The Theoretical and Methodological Status of the Concept of Religion According to the Essentialist Interpretation of Ethnic Community in Foreign Researches

The article focuses on the theoretical and methodological status of the concept of religion in the essentialist interpretation of ethnic community by analyzing the material of foreign researches. The key effort is to reveal whether the essentialist views on ethnic communities are compatible with the constructivist paradigm of religion. The essentialist approach to the notion of an ethnic community now develops in the frame of primordialism, which can be divided into two main directions: cultural and socio-biological. Proponents of the former concentrate on a detailed description of cultural differences between ethnic communities, with cultural diversity being accepted only to describe the essence of a particular ethnic community. Sociobiological primordialists deny cultural features’ status at the face of biological evolution. The common theoretical assumption of primordialisms turns out to be the essentialist vision: an ethnic community is endowed with the essence defined by a number of attributes, including religion. The constructivist approach, however, suggests that religion has no referent in reality and its notion is defined conventionally and empirically. Accepting this approach would deprive religion of its essence. Rendering the essence of religion relative, therefore, means blurring the boundaries defining the essence of an ethnic community. This consequence clearly contradicts the essentialist approach to an ethnic community. Thus, embracing an essentialist approach to ethnic community leads to the need to adopt the essentialist interpretation of religion.

1. Berger P., Luckmann, T. 1991. The Social Construction of Reality. A Treatise on Sociology of Knowledge. London: Penguin Books. 249 p.

2. Dawkins R. 2006. The Selfish Gene. New York: Oxford University Press. 360 p.

3. Eller J., Coughlan R. 1993. The Poverty of Primordialism: The Demystification of Ethnic Attachments. Ethnic and Racial Studies. 16 (2). P. 183-202.

4. Glaser D. 1958. Dynamics of Ethnic Identification. American Sociological Review. № 23. P. 31-40.

5. Gordon M. 1964. Assimilation in American Life. New York: Oxford University Press. 276 p.

6. Grosby S. 1994. Debate: The Verdict of History: The Inexpungeable Tie of Primordiality — a Response to Eller and Coughlan. Ethnic and Racial Studies. № 17. P. 164-171.

7. Hatt P. 1948. Class and Ethnic Attitudes. American Sociological Review. № 13 (February). P. 36-43.

8. Isaacs H. 1975. Basic Group Identity: the Idols of the Tribe. Ethnicity: Theory and Experience. N. Glazer and D.P. Moynihan, eds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. P. 29-52.

9. Popper K. 1944. The Poverty of Historicism. Economica, New Series. 11 (42) (May). P. 86-103.

10. Shils E. 1957. Primordial, Personal, Sacred and Civil Ties: Some Particular Observations on the Relationships of Sociological Research and Theory. The British Journal of Sociology. 8 (2) (Jun.). P. 130-145.

11. Van den Berghe P. 1987. The Ethnic Phenomenon. London: Praeger Publishers. 301 p.

12. Arinin E.I. 2014. Filologicheskoe i etimologicheskoe izmerenie religii [Philological and Etymological Di-mension of Religion]. 750 opredelenii religii: istoriia simvolizatsii i interpretatsii: monografiia Ed. E.I. Arinin. Vladimir: Izd-vo VlGU. 460 p. (In Russian).

13. Dobrynin D.Kh. 2019. Essentsializm i konstruktivizm v podkhodakh k opredeleniiu religii [Essentialism and Constructivism in Approaches to Defining Religion]. Kontsept: filosofiia, religiia, kul’tura. № 2. P. 65-74 (In Russian).

14. Geertz K. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books. 470 p. (Russ. ed.: Geertz K. 2004. Interpretatsiia kul’tur. Per. s angl. Moscow: «Rossiiskaia politicheskaia entsiklopediia» (ROSSPEN). 560 p.).

15. Fursov A.A. 2013. Problema statusa teoreticheskogo znaniia nauki v polemike mezhdu realizmom i antire-alizmom [The Problem of the Status of Theoretical Knowledge of Science in the Polemic between Realism and Antirealism]. Moscow: Izdatel’ Vorobiev A.V. 240 p. (In Russian).

16. Malakhov V.S. 2002. Problemy izucheniia natsionalizma i etnichnosti v konstruktivistskoi paradigme (na primere rossiiskogo obshchestvovedeniia poslednikh desiati let) [Problems of Studying Nationalism and Ethnicity in the Constructivist Paradigm (from the Evidence of Russian Social Science of the Last Ten Years)]. Politicheskaia nauka. № 4. P. 108-123 (In Russian)

17. Ryb’iakova A.V. 2017. K voprosu o ponimanii etnicheskikh obshchnostei v sovremennoi etnosotsiologii [On the Issue of Understanding Ethnic Communities in Modern Ethnosociology]. Vestnik PNIPU. Sotsial’no-ekonomicheskie nauki. № 4. P. 148-160 (In Russian).

18. Smith A. 1998. Nationalism and Modernism: a Critical Review of Modern Theories of Nations and National-ism. London: Routledge. 288 p. (Russ. ed.: Smith E. 2004. Natsionalizm i modernizm: Kriticheskii obzor sovremennykh teorii natsii i natsionalizma. Per. s angl. A.V. Smirnova, Iu.M. Filippova, E.S. Zagashvili i dr. Moscow: Praksis. 464 p.).

19. Tönnies F. 1887. Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft: Abhandlung des Communismus und des Socialism usalsempirischer Cultur formen. Leipzig: Fues. 294 p. (In German) (Russ. ed.: Tönnies F. 2002. Obshchnost’ iobshchestvo. Osnovnye poniatiia chistoi sotsiologii. Moscow: Fond Universite; Saint-Petersburg: Vladimir Dal’. 450 p.).

20. Tishkov V.A. 2003. Rekviem po etnosu: Issledovaniia po sotsial’no-kul’turnoi antropologii [Requiem for Ethnos: Studies in Socio-cultural Anthropology]. Moscow: Nauka. 544 p. (In Russian).