3.2 Religious Anthropology's Other Horizons

Nonreligious, or „neutral”, organization theory appeared insufficient to satisfactory perceive the movement in its cultural and social-structural complexity, which is also shaped by its religiosity. Reducing religious motivation into terms of production, input, throughput, and output (Pröpper 1993: 31), appeared inappropriate.

Martin proposes to view organizations from three different perspectives (Martin 1992). An integration perspective would direct attention to consistency and consensus. In a differentiation perspective, subcultures, inconsistencies and ambiguities would partially emerge. A fragmentation perspective would concentrate on ambiguity, dissent and flux (Martin 1992: 12). Martin, apparently aware of the limitations of her own multiple perspective approach (Martin 1992: 174), introduces a postmodern critique of her own framework (Martin 1992: 189-202). I am in favour of some critical aspects of postmodern approaches. In how I relate traditional religious views on transitional rites (Turner 1967) and purity (M. Douglas 1976) to the movement, some ludistic and postmodern traces may still be considered.

Nevertheless, since the movement I studied obviously is a religious movement, I regarded certain views of religious anthropology as appropriate to highlight a few other aspects of the movement. As I present them, I am aware that the complex movement can and should be viewed in still other ways. In terms of requisite variety, which requires „any control system to be as varied as and complex as the environment being controlled” (Morgan 1992: 100), comprehending a complex and varied social phenomenon like the movement, requires also a complex and varied perspective.