Toward a Sociology of Heresy

Author(s): George V. Zito

Source: Sociological Analysis, Vol. 44, No. 2 (Summer, 1983), pp. 123-130
Published by: Oxford University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3711397 .
Accessed: 28/06/2014 16:21

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Oxford University Press and Association for the Sociology of Religion, Inc. are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Sociological Analysis.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.0.146.20 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 16:21:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 SocoloicalAnalysis
1983,44,2:123-130

Towarda Sociologyof Heresy*

GeorgeV. Zito
Syracuse
University

Thispaper that
argues discussion
ofheresy hassufferedfromneglect Itattempts
bysociologists. to
remedythissituation
byexaminingheresy intermsofthe'discursive associated
analysis" withDer-
ridaandFoucault.
Itissuggested
thatheresiesstilloccur,
albeitinsecular
orprofane discourses
in
whichthey as such.Itisfurther
gounrecognized argued thattheheretical
statusofanarticulated
opinionisdetermined
bytheinstitutionalized ofthediscourse
legitimation within which a heresy
is
thatheresy
voiced; threatens
established
power andthatheresy
relations; isa semioticphenomenon
employingwordsthatresult
incognitivedisorientation
oftruebelievers.

A discussionof heresyhas generallybeen neglectedin thesociologicalliterature.

Al-
thoughMax Webertouchedon thematter(1963)he didnotinquiredirectly intoitsso-
cial characterand treatedonlycertainpoliticalconsequenceswithrespectto Taoistde-
velopments(1961:213-219).Durkheim(1915) and Simmelboth slightit, althoughfor
thelatteritcouldconceivably constitute
a socialformassociatedwithconflict phenom-
ena. It maybe, ofcourse,thatincreasing'secularization"
(Martin,1979)and thedecline
in religious
discourseobscuredtheformaland functional aspectsofthisrecurring
social
phenomena.In thepresentpaperitwillbe arguedthatheresiesstilloccur,albeitwithin
secularor profanediscourses,and thatthesocialnatureofheresymaybestbe examined
by employing the methodsofdiscursive analysis.
Discursive
Analysis
In the social sciences,discursiveanalysisis primarily associatedwiththe workof
JacquesDerrida(1976)and MichelFoucault(1970, 1972)and findsitsclearestexplica-
tionin thelatter'saddressto theCollegeofFrance(1972).He has appliedit withvarying
successto a varietyofcontexts,includingmadness(1973),psychology (1976),sexuality
(1978)and power(1980).Colin Gordon'sbibliography ofFoucault'sworkis includedin
the 1980 volume.In Americansocial science,BarrySchwartz'sVerticalClassification
(1981) and CharlesLemert'sSociology and theTwilight ofMan (1979)owe muchto this
method.The latteris particularly recommended forreadersunfamiliar withthisdevel-
opmentin thesocialsciences.The development a shiftin socialscienceanalysis
signifies
froma concernwitheventsand processesto thewaysin whicheventsand processesare
talkedabout,understoodand discussedwithina speechcommunity. It was spurredby
therepublication in 1959ofFerdinandde Saussure'sworkin linguistics, thepioneering
effortsofClaude Levi-Strauss (1963),Barthes(1953),Goldmann(1980)and other'struc-
turalists,'
althoughFoucaultand othersrejectthisterm.Indeed,althoughdiscursive
analysisis relatedto Frenchstructuralism, it seemsclearthatits attentionto thecon-
straintsupon discoursesowesmoreto Durkheim,Mauss,Levi-Bruhl, Hippolyte,Halb-

*An earlierversionofthispaperwas presentedat the Forty-Third

AnnualMeetingoftheAssociationfor
theSociologyofReligionin Toronto,Canada, 1981.The authorwishesto acknowledge
themanyhelpfulsug-
gestionsprovidedby BarryGlassnerand the anonymousreferees.

123

This content downloaded from 193.0.146.20 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 16:21:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
124 SOCIOLOGICALANALYSIS

wachs and the tensionswithinthe Frenchintellectual traditionthan to the workof

Saussure,a Swisscontemporary ofDurkheim.This pointrequiresmorediscussionthan
the presentpaperallows;indeed,it has been argued(Clark,1978)thatthisderivation
holdstrueforLevi-Strauss and his followers, ifnot forFrenchstructuralism generally.
The termdiscourse as usedheresignifies anycollectiveactivity thatordersitsconcerns
throughlanguage.All the academicdisciplines (forexample)are discoursesunderthis
definition.Throughoutthispaperthe termdiscourse is employedin thissense.If we
grantthis definition, then it is clear that an ideology (as employedby Mannheim,
1936:97)is a discourseseekingto monopolizewaysofspeakingabouttheworld.An or-
thodoxy thenbecomesany institutionalized ideology.What,then,is heresy? For heresy
can onlyoccurwithinsomeorthodoxy. It willbe shownthatheresyis essentially a semi-
oticor linguisticphenomenon, upsetting an institutionalized wayofspeaking, or at least
threatening to do so. This entirematterof'waysof speaking'requiresclarification for
thoseunfamiliar withdiscursive analysis.A shortdiscussionof Lemert'sthesisshould
proveuseful.
Lemertargues(1979)thatin spiteofsurfacedifferences, all contemporary sociological
theoriesare engagedin a singlehomocentric discourse.He dividesthisdiscourseinto
threelinguistic categories:lexicalsociology(Parsons,Homans,Blalock)whichplacesem-
phasisupon definitions, specifications and the manipulationand clarification of tech-
nicalterms(Lemert:20); semantical sociologywhichstresses meaningsofempirical events
in the social world(Blumer,Schutz,Berger)and syntactical sociology(Mills,Adorno,
Habermas,Gouldner,Horkheimer) whichstresses thenormative basisofsocialscience,
based upon somevalueposition.Lemertshowsthatwhatappearsat first sightas major
theoreticaldifferences amongthesethreecampsis reducibleto differences in linguistic
usagewhichconcealsthesharedunderlying bias.Thisbiasis thenineteenth century no-
tion thatman is a finitesubject,able throughhis own efforts to createhis worldand
dominatehisown history. Lemertclaimsthatthisnotionhas becomeincreasingly tenu-
ous. 'What evidenceis therethatwhenman makeshimself themoralcenterthatlifeis
morehuman?Whatreasonis thereto believethatwhensociologyis done homocentri-
callythatit is able to accountreliablyfortheincreasingly marginalpositionofhuman
creaturesin a technologically and biologically precariousworld?"(Lemert:231). Reduc-
ingthetheoretical campsto linguistic differences has resultedin exposingthearbitrary
bias characterizingtheirdiscourse, and allowsLemertto challengethenaiveassumption
upon whichit is based. The 'increasingly marginalposition'or decentering of man,
championedin theworkofFoucault,has led himto predictthe"deathofman"as a cor-
rolaryof the 'death of God" announcedearlierin the century.
In Lemert'suse of discursive analysis,syntax,semanticsand lexicality exposesociol-
ogy'sstatusas a discourse,a wayofspeakingabouttheworld,a collective activityorder-
ingitsconcernsthroughlanguage.Linguistic or semioticproperties accountforthedif-
ferences we findamongitstheoreticians. Unitingthemis a nineteenth centurynotion
thathas becomeincreasingly difficultto maintain.
Withthisbackgroundin discursiveanalysiswe turnour attentionto the matterof
heresyand its linguistic nature.
The DeclineofHeresy
Heresy'scharacterization
as a negativesocialphenomenonemergedin theearlymedi-

This content downloaded from 193.0.146.20 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 16:21:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 TOWARD A SOCIOLOGY OF HERESY 125
eval period,at a timewhenthe religiousdiscoursedominatedthe ideologicalmarket-
place.That itsdeclineis linkedto theeclipseofthereligious institution
fromthecenter
of thewesternWeltanschauung seemsprobable.Politicaland economicmonopolization
of worldviews,in Mannheim'ssense(1936) have largelyreplacedthe earlierreligious
monopolization. But heresy,in thistraditionalsense,has becomeincreasingly rarefor
otherreasonsas well.The 'transition to secularization'
resultedin a proliferation
ofnew
discourses,the social sciencesamongthem.The contemporary Towerof Babel thus
erectedhas tendedto weakenthe persuasivepowerof discourseand to constrainthe
variousdiscourseswithinthosesystemsof exclusiontreatedby Foucaultin his "Dis-
courseon Language"(1972). Thus, threequite distincthistoricalprocessesappearto
have contributed to thedeclineof heresy(in itsliteral,religiousmeaning):
1. The displacement ofthereligious fromthecenterofconceptualaware-
institution
ness.
2. The proliferation ofwaysofspeakingabouttheworld,i.e.,thevariousnewdisci-
plines.
3. The declineof thecoercivepowerofdiscourse:itsrelativeweakeningas a "social
fact."
That thesethreeprocessesare inter-related seemsprobable,butis not our centralcon-
cern.Instead,whatfollowsis a discursive analysisofthenatureofheresy.It is heresug-
gestedthatheresyis stillpossiblewithinprofanediscourses, althoughitgoesunlabeled
as such;thatthehereticalstatusofan articulated opinionis determined bytheinstitu-
tionalizedlegitimation of the discoursewithinwhichthe heresyis voiced;thatheresy
threatens establishedpowerrelations;and thatheresyis in essencea semioticphenom-
enon employing wordsthatresultin cognitivedisorientations oftruebelievers.
Heresyvs. Opinion
It is clearthatheresyis not merelya "difference ofopinion,"althoughsomediction-
ariesmakethisclaim.Heresyincludesan attack,veiledor quiteopen,upon an institu-
tionalizedwayof speakingabouttheworld.It is therefore a thingofa distinctlysocial
kind,directly relatedto socialdeviance.Heresycan onlyoccurwithinan interactional
framework and involvesthemanipulation ofthesocialsystem ofsignswe refer
to as lan-
guage.In addition,the labellingof some statement as hereticalmustbe performed by
someauthoritative groupconstituting a moralcommunity. Again,itsrelationto devi-
ance is clear,at leastfromDurkheimian perspectives.
Heresymustnotbe confusedwith
apostasy, however,whichinvolveslosingone's allegianceto thelanguageoftheparent
group.In apostasyone movesfromthein-group to theout-group and maybe ostracized
as a consequence.In anyevent,thetrueapostatespeakssomeotherlanguage, foreign to
theparentgroup.This does notoccurin heresy.In heresy, thespeakeremploysthesame
languageas the parentgroup,retainsitsvalues,but attemptsto orderitsdiscourseto
someotherend. KarlMarx,forexample,committed a varietyofsecularheresyfromthe
standpoint oftheorthodoxcapitalistdiscourseofhisday.He didnotoffer somealterna-
tiveparadigm,in Kuhn'ssense(1970). Instead,he invokedcapitalism's own language,
that of the politicaleconomyarticulatedby Thomas Malthus,Adam Smith,David
Ricardoand othersaintsoftheold order.Equallyimportant wasthefactthatMarx'sar-
ticulationcould itselfbecomea neworthodoxy, capablein turnofpossiblymonopoliz-
ingthesocialconstruction of a latterday reality.

This content downloaded from 193.0.146.20 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 16:21:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
126 SOCIOLOGICALANALYSIS

A heresy,seenfromthisdiscursive perspective,can takeplacewithinanyinstitution-

alizeddiscourseand presentsitselfas a threatto thatwayofspeakingbythepossibility
thatitswayofordering thediscussionmaybecomethenew,taken-for-granted assump-
tion about the real natureof the worldor someactivity withinit. To be creditable,a
heresyalwaysappealsto thosesame valuesthatenabledthe prevailing orthodoxy to
maintainitsmonopoly,extending theseto itself.It is not,strictly
speaking,a religious
phenomenon,but an institutional phenomenon.It arosefirstwithinreligiononlybe-
causeofthereligious centralpositionin governing
institution's thediscoursesofa partic-
ular historicalmoment.
Collective
Response
On theotherhand,itmustbe concededthatcompeting claimsare alwaysforsale in
the ideologicalmarketplace: contending groupsand classesredundantly producewhat
AntonioGramscicalled"organicintellectuals" (1975)to fashionrhetorics appropriate to
theirclaimsto power.Thesearenotnecessarily brandedas heretical. Whatwerecognize
in a statement as hereticalis itsabilityto producein thefaithful a cryofoutragedhostil-
ity.This had led in thepastto vindictive persecution oftheheretic, whois thenliterally
or figuratively A
burnedat thestake. collective responseis invokedthatsometimes leads
thecommunity to betray,althoughalwaysin thenameofcollective unity,theveryprin-
ciplethatis at stakein thefirst place.The truebelievers sensethatin somewaytheirin-
nermostselveshave beenviolated,theirmoralvaluesusurped,theirveryexistenceas a
moralcommunity placedin jeopardy.
To a casualobserverthetruebeliever's responseseemsunwarranted. The truebeliever
seemsto losecontrolin lashingout unreasonably at theheretic.Whyis this?Whatcan
therebe in a statement, somemeresetofwords,thatcan evokeso irrational a response
fromhitherto rationalindividuals? The faithful shouldbe ableto dismissas a simplemis-
statement or errorsomepronouncement in itsdiscourse,employing itsvalues,thatit
knowsto be incorrect. Ifitspowerbase is secure,thefaith'sbelieverscouldas easilyre-
mainindifferent to purelyverbalthreatssuchas heresies.It maybe, ofcourse,thatitis
the likelihoodof some deviant,non-normative activityimpliedbut unstatedby the
hereticwhichconstitutes thegreatest threat:thetruebelievermaybe able to projectthe
possibleconsequencesof thehereticalstatement and be appalledat whathe finds.An
imaginary deviancemayappearmoregrossand blasphemousthanan actualdeviance,
particularlyifthelatteris "onlywords."Historically thisseemsto havebeenthecase,as
an examinationof religiousheresiesclearlyindicates.
Historical
Heresies
Since heresyarosein theearlyChristianperiod,a briefaccountofsomeearlyheresy
mayenableus to distinguish theextentto whichreligionis involvedin itscommission.
Hopefully, thismayilluminateitsdiscursive nature.
In thefourthcentury heresiesabounded:Manicheism, Arianism,Pelagianism, Sabel-
lianism,Nestorianism and so forth.SinceArianismhad thewidestgeographic distribu-
tion (includingnot onlySpain, the southof Franceand Italybut Germanyand the
Balkans)throughthesixthcentury, it providesa convenientexample.Arius(256-336)
and his followers
spokeof theChristianGod as one person,the"father in heaven"to

This content downloaded from 193.0.146.20 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 16:21:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 TOWARD A SOCIOLOGY OF HERESY 127
whomJesushas prayed.However,the orthodoxythendevelopingamongtheRoman
eliteinsistedthatalthoughtherewas onlyone God, the godheadexistedin threeper-
sons:father, son and holyspirit.(The Sabelliansclaimedthateachofthesewasonlyone
aspectof theother;theAriansthatGod thefatherwas distinctfromtheson.) By the
end ofthesixthcentury notonlyArianismbutitscontingent discourses (themonophy-
sitedoctrineofcompletefusionofthethreeintoone, and theNestoriandoctrineofthe
completeseparationof the three)had all been condemnedas heresiesby the Roman
elite.At the heartof thesediscourseslay theproblemofthesubstanceofwhichJesus
was made,withconsubstantiality winningthedebate;Jesuswas henceforth to be con-
sideredto have been of the samesubstanceas God. This implieda contradiction of a
veryfundamental kind,however.The mostrevolutionary aspectoftheteachingofJesus
was hisverbalexpression ofGod as "ourFather,whois in heaven."Thisexpression is re-
peatedthroughout the"goodnews,"e.g.,"Whydo youcall meAbba?One onlyis your
father,who is in heaven,"etc.It is clearthatchildrenareofthesamesubstanceas their
parents,and thatJesusand we mustbe ofthesamesubstanceofGod ifGod is trulyour
father.If,on theotherhand,thispartoftheteachings ofJesusis to be understood only
metaphorically (a not unlikelypossibility,since he used parablesand allegoryin his
teaching),thedoorwouldhavebeenopenedto multiple interpretation, a doorthenew
was
orthodoxy attempting to close.We thusarriveat a contradiction similarto thatex-
aminedby Levi-Strauss in his analysisof the Oedipusmyth(1936): in origin,man is
both autochthonousand born of woman.In our case, men and womenare bornof
womenbutarealso childrenofthatsameGod whofathered Jesus;and althoughGod is
"ourfather" also,makingus brothers and sistersofJesus,he is notofthesamesubstance
as us in spiteof our commonparentage.
By insistingthatJesusand God thefatherwereofthesamesubstance,butsomehow
different fromothermen and women,the orthodoxpositionwas able to maintaina
separationbetweenman and God thatassureda powerpositionforthe Romanelite.
FriedrichNietzsche(1949) would reassertthe primitive Christianideal some sixteen
hundredyearslater:"Jesussaid to hisJews,'The Law? The Law was made forslaves.
What do we sons of God have to do withThe Law?"' The hiddenimplication in the
Arianheresyis thatsonsofGod, likeGod himself, cannotbe boundbylawsand there-
foredo not requireany mediating structure (suchas the Church)betweenthemselves
and God.
Muchthesamekindofthingwas involvedin thelaterAmericancase ofantinomian-
ism,discussedforsociologists by Kai Eriksonin his Wayward Puritans (1966).Iftheor-
thodoxCalvinistdoctrineofelectionis appealedto, thenonlya certainfewmenand
womenhavebeenpredestined forsalvation.None aresavedby"Faithalone,"as Luther
had claimed,norbygoodworksand sacraments as Erasmushad arguedin theirwritten
'debate'(Winter,1961).This direcontingency can lead eitherto that"innerworldly as-
ceticism" thatso interested Weber(1958)or to theantinomianism ofAnn Hutchinson
and hercontemporaries (Erikson,1966:84).Ifgood works,faithand religious devotion
cannotalterpriorelection,thenwhynot engagein all thefleshy pleasuresthesinners
do? The electwillas surelygo to heavenand the nonelectedto Hell. Antinomianism
was brandedas hereticalby the BostonBay Colony Puritans,and a wayof speaking
about the worldwas saved.

This content downloaded from 193.0.146.20 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 16:21:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
128 SOCIOLOGICALANALYSIS

Cognitive
Consistency
Both the Arian and the Antinomiancases involvedan impliedthreatto an institu-
tionalizedorder.The elitesin Boston and Rome wereatunedto the possibleconse-
quencesthatcoulddevolvefromtheheretical statements.It is importantto notethatin
both casesthecontending sidesemployedeach other'slanguageand valuesin whaton
the surfaceappearto be whollymetaphysical concerns.In theAriancontroversy both
sidesinsiston the monotheistic natureof the ChristianGod, and in the antinomian
controversy bothsidesinsiston theCalvinistdoctrineofelection.Neitherprescribe nor
proscribespecificnormative behaviorsin theirdiscussions.Nevertheless,theredo seem
to be hithertoproscribed behaviorsat stake,and not the theologicalspeculationen-
coded in the hereticalstatements. A truebeliever,reflecting on the implications in
eithercase, mustsurelyperceivewhatto himare unwholesome consequences.
Itcan be suggestedthatitis preciselyherethatthesenseofoutrageis stimulated in the
truebeliever.Previously he had failedto graspthepossibleimplications for'deviantbe-
havior'in hisgroup'sideology.Ifa beliefcan lead in antitheticaldirections
withrespect
to moralbehavior,thenwhatarebeliefs for?Thereis a threathereto thepresumed con-
nectionbetweenbeliefand action:peopleare 'supposed'to act in accordancewiththeir
beliefs.Activityis presumedto be predicatedupon meanings,to be 'meaningfully ori-
ented.'And yetthetruebelieverfinds,in thecase ofheresy,thatthebeliefshe has de-
voutlyheldmayleadto quiteotherconsequences thanhisfaithhas ledhimto expect.A
heresyaccordingly placesthetruebelieverin a stateofcognitive dissonance,imbalance
or incongruity (Festinger, 1956; Taylor,1970). Heresyplayswiththe cognitivebase
upon whichbeliefsand meaningsare erectedand fromwhichactionis presumedto
flow.
Profane
Heresies
To makethispointclear,I wouldliketo playdevil'sadvocateand suggest somepossi-
ble contemporary and profaneheresies.It willbe shownthateach ofthesecontainan
interestingproperty thathas beenignoredin pastdiscussions ofreligious
heresies.Here,
is a
then, Devil'sDecalogueofprofaneheresies, selectedfroma largerlistI employedin
testingreactionsof visitorsto myofficeduringthe 1980academicyear:
1. Educationis theopiateofthe masses.
2. University graduatesare not educable.
3. ReturnPalestineto GreatBritain.
4. Zionismis racism.
5. Feminismis sexism.
6. Androgenyis penisenvy.
7. Can sociologybe made an intellectual discipline?
8. In late industrialsocieties,it is themiddleclassthatconstitutes the lumpen pro-
letariat.
9. Americansare not readyforrepresentative government.
10. The firstmistakeof U.S. foreign policywas the Americanrevolution.
Each ofthesestatements constitutes (or could constitute)a heresyon thegroundsdis-
cussedabove. Each can be defendedbysomerationaldiscourseor intellectual rhetoric.
Each threatens to disruptsomeideologically vestedpowerpositionand has possiblecon-

This content downloaded from 193.0.146.20 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 16:21:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 TOWARDA SOCIOLOGY OF HERESY 129
sequencesin termsof action.Each is framedforsome institutional context.We may
note in passingthatthegrammatical formofthe hereticalstatement is not important:
heresiesmaybe framedas definitions, questions,syllogisms;theymaybe imperative,
vocative,active,passive,simpleor compoundsentences.Thus,a statement maybe he-
reticalirrespectiveof itsgrammatical form.
However,as one readsthisdecalogueit becomesclearthatalthougha truebeliever
maybe outragedand feelthreatened by such statements, othersare apt to findthem
amusing.Ifone says,"KarlMarxsuffered fromfalseconsciousness," or "SigmundFreud
had sexproblems," a piousMarxistor devoutFreudianmightbe outraged, butyouand I
if
wouldlikelysmile thesegodswerenot those ofour own pantheon.How-
intellectual
ever,it is notthefactthattheseare notour godsthatamusesus: it is theincongruous
elementinvolved.Thiselementofincongruity characterizeshumorgenerally: thepunch
linedrawnfromtheunexpected context,theexplanationphrasedin a grossunderstate-
ment.It is precisely thiselement,commonto humor,thatis presentin the heretical
statement. The ideaoffalseconsciousness arosein Marxistdiscourseas a critiqueofcap-
italism,notof Marx; Zionismaroseas a responseto racistpoliciestowardJews,not of
JewishpoliciestowardArabs;feminism as perceivedsexismagainstwomen,notagainst
men.Buttheelementsof'truth'remainsin thealteredhereticalstatement: therhetoric
is turnedbackon theideologicalcampespousingitand we findthatitmakessense,but
a senseincongruous withwhatthetruebelievermightotherwise expect.It appearsthat
incongruity in someassociativerelationship impliesan internalcontradiction thatcan
lead to antitheticalpossibilities.In thejoke itleadsto laughteror indifference;butin the
hereticalstatement it leads to laughteror outrage.Thus, the sameset of semioticele-
mentsmay yieldquite oppositecathecticalresponses.This is consistentwithwhat
othershave said about the arbitrary natureof the linguisticsign(Saussure,1959).
Conclusion
Our discursive analysishas revealeda property ofheresyhitherto neglected in thelit-
erature:a statement is heretical
insofaras itarticulates,
or threatens to expose,thecon-
tradictory dialecticalmeaningsnecessarily containedin any ideologicalthesisthathas
obtaineda measureofinstitutional supportand is therefore an orthodoxwayofspeak-
ingabouttheworld.It is therevelation ofthisimmanent contradiction in thediscourse
thatposes the principalthreatto thatdiscourseand thatlies at the base of the true
believer'scognitive confusion.The impliedthreatto thenormative order,thesyntactical
componentin Lemert'ssense,is arrivedat onlyaftercontemplation and rationaleluci-
dation.These are, however,onlysubsequentconcernsof the faithful; the immediate
responsetriggering hiscognitive confusionis theelementofincongruity suppliedbythe
semioticphenomenon,whichoccursprimarily as a lexicalor semantical languagephe-
nomenon:thatis, at thelevelofdefinitions, specifications
ofterms,or themeaningsof
empiricalevents,and is immediately perceivedas antithetical to the taken-for-granted
lifeworldordainedbytheprofessed catechism. Heresyis firstofall a languagephenome-
non: it existsonlyin discourse,whateveritssocialderivatives.
This elementof incongruity thatleads one to eitherdismiss,withlaughter, or recoil
from,withhorror,a statement phrasedwithinsomediscourse,mustbe added to that
listofconstraints on discourseenumerated byFoucault(1972:216-219).It too is embed-
ded in his "willto truth"and "thedivisionofmadness"withwhichwe seeklogocentric

This content downloaded from 193.0.146.20 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 16:21:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
130 SOCIOLOGICALANALYSIS

guaranteesof a rationalorderlinessoftheworld.Beneathit liesthat"willto power"by

whichgroupsseekto appropriate theworldfortheirown purposesand gratification.If,
as Weberdefinedit,poweris theprobability ofexertingthewillin socialsituations
even
againstopposition,thenit is in heresythatpoweris obligedto contendin itsefforts
to
conceal its raw nature.Heresyaccordingly deservesmoreattentionthan sociologists
have allowedit.

REFERENCES
Barthes,Roland. 1953. WritingDegreeZeroand Elements ofSerniology.Boston:BeaconPress.
Clarke,Simon. 1978.'The Originsof Levi-Strauss's Structuralism."Sociology12(3).
Derrida,Jacques.1976.Of Grammatology. Baltimore: JohnsHopkinsUniversity Press.
Durkheim,Emile. 1915.The Elementary FormsoftheReligious Life.New York:FreePress.
Erikson,Kai T. 1966. Wayward Puritans.New York:Wiley.
Festinger,
Leon. 1956. WhenProphecy Fails.Minneapolis:University ofMinnesotaPress.
Foucault,Michel. 1970.The OrderofThings.New York:RandomHouse.
1972.The Archaeology ofKnowledge and The Discourseon Language.New York:Harper& Row.
1973.Madnessand Civilization. New York:Harper& Row.
1976.MentalIllness& Psychology. New York:Harper& Row.
1980. Power/Knowledge: SelectedInterviews
& OtherWritings. Colin Gordon(ed.). New York: Pan-
theon.
Goldmann,Lucien. 1980.Essayson Methodin theSociology ofLiterature.
St. Louis:Telos Press.
Gramsci,Antonio.1975.Letters FromPrison.New York:Harper& Row.
Lemert,CharlesC. 1979.Sociology and theTwilight ofMan. Carbondale:SouthernIllinoisUniversity Press.
Claude. 1963.Structural
Levi-Strauss, Anthropology. New York: Basic Books.
Mannheim,Karl. 1936.Ideology and Utopia.New York:Harcourt,Brace& World.
Martin,David. 1979.A GeneralTheory ofSecularization.New York:Harper& Row.
Nietzsche,Friedrich.1949.BeyondGoodand Evil.Chicago:Regnery.
Saussure,Ferdinandde. 1959.Coursein GeneralLinguistics. New York:McGraw-Hill.
Schwartz,Barry.1981.Vertical Classification:
A StudyinStructuralismandtheSociology ofKnowledge.
Chicago:
Universityof Chicago Press.
Taylor,HowardF. 1970.Balancein SmallGroups.New York:Van Nostrand.
Weber,Max. 1951.The Religion ofChina.New York:FreePress.
1958.The ProtestantEthicand theSpiritofCapitalism. New York:Scribners.
1963.The SociologyofReligion. Boston:Beacon.
Winter,ErnestF. (ed.) 1961.Erasmus-Luther: Discourseon FreeWill.New York:Ungar.

This content downloaded from 193.0.146.20 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 16:21:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions