RELIGIOUS RESPONSE TO MODERNIZATION IN TAIWAN: THE CASE OF I-KUAN TAO
47
above all the diffused forms of religion because they were inseparable from traditional social institutions. Institutional religions, by contrast, form social institutions of their own and are, to a certain degree, independent of "secular" social institutions. Changes in the traditional social structure have, therefore, only an indirect effect on them which is far less striking than in the case of diffused religion. On this account, the process of modernization has not necessarily the same secularizing consequences for institutional religions as it has for diffused religion.
On the other hand, Buddhism and Taoism, which are the best-known examples of institutional religion in traditional China, seem to have been in a state of decline even before modernization began in the last century. The reasons for this cannot be treated here, but we should note that since the nineteenth century, there have been efforts to revive Buddhism intellectually as well as institutionally. These efforts continued in this century and were not wholly unsuccessful. Two points are to be observed in this connection. The first is the important role which the Buddhist laity played in this movement. The second is the fact that the Buddhist revival seems to coincide more or less with the period of modernization. This point is especially noteworthy since it shows that there is by no means a necessary connection between modernization and secularization. One might even conjecture that there exists an interrelation between the Buddhist revival and the modernization movement in China.
1
Be that as it may, there cannot be any doubt that in Taiwan, Buddhism actually did undergo a renaissance after 1949. This can be seen not only from the countless new temples financed by donations from laymen but also from the steadily increasing publication of popular and scholarly books and journals on Buddhist philosophy and religion. A comparison of this situation with the state of Buddhism in the last centuries of traditional China shows that the process of modernization in this case produced anything but secularization.
Attempts to revive Taoism have been far less successful up to now. It is difficult to find a sociological explanation for this difference; one probably has to look for historical reasons. Obviously, the position of Taoism as an institutional religion in the last centuries of imperial China has been weaker than that of Buddhism. On the popular level, neither Taoism nor Buddhism could be separated from the religious syncretism which had developed since the Sung dynasty. But although many intellectuals were heavily influenced by Taoism, there was no significant lay-movement that actively patronized a revival of the
RELIGIOUS RESPONSE TO MODERNIZATION IN TAIWAN THL CASE OF |-KUAN TAO
47
above all the diffused forms of religion because they were inseparable from traditional social institutions. Institutional religions, by contrast, form social institutions of their own and are, to a certain degree, inde- pendent of "secular" social institutions. Changes in the traditional social structure have, therefore, only an indirect effect on them which is far less striking than in the case of diffused religion. On this account the process of modernization has not necessarily the same secularizing consequences for institutional religions as it has for diffused religion.
On the other hand, Buddhism and Taoism, which are the best- known examples of institutional religion in traditional China, seem to have been in a state of decline even before modernization began in the last century. The reasons for this cannot be treated here, but we should note that since the nineteenth century there have been efforts to revive Buddhism intellectually as well as institutionally, These efforts continued in this century and were not wholly unsuccess- ful". Two points are to be observed in this connection. The first is the important role which the Buddhist laity played in this movement. The second is the fact that the Buddhist revival seems to coincide more or less with the period of modernization. This point is especially noteworthy since it shows that there is by no means a necessary con- nection between modernization and secularization. One might even conjecture that there exists an interrelation between the Buddhist revival and the modernization movement in China.
1
Be that as it may, there cannot be any doubt that in Taiwan Buddhism actually did undergo a renaissance after 19497. This can be seen not only from the countless new temples financed by donations from laymen, but also from the steadily increasing publication of popular and scholarly books and journals on Buddhist philosophy and religion. A comparison of this situation with the state of Buddhism in the last centuries of traditional China shows that the process of modernization in this case produced anything but secularization.
Attempts to revive Taoism have been far less successful up to now. It is difficult to find a sociological explanation for this difference, one probably has to look for historical reasons. Obviously the position of Taoism as an institutional religion in the last centuries of imperial China has been weaker than that of Buddhism. On the popular level neither Taoism nor Buddhism could be separated from the religious syncretism which had developed since the Sung dynasty. But although many intellectuals were heavily influenced by Taoism there was no significant lay-movement that actively patronized a revival of the
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.