Conclusion: Religion, Solidarity and Power
I have tried to make the following points.
- There is no singular secular religion to which one can refer that can offer transcendent principles governing discourse in the public sphere; we are all fundamentally partialists.
- The secular religion of human rights and humanitarianism, even if now dominant, is only one among other competitors
- Current Western society may be dominated by the secular religion of human rights and humanitarianism, but its insistence that its secondary rules of discourse in the public sphere (civility, etc.) are universal, is also the source of its naïveté when combating the other major religious secular player.
- That other secular religious player in contemporary political culture, uncivil religious secularism, believes in a discourse of deceit and manipulation in the public sphere in contrast to the rules of civility, etc. proposed by the secular religion of human rights and humanitarianism.
- That competitor to the secular religion of human rights and humanitarianism, the anti-civility secular religion, is most wedded to the separation of religion and state, primarily so it can uphold high and lofty moral principles in the private sphere while demonstrating the most manipulative tools of discourse permissible and tolerated in its own society.
- The anti-civil secular religion evinces the greatest solidarity with the traditional religions with which it is allied and has a much stronger position on loyalty and solidarity.
- The secular religion of rights and humanitarianism engages in partnerships of convenience with its liberal traditional religious partners.
- The secular religion of rights and humanitarianism weakens itself most by insisting its norms are universal and transcendent, for it disguises the need to engage with and understand the rules of Machiavellian discourse required to beat its opponent in the public sphere.
- Another source of its weakness: it regards intellectual influence as the highest realm, rather than coercive power, and, hence, is often defeated because of its weak understanding of coercive power in both the domestic and international realms.
- Similarly, though I have not explored that dimension in this paper, the secular religion of human rights and humanitarianism also has the poorest understanding of the role of charisma substituting for authentic authority, and the role of formal authority given its significant reliance on the rule of law and the role of the courts that are founded on the primacy of influence.
- The secular religion of human rights and humanitarianism is often not generally as well attuned to the role of material influence given its almost singular emphasis on intellectual influence.
- Most fundamentally, secularism, in its various forms, is itself simply a religion with competing and warring sects, each governed by beliefs and practices, rituals and rites, which are themselves immune to falsification.
If it were not the fact that the secular religious principles of HRH were held so broadly and deeply by the majority of Western societies, it is a wonder that this secular religion achieves power and political authority at all. Yet, in most Western societies, the religious secularism of human rights and humanitarianism dominates, in both conservative and liberal guises. It is the governing belief set of the polity.
Further, though both the majority (human rights and humanitarianism) and the minority (Machiavellian and manipulative politics) are the major secular religions in competition, both stress the sociology of groups, in spite of the emphasis of each on individualism, either the individualism of rights or of needs respectively as manifested in the free market. For, as Marx wrote, the free market delivers anarchy; religion is always about order. But each version of religious secularism, in stressing two different forms of individualism, undermines a system of fraternal ethics. But they do so in different spheres. The secular religion of rights undermines fraternity in what is called the private sphere and produces anomie. The religious secularism that undercuts rights (MMP) reinforces fraternal ethics in the private sphere while denying ethical considerations as fundamentally appropriate to the public sphere.
Human rights religious secularism insists on positing internalized rules of the game that are made explicit in court rulings and, in terms of which, goals can be pursued and appropriate means chosen to chase those goals. In contrast to this emphasis on a normative structure for society, the competing alternative argues that its opponents, in the name of rights, undermine freedom and responsibility and, in the end, never really understand the need for order, an order which promotes sanctions and rewards, instils habits and celebrates preferences rather than rights. Thus, in the latter, instead of a theoretical egalitarian society, stratification is accepted as a dominant feature of the social order. In particular, even in our post-modern world, nationalism is celebrated in terms of a particular system of social stratification that allows each nation to be both unique while each, in its own way, offers political salience by connecting opportunities and contingency to measures of success. Some necessary conditions of success include the solidarity of the family and the community by means of which individual and group interests can be aligned.
So why does the religious secularism of rights and humanitarianism remain dominant even though it is weak in understanding the importance of coercive power, even though it is weak in terms of the value of solidarity? If it is so fundamentally weak in understanding the role of coercive power and the necessity and not just the reality of social stratification, why is it the dominant contemporary religious secularist belief system? Further, it remains dominant even though it is itself divided by sectarianism.
I do not have an answer.
Adelman, Howard (2011a) “Introduction,” in Howard Adelman and Pierre Anctil (eds.), Religion, Culture and the State: Reflections on the Bouchard-Taylor Report, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 3-15.
Adelman, Howard (2011b) “Monoculturalism versus Interculturalism in a Multicultural World,” in Howard Adelman and Pierre Anctil (eds.), Religion, Culture and the State: Reflections on the Bouchard-Taylor Report, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 37-57.
Adelman, Howard (2011c) “Conclusion: Religion, Culture and State,” in Howard Adelman and Pierre Anctil (eds.), Religion, Culture and the State: Reflections on the Bouchard-Taylor Report, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 100-116.
Adelman, Howard (2011d) “Contrasting Commissions on Interculturalism: The Hija’b and the Workings of Interculturalism in Quebec and France,” Journal of Intercultural Studies 32: 3, June, 245-259.
Adelman, Howard (2011e) “Jews, Eschatology, and Contemporary Visions of a World Order,” Religious Studies and Theology 30.
Adelman, Howard (2004) “Cultures of Violence,” in Tom Keating and W. Andy Knight (eds.), Building Sustainable Peace, New York: Macmillan, 303-330.
Adelman, Howard (1976) “Authority, Influence and Power,” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 6:4, 335-351.
Babel, Balkan (1992) Politics, Culture and Religion in Yugoslavia. Westview Press.
Bellah, Robert N. (1967) “Civil Religion in America,” Deadelus: Religion in America, Winter 96:1, 1-21.
Bibby, Reginald W. (2011) Beyond the Gods and Back: Religion’s Demise and Rise and Why It Matters. Project Canada Books.
Brewer, John, Gareth Higgins and Francis Teeney (2014) Religion, Civil Society and Peace in Northern Ireland. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brown, Robert and Albert Gilman (1960) “The Pronouns of Power and Solidarity,” in Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.) Style in Language. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press, 253-276.
Chidester, David (1988) Patterns of Power, Religion and Politics in American Culture. New York: Prentice Hall.
Cavanaugh, William T. (2011) “The Invention of Fanaticism,” Modern Theology, 27:2, 226-237.
Cristi, Marcela (2001) From Civil to Political Religion: The Intersection of Culture, Religion and Politics. Waterloo, ON: Wilfred Laurier University Press.
Dionne Jr., Eugene J. (ed.) (1998) Community Works: The Revival of Civil Society in America. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
Dionne Jr., Eugene J. and John J. Dilulio (eds.) (2000) What’s God Got to do with the American Experiment? Essays on Religion and Politics. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
Elshtain, Jean Bethke (2008) Sovereignty, God, State and Self. New York: Basic Books.
Fowler, Robert Booth, Allan D. Hertzke, Laura R. Olson and Kevin R. den Dulk (2010) Religion and Politics in America: Faith, Culture and Strategic Choices. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Fox, J. and S. Sandler (2004) Bringing Religion into International Relations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gillespie, Michel Allen (2008) The Theological Origins of Modernity. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Green, John C. (1996) Religion and the Culture Wars: Dispatches from the Front. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Hams, Frederick C. (1999) Something within Religion I African-American Political Activism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Harris, Tim, Paul Seaward and Mark Goldie (1990) The Politics of Religion in Restoration England. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Hechter, Michael (1987) Principles of Group Solidarity. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Hirschman, Albert O. (1970) Exit, Voice and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations and States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Jordon, Richard Lawrence (2013) The Second Coming of Paisley: Militant Fundamentalism and Ulster Politics. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.
Keating, Tom and W. Andy Knight (2004) Building Sustainable Peace. Tokyo: United Nations University Press and Edmonton: University of Alberta Press
Kong, Lily (2001) “Mapping ‘new’ geographies of religion, politics and poetics in modernity,” Progress in Human Geography, 25 June , 211-233.
Lambert, Frank (2008) Religion in American Politics: A Short History. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Levinson, Sanford (1988; 2012) Constitutional Faith. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Lynch, Tim (2015) “Foreign Policy of Emotional Impulse? Foreign Affairs, 4, 32.
Maclure, Jocelyn and Charles Taylor (2011) Secularism and Freedom of Conscience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Martinich, Aloysius P. (1992) The Two Gods of Leviathan: Thomas Hobbes on Religion and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Miller, Vincent J. (2005) Consuming Religion: Christian Faith and Practice in Consumer Culture. New York: Continuum.
Putnam, Robert D. and David E. Campbell (2010) American Grace: How Religion Unites and Divides Us. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Ramet, Sabrina P. (1992) Balkan Babel: Politics, Culture and Religion in Yugoslavia. Boulder, Co.: Westview Press.
Rorty, Richard (1989) Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Salvatore, Armando (2007) The Public Sphere: Liberal Modernity, Catholicism, Islam. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Salvator, Armando, Trenz, Hans-Jörg and Oliver Schmidtke (2013) Rethinking the Public Sphere Through Transnationalizing Processes. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Schewel, Benjamin (2014) “What is ‘Postsecular’ about Global Political Discourse?” The Review of Faith and International Affairs 12:4, 49–61.
Schewel, Benjamin (2015) “The Axial Age and Progressive Revelation: Historical Reflections on Religion and the Public Sphere,” in Religion and the Public Sphere, Benjamin Schewel and Geoffrey Cameron (eds.) Waterloo, ON: Wilfred Laurier University Press.
Shugar, Debora K. (1997) Habits of Thought in the English Renaissance: Religion, Politics and the Dominant Culture. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Sung, Jung Mo (2007) Desire, Market and Religion. London: SCM Press.
Tambiah, Stanley J. (1992) Buddhism Betrayed? Religion, Politics and Violence in Sri Lanka. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Taylor, Charles (2007) A Secular Age. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Underdown, David (1986) Revel, Riot and Rebellion: Popular Politics and Culture in England, 1603-60. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wald, Kenneth D. and Alison Calhoun-Brown (2003; 7th ed. 2014) Religion and Politics in the United States. Lanham MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Waldron, Jeremy (2002) God, Locke, and Equality: Christian Foundations in Locke’s Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weithman, Paul J. (ed.) (1997) Religion and Contemporary Liberalism. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Wilson, Kathleen (1995) The Sense of the People: Politics, Culture and Imperialism in England, 1715-1785. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wilson, John F. and Donald L. Drakeman (2003) Church and State in American History: Key Documents, Decisions, and Commentary from the Past Three Centuries. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.