Читать книгу SCM Core Text Sociology of Religion - Andrew Dawson - Страница 28

Like the fabled Trojan horse, definitions of religion carry in themselves more than is visible to the naked eye. Sociologically speaking, there is no such thing as an interest-free definition of religion; at least, not one with enough meat on the bone to be of any academic use (Droogers, 2008, pp. 263–79). As with most things sociological, when treating matters of definition Weber’s observation upon the inescapably perspectival nature of the sociological gaze is particularly pertinent (1949, p. 81). As with Marx before him, Weber was acutely aware that ideas and the definitions they comprise do not fall ready-made from the skies. Rather, they are forged with conceptual mater­ials bequeathed by a particular socio-cultural heritage and manufactured in light of specific experiences of a given economic-political context. Defin­itions have a tendency, then, however implicitly and often despite the attempts of their creators, to reflect the particular worldviews from which they spring. Consequently, definitions carry within themselves a range of theoretical presuppositions, value judgements and practical biases which lead their users to view, interpret and act towards what is being defined in one way rather than another.