Historical Variation of Safeguarding places for the Sacred Object, a Sociological Analysis

Taheri, Sadreddin

Historical Variation of Safeguarding places for the Sacred Object, a Sociological Analysis

Volume 12, Issue 2
February 2022

Pages 341-364

Document Type : Original Research

Author

S. Taheri

Assistant Professor of Art Research, Art University of Isfahan

Abstract

Abstract

As problem-oriented research in the field of Sociology of culture, this article tries to pursue the concept of “Sacred object”, its position and value, and displacement of its guarding places over time. Derived from the Latin root Sacer, the meaning of sacred is dedicated or consecrated. Durkheim saw religion as a system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, and Otto wrote about a non-rational, non-sensory experience whose primary object is outside the self. Kant’s description of the beautiful and the sublime, as two subjective universal judgments, can explain our aesthetic perception of a sacred object. Weber has determined three types of legitimate rule: charismatic, traditional, and legal-rational authority. Even though all these three types are still prevalent today, we can propose a historical trend for this tripartite classification, a century after expressing the theory: ancient charismatic rule, historical rule based on succession, and the modern state. Sanctuaries and palaces are premodern places to guard the sacred objects, related to the two basic types of legitimate authority. However, museums have inherited this position in the modern period, as the most substantial institutions to protect the selected objects. A museum turns a thing into an object in the process of museality, involving selection, separation, and framing. A ritual/religious object may lose its virtue in this process, yet a regular thing may earn sanctity. To communicate with the sacred object is a non-obligatory, optional, internal, and subjective experience that depends on each visitor’s background, age, interest, and knowledge.

Keywords

Sociology of culture

Museum

Sacred object

Sanctuary

Tripartite classification of legitimate rule

Subjects

History

بلیکی، نورمن، 1384، طراحی پژوهش‌های اجتماعی، ترجمه حسن چاوشیان، تهران: نی.
حافظ‌نیا، محمدرضا، 1392، مقدمه‌ای بر روش تحقیق در علوم انسانی، تهران: سمت.
طاهری، صدرالدین، 1396، نشانه‌شناسی کهن‌الگوها در هنر ایران باستان و سرزمین‌های همجوار، تهران: شورآفرین.
Bendix, Reinhard, 1977, Max Weber: an intellectual portrait, Oakland: University of California Press.
Benjamin, Walter, 1939, “Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner technischen Reproduzierbarkeit”, in: Schriften. Band I, herausgegeben von: Theodor W. Adorno, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1955, s. 366-405.
Beth, Lord, 2006, “Foucault’s museum: difference, representation and genealogy”, Museum and Society, 4, 1, pp. 11-14.
Christophe, Alice & Manon Garnier, 2014, “En pèlerinage au musée: sur les traces de La Joconde”, in Mairesse F. (Ed.), Voir la Joconde, approches muséologiques, Paris: Éditions L’Harmattan, pp. 15-36.
Collins, R., 1986, Weberian sociological theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cook, A. B., 1914, Zeus: A Study in Ancient Religion, Vol. I, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
De Morgan, Jacques (1997), Mémoires de Jacques de Morgan 1857-1924, Paris: Editions L'Harmattan.
De Vaan, Michiel, 2008, Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages (Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series; 7), Leiden: Brill.
Druckman, J. N., 2001, “The Implications of Framing Effects for Citizen Competence”, Political Behavior, 23, 3, pp. 225-56.
Duncan, A. & Wallach, C., 1978, “The Museum of Modern art as late capitalist ritual: an iconographic analysis”, Marxist perspectives, 4, pp. 28-51.
Durkheim, Emile, 1965, The elementary forms of the religious life, Transl. by Joseph Swain, NewYork: The Free Press.
Eliade, Mircha, 1987, The Sacred and The Profane: The Nature of Religion, Transl. by Willard R. Trask, San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Eliade, Mircha, 2004, Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Galaty, Michael L. and Charles Watkinson (Eds.), 2004, Archaeology under dictatorship, London: Springer.
Giddens, Anthony, 1971, Capitalism and modern social theory: an analysis of the writings of Marx, Durkheim and Max Weber, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gilman, Benjamin Ives, 1918, Museum Ideals of Purpose and Method, Boston: Order of the trustees of the Museum of Fine Arts at the Riverside Press.
Grimes, Ronald L., 1992, “Sacred objects in museum spaces”, Studies in Religioun, 21, 4, pp. 419-430.
Griswold, Wendy, 2012, Cultures and Societies in a Changing World, Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Hamilakis ،Y. and Philip Duke (Eds.), 2007, Archaeology and Capitalism: From Ethics to Politics, Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.
Kant, Immanuel, 1987, Critique of Judgment, Transl. by: Werner S. Pluhar, Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.
Matthews, Roger, Yaghoub Mohammadifar, Wendy Matthews & Abbass Motarjem, 2010, “Investigating the Early Neolithic of western Iran: The Central Zagros Archaeological Project (CZAP)”, Antiquity, 84.
Otto, Rudolf, 1996, Autobiographical and Social Essays, Alles, Gregory D. (Ed.), Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Potts, D. T., (2015), The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Riesebrodt, M., 1999, “Charisma in Max Weber’s sociology of religion”, Religion, 29, pp. 1-14.
Schmidt, Klaus, 2000, “Göbekli Tepe, Southeastern Turkey. A preliminary Report on the 1995-1999 Excavations”, in: Palèorient, 26, 1, pp. 45-54.
Stránský, Zbyněk Z., 1970, “Múzejnictvo v relácii teórie a praxe”, Múzeum, XV, 3, pp. 173-183.
Trigger, Bruce, 1995, “Romanticism ،Nationalism and Archaeology” In: Nationalism, politics, and the practice of archaeology, Philip Kohl and Fawcett Clare (Eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 263-279.
Weber, Max, 1919, “Politik als beruf”, In: Gesammelte Politische Schriften (herausgegeben von Johannes Winckelmann), 5. Aufl., Tübingen: Mohr Verlag, 1988, s. 505-560.
Weber, Max, 1922, “Die drei reinen typen der legitimen herrschaft”, Preussische Jahrbücher, 187, pp. 1-2.
Weber, Max, 1958, “The three types of legitimate rule”, Transl. by Hans Gerth, Berkeley Publications in Society and Institutions, 4, 1, pp. 1-11.

XML

PDF 701.79 K