In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

afterword to part 1 80 The analyses in the chapters of part 1 can be situated within the subdisciplines of comparative-historical sociology and the sociology of religion. Comparativehistorical sociology is distinguished by its concerns with causal analysis, processes over time, and systematic and contextualized comparisons. An interest in causal explanations might be considered part of any social-scientific endeavor, but interpretative perspectives, which deal with the explication of meanings rather than the identification of causes, have become prominent in anthropology and sociology over the last decades. The focus of interpretative perspectives on particular meanings within specific contexts has directed attention away from comparisons, and these tendencies away from causes and comparisons have been reinforced by postmodern approaches.1 Max Weber emphasized that the interpretation of meanings and a search for causes are not necessarily contradictory, and of all the classical sociologists, it is Weber who has had the most influence on my work. One important focus of Weber ’s work was the comparative analysis of religious developments. However, the postclassical revival of comparative-historical sociology in the 1960s and 1970s tended to ignore religion, either as an object of analysis or as an explanation of historical change. The prominent comparative-historical sociologists, such as Moore, Skocpol, Wallerstein, and Tilly, dealt with the causes and outcomes of rebellions and revolutions, democratic and authoritarian regimes, economic reforms, and welfare developments. Explanations were found in modes of production, class relationships , and political struggles, which were understood as material rather than ideal or cultural factors. The core questions were still inspired by Marxism, and when Weber was drawn on, it was for his sociology of classes, status groups, and political regimes rather than for his sociology of religion.2 The integral relationship in Weber’s work of his sociology of religion and his analysis of the “material” elements of economics and politics went unacknowledged. Sociology of religion remained apart from the second wave of comparativehistorical sociology. The few sociologists of religion who produced historical and comparative works, such as Robert Bellah and David Martin, were not included in the discourse of comparative-historical sociology.3 It has been argued that a more recent third wave of comparative-historical sociology has extended its compass from classes to include races, ethnic groups, gender, and religion,4 but the subdisciplines of comparative-historical sociology and the sociology of religion still appear 01 Part 1.indd 80 9/20/10 10:24 AM 81 afte r wo r d to p a r t 1 to have little interaction. Most comparative-historical sociologists have little sympathy with rational choice theory, which has been prominent in the sociology of religion in recent years. The leading exponent of rational choice theory in religion, Rodney Stark, has written works that draw on historical data, but I have argued that his approach encounters problems when it is applied outside Christianity.5 Unlike the works of most comparative-historical sociologists, the major object of analysis of my work is religion. In chapter 1 I attempted to account for the variations in religious syncretism among Jewish communities in the premodern period. In chapter 2 I explained the similarities and differences between the Jewish minority and other religious minorities, particularly the Muslims, in Imperial China. And in chapter 3 I compared the different forms of sainthood in Judaism and other world religions. Religion was also one of the causal factors in the explanations of variations and differences. Explanations were sought not only in large social-structural properties (feudal corporations, tribal structures, caste structures, imperial regimes ) but also in the larger cultural properties (religious boundaries, forms of religious pluralism). The importance of religious explanations is particularly obvious in chapter 3: The causes of the variations in sainthood among the world religions were discerned in those religions’ soteriologies and organizations, particularly as they impinged on the relationships between religious elites and the masses. The comparisons in chapter 3, which is perhaps more an exercise in comparative religion than in comparative religious sociology, are the most wide-ranging and the least contextualized of the three chapters, although I included a comparison of Jewish and Muslim saints within a particular region (North Africa). The comparisons in chapters 1 and 2 are both wide-ranging and limited in scope. In the first chapter the societal contexts are wide-ranging and the comparisons are limited by focusing on a particular religious minority, the Jews, in the postantiquity, premodern period. In the second chapter the religious minorities are wide-ranging and...

Share