Search

The ambiguity of the sacred combines two opposite modes, the pure and the impure, as its fundamental feature. Present in the work of Durkheim and most scholars of the sacred, as well as in actual social practice, the impure sacred is not the profane, the sphere that opposes the sacred. However, in most interpretations of Durkheim, and even in aspects of his own argument, the ambiguity of the sacred is neglected and, in several important cases, treated as if it were profane: this has negative consequences for cultural sociology and the study of culture in contemporary society. In certain cases, the impure sacred and the profane can be hard to tell apart. Yet, if the boundaries between the sacred (pure and impure) and the profane are not clearly distinguished, the overall approach to culture in terms of distinctions and boundaries loses its logical and theoretical coherence. This article elucidates the ambiguity of the sacred and reintegrates that ambiguity into cultural sociology. The model proposed here treats the impure as a transient result of violation of the sacred/profane border with no independent status of its own. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article is a critical analysis of the definition of globalization in sociological studies. It argues that sociologists, unlike economists, have not achieved a commonly accepted definition of globalization. This seriously hinders the development of empirical studies. The ambiguity of the concept of globalization is rooted in three dialectics: globalization-as-a-process vs globalization-as-a-condition; globalization-as-reality vs globalization-as-futurology and one-dimensional globalization vs multi-dimensional globalization. These dialectics are rarely made explicit in different studies on globalization, which contributes to an accumulation of confusion rather than an accumulation of knowledge. The article aims to provide a theoretical framework in which concepts of globalization can be positioned through the formal analysis of a commonly used definition. Conceptual limitations that arise from the choice of a specific concept are highlighted, such as the underestimation of the present when globalization is considered a process, the neglect of internal contradictions when globalization is seen as a multidimensional concept; and the dangers of determinism and ignorance of unique features when the processes of globalization are defined by their sole destination. It challenges the sociological community to position research on globalization within this proposed framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]