Peter Berger on Modernization and Modernity by Robert Bickel

Author:Robert Bickel [Bickel, Robert]
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9780367208165
Barnesnoble:
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Published: 2019-01-17T00:00:00+00:00

Berger might have added that textual exegesis has its place, but some Marxists and classical scholars, as well, have yet to acknowledge its limits.

The base/superstructure model and plausibility structures

Moreover, Berger is one who gives interesting, interpretable, and suitably brief meaning to Marx’s base/superstructure model. Given his commitment to Weber, this is not something I had expected, but Berger’s account is quite persuasive. In effect, the base is the locus of human activity, and the superstructure of the ideational and institutional products of that activity (Bottomore, 1956; Berger & Luckmann, 1966; cf. Poulantzas, 1978/2015). Once it’s pointed out, the fact that the base/superstructure model is homologous with a plausibility structure is easy to see. The base/superstructure model is ideal in succinctly capturing the conceptual character of plausibility structure, an insightful idea whose provenance is due to Berger and for which he should be lauded. It also fits neatly into our discussion of the relative social impact of meanings and determinant social structures. Berger’s interpretation enables the sociologist of knowledge to come to terms with the base/superstructure account in a very productive way.

This, I think, provides a useful perspective for thinking about the material, social, and cultural transformations wrought by modernization. It also helps us understand my commitment to the solidity of institutions and the comparatively insubstantial and ephemeral short-term character of meanings (Bottomore, 1956).

I have to admit, however, that I do not understand Berger’s inclusion of the work of Nietzsche in any part of his discussion (cf. Berger & Luckmann, 1966: 7). This seems an awkward and misguided way to introduce the sacred/secular dichotomy. Surely Berger doesn’t need to refer to Nietzsche just to borrow his provocative “death of God” proclamation. Perhaps this reflects my ignorance and deeply ingrained aversion to Nietzsche’s work.

I had thought, moreover, that until Deleuze in 1966 first published Nietzsche and Philosophy (Deleuze & Tomlinson, 1983) my take on Nietzsche – difficult to take seriously as a philosopher, a social theorist, or a person – was more or less widely shared. George Santayana’s characterization of Nietzsche as a constitutional invalid seemed as good a rendering as one could hope to find (Smith [Ed.], 1920/2008).

As it is, I can’t see that Berger’s work is in any way enhanced through reference to Nietzsche. The paragraph which he devotes to Nietzsche in The Social Construction of Reality (Berger & Luckmann, 1966: 7) is in no sense compelling or even perfunctorily informative. Berger’s evocation of Nietzsche’s “God is dead” pronouncement is hardly necessary to maintain his narrative as it appears in A Far Glory (Berger, 2002). Furthermore, beginning Berger’s book In Praise of Doubt (Berger & Zijderveld, 2009) with reference to Nietzsche seems to me an invitation to misunderstanding.

One who would read all of Berger’s best books might get the impression that Nietzsche has long been a lot more influential and informative than is actually the case. Surely Berger can find a better reference than Nietzsche. Nevertheless, I repeat that my knowledge of Nietzsche’s work is abysmally deficient. Perhaps he has long been more important and persuasive than I had understood.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.