Understanding the Structure of Contractual and Covenantal Social Relations: Implications for the Sociology of Religion

Abstract

Social scientists have largely abandoned the analysis of distinctions between tribal (family and clan) and industrial (marketplace and organizational) types of social relations.In this paper we draw a distinction between contractual and covenantal social relations which, we argue, parallels that societal level dichotomy on an interpersonal level. It is the thesis of this paper that contracts and covenants are alternative and qualitatively different types of social retations. As industrial societies have become increasingly contractual, the form and logic of the covenants have been ignored. In the present historical context of dominant power resting with individuals whose resources are created primarily within contractual social relations, covenantal forms tend largely to be denigrated. The social sciences, historically developed with presuppositions which also serve as the justification for contracts, have contributed to this denigration. We begin, therefore, by comparing the forra and logic covenants and contracts. Using thls distinction, we then analyze the controversy over new religions as iUustrative of the continuing structural conflict between these types of social relations. We conclude with a call for a sociology of religion which does not presuppose the logic of either type but rather is broad enough to encompass both contractual and covenantal social relations.Social scientists have largely abandoned the analysis of distinctions between tribal (family and clan) and industrial (marketplace and organizational) forms of social relations which informed the work of early theorists such as Toennies, Durkheim, Main, Redfield and Wirth. As contemporary theorists increasingly have come to rely upon theory appropriate only to the indust¡ form, ah important qualitative distinction has been obscured. The thesis developed "The authors wish to acknowledge helpful comments and suggestions on ah earlier draft of this paper by Lyrm Davidman, Lynn Nelson, James Spickard, and Stanley Strong. This research was partially supported by the Faculty Grant-in-Aid Program of Virginia Commonwealth University. Authorship in this paper is ordered alphabetically. 15Sat University of Exeter on July 28, 2015 http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from 16S SOCIOLOGICAL ANALY$IS in this paper is that covenantal social relations, which characterize families, clans, and religious groups, are usefuUy tmderstood as an alternative and qualitatively different form of social relations from the contractual social relations which characterize markets and organizations.Recently there has been some renewed recognŸ by complex organization theorists that both qualitatively different forms of social relations similar to those we describe here are contained in many organizations and in various mixes. For example, in the process of empirically distinguishing between organizational forros, Ouichi and Johnson (1978: 293,310) note~l that the abstractions they formulated bote "a striking similarity to earlier and, by now, classic desc¡ of whole soci...

An essay on organizational citizenship behavior

“…While similar distinctions have been noted by others (Blau, 1964;Bromley & Busching, 1988;Buber, 1958;Gordon & Babchuk, 1959;Grover, 1982;MacNeil, 1985;Rousseau, 1989), extensions of GeseUschaft and Gemeinschaft have also been identified. Coercive relationships (Etzioni, 1975) are a special form of Gesellschaft relations, where some are obliged involuntarily to comply with terms set by others.…”

Marriage as Covenant: Tradition as a Guide to Marriage Education in the Pastoral Context

“…Christianity is based on covenant relationships with God, with the community, and with each other. Covenant relationships are characterized by fidelity, mutuality, and earnest personal encounter (Bromley & Busching, 1988;Brouwer, 2001;Brueggeman, 1977).…”

“Church” in Black and White: The Organizational Lives of Young Adults

“…A long thread of analysis of American cultural and religious history has contrasted individualized versus communal approaches to connecting to groups (e.g., [48][49][50]). On one hand, there is the "social contract" language of classical liberalism, in which society is conceptualized as an aggregation of individual connections.…”