Mapping the Moral Order 347
changes. It permits interesting distinctions to be drawn between different issues and
groups, distinctions that are often blurred or ignored by unidimensional schemes. A
two-dimensional mapping of the cultural terrain has the further benefit of highlighting
the role of peripheral groups and ideologies in the larger moral order. This facilitates a
more complete understanding of intragroup conflict and change for groups that occupy
different locations on the map; it provides insight on the impact of new, emergent, and
peripheral groups on the mainstream; and it suggests questions and hypotheses about
the future of religious conflict and change in the United States.
I have been careful in this chapter to limit my applications of the map to the U.S.
situation, but it is worthwhile thinking about whether and how it may be applicable
more broadly. Certainly, concerns about moral authority and moral project are common
to any ideological system. Thus, the map may very well be useful in other settings.
However, the sharp distinction between individual and collectivity that forms the poles
of the two dimensions may only be applicable in cultures that are rooted in Western
Enlightenment traditions. There are important parts of the world, particularly in Africa
and Asia, where this distinction may not be very meaningful or important. In these
settings it may be necessary to develop other ways of representing the poles of the two
dimensions.
By contrast, it is also true that the diffusion of Western cultural assumptions
throughout the world is one important consequence of contemporary globalization
processes. The individual-collective distinction may be gaining significance even in
places where a more holistic Eastern world view is still dominant. Clearly, immigrant
Eastern religions in the United States have to deal with the individual-collective distinc-
tion, and, at least in some cases, significant religious innovation is the consequence.
Likely, similar innovation is occurring in the countries of origin for these religions as
global capitalism brings a liberal economic gospel of individualism and the pursuit of
self-interest.
These, as they say, are “questions for further research.” There is plenty of work still
to be done in coming to a clearer understanding of how particular cases of religious
change and conflict are related to their larger moral order, how the moral order itself
is constituted, and how such cultural systems have an impact on human behavior
and social life. We will no doubt continue to debate the specific answers to these more
general questions. Our debate will be more productive, however, if we can be as specific
and concrete as possible in mapping the terrain we are attempting to traverse.