirnrcrnbcrs
of a pluralisticcivil society'.In the
ascarriers
for commr.rnilife worlds" thc variousmeaningsolferedby agcncies
"consumed';
rthcr they arc approcatingnlcanin8sarc not simply
into elcmentsof
priatedcommunicativelyand selectivelyprocessed
bnt by no
the comnrunityof meaningand lifc.This unspectacular
for mcdiapolicy
meanspassivc
basicpositionalsohasimplications
rv:rybcyondthe socialandcuhuralpoiiciesof the sttc.lt is the
' , ' p o n . l , r h " I r h , l e a J e r ' ot fl . . ' g c r . , r ' . o r n n r u n i . r t irrrr'gc . r r r i r r g .
1
c. t. the missnredia,to supporrirtcrnrcdiaryinstitutionswithin the
context r:f :r dcrcgulatedmarket in mcaning.And this is a policy
which licswithin the rcalm of the possible.In termsof contentthey
nus! stcl'r a middle -ay bctwccnthe dogmaticcollectivisnrof the
''firndrnrcntalists"
"postmodcrnity".
In
ard dre latrilcsolipsism
of
s,cstcrn
have
nrany,
in
nodern
societies
socialand culturalpolicy
63

part contradictoryfunctions.If our considerarions

are closeto thc
mark, it shoulclbe clearin which directionthe main socialand
culnrral policy efforts of the srate- and rcsponsibieand capable
- shouldbeciirccted
non-state
agencies
in dealing
with theincipicnt
crlsisof meaning:to thc promotion and developmentof the intcrmediaryinstirutions
of a plurrlistic"civiLsociety"andtowardssupportingthem as sourccsof meaningfor communities
of life and
faith.
As was alreadysaid,thc idcntificationof inrermediaryinstitutions
is not aLways
easy.Thcy can be rccognizcdin their effects,bur not
by thc way in which they refer to thcmsclves.
Furthermore,thcrc is
no simpleformulawhich tclls us how sLrchinslirtrtionscan most effcctivelybe supported.Howcvcr, thesetwin problemsseemopento
solutionby empiricalresearch.l(hcther thereis the will to actually
supporttheseintcrrnediaryinstitttions is anothermatter.This de
pendson both the big ideologiesand thc little day,todaypolicicsof
the partiesand thc comfiercial interestsof the agencies
responsible
lor comnuricating rneanings.A.adcnlicscan at best gcncraterhe
rvill of politicsand business,
thcy cannotbe responsible
for actually
directing
sucha commitment.

/- (rutlook

In the precedingdiscussionwe have on a number of occasions

pointed to questionswhich could be ansveredonly by extensivc
empiricalresearch.Our discussiondealt with a many layeredand
complexproblematic:
the strLrcture
of meaning
in modernsocieties,
from the anthropologicalbasisof the constitutionof meaningin
humanactionand life ro the spccificconditionsof crisesof meaning
in thc modernworld. It is, thercforc,hardlysurprisingthat the statc
of researchin most of the varior.rs
problernareasis characterized
by
64

questions.That meansthat aPartfron1

open rathcr than ansrvered
the rescarch questions \\,hich s'e havc already referred !o, a long
throughemPiricalenquiry.
seriesof problcrnsrequireclarificati<,n
*e
thc constitutionof
this
enquiry
clescribed
At the beginningof
in the genmeaning,frorn the separationof individualexperiences
eral strcam of consciousncssto thc processthrough which they are
related to othcr experiences.\Ve have said thet thc meaning of indithat the mcaningof
vidualexpcricnces
liesin schcrresof expcricnce,
action
and the mcaningof
schemesof cxpcriencelies in pattcrnsof
of the conductof
patternsof actionis locatedin gencralcategories
life. Vc have seenthat drc meaningof the differentschemes,
Patterns and catcgoricsis located et different distancesfrom thc super
ordinatc configuration of vaiues.One can say that the meaningof all
expericncc and action and certainly the meaning of lifc conduct is
deternrincd rvith reference to supcrordinate values, i. e. that it is
morally relevxnt.llowever, thc ureaningof some schemesof ex'
perienccand actionis explicitlyand directlyrelatedto vxlues,whilst
valLres
is indirectand im
in oer casesthc rclationto supcrordinate
only
be madt cle:rrby
plicit- Thc moral relevanceof thc latter can
anaLyzingthe links n'hich leall from the schemeto the suPerordinxte
vaLr.res
ancl by makilg the inplicit relations of valuc expLicit.The
"If
I
moraL ciraracterof an action which is in breach of the maxnl
find a wallct on the street I hand it in at the lost property office" is
"'lhe
soup is
obvious. Ily contrst, if someonenrakcs the comment
hot thc (rroral) implication is clcar only if one knorvs that the
speakcrhasnot cookedthc soupand the cook is within earshot l he
"You've
givenme my
issuewould be clearerif the speakcrhad saidr
souproo hot againl"
Such dLstinctionswith rcgard to thc moral connotations of differcnt scheesof expcrienceand action are useful 1f one wishesto ana_
lysc systcms of rneaning and valuc and one is centrally concerned
with thc moral aspeclsof meanint. These distinctions are useful in
allowing one to trace the transformation of superordinateconfigura-

65

tiols of value into norrns of :rctionsand maxinr, step lor step down
to the level of ordinary, cvcrlday action.
The analysisof systcnrsof valuc and meaning in rnodern societies
hasto overcomeparticuiardifficultics.We have seenthrt it is not
possibleto speak in modern socictiesof a single and generally binding order of values.k may be true that beyondthe legalizedsystenl
of behavioralnorns there are still clcnlentsof a generalmorality.
However, qithout careful research it is not easy to decide -hat
these might consist of and whetlrer togcther they make up a framework of establishedmorality. lt ccrtainly seernsthat there are a
multiplicity of moralities, distributed acrossdifferent communities
of lifc ancl faith, which can bc iclcntified in the form of "partial catechisms"and particularistic idcological programmes.To what extcnt
these diffcrent moralitics - we spcak here not o{ the ethics of par
ticular functional sphercs(medical ethics,businessethicsetc.), which
*c h rve ;lready di'cu*.d - r.rre clcrrrenr.in c,rmmon rr an open
qucstion, to vhich the existing researchhas not given a satisfactory
answer.Even if rherewere no such comnron elements:it doesnot
follon' that people in modern socicticsdo not orientate their action
antl conduct of life towards supcrordinatevalues,valueswhich 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 excoscsfor 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 assumethat t hat they consider good and right is considcred good and right by others; sccond,individuals do not always
knov what is good and right
cvcn for themselves.
The insti,
tutionshavetheir instrumentallyrationalorganizationwhlch objectively dctermines action and pcrhaps some kind of specific cthics.
(lommunities of life vith diffcrcnr stocksof meaning are not divided
from onc another by high protcctive walls and communities of faith
run, so to spcak,crisscrossacrosssociety.Furdrermore, through thc
66

meansof masscommunication thc different stocks o[ rneaninghave

h".^-" """",. .,.""..ih1"
Researchnrust be directed towards three levels c'f the production,
\ o r n m u n i c r l i o n; r r J r e . e p r i o ro f r r l e a n i n Sm: , l \ \ L o n r D l u n i c r l i o n :
day-to'dayconrmunicationRithin communities;internediary in, r i rr r . o n 'w h r , h r r ' c d r r rbe. r w . r n t l r " b , g i r . r . r l i o n . . c o m m u r , r . " '
and the indivitlual.
'I
he ievelof m:lssconrmunication:the cofltentsof masscommunication arc morally chargcd, in part implicitly ft. g. in advertisingand
news reporting), sometimesmore direcdy (e. g. in police films and
nature films), ancl sometirnesmoral :spectsof individual life and so'
(c. g. televisionsermons,political
ciety arc consciouslyaddressed
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 nrasscommunicatioo are employed explicitly by
moral cntreprerrerrrsof different dcgreesfor thcir own purposes,by
the state,by churches,by voluntary associationsasrcpresentativesof
cornmunities of opinion *'ith qLrite diversc progranrmes (environmentalism,protcction of cthnic, sexualor other mi11oritics).
The levci of the individual in thc daily life of commr.rnitiesof various kinds: in evcryday verbal conrmunication (in thc family, at the
bar, in conversationsbetl'een ncighbors, at the workPlace and in
commLlnitics
of opinion to thc extentthat theseare not alreadyin_
termediaryinstitutionsof a higher lcvcLof organizationand thercfore to bc treated xt the next state) thcre is constant moralizing: in
conrpLaints,apologics,referencesto specificsetsof norms, gossipctc.
The moral aspcctsof 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 argunrcntsbet*-eenmcnrbcrsof a famiiy ovcr a caseon television,e. g. Maradona).
The lcvcLof intermediary institlrtions: this qucstion is, as was af
rcady argued, particularly problcnlatic since one must first answer

67

the qucstionas to what belongsto this category,but c:nnot do so

unctluivocally
prior to bcginningrcscirch.Vith somcconfidence
onc cansaythat the intcrnediaryinstitutions
includecommunitics
of opinion organizedlocally, e. g. ecologicalgroups;institutions
srrchas the church,to the cxtcnr that they havelocal roots strong
cnougllto serveassourcesof mcaningfor communitiesof lifc; possibly loctl party organizations;
associations
of variouskinds.Vhich
of thescorganizations
deservcs
the title intermediryinstitutioncan
onLy be decidedwhen their local mode of operationhas beenexamined.
If thcy do not mcdiatebctrvccn
the biginstitution
of society
andthe individuals
in theirlife communities
rhenrheyerenor true
intcrnrediaryinstitutions.
'l'hey
In the idealcaseintermcdiaq,insrirutionsareJanus
faced.
look
"upwards'to the
'
big institutionsand downwards'to rhe cxisrence
of the individual. lhen rhcy comrnunicatcnot iust srocks of
meaningfrorn thc "top' to drc "bottorn"but also,asis suggestecl
by
the idcaof "civil society',fronr thc "bonom" 'up'. k appears
as
thoughthis is quiterare;an examination
of this sphereshouldbe
ableto concluder','hetherthc generalskepticisnis justifiedequally
in diffcrcnt societies.
An answerto this qucsrionwould bc inrporrart. On the basisof sornercscarchand prior considerations
it seems
that onc nrustassumethere arc usuallylargediscrepancics
between
the moralitiesoffcredby thc state,the churchand othcr'moral
entrcpreneurs',which reachdre individualvia the nr:rssnlcdia,and
the valucshcldby the indivicluals
themselvesOn the levelof dyro
'
dayconrnrunication,
e. g. in fanrilies,
rhcse moraloptions'are not
nerely consumcd. They arc processed
conrmunicativcly,
selected,
rejectecl
and adaptcdto individual'sown circumstances.
Still the gap
that ya\,Dsbetweenthe moral recornmendations
of thc mediaand
day to day rcality should not bc nderestimated.
If tolcranceis
preachcd"from above"it rarely bccomessignificantin thc attitucles
of indivicluals
if it hasnot beenabsorbed
inro the sharedmcaningsof
"their' conmunity
throughcc'nrmoncommunicative
effort.
With rcfcrence
to intermediary
instirutions
theimportantqucstion
68

is, as was already said: do they really mediatexnd do they mediate in

both dircctionsl fhc empirical anss,/erto this question will deterrrrinc whcthcr, on thc whole, rnodern societiescan reign-in the ever
Iatcnt crisis of mcaning, as wc suspectthey probably can. Only if
intcrmediary institutions cnsurcthat the subjectivepatternsofexperience and action of the individuals contribute to the social negotiation and objectification of meaning, will individuals not find thcm'
selvesin the modern world ascomplete strangcrs;and only then will
it be possibleto avoid the identity of the individual person and thc
intcr-sr.rbjcctivecohcrcnce of socicty being threatened or even destroyed by crisis ridden modernity.

69

The authors

Pcter L. Berger
llronr 195556 ResearchDircctor, Acadenry of the Protestant
Church, Bad Bo1l, Germany; fron 195658 ?rofessor at thc
\(oman's College,University of Nordr Carolina; frorn 195863
Director at the Institute of ChLrrchand Community, Hartford
TheologicalInstilutc of Church anrl Conrmunity,Hartford TheologicalSenrinary;frarn 19637aProfessorat thc GraduateFaculty,
Professor
Ncw Schoolfor SocialResearch,
Ncw York; from 1920-79
at thc l{utgersUniversity; from 1979-81Prolessorat the Boston
Collegc;sincc1981Professor
at the DostonUniversity;since1985
I)irector of the Institutefor the Snrdyof EconomicCul!re,Boston
University.
Publicrtions:
1963;The Social
Invitationto Sociology:A LlumarristicPerspectivc,
Constructionof Reality (with TironrasLuckmann),1966;The Se'
crcdCanopy:Elements
of a Sociological
lheory ofReligion,1967iA
of thc SuRtrmorof ngels:ModernSocictyandthe Rcdiscovery
and Conpernatural,1969;The IlomelessMind; Modernization
sciousncss(with Brigitte Berger and Hansfried Kellner), 1973;
Pyramidsof Sacrifice:Pc,liticalUthics and Social Change,19l5;
'thc
Heretical Imperative, 1979; Sociolc,gyReinterpreted(with
I Iansfried Kellner); The l(ar Over the Family (with Brigitte
Bergcr),
Rev<.rlution,
1986;A FarGLory,1992.
1983;The Capitalist
7l

ThomasLucknann
I:ro r 195860 Professor
Department
of Anat the I IobartCoLlege,
Professorat
thropologyandSociology,Gencva,N.Y.; from 1960-65
the GraduateFaculty, Departnrcntof Sociology,New Schoolfor
Social Rescarch,New York; lrom 196365 Co-Director of thc
N.l.M.H. Fellos'shipl'rogram; from 1965-/0?rofessorfor SocioloMan'
gy andDirector of the Departrncntof Sociology,from 1966-68
aging Director of the Departmcnt of Sociologyat the Johann\f olfgangGoethe-University,
FrankfLrrt/Main;since1970Professor
of Sociology,Univcrsityof Konstanz.
Publications:
The SocialConstructionof l{eality (with PeterL. Berger),1966;The
InvisibleReligion, 1970; Ihc Structurcsof the Life-\orld I (with
1975;LebeDsAlfred schtz),1973,II, 1984isociologyof Language,
wclt und Gesellschaft,
1980;TheorieclessozialenHandelns,1992.

72

The project

The Bertekmann lourulation ts targeted to be an operative, concepnrallynorking foundation.lt is obliged by its statutesand its
mandatcto promoteinnovation,raisencw idcasto the levelof prac
'l
tice, help to identifysolruionsto pressingproblemsof our time. he
projectsare beingconccptualizcd
and inrtiatedby thc foundationitse1f.Startingfronr thc dcfinitionof the problem to the practicalimplementationthe foundationruns its projectsin closecooperation
l,ith competentpartnersin acadcnric,
stateand privateinstitutions.
Followint rhis intcntion the Berrelsn)annFoundation has initiated
the project Cuhrral Orientation.h wrll rnakeefforts to elaborateso
Irrtions and conccpts in repll to thc crisesof modern societieswhich
can be summariz-cdas a decline of orientation. It will be one of the
questionsdecisivcfor our firture how we can overcome these crises
related to the transition of values nLl the loss of patterns of
mcaning.
Certainties of oricntation are erodrng, identities are being ques
tioned- Thc increasingvelocity 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
passedon from one generationto thc next by the church, the state,
'.hool. or funrlic.. bc.orn.. .rrrrJatcJir rn evertrowing pr.e.

'fhe

of orientationare beingsupplemented
traditionalinstitutrons
by recentlycnrcrgcdones.Conflictsbctrvccncompetingorienta
"market",different
tions on thc supplyside are rcsolvcdat the
definitionsof one'slivesmay Lrcincompatible.Functionalelitesare
being calledupon to contributc their shareto dre stabilizationof
socialfunrre. Effectiveorientationhas to masterthe challengeof
reconcilingindividuallymeaningfulconceptsfor life and necessities
to maintainthe cohesionof socicty.
The BertelsmannFoundation is ainrilg at responsesto three
crucixlquestions:
- \fhat canbc an cxplanationof this dcclincof orientation?
- $(hichinstiutions contributeto coherentandstableoricntations?
- How cana solutionto dre oricntationcrisisbe designed)
"cultural
As a first stepin thc field of projectson
orientation"the
'The
volum on
lossof oricntation the cohesioncrisisin modern
of
society"(in Germanlanguage
only)wasreleascd
to opena series
publications.The next phaseconsistcdof a serieso{ expertisesof
which the presentsnrdyby Pctcr L. Ilergerand ThomasLuckmann
was completedin the first instancc.\farnfried Detding (Munich)
will presenthis conceptof thc immediatesocialenvironmentand
orientationin cornmLrnication
with ncighborsin a few monthstime.
Other sub-projec*consistof a study by Gerhard Schmidtchen
(Universityof Zurich) on oricntationin intra-firm communication,
an expertiseby Martin Grciffcnhegen(Universityof Snrttgart)on
politicallegitimationand thc liuritsof strtecontrol and an investigatiofl of the episte[rological
conclitionsof orientationunder conditions of an increased
complexityof knowlcdgeand informationby
cerhard Schulze(Universityof anrberg).
The Bertelsnann
Foundation
publishes
this volumein the intention to providea forum for a dcbateon the future of modernsociety
andperspectives
of developnlent.

74

identilies
arcbeing
acnninties
oforicntrtionarceroding.
qucslioned.Thc incrcasingvelocit)'ofsocial devclopmentSrvcs
risc to this tendencyby Dintcnsifiedchxngcoffamiliar struclurcs
ocrtaintics.liaditional knowledgc,which
andexpcricnce-bascd
is bcing passedon fronr onegencrationto the ncxt bythc church.
thc statc.schoolsor fanrilics.becomcsouldalcdrn an evergrolring pace.-fhelradrlionlinstitulionsol orientationarebcing
supplcmcnted
by rcccntlyemergedones.ConllictsbciYeen
compctingorientationon thc supplysidee rcsolvedat the
"mlrrkcl",diflerentdefinitionsofonc's Livesmay be incompatible
funclionaLelitesrrc beil1gcalleduponto oontribulctheir shareto
thc shbilizationoi sociirllirture.Eilectivc orientationhas
to nrastcrthe challcngcol'rcconcilingindividuallymeaningll
to mainlaintbc cohesiono1'
conceptsfor lile and neccssities
PctcrL. tsergerand I homasLuclmann countmongthe causes
ofnodemizatjon,
lor thc modemcrisisofmcaningprocesses
pluraiismand particularlywilh rcgard1oliuropeansocrctlcssecularization.
As a pfoblcm solvingstratcgy,the authorssuggcst
ihcir conceptofintcrmedialeinstitulionswhich cdjate bclwccn
thc individualand socicly.

BertelsmannF oundationPublishers