Idea
This claim indicates that orthodoxy is not a word with a single meaning, but rather carries an internal faith-based dimension and a historical-political dimension. In its internal sense, it means right opinion; in its political sense, it enters into a struggle over legitimacy and power. Thus, it does not remain merely a description of correct belief, but also becomes a tool in the ordering of influence.
Concise Formulation
Orthodoxy: carries a faith-based meaning and a historical-political meaning
Its Place in the Book’s Argument
This claim occupies an important place in the argument because it reveals how religious concepts move from the field of meaning to the field of power. The book does not study terms as rigid definitions, but as elements that move through history and perform different functions. Hence, the double meaning supports a broader reading of the relationship between doctrine and institution.
Why It Matters
Its importance lies in the fact that it prevents reducing orthodoxy to its homiletic meaning alone. It also draws attention to the way religious concepts may be used to organize the political sphere as much as to regulate belief. This helps in understanding Arkoun as he links religious discourse and the historical construction of power.
Brief Evidence
The double meaning of “orthodoxy”: an internal faith-based meaning equal to “right opinion” Explains the double meaning of “orthodoxy”: an internal faith-based meaning equal to “right opinion”
Reading Questions
- How does the meaning of orthodoxy change when it moves from faith to politics?
- What is the effect of this doubleness on understanding the relationship between doctrine and power?
Degree of Documentation
High: the claim appears in a clear place in the book’s material.