Софиология - [79]

Йозефин ван Кессел

Sophia and sobornost′: cement and organizing principle of Orthodox society

Introduction

Secular sociology and religious sophiology both developed in the slipstream of the rise of the social question in the 19^th century. This paper compares the basic features of these two alternative rationalizations of the social in the cases of Max Weber, one of the founding fathers of modern secular sociology, and of Sergei Bulgakov who continued Vladimir Solov’ëv′s social philosophy and sophiology.[503] The first paragraph demonstrates that both sociology and sophiology were reflections on ′modernity′ or on life in the modern world and addressed similar questions.[504] Sociology, however, only gave a description of the factual state of society, whereas sophiology intended to give a picture of the good state of society as well.

The second paragraph explores the meaning of Sophia, the Wisdom of God (Premudrost′ Bozhiia), in the sophiologies of Solov’ëv and Bulgakov. Solov’ëv′s interpretation of love in Smysl′ liubvi,[505] is contrasted to the alternative Orthodox view of Lev Tolstoi.[506] This part analyzes Solov’ëv′s interpretation of the love that is and ought to be the cement of Christian society and will demonstrate that sobornost′[507]for Solov’ëv is the main characteristic of the type of organization of this Christian society as Orthodox Church community. Tolstoi′s contrasting view and ethics, according to Max Weber, was typical of Christianity as a salvation religion with its attitude of world denial. Weber identified the Christian ethic proceeding from this acosmic standpoint with the Ideal type of the ethic of brotherliness.[508]

The third paragraph addresses the tasks of Bulgakov′s sophiology, Bulgakov developed Solov’ëv′s sophiology as a Christian sociology, in continuous reference to the contemporary secular sociology in Germany, and in particular with the sociology of Max Weber. Sophiology, according to Bulgakov, is not secular, but Christian sociology and it is an essential part of bogoslovle or theology. In the concluding part, the agreement or disagreement of the contemporary official social conception of the Russian Orthodox Church[509] with both Tolstoi′s social teaching and the sophiological views of Solov’ëv and Bulgakov is evaluated. The Osnovy do not mention Sophia or the names of the Russian sophiologists[510] and in some respects seem to side more with Tolstoi′s conception of the Christian attitude to the world as world denial, but in other and more important respects seem to express positions compatible with sophiology

1. The social question and the rise of sociology and sophiology

′

The social question was raised because of the increase of human need and suffering in the lowest social classes, but it enhanced also the recognition of the differentiation of polity or state and society or b rgerllche Gesellschaft (civic or civil society).[511] The social question in fact was already the articulation of a relatively autonomous or self-conscious social sphere that could oppose itself to the state sphere,

A similar differentiation at the same time is apparent in the development of political economy from Staatswissenschaft, the science of – and on behalf of – the state, into Soziologie as an autonomous social science, This development took place during the lifetime of Max Weber, who was a champion for the theoretical independence of sociology from political science. Weber developed the concept of Wertfreiheit in science – or the freedom from other than scientific values in science – to ascertain this independence. This was not only Wertfreiheit of science from politics, but also from the dominance of rules, methods and ends of other life spheres, e.g. of religion, law, art and education, in the sphere of science. The Wertfreiheit of sociology according to Weber guaranteed the objectivity of the results of sociological research.[512] In fact, the Wertfreiheit of science is a logical consequence of Weber′s conception of history as an increasing rationalization of and differentiation into various life spheres that have their own Eigengesetzlichkeit or autonomy

The social question not only provoked the recognition of the factual differentiation of political and civil society, and the analogous differentiation of political and social science, but it also produced new articulations of the ′good life′. Since Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, the good life had been the central question of political philosophy, as it was the most important task of the polity as the Greek polis. In Aristotle′s analysis of the telos (end) of various political organizations, from oikos (or house community) to village to polis (city-state), the last and biggest entity had the task to provide for the good life of the population of the polis. The actions of the state or polis only had legitimacy because of its telos to provide for the good life.[513]

In traditional societies, religion answered the question of the good life, Weber demonstrated in his