Mapping the Moral Order 333
of religion and the writing of American religious history. Bellah, in much of his writing
(alone and with colleagues), has dealt with the polarization between “utilitarian indi-
vidualism” and “civic republicanism” (e.g., Bellah 1975; Bellah and Hammond 1980;
Bellah et al. 1985).
What all of these scholars share is a bipolar conception of the American religious
or cultural scene. The most significant problem with this conceptual logic is that it
assumes that all or nearly all individuals and groups (or at least those who matter in
the public discourse) fall into one of two camps. Occasionally there are passing refer-
ences to the fact that, of course, there are many groups who do not fit the picture and
many individuals who fall somewhere between or outside the poles, but these refer-
ences are seldom more than passing (e.g., Hunter 1991: 105). Groups that do not fit
the proposed bipolar conception are left outside the explanatory model. Methodolog-
ically, this makes it difficult to disconfirm hypotheses. Substantively, it leads to three
problems: (1) it masks important distinctions within and between the two parties; (2) it
exaggerates the level of conflict in society; and (3) it ignores the presence and impact
of groups that do not fit the model, groups that may serve as mediators of conflicts or
exert countervailing influences in their own right.
In the following section, I propose a multidimensional conception of the cultural
battleground that addresses these problems. It takes into account the polarization
around the policy issues noted by Wuthnow and others; the authority issue noted
by Hunter; and the individual/community tension noted by Marty, Bellah, and oth-
ers. By proposing a two-dimensional rather than a one-dimensional map, I make space
for groups and individuals who are usually ignored in bipolar theories – groups that
lie outside the mainstream discourse. This facilitates more nuanced explanations and
hypotheses about the dynamic process of religious change and conflict.
A MAP OF THE MORAL ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES
Wuthnow (1987), in trying to develop a more objective approach to cultural analysis,
describes an overarching ideological system or “moral order” within which religious
and political movements pursue various interests. Wuthnow, of course, is not the only
observer to posit such a system. A similar conception is present in many of the works
discussed earlier. But in addition to the problems of unidimensionality noted above,
most analysts have been rather vague about exactly what makes up the American moral
order. In order to more concretely specify its key constituent elements, I propose four
paradigms that may be used to characterize different positions within American reli-
gious and political ideology.
I do this based on a two-dimensional heuristic scheme. Adding another dimension
makes it possible to propose a kind of “ideological map” of the moral order. Such a map
still permits the analysis of a dominant or mainstream ideological spectrum, but also
permits inclusion of various peripheral positions, and, thus, analysis of the relationship
between the periphery and the mainstream. That is, the various configurations of these
paradigms will influence ideological conflict both within peripheral ideologies and
between them and the mainstream.
The two dimensions represent two central issues in any “moral order.” The first is the
locus of moral authority, and the second is what constitutes the moral project. The first
issue is concerned with the fundamental basis for ethical, aesthetic, or epistemological