The Circulation of Secularism

Article

Abstract

Inquiring into the causes behind the spread of secularism in the modern world, this paper proposes that the concept has proliferated owing to its peculiar property as culture: It is simultaneously a piece of culture and also a reflection upon culture. In its latter capacity, it imagines a world in which alternative religious belief systems divide people. It spreads as a piece of culture because it enables sharing and, hence, community, across the cultural boundaries erected by religious belief. For this reason, some governments have embraced the concept and incorporated it into official state discourse. Other governments, in turn, have copied the language of secularism not for its intended meaning but for pragmatic purposes—namely, to proclaim a position within the community of modern nations. State discourse, however, irrespective of the reasons for which it was adopted, affects how ordinary people reason about religion. Reasoning from the possibility of alternative religions opens a space for unbelief. Through an analysis of constitutional language, census data, and interviews, the paper concludes that secularism has more to do with the circulation of discourse and the reasons behind it, than with an immanent versus transcendent solution to the puzzle of existence—the transcendent solution being the foundation for the circulation of religious belief itself.

Keywords

Religion Secularism Discourse Metaculture 

References

  1. Beth, L. P. (1958). The American theory of church and state. Gainesville: University of Florida Press.Google Scholar
  2. Brown, N. J. (2002). Constitutions in a nonconstitutional world: Arab basic laws and the prospects for accountable government. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  3. Holyoake, G. J. (1854). Secularism the affirmative philosophy of the people. London: Holyoake & Co. 16 pp.Google Scholar
  4. Jefferson, T. (1802). “Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists, January 1, 1802.” Library of Congress website. http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html. Consulted on 11/11/07.
  5. Kazmina, O., & Filippova, O. (2005). Re-imagination of religion in post-Soviet society: challenges and responses (Russian and Ukrainian Case Studies). Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 74(3), 1049–1076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Krindatch, A. D. (2006). Religion, public life and the state in Putin’s Russia. Religion in Eastern Europe, XXVII(2), 28–67.Google Scholar
  7. Loewenstein, K. (1957). Political power and the governmental process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  8. Merridale, C. (1996). The 1937 census and the limits of Stalinist rule. The Historical Journal, 39(No. 1), 225–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Penn, W. (1670). The great case of liberty of conscience one more briefly debated and defended, by the authority of reason, scripture, and antiquity. London. Durable URL: http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?ctx_ver=Z39.88–2003&res_id=xri:eebo&rft_id=xri:eebo:image:98352:2.
  10. Spiro, H. J. (1959). Government by constitution: the political systems of democracy. New York: Random.Google Scholar
  11. Taylor, C. (2007). A secular age. Cambridge, MA: Belknap of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Urban, G. (1989). The ‘I’ of discourse in Shokleng. In B. Lee, & G. Urban (Eds.), Semiotics, self, and society (pp. 27–51). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  13. US Department of State (2007). “2007 Report on Religious Freedom” http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2007/.
  14. von Laue, T. (1961). Imperial Russia at the turn of the century: the cultural slope and the revolution from without. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 3(No. 4), 353–367.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of AnthropologyUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations