Religion, civil society and conflict: What is it that religion does for and to society?

Abstract

Human consciousness instinctively tries to make sense of reality. Different human interpretations of reality lead to a world consisting of multiple realities. Conflict occurs when differing realities (worldviews) encounter one another. Worldviews are socially created and determine human behaviour and, as such, most often find expression in religion. The discussion of conflict and the role of religion in civil society take place within the discourse of the sociology of religion. Religion is socially determined. Peter Berger’s insight into the sociology of religion therefore plays an important role in establishing the relationship between religion and civil society as one that takes on different forms. Thus, a clear definition of both civil society and religion was needed to understand the nature of these relationships. The role of religion in civil society with regard to the presence of conflict in society was further investigated in this article. The conditions under which conflict in society occurs were discussed, as were the conditions for tolerance in society, for religion ultimately becomes the provider of moral discernment when conflict occurs in civil society.<p><strong>How to cite this article:</strong> Beyers, J., 2011, ‘Religion, civil society and conflict: What is it that religion does for and to society?’, <em>HTS Teologiese Studies/ Theological Studies</em> 67(3), Art. #949, 8 pages. doi:10.4102/hts.v67i3.949</p&gt

Civil Society: The Imperative for Reconceptualisation

“…Cohen and Arato had aptly commented that the coming of absolutism or the authoritarian state marked the division between the traditional (i.e. the classical) and modern meanings of civil society, (Cohen and Arato is cited in Beyers, 2011). To them, a duality came into being, with all political power now in the hands of the ruler and a depoliticized society.…”

“…While the contesting elites give it a derogatory meaning in the quest for a change, the reigning elites define the concept much in line towards maintaining the status quo as that is critical to his wishful sustenance of dominance. For instance, Jaco Beyers (2011), in his incisive work on Religion, Civil Society and Conflict, writes on Marx's interpretation of civil society as consisting of 'isolated and aggressive individuals' united by economic interests. In this vein, Marx understood civil society as the replacement of collective units by the autonomous individual, causing civil society to lose its political character.…”

“…Indeed, at its conceptual origin, the civil society is indistinguishable from the state since the organised state is by nature itself a civil society. In an historical overview of the concept, Cohen and Arato identify the pristine mention of the concept of civil society in Aristotelian thought and in the subsequent Roman understanding, as referring to the structure of the city-state (polis) as a society which functions as an ethical-political community, with the characteristics of freedom and equality under the rule of law (Cohen and Arato is cited in Beyers, 2011). The community shared in a set of norms and values which determined political as well as everyday life.…”

“…Jean-Jacques Rousseau had much earlier traced the origin of current structural inequality to the door steps of modern civil society, describing it as a trick perpetrated by the powerful on the weak in order to dominate their power of wealth, (Rousseau is cited in Mulder, 2005). And while Karl Marx in another critique interpreted civil society as consisting of isolated and aggressive individuals united by economic interests (Marx is cited in Beyers, 2011), a provoked Prof. Dieter Gosewinkel (2005) contends that the concept of civil society came up as a combat word to checkmate fanaticism and radicalism at the end of medieval ages, and at the beginning of modernity. He claims further, that at the age of religious conflicts beginning with the Reformation, the concept has been set up to define limits to other ways of structuring a state and of politics.…”

Habermas and Religious Communication: The Insufficiency of the Translation Proviso

“…The important transformation that endures in religion is to explain "the contingent reality of the possible with contingency formulas, and of absorbing destabilizing irritations that come from the experience of contingency in personality and societal systems" (Arens 2005, p. 375). How a religion expresses itself culturally may undergo some changes, but these changes do not shed ritual or notions of salvation, nor do they relinquish their hold in seeking to deal with contingency (Beyers 2011). In this sense, the Enlightenment becomes a superficiality in terms of fundamental change, while the raison d'etre remains unchanged.…”