Understanding the Structure of Contractual and Covenantal Social Relations: Implications for the Sociology of Religion

Abstract

Social scientists have largely abandoned the analysis of distinctions between tribal (family and clan) and industrial (marketplace and organizational) types of social relations. In this paper we draw a distinction between contractual and covenantal social relations which, we argue, parallels that societal level dichotomy on an interpersonal level. It is the thesis of this paper that contracts and covenants are alternative and qualitatively different types of social relations. As industrial societies have become increasingly contractual, the form and logic of the covenants have been ignored. In the present historical context of dominant power resting with individuals whose resources are created primarily within contractual social relations, covenantal forms tend largely to be denigrated. The social sciences, historically developed with presuppositions which also serve as the justification for contracts, have contributed to this denigration. We begin, therefore, by comparing the form and logic covenants and contracts. Using this distinction, we then analyze the controversy over new religions as illustrative of the continuing structural conflict between these types of social relations. We conclude with a call for a sociology of religion which does not presuppose the logic of either type but rather is broad enough to encompass both contractual and covenantal social relations. Social scientists have largely abandoned the analysis of distinctions between tribal (family and clan) and industrial (marketplace and organizational) forms of social relations which informed the work of early theorists such as Toennies, Durkheim, Main, Redfield and Wirth. As contemporary theorists increasingly have come to rely upon theory appropriate only to the industrial fonn, an important qualitative distinction has been obscured. The thesis developed