The share of religious symbolism anthropological / Fundamentalist psychoanalysis: Sexual frustration involved ( fr - angl )

Frans Tassigny

Description

Alors believed that social science debates carefully folded behind verging on self-referentiality (epistemologies of reflexivity) or avoiding any attempt to model the general pattern of the sinking of two large models (such as structuralism) and atomization of a chaotic world now become unintelligible - the fault of postmodernity and globalization, they say - a new movement seems to take shape, the return of "large systems" theory, those who, after Bourdieu and Levi-Strauss, respectively, for sociology and anthropology, had offered bounding boxes, confining paradigm, which marked their time as to represent key moments from which have redefined entire sections of these disciplines.
  [Moins]

Informations

• Publié par: Une-Universite-de-la-Psychanalyse
• Nombre de lectures: 7
• Langue: English

Extrait

The share of religious symbolism anthropological

Lionel Obadia

The symbolic and theories of religion: the necessary completeness? The call for anthropology Pragmatic religious symbolism: I-limits of systematic Pragmatic religious symbolism: II-praxeological fluctuations Politics and religion, religion policies Conclusion Top of page Full text 100kSignaler PDF document Full text available in open access since 19 January 2013. 1Alors believed that social science debates carefully folded behind verging on self-referentiality (epistemologies of reflexivity) or avoiding any attempt to model the general pattern of the sinking of two large models (such as structuralism) and atomization of a chaotic world now become unintelligible - the fault of postmodernity and globalization, they say - a new movement seems to take shape, the return of "large systems" theory, those who, after Bourdieu and Levi-Strauss, respectively, for sociology and anthropology, had offered bounding boxes, confining paradigm, which marked their time as to represent key moments from which have redefined entire sections of these disciplines. The work of Camille Tarot Symbolism and the Sacred (2008) seems to fit right in this approach the "big systems", but not really in response to the fragmentation of large theoretical ambitions, or even in order to continue programmatic designs, like Bourdieu and Levi-Strauss. The ambition even stated in the register of restraint is clearly perpetuating some global intellectual approach to religion, like a Dumézil whose author is clearly inspired. As such, Tarot demonstrated an unquestionable bravery as proofreading company to which it bends is the most difficult: many things have been said about all the authors called. But the confrontation works, rarely conducted on many theories, probably did not exhaust the capacity of these heuristic "traditional" social science of religions.

2D'entre the many debates raised in the book, treated with an undeniable mastery, which will undoubtedly probably not generate forces discussion, it was necessary to retain the exchange which would result serene and fruitful Tarot calls for . It is the examination of the

symbolic, the angle of attack preferred by the author to dig the trench for a revision of paradigms and theoretical contributions of major authors of the social sciences of religion (history, sociology, phenomenology, anthropology ), which will thread here. Assuming that any reading of a book resonates with research references and scientific practices as well as with the intellectual orientations of the reader review "intertextual" and dialogical symbolic of the book and the sacred s 'Aventurera particular in the field of anthropology's contribution to the theoretical modeling of religious symbolism. This detour through ethno-anthropology will be an opportunity to review some of the contributions which are usually assigned, and highlight other: the habit of referring to Mauss and Levi-Strauss in the first instance, and some other authors more secondary part anthropology in a topical essentially structuralist, which does not do justice to more recent developments which provide a pragmatic alternative to the formalism of the great ones.

The symbolic and theories of religion: the necessary completeness? 3In its draft revision (literally "re-see") theories of religion and situating the symbolic heart of the analysis, Tarot is betting that it can resume and update site symbolism, and placing it at the forefront of defining criteria of religion. The critical inventory of authors and their contribution to a general theory of symbolism in religion brings Tarot carefully review the conceptual Durkheim, Mauss, Eliade, Lévi-Strauss, Weber, Dumezil Debray, Vernant, Detienne Dumont, Godelier Testart Gauchet, and many others ... order to identify, beyond the different models and theoretical developments proposed by these authors, the elements that contribute to the debate around a central theme which can not be domesticated yet. No more than the sacred, the symbolic "has achieved the status of concept" (Tarot, 2008: 30) and he did not confer see the book - its purpose is elsewhere. At the very least, the encyclopaedic collected and analyzed during the writing of a book devoted to a concept as perpetually elusive commands respect. For theories of religion through the prism of symbolic - in its relationship with the sacred, and religio - show a clear dispersion discourage more than one researcher opinionated.

4At end of this harvest more or less meaningful contributions that identifies the major debates in sociology of religion and history (its sources, its nature, functions, etc.)., Tarot book ultimately a theory that reconciles the irreconcilable "symbol "and" function "approach" symbolic "ending indeed a functional theory, stating less abstract universality metapsychological the location of a" symbolic function "(unlike the topical lévistraussienne) a tripartite functions (pharmakologique, xénologique, dorologique) of religion on a symbolic level.

5Afin to guard any attack against a theoretical enterprise as ambitious, Lucien Scubla, in the preface to the book states that "the absence of a particular author" is the "secondary issues" may be open to criticism ( Scubla, in Tarot, 2008: 14), under the representative sample "of the great social theorists or religious half of the last century" (id.). Only then, according to this curious line of argument, the "big" authors could then citizenship in a general theory of religion? Without discourse on the scale of legitimacy authors called (which are notoriously

included in a French tradition of sociology of religion) and to prevent slipping in acrimony of "strident polemic and even more deafening silences" (Tarot 2008: 33), other contributors 'keys' seem sorely missed the call this panorama theoretical symbolic religion, which are, too, leading thinkers of the past century: Lucien Lévy-Bruhl, who opened the door to the question of logic underlying the religious symbolism in non-Western societies (1938), Alfred R.Radcliffe-Brown, opponent remarkable convinced of the supremacy of the structural-functionalist approach on the approach Symbolism in the Study of Religion (1968), Mary Douglas, whose famous De staining (1966, repr. 1992) provides an initial bridge between approaches symbolist and structural-functional, major texts of Marc Augé (1974a, 1974b ), which he prefers to talk about ideology, makes valuable theoretical propositions to make intelligible the relationship between social structure and symbolic systems, Michel Izard and Peter Smith, who booked a collective volume function Symbolism (1979) and last but not least, Clifford Geertz, famous North American anthropologist, to whom we owe a definition of religion as a whole enclosed in a theory of symbolism (Geertz, 1972). While it is always easy to carry out an attack in the absence of encyclopaedic principle that mesh so tight it is, a generation of writers can not be completely exhaustive, and Tarot has also reserved special consideration to Geertz's work (forthcoming in 2009). But it is precisely this disorder, which appears as the first final reading, which forced a more pressing demonstration: if the book boasts a socio-anthropological stance, the imbalance is strongly in favor of sociology. What role then anthropology in a theory of religious symbolism?

The call for anthropology 6In a project calling for "interdisciplinary" (or aspiring to be) theoretical modeling of the religion, Tarot (2008: 858) summoned indeed several disciplines - the notable exclusion of psychology - and repeatedly , anthropology occupies the enviable position of guest choice. However, the originality of its contribution in polyphonic debate about religion is undermined by the very limited selection of ethnologists mobilized on the occasion. In reading the symbolic and sacred, all authors appear more or less called as "sociologists" before being restored to their disciplinary singularity, when about the need: if the Theories of religion then proceed to a detour anthropology (ibid.: 665 ff.) it is better to emphasize the distinction with sociology admits a first partial justification (because biased), but ultimately rests on each singular orientations disciplines. Issues around the ethnocentrism and primitivism are probably at the heart of the identity of ethnology, and function very xénologique confronts directly the issue of otherness in the religious sphere. But entered in this sense, the whirl of figures of the ego and the alter is mainly used to level the playing field differences between disciplines to better show that, ultimately, any academic reflection on the religious symbolism is more or less "anthropological".

7The contribution of anthropology boils does then it seems to be here: a benchmark in relation to the Other and the ability to provide other disciplines examples (empirical) could feed their modeling (abstract)? Nothing is less certain, as anthropology has also helped to mark the field of reflection on the symbolism and religion. And the opposition of the "symbolist" and "political scientists", which seems to organize the retrospective reading that makes Tarot can substitute another, which distinguishes this time "symbolist" of "functionalist"

or, more generally advocates a vision intellectualist religion (which rhymes with psychologism and symbolism), supporters of a practical and social: in this perspective, the genealogy of symbolism in anthropology does not go back to Mauss but James G . Frazer which Lévi-Strauss, but, paradoxical as it may seem, Malinowski also are heirs (Tambiah 1990), as opposed to another tradition, that of social anthropology, which focuses strongly the footprint of the work of Edward Tylor and continues with Radcliffe-Brown. Mauss is unique can be claimed by both sides, but Tarot is here to locate the party Mauss side of the Symbolists.

8This discussion point is mentioned, one is tempted to add that many things have happened in ethnology religious facts from Mauss and Levi-Strauss (but Clastres and Godelier), beyond the dialectical relationship which involves a detour through companies 'other' to return to the companies 'ours'. Unlike sociology, anthropology, is a science class, but little versed in typology, seek, in the process of theorizing or modeling, not to exclude residual analysis, those beyond the margin model and call for a revision of epistemological deep symbolism.

Pragmatic religious symbolism: I-limits of systematic 9Prudent face the phenomenological reduction of cross-cultural archetypes Eliade (which encloses each concentration, the religious meaning in a finite number of symbols to risk their ontologization) but also against the extension symbolist Dumont (who subjugates the entire social symbolic structures), Tarot prefer digging a furrow theory worded "functions" and, in so doing, provides the reader with a reflection based on evidence assuming a first level of theorization (shapes, lines , processes, effects of religion) and then purified of all empirical, yet they are derived. For anthropologists to break the fieldwork, it is something dangerous to enter the ordinary dynamic and deep vitality of religious life in the rigidity of conceptual categories stable and unchanging, and result analysis in a relegated to a secondary plan of moving forms and practices of religion.

10The two are also not mutually exclusive. For if, to take just one example, you can make one of Lévi-Strauss's major theoretical symbolism, it certainly is, it is also one of those who, ironically, introduced a vision of processual symbolism through magical thinking and the theory of "floating signifier" that he develops in his Introduction to the Work of Marcel Mauss (1950, repr. 1986) which is the first link in a chain of signification, stimulating associations between semantic referents. Thus Lévi-Strauss observed in this paradox of categorical symbolic crystallization, on the one hand, and the full recognition of the procedural symbolization other.

11Discrète, analysis of symbolization is primarily used to confirm membership more or less explicit Tarot thesis (Mauss, but lévistraussienne and, to some extent, geertzienne) the primacy of the social symbolic - as sociocognitive matrix from which arise the forms of sociability religious symbolism is then the key to overall intelligibility of religion, and symbolization is the "glue" that makes consistent in their thickness ethnographic and theoretical complexity, the social facts. The symbolic function, redefined in the tripartition

pharmakologique, xénologique, dorologique, is then derived religious acts, and in particular rite, a pre-existing framework matrix and determining the symbolic system: the symbolic acts is less a mode existence creator (like the speech pragmatics) a plan expression system underlying or transcendent (like speech in Saussurean linguistics).

12C'est in this sense - very inspired structuralism - that asserts the utility of systems theory which operates as an integrator logic symbolic elements to each other. Durkheim, Mauss or Lévi-Strauss distinguished themselves in the demonstration of this logic. Noting that the definition of religion proceeds from the enunciation of a model, however, could Tarot (r) open two projects anthropological covered elsewhere: the status of religion as a "model" and "model" the Indeed, in Geertz (1972), that is to say, the question of the effectiveness of social and psychological religious symbolism, and the more epistemological consistency of the model of religion. From what model is it indeed reached up and how he accomplished what form this "system" symbolic? Mauss, if abundant at work, was certainly the one hand, open the site of an anthropological approach to religious symbolism, but parallel folded his definition of religion on the relationship between morphological characters whose dimensions are nominal only part (1904, repr. 1968). It is only with Lévi-Strauss (1950, repr. 1986) that systematic modeling has become one of the major epistemic foundations of French anthropology.

13Mais systematics generates only models, that is to say, abstractions supra-empirical homogeneity may be inconsistent with the empirical dispersion of its components (Evans-Pritchard, 1974) or be otherwise the idea is that make the "natives" (Bastide, 1977). The ontological status of "symbolic systems" appears on the side and etic categories (those of scholarly discourse of the observer) rather than emic categories (native) (Izard, Smith, 1979), which flatten in harmonizing paradoxically The modeling results from a simplification of the religious reality which is no longer a function and "pure" forms.

14Certes, the approach "archaeological" - para-Foucault, one might say - that will implement Tarot is based on a tripartite division (again) scales of intelligibility between a religious "high", a "low "and" means "intercalated (2008: 49-50), like the famous" deep stops "that Georges Gurvitch was proposed many decades ago (Gurvitch, 1950), and introduces a semblance of variety in nomological models and clasping the "whole" (symbolic or political). Although, again, the triad of functions suggests multifunctionality of religion, and the theoretical, Tarot indicates that the models wisely symbolism can be alternative, substitute or combined (2008: 86). But the trail of a combinatorial models would probably have been just as productive if it had taken the path of the modulation rather than typify the "functions" of religion, or, in other words, if it exceeded a typological definition, which sets in all cases fixed because an abstract model of religious life.

Pragmatic religious symbolism: II-praxeological fluctuations

15Que do, in fact, situations in which these investigations a priori functions of religion overlap or appear to varying degrees a posteriori - ie, when the empirical reality beyond the theoretical model? In addition, the functionality of the religion, it is all heuristics, makes it well account the dynamic nature of religious life in practice? The gap between the abstract model of religion and experiences of social actors in the area of religion, the analysis suggests that more than a stratification planes of reality and a typology of religious functions: modulation forms, which tends to reverse epistemology. To explore two tracks that could fertilize the thinking in this sense, the criticism brought by Gananath Obeyesekere (borrowed from psychoanalysis) the posture of Edmund Leach, about the externality system cultural and religious symbols , and not aware of the "sense" that the players have (meaning supra-individual as championed by the French school of sociology and anthropology of religion) if Obeyesekere denies repatriate the meaning of symbolism religious interpretation of the plan that are idiosyncratic individuals, it is better to show that symbolic systems only exist from the moment they are reactivated in the subjective experience of social actors (1981).

16En Second, the suspension of religious symbolism - another form of the modulation - some authors as Marcel Gauchet unilaterally assign the advent of political modernization solvent for religion, not a national to a global process and history, that of modernity: it is even an ordinary event, as can be seen in the context of these "traditional societies" allegedly bathed in symbolic and / or sacred, as the Evans-Pritchard 'had amply demonstrated (Evans-Pritchard, 1971). And, as suggested by Albert Piette, this concrete religious, who lives in "minor mode" (Piette, 1993) in the register of the "ordinary" (Piette, 2003), it is not ultimately the existential register major human and religious life (Piette, 2007)? There is a tradition ethnological and sociological same, which, far from Lévi-Strauss and Durkheim, was built around a theory of movement and modulation, and gave the religious symbolism and flexible character creator: the dynamic syncretism released by Roger Bastide (1977), which is cited by Tarot, vitalism of millenarian religious utopias and studied by Henri Desroches (1973, 1992), the wave nature of beliefs and religious references in traditional worship possession, in Ioan Lewis (1986) - both absent from the book - are leading figures in which the symbolist approach immunize against stiffening "mineral" creationists categories of structuralism (Laplantine, 2005: 134). When one moves away from the grip of structural Lévi-Strauss on the work of Mauss, and therefore a certain symbolic approach to religion, the status of symbolization is likely to overcome the Saussurean linguisticité , injected by Lévi-Strauss, to move towards a pragmatic inspired by speech act theory of Austin, who knows praxeological extensions in the social sciences.

17Chez Tarot, the character "pragmatic" religious symbolism is stated repeatedly, either in the form of an affirmation of praxeological foundations of symbolic efficiency - no symbol without symbolization, symbol is underpinned by a praxis (2008: 86) - either that, conversely, a reduction of the process of symbolization precedent - the figure of the peasant "pragmatic" that emphasizes the act of belief. However, these two different versions of the term pragmatic call for the consideration of the question of meaning, which oscillates between an etic theory (which, abstract theorists) and emic theory (the "living", "indigenous "). The religious sense can be defined either as part of a system, and part of a network of meaningful relationships

(this is the approach of Lévi-Strauss), is characterized as a praxis, arising from the use of contextuality (it is the opposite, Wittgenstein). Victor Turner is one of those who tried, ethnology, solve the thorny problem of meaning and its work is far from being limited to the much-cited theory of rites of passage in his analysis of ritual purification in Ndembu of Zambia, Turner assigns the researcher aims to identify a grammar of religious and cultural symbols, as it is part of the ritual activity (1990). With Turner, there is not complementary but consubstantiality of praxis and symbolism, as the religious symbol occurs at three levels exegetical (meaning that indigenous) operational (the rite) and positional (the relationship other) (Deflem 1991). But Turner is in many ways "structuralist" - assuming the externality and the ontology of symbolic system, as well as pre-sociality arrangements rituals (which predate the rite itself and perpetuate regardless of actors) and does not cross the border again which is currently structuralism to pragmatism, beyond functionalism.

Politics and religion, religion policies 18The theory Tarot occupies, in fact, a conceptual space previously compressed between "largely symbolic" and "all politics", the author has highlighted the limitations. On the one hand, the symbolic function lévistraussienne dissolves religion in a supra-cultural symbolism, the rule dumontienne foreshadows the symbolic and fully sculpted forms of social, the other, a political scientist reduction Bourdieu another flap side the structure of the religious field on a political field (Trigano, 2001), as well as a historicism Gauchet assigns the symbolic status primitivist. It is surprising to see the entire political focus on the question of violence (as he usually calls the status of the "order"), unless it is broken down in an oscillatory manner between the two poles symbolist and political scientist. In this debate, the arbitration of a philosophical Girard does not resolve the issue, but the complex: the will to deal with the violence in the form of a diagram universal whole reduced to mimesis underlying theory scapegoat, does not think the political and religious changes in their socio-historical. If the function pharmakologique finally developed by Tarot aims to regain and surpass reduction "sacrificial the scapegoat theory of Girard, it seems nevertheless still dependent on the " supra-historical emphasis fond French philosopher.

19Entre all symbolic" and "all politics," which traces the border, according Tarot, between the " two topical prevailing sociological theories of religion, there is yet a third way, which does not necessarily their reconciliation (which is clearly one of the objectives of Tarot), but their passing: the open by the instrumentalist approach that provides analysis fertile sites to capture the complexity of the policy in its relationship to religion. In this perspective, and again not to do sketch a theoretical field, the criticisms leveled by Talal Asad (1983) against Geertz and, more generally, against the bias underlying theories of religion Symbolist inspiration (about logic and political use of religious symbolism, paving the way for a true reversal epistemological question is not about the place must be the symbolic in religion, but that is how the referents are symbolic of religion, and socio-political issues which underlie their configuration and expression, public or private.'s Performance Studies, which Turner is also a leader, having injected in the analysis and scenic character of the instrumental religious activity (ritual, etc.), travel, anthropology, focal length of a structural symbolist Lévi-Strauss, or a semiotic Geertz, towards a social and political symbolic production even

brought the geertziens the more convinced, as Sherry Ortner, to transform a radical posture semiotic Symbolist (Ortner, 1973) in a resolutely pragmatic and instrumentalist (Ortner, 1997).

Conclusion 20An enterprise totalizing, such as those instituted by Tarot Symbolism and the sacred, is more of a bold title. Firstly, because, like all great theoretical systems, built from the ambition of a general-purpose modeling, it lends more easily to criticism that settles a debate by proposing a unique perspective, it necessarily reduces the complexity of the religious life, and proceeds more or less an arbitrary. Second, because the approach to religion in terms of "symbolic" part reflection in a fluctuating field, both theories of symbolism remain outstanding perpetually a definitive definition.

21Certes, this was not the ambition of Tarot and it would be inappropriate to make her grievance intellectual effort has focused on the possibility of deriving a theory of religion that confronts the different traditions of thought and convened by the play of contrasts and similarities with the sacred (in reports of identity, mutual exclusion, genealogy, complementarity ...), to extricate the singularity of the symbolic relationship to the sacred. The intellectual genealogy of Mauss, Levi-Strauss or Dumézil manifests itself clearly: in the manner of a linguistic or morphological grammar and generative general forms of religion, these relationships are based on the premise of their ontology meta-empirical and weave on a theoretical abstraction that allows the formulation of a universal model. Open dialectic confrontation nevertheless inspired by Tarot extension beyond the field of structuralism, who thinks religion and symbolism in terms of relationships, and for which the token is given consubstantial religious activity to a pragmatic who thinks in terms of processes and uses to which the symbolic is a strategic product of social life, can be mobilized in religious activities.

Top of page Bibliography

Talal Asad, 1983a, "Anthropological Concepts of Religion: Reflections on Geertz ', Man, 18, pp.237-259.

-, 1983b, Genealogies of Religion: Discipline and Reasons of Power in Christianity and Islam, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press.

Marc Augé, (ed.), 1974a, The Construction of the world. Religion, representation, ideology, Paris, Maspero.

-, 1974b, "Gods and rituals or rites without gods?", In J. Middleton (ed.), Anthropology religious gods and rites, basic texts, Paris, Oxford, Cambridge, pp.9-36.

La part anthropologique du symbolisme religieux

Praxéologie, pragmatique et politique Lionel Obadia p. 33- Plan  Le symbolique et les théories de la religion:     de la nécessaire exhaustivité?  L’appel à l’anthropologie  Pragmatique du symbolisme religieux: I -    limites de la systématique   Pragmatique du symbolisme religieux: II-     fluctuations praxéologiques  Politique et religion, politiques de la religion Conclusion Haut de page Texte intégral  PDF 100k  Signaler ce documen t Texte intégral en libre accès disponible depuis le 19 janvier 2013. 1Alors qu’on croyait les sciences sociales prudemment repliées derrière des débats confinant à l’auto-référentialité (les épistémologies de la réflexivité) ou s’interdisant toute tentative de modélisation générale au double motif du naufrage des grands modèles (comme le structuralisme) et d’une atomisation chaotique d’un monde désormais devenu inintelligible – la faute à la postmodernité et à la mondialisation, dit-on – un nouveau mouvement semble prendre corps, celui du retour des «grands systèmes» théoriques, de ceux qui, après Bourdieu et Lévi-Strauss, respectivement, pour la sociologie et l’anthropologie, avaient offert

des cadres englobants, confinant au paradigme, qui ont marqué leur époque au point de représenter des moments charnières à partir desquels se sont redéfinis des pans entiers de ces disciplines. L’ouvrage de Camille Tarot, Le symbolique et le sacré (2008) semble s’inscrire dans cette droite démarche des «grands systèmes», mais ni vraiment en réaction à l’émiettement des grandes ambitions théoriques, ni même dans le but de poursuivre des desseins programmatiques, à l’instar de Bourdieu et de Lévi-Strauss. L’ambition, même énoncée sous le registre de la retenue, est clairement de perpétuer une certaine approche intellectuelle globale de la religion, à l’instar d’un Dumézil dont l’auteur est manifestement inspiré. À ce titre, Tarot fait preuve d’une incontestable bravoure tant l’entreprise de relecture à laquelle il se plie est des plus difficiles: beaucoup de choses ont été dites à propos de l’ensemble des auteurs convoqués. Mais la confrontation des œuvres, rarement menée sur autant de théories, n’a sans doute pas épuisé la capacité heuristique de ces «classiques» des sciences sociales des religions. 2D’entre les très nombreux débats soulevés dans l’ouvrage, traités avec une indiscutable maîtrise, lesquels ne manqueront sans doute pas de susciter force discussion, il fallait bien en retenir un qui occasionnerait l’échange serein et fécond que Tarot appelle de ses vœux. C’est l’examen du symbolique , l’angle d’attaque privilégié par l’auteur pour creuser le sillon d’une révision des paradigmes et des contributions théoriques des auteurs majeurs des sciences sociales des religions (histoire, sociologie, phénoménologie, anthropologie), qui servira ici de fil rouge. Partant du principe que toute lecture d’un ouvrage de recherche résonne avec les références et les pratiques scientifiques tout autant qu’avec les orientations intellectuelles du lecteur, l’examen «intertextuel» et dialogique de l’ouvrage Le symbolique et le sacré ne s’aventurera que sur le terrain particulier de la contribution de l’anthropologie à la modélisation théorique du symbolisme religieux. Ce détour par l’ethno-anthropologie sera l’occasion de réviser certaines contributions qui lui sont habituellement assignées, et d’en souligner d’autres: l’habitude prise d’en référer à Mauss et Lévi-Strauss en première instance, et à quelques autres auteurs de manière plus secondaire, inscrit l’anthropologie dans une topique essentiellement structuraliste, qui ne rend pas justice à des développements plus récents, qui offrent une alternative pragmatique au formalisme des grands anciens.  Le symbolique et les théories de la religion:     de la nécessaire exhaustivité?  3Dans son projet d’une révision (au sens propre de «re-voir») des théories de la religion et en situant le symbolique au cœur de l’analyse, Tarot fait le pari qu’il est possible de reprendre et d’actualiser le chantier du symbolisme, et de le placer au premier rang des critères de définition de la religion. L’inventaire critique des auteurs et de leur contribution à une théorie générale du symbolique dans la religion, amène Tarot à consciencieusement passer en revue les avancées conceptuelles de Durkheim, Mauss, Eliade, Lévi-Strauss, Weber, Dumézil, Debray, Vernant, Detienne, Dumont, Godelier, Testart, Gauchet, et bien d’autres... afin d’y repérer, par-delà les différents modèles et développements théoriques proposés par tous ces auteurs, les éléments susceptibles de nourrir le débat autour d’un thème central qui ne se laisse toujours pas domestiquer. Pas plus que le sacré, le symbolique «n’a atteint le statut de concept» (Tarot, 2008: 30) et il ne s’en verra pas conférer un par l’ouvrage – son objectif est ailleurs. À tout le moins, la somme encyclopédique recueillie et analysée à l’occasion de la rédaction d’un livre dévolu à une notion aussi perpétuellement insaisissable force le respect. Car les théories de la religion au prisme du

symbolique – dans son rapport au sacré, et au religio – révèlent une évidente dispersion qui découragerait plus d’un chercheur opiniâtre. 4Au terme de cette moisson de contributions plus ou moins signifiantes qui inventorie les grands débats autour de la religion en sociologie et en histoire (ses sources, sa nature, ses fonctions, etc.), Tarot livre finalement une théorie qui réconcilie les irréconciliables «symbole» et «fonction»: l’approche «symbolique» s’achève en effet sur une théorie fonctionnelle, énonçant moins l’universalité abstraite à la localisation métapsychologique d’une «fonction symbolique» (à l’inverse de la topique lévistraussienne), qu’une tripartition des fonctions ( pharmakologique, xénologique, dorologique ) de la religion sur un plan symbolique. 5Afin de prémunir toute attaque contre une entreprise théorique aussi ambitieuse, Lucien Scubla, dans la préface à l’ouvrage, stipule que «l’absence de tel ou tel auteur» relève des «points secondaires» susceptibles de prêter le flanc à la critique (Scubla, in Tarot, 2008: 14), en vertu de la représentativité de l’échantillon «des grands théoriciens du social ou du religieux de la moitié du siècle dernier» ( id .). Seuls, donc, selon cette curieuse ligne d’argumentation, les «grands» auteurs auraient alors droit de cité dans une théorie générale de la religion? Sans disserter sur l’échelle de légitimité des auteurs convoqués (qui sont tous notoirement inclus dans une tradition francophone de sociologie des religions) et pour éviter de glisser dans l’acrimonie de la «polémique stridente et des silences plus assourdissants encore» (Tarot, 2008: 33), d’autres contributeurs «clefs» semblent cruellement manquer à l’appel de ce panorama théorique du symbolique en religion, qui sont pourtant, eux aussi, d’éminents théoriciens du siècle passé: Lucien Lévy-Bruhl, qui a ouvert la voie à la question des logiques sous-jacentes à la symbolisation religieuse dans les sociétés non-occidentales (1938), Alfred R.Radcliffe-Brown, contradicteur remarquable, convaincu de la suprématie de l’approche structural-fonctionnaliste sur l’approche symboliste dans l’étude de la religion (1968), Mary Douglas, dont le célèbre De la souillure (1966, rééd. 1992) jette un premier pont entre approches symboliste et structuro-fonctionnelle, des textes majeurs de Marc Augé (1974a, 1974b), qui, s’il préfère parler d’ idéologie , formule des propositions théoriques précieuses pour rendre intelligibles les rapports entre structure sociale et systèmes symboliques, Michel Izard et Pierre Smith, qui ont réservé un volume collectif à La fonction Symbolique (1979) et last but not least , Clifford Geertz, célèbre anthropologue nord-américain, à qui l’on doit une définition de la religion toute entière enclavée dans une théorie du symbolisme (Geertz, 1972). Il est certes toujours facile de porter une attaque en défaut d’encyclopédisme au principe qu’un maillage, si serré soit-il, d’une génération d’auteurs ne saurait être totalement exhaustive, et Tarot a par ailleurs réservé un examen particulier à l’œuvre de Geertz (à paraître en 2009). Mais c’est précisément ce trouble, qui apparaît en première comme en dernière lecture, qui contraint à un examen plus pressé de la démonstration: si l’ouvrage revendique une posture socio-anthropologique, le déséquilibre est résolument en faveur de la sociologie. Quelle place occupe alors l’anthropologie dans une théorie du symbolisme religieux? L’appel à l’anthropologie 6En appelant à un projet «interdisciplinaire» (ou ayant vocation à l’être) de modélisation théorique de la religion, Tarot (2008: 858) convoque en effet plusieurs disciplines – à l’exclusion notable de la psychologie – et, à plusieurs reprises, l’anthropologie occupe la place enviée de l’invitée de choix. Pour autant, l’originalité de sa contribution dans un débat polyphonique autour de la religion est amoindrie par la sélection très restreinte des