No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 January 2016
A nation is minimally constituted by a population which shares two experiences, that of occupation of the same territory and of exposure to the exercise of a central state authority. Some societies are more self-sufficient in their economies and cultures than others; some societies surrender more or less political autonomy to a larger body than the nation. Nations, however, are generally the whole of which other bodies are the parts; the nation, in turn, is not usually part of another, larger whole. Edward Shils argues that the state creates conditions which are conducive to a national culture. By giving a population a “common focus of attention,” a common experience of the state’s exercise of its authority among those who share the same territory, and a belief in the legitimacy of the state’s power, conditions are generated which lead, often if not always, to a central culture which defines and expresses the history of the nation, the meaning of membership in the nation, and its basic commitments. Such a national belief-system is the “civil” or “civic” religion which a variety of historians and sociologists have located in American schools, national ceremonies, the regalia of office, and in political rhetoric. It is this culture which provides a non-theoretical answer to the question of what makes a nation “more than” the interaction of organizations and groups coordinated and controlled by a central state. But it is also this culture which becomes the source of new ambiguities concerning the grounds and limits of political authority.
1 In the following discussion I am relying on the work of Edward Shils, Center and Periphery—Essays in Macrosociology (Chicago, 1975).
2 Ibid., 34-35.
3 For a recent discussion of the civil religion literature, see Winter, J. Alan, Continuities in the Sociology of Religion: Creed, Congregation and Community (New York, 1977), 85–89Google Scholar.
4 Bellah, Robert N., “Civil Religion in America,” Daedalus 96 (Winter), 1–21Google Scholar.
5 McHugh, Peter, Defining the Situation: The Organization of Meaning in Social Interaction (New York, 1968), 7–20Google Scholar.
6 Shils, Center and Periphery, 37.
7 The term may have other usages, since it is found in other professional and everyday contexts as well as in the psychoanalytic.
8 Gregory Bateson et al., Ecology of the Mind (San Francisco, 1974).
9 There is some question, of course, as to whether such efforts constitute a “theory” or merely an elaborate description of the interrelatedness of social patterns. I will not enter that controversy here, since it is well covered in the debates on Talcott Parsons’s work.
10 McHugh, Defining the Situation, 39.
11 Ibid., 40.
12 Talcott Parsons and Gerald Piatt, The American University (Cambridge, Mass., 1973), 273 ff., 313.
13 Spiro, Melford, “Religion: Problems of Definition and Explanation,” in Banton, Michael, ed., Anthropological Approaches to the Study of Religion (London, 1966), 85–126Google Scholar.
14 Bellah, Robert N., The Broken Covenant: American Civil Religion in a Time of Trial (New York, 1975), 24–29Google Scholar.
15 Ibid., 142-43, 151. The contrast is between the “external” and the “internal” covenants.
16 Arieli, Yehoshua, Individualism and Nationalism in American Ideology (Cambridge, Mass., 1964CrossRefGoogle Scholar).
17 Ibid., Chap, xii, “Foundations of the American Ideal of Individualism,” 243-76.
18 Ibid., 253.
19 Ibid., 254.
20 Wilson, John, “The Status of ‘Civil Religion’ in America,” in Richey, Russell E. and Jones, Donald G., eds., American Civil Religion (New York, 1974)Google Scholar.
21 In this assumption Bellah has the support of other theorists, for example, Shils, Center and Periphery, 23.
22 By “native American” I mean the Anglo-Saxon as opposed to the later immigrants, not the tribes who have rightly appropriated the term in their conflict with the larger society.
23 Bellah, The Broken Covenant, 142.
24 Ibid., 49.
25 Quinley, Harold E., The Prophetic Clergy: Social Activism Among Protestant Ministers (New York, 1974)Google Scholar.
26 Bellah, The Broken Covenant, ix.
27 Ibid., xi.
28 Bellah, Robert N., Beyond Belief: Essays on Religion in a Post-Traditional World (New York, 1970), 251Google Scholar.
29 Geertz, Clifford, “Religion as a Cultural System,” in Banton, Michael, ed., Anthropological Approaches to the Study of Religion, 4Google Scholar.
30 Bellah, Beyond Belief, 252.
31 Ibid., 256.
32 Schneider, Louis and Bonjean, Charles, eds., The Idea of Culture in the Social Sciences (New York, 1973), 22Google Scholar.
33 Bellah, The Broken Covenant, xiv.
34 Blau, Joseph L., ed., Cornerstones of Religious Freedom in America, Torchbook, Harper ed. (New York, 1964), 25Google Scholar.
35 Ibid., 18.
36 Dawson, Christopher, Religion and Culture, (Garden City, New York, 1958), 204Google Scholar.
37 Wilson, “The Status of ‘Civil Religion’ in America.”
38 Wilson, Bryan, The Noble Savages: The Primitive Origins of Charisma and its Contemporary Survival (Berkeley, California, 1975), 110Google Scholar.
39 Brzezinski, Zbigniew, Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era (New York, 1970), 153Google Scholar.
40 Bellah, The Broken Covenant, 52.
41 Burkholder, John, “The Law Knows No Heresy: Marginal Religious Movements and the Courts” in Leone, Mark and Zaretsky, Irving, eds., Religious Movements in Contemporary America (Princeton, N.J., 1974), 27–50Google Scholar.
42 Against the notion of an underlying cultural uniformity, see Bell, Daniel, The Coming of Post-Industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting (New York, 1973)Google Scholar; and, concerning more than one system of action coterminous with a whole society, see Coleman, James S., Power and the Structure of Society (New York, 1974)Google Scholar.