Berlinerblau, Jacques. "Toward a Sociology of Heresy, Orthodoxy, and Doxa". History of Religions, Vol.40, No.4 (2001): 327-351.

Berlinerblau, Jacques. "Toward a Sociology of Heresy, Orthodoxy, and Doxa". History of Religions, Vol.40, No.4 (2001): 327-351.

• Heresy as a concept can only be understood in reference and contrast to orthodoxy, meaning that the definition of heresy is situational and dependent on contemporary definitions of orthodoxy (330-331). In fact, the conflict between heresy and orthodoxy is 'otherizing' and important to the construction of an orthodox identity (332).
• The fact that heresy requires orthodoxy means that it can only exist in situations were there is an authoritative political establishment capable of identifying and disciplining heretics as separate from its orthodox body (334).
• Heresy is so dangerous and challenging for religious organizations or any institution because, unlike apostates, they claim to be representatives of that same group. A "heretic employs the same language as the parent group, retains its values, but attempts to order its discourse to some other end" (335).
• A heretic, as opposed to apostates or infidels, has some connection to the original belief. The author proposes that a heretic be a former member of the orthodox intelligentsia who defects to heterodox beliefs while still claiming intellectual hegemony over that group (340).
• A orthodox group requires both an element of power with which to suppress heretical groups and a moral and intellectual superiority among the community. It must be able through some form of force to pressure heretics into submission and also be able to enforce its orthodoxy as dominant within intra-group discourse (338).
• The intellectual domination of an orthodox is spread through Gramscian hegemony over certain forms of civil society, literature, and discourse. Important in this process is establishing a hierarchy of loyal intellectuals and texts that can reinforce orthodoxy by responding to heretical arguments (339-340).
• The author decides to define orthodoxy as a group which produces and controls symbolic and intellectual discourse, articulates 'correct' forms of belief and practice through a network of intellectuals, identifies and denigrates heretical beliefs through these same intellectuals, and deals with heretical groups either through repression or conversion (340).
• The work of Emile Durkheim and Georg Simmel suggests that heresy and criminality may both by necessary and positive, healthy attributes of a society, because the oppositional conflict that they create reinforces group identities and supplies the unity which society ultimately needs to function (342-343).
• Doxa is a set of beliefs that are considered fundamental to the degree that they are taken as implicit assumptions about a system requiring no explanation. Their existence, however, is a result of the ideological hegemony exercised through the intellectual domination of orthodoxy (346-247).