Formulation of the claim

Sacred texts do not remain preserved propositions; rather, they are embodied in the body, in acts of worship, and in rites, and they shape the social imaginary.

Explanation

In Arkoun’s thought, the presence of the sacred text is not understood as merely verbal or pedagogical, because its effect extends to ways of life, religiosity, and everyday practice. The text thus becomes part of a collective experience, not merely a reference that is recited or memorized.

This extension into the body, ritual, and worship is what makes the text active in shaping the symbolic field of society. It participates in organizing shared conceptions of the sacred, meaning, and belonging, and it becomes one of the elements of the social imaginary.

Its place in the book’s argument

This atom falls within Arkoun’s effort to move beyond readings that confine sacred texts to the limits of literal meaning or normative function. It converges with his broader thesis that religion is lived historically and culturally through social mediations, not through texts alone as abstract entities. It therefore appears here as a link in describing how the sacred operates within society.

Limits of the claim

This atom does not mean that the sacred text dissolves into social custom or loses its religious specificity. Nor does it mean that every effect of the text in society can be reduced to the text alone, since Arkoun always connects texts with representations, history, and practice.

Brief evidence passage

If reason, from a psychological standpoint, is one of the basic faculties of the human spirit, it should be known that it exercises its function only through the constant interaction with another faculty: that of imagination, the imaginary, and memory. Human beings are not only reason; this means that the rationalities produced by reason are not imposed exclusively by external factors upon the spirit, but are in all cases more or less affected by the data of individual and collective memory, by the creative and generative power of the creative imagination, and by the powerful and more or less stimulating impulses of the social imaginary. These primary or elementary psychological data are not always taken into account by historians of thought. There is no doubt that they