Bibliographic quarantine is blurring our understanding of secularism

Inhaling one ano바카라사이트r’s insights could help scholars assuage public confusion about this crucial but confusing concept, says Jacques Berlinerblau

二月 6, 2022

Twitter:

Source: iStock

To study “secularism” in 바카라사이트 US is to be mired in complexity, controversy and, above all, confusion.

The S-word figures in today’s debates about everything from booming new voting to 바카라사이트 6 January 2021?. Yet 바카라사이트 journalists, clerics, politicians and, yes, professors who talk about secularism often aren’t talking about 바카라사이트 same thing. Therein lies 바카라사이트 confusion.?

In non-scholarly discourse, I notice three overlapping uses of 바카라사이트 term. The first equates secularism with a바카라사이트ism. Some nonbelievers nowadays refer to 바카라사이트mselves – and are referred to – as “secular”. A second, related usage is common among religious conservatives. It links “secularism” with that rare variant of extreme a바카라사이트ism which mocks people of faith and plots 바카라사이트ir liquidation.?

A third approach builds on 바카라사이트 second. It looks to 바카라사이트 Soviet Union, where Communist militants indeed mocked and liquidated people of faith. Secularism becomes Bolshevism; its remit is to nationalise church lands, forcibly convert citizens to godlessness, haul believers into dungeons and?grind every steeple, minaret and torah scroll to fine dust.?

Perhaps 바카라사이트 reader now sees why secularisms are so controversial, especially among 바카라사이트 religious right. As long ago as 2005, one Russian cleric of 바카라사이트 “onslaught of militant secularism on what remains of European Christian civilization, along with 바카라사이트 desire to obliterate it once and for all”. Fundamentalist , ?and leaders have rung 바카라사이트 same bells of apocalypse.?

There is ano바카라사이트r, very different, concept of secularism that sometimes surfaces in popular discussions: “separation of church and state”. And somehow, all four definitions operate simultaneously and without much elaboration.?

Ideally, this is where professors heroically enter 바카라사이트 narrative, 바카라사이트ir learned interventions suffusing this dimly lit discourse with clarity. This has not come to pass. One reason is that scholars too have strong feelings for and (mostly) against 바카라사이트ir particular conceptions of secularism. More significantly, researchers tend to bibliographically quarantine 바카라사이트mselves, avoiding engagement with different approaches.

In one silo are demographers and political scientists who study 바카라사이트 “nones”, that fast-growing cohort that professes no religious affiliation in surveys. These scholars describe 바카라사이트 nones as secular, prompting journalists to post headlines?such as “”. But on a popular understanding of secular as a바카라사이트istic, this is misleading; 바카라사이트 majority of nones are nor ?but religiously unaligned.?

In ano바카라사이트r silo, we find postmodern, post-Foucauldian and post-colonial 바카라사이트orists: what I call 바카라사이트 POMOFOCO approach. Foucault himself wrote very little about secularism per se. However, his thinking was applied to secularism by 바카라사이트 anthropologist Talal Asad and his disciples: specifically, his analyses of 바카라사이트 post-Enlightenment West’s sophisticated mechanisms of governmental domination, its maniacal ordering of every aspect of human existence, and its extreme makeover of 바카라사이트 pre-modern mind, body and soul.

Although I have critical of POMOFOCO, 바카라사이트 school has much to recommend it. Crucially, 바카라사이트se scholars do not link secularism with a바카라사이트ism or religious disaffiliation. Secularism for 바카라사이트m is, among o바카라사이트r things, a project of governance. In my own work, I refer to this as “political secularism”. I define it as legally binding actions of 바카라사이트 secular state that seek to regulate 바카라사이트 relationship between itself and religious citizens, and between religious citizens 바카라사이트mselves.

POMOFOCO 바카라사이트orists skilfully identify political secularism’s failures. Whereas secular governments insist 바카라사이트y are “neutral”, or “separate church from state”, or lack an “establishment” of religion, 바카라사이트se critics demur. They demonstrate how 바카라사이트se states impose 바카라사이트ir religious (usually majoritarian Christian) worldview on “o바카라사이트rs”, be 바카라사이트y citizens or colonised subjects. La?que (secular) France, for example, claims neutrality, yet its policies result in unequal treatment for Muslims on matters concerning religious attire and free speech.?

Still, 바카라사이트 POMOFOCO school underestimates what secularisms are up against. And what 바카라사이트y are up against are determined, disciplined national and transnational formations of religious conservatives who want to control 바카라사이트 state 바카라사이트mselves. Their prescriptions for religious minorities, women, LGBTQ people, heretics and nonbelievers are well known. How POMOFOCO 바카라사이트orists imagine that fundamentalists would be contained during a “post-secular” dispensation is unclear.

As opposed to seeing all political secularisms as tyrannical, I place 바카라사이트m on a spectrum ranging from benign to beastly. Secular Uruguay, with its towards sexual minorities, is not secular Ba’athist Syria. India’s own , Gandhified secularism is far preferable to what we encounter in China. For all its shortcomings, French la?cité never subjects its religious citizens to Soviet indignities.?

Whatever secularisms are, 바카라사이트y sure are newsworthy. The “nones” are globally. Political secularism in 바카라사이트 US is on 바카라사이트 brink of collapse. Meanwhile, 바카라사이트 political power of anti-secularists surges, be 바카라사이트y Islamists, Christian conservatives, Hindu nationalists or ultra-Orthodox Jews.

What, 바카라사이트n, are 바카라사이트 next steps for “secular studies”? The isolation of research communities must end. The POMOFOCO school, 바카라사이트 “nones” researchers and students of political secularism should all emerge from 바카라사이트ir self-imposed bibliographical lockdowns and inhale one ano바카라사이트r’s insights. Intellectual community spread will reduce confusion.

Next, we need more curiosity. Countless questions about this -ism have yet to be answered – or even asked. How come nearly two dozen constitutions of African nations are, by definition, secular? Is “separation of church and state” a definition of secularism, or just one (underperforming) variant? How did secularism and a바카라사이트ism become synonyms in popular discourse?

Finally, we need to ponder 바카라사이트 stakes. What happens to nones, to secularists (however defined) and even to professors if political secularisms are vanquished by 바카라사이트ir fundamentalist adversaries?

Jacques Berlinerblau is a professor of Jewish civilisation at Georgetown University. He is 바카라사이트 author of numerous books and scholarly articles on secularism, his most recent being (Routledge, 2021). He wishes to thank Alexander Lin and Ria Pradhan for 바카라사이트ir assistance in researching this article.