Suchergebnisse

Durkheim und die Anfange der universitären Ethnologie.
Die vorliegende Studie untersuch die Gründe für Durkheims Eingreifen in die Débatte über die archaischen Gesellschaften. Durkheim hat zunächst an der Zuverlässigkeit des ethnologischen Vorgehens für die ihm vorschwebende Sozialwissenschaft gezweifelt. Mehrere Faktoren jedoch - sein verstärktes Interesse für die Religionssoziologie, die Beachtung des methodischen Prinzips der Erklärung des Zusammengesetzten aus dem Einfachen qnd des Späteren durch das Frühere, sowie die Erneuerung der ethnologischen Feldforschung um die Jahrhundertwende - bringen die Gruppe der Soziologen (Durkheim, Mauss, Hubert, Hertz) dazu, sich den archaischen Gesellschaften zuzuwenden, dem in der Année sociologique dann dominanten Thema. Der Durkheimsche Impuis trägt zur Hebung des Niveaus des Fäches bei und begünstigt die Institutionalisierung der empirischen Ethnologie in Frankreich.

La litterature sur les religions populaires au Bresil, largement inspiree par des ideaux egalitaires, recouvre un ensemble varie et controverse de questions. En dehors de ces debats d'ordre general, l'auteur developpe des themes propres a chaque tradition religieuse, et commente les etudes effectuees sur le catholicisme populaire, le culte afro-bresilien (Umbanda, Candoble), le protestantisme et le pentecotisme

Qu'est‑ce qu'être "non‑croyant"? Il est relativement complexe de brosser un panorama de la religiosité et donc de l'irréligion en France et en Europe de l'Ouest: en effet les deux sont de plus en plus mêlées. Très récemment, dans un tweet remarqué, la présidente de la région Île‑de‑France, Valérie Pécresse, avait souhaité à ses lecteurs une "joyeuse fête de l'Assomption". Son message se voulait un hommage à la Vierge Marie, une figure biblique qui inspirerait aussi bien croyants que non‑croyants, expliquait‑elle. Si la phrase a pu fâcher certains, elle ne paraît pas anodine: qui sont exactement ces "non‑croyants" que la politique cherche ici à fédérer?

The text represents the essential of a monograph research that was carried out in an orthodox parish of the district of Brăila from August to December 2009. We tried to witness the evolution of mentalities and religious attitudes caused by the rapid changes that occurred in Romanian society after 1990, by studying the daily religious activity of the parish. The parish itself represents a model of adaptation: its activities are carried out on the ground floor of a residential block in the premises of a former bakery. On a nearby patch of land, the new church has been under construction since 2001. We intended to discover to what extent the building of that new church structures the community within the framework of the existing parish, as well as the current strategies for the financing of such a building.

This paper applies the Church's understanding of the dual nature -in one person- of Christ, human and divine, to the issue of the strained between the Church and the State, within the Creation and the History. This question is approached and analysed through two theological, ecclesiological and canonical categories, alterity (otherness) and communion , which are based on the antinomical conciliar formula of a (comm)union "without confusion and without division". With the help of the systematic and canonical theology of the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451), it has investigated the Christological question , according to the author, of the relationships between the Church and the State on a global level, in the name of the a double and symmetrical divergence: occurs: on the one hand, the autonomisation of otherness leading to the minorisation of communion, in other words, division and separation between Church and State arising from turning otherness into absolute autonomy (without any communion and relationship); and on the other hand, the alienation of communion causing confusion, and leading to the absorption of otherness , in other words, absorption of the weak locally established Church by the powerful State leading to "confusion" (in the Chalcedonian sense) - without any alterity. In the first case, priority is given to being "without confusion" at the detriment of being "without division" (communion), whereas in the second, we observe the predominance of "without division" and the total abolition of "without confusion" (otherness-autonomy). The author enshrines in Church, Body of Christ, its very nature a combination of alterity (otherness) and communion. He argues that these characteristics are undermined by the twin distortions of State infliction and untamed separation, which are marred the relations between these two entities, the Church and the State. For fifteen centuries now, this conception of relationships between the Church and the State has placed a burden at an ecumenical level. More precisely, the ecclesiological vision of the Council of Chalcedon was the simultaneous coexistence of otherness and communion between State and Church as a clearly paradoxical or antinomial feature of the christological mode of coexistence of the two natures of Christ: the human nature and the divine one. It naturally emerges that the coexistence of Church and State in a given state territory is realised through the acceptance of their ontological and institutional otherness and the preservation of communi(cati)on and relationship among them. Special reference is made to the case of the Political Dimension of the Church Eschatology.

In the young Turkish Republic which has rather adopted the French system of laicism as a model instead of the English secularism it is now necessary to evaluate the evolution of each of these systems. At the time of the centenary of the French laicism and the law of 2004, covering the ostentatious display of religious symbols at schools, the author looks into the history of laicism and its application in France so as to make it more understandable but also to criticise the system. He further analyses whether this system can be adapted to the Turkish Republic which is preparing to become a Member of the European Union.

This article aims to explore the conceptual relationship between political and religious identity in XIXth century Romania, according to the writings of Melchisedec Ştefănescu, bishop of the Romanian Orthodox Church. Although his works have been valued mainly as a contribution to the political union of the Romanian Principalities in 1859, we believe that it is necessary to revisit the mainstream of modern Romanian historiography. This endeavor might allow us to understand both its continuities and fractures that undermine the official image of an "organic" evolution between "Romanianess" and Orthodoxy, with important consequences on the definition of Romanian Modernity. Furthermore, we investigate the hypothesis according to which the inconsistencies of Melchisedec Ştefănescu's public discourse (liberal and progressive in the 1850's and reactionary conservative in the 1880's) have a more subtle meaning, suggesting a metamorphosis of the bishop's theological perspective, which seems to evolve from a rationalist approach to a mystical and "national" orthodoxy, preparing thus the way for the emergence of a "Theology of Nation" in interwar Romania.