Skip to main content

Re-examining an Ethics of Citizenship in Postsecular Societies

  • Chapter
Book cover Transformations of Religion and the Public Sphere

Part of the book series: Palgrave Politics of Identity and Citizenship Series ((CAL))

  • 458 Accesses

Abstract

Jürgen Habermas is, without any doubt, one of the most influential, albeit not undisputed, authors in the debate about ‘postsecularity’, ‘post-secularism’, ‘the postsecular’, ‘postsecular societies’, and so forth. Unlike many other authors who use these concepts to describe and explain the continuing presence of religion in contemporary ‘modern’ societies (see Beckford, 2012), the core of Habermas’s notion of the postsecular society is normative. It includes an ethics of citizenship that aims at making it possible that all citizens can participate as equals in democratic procedures, including public political debate about matters of common interest, and hence in co-determining the development of their society. This contribution critically examines Habermas’s proposal of an ethics of citizenship in postsecular societies in view of the question whether it is able to adequately deal with problems that arise in public controversies about particular verbal and non-verbal acts of expression, namely acts which are understood by their authors as contributions to public debate, which are experienced by numerous believers as denigration of their religion, and as offence to their religious sensibilities. Controversies about such acts offer especially interesting possibilities for an investigation of normative dimensions of the notion of the postsecular and post-secular societies, respectively.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 19.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 29.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Baumgartner, C. (2013). ‘Secular Critique of Protests against Religiously Offensive Acts. A Threat Against Democracy?’ In G. Buijs, T. Sunier, and P. Versteeg (eds) Risky Liaisons? Democracy and Religion: Reflections and Case Studies, 112–127. Amsterdam: VU University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckford, J.A. (2012). ‘Public Religions and the Postsecular: Critical Reflections.’ Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 51(1), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boe, C. and Hervik, P. (2008). ‘Integration through Insult?’ In E. Eide, R. Kunelius and A. Phillips (eds) Transnational Media Events. The Mohammed Cartoons and the Imagined Clash of Civilizations, 213–234. Gothenburg, Sweden: Nordicom.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brink, B.van den (2007). ‘Imagining Civic Relations in the Moment of their Breakdown: A Crisis of Civic Integrity in the Netherlands.’ In A.S. Laden and D. Owen (eds) Multiculturalism and Political Theory, 350–373. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conferentia Episcopalis Scandiae (2006). ‘The Nordic Bishops’ Conference Deplores the Publication of Cartoon Drawings of the Prophet Mohammed.’ 2 February. Retrieved from http://www.katolsk.no/nyheter/2006/02/02–0003.gif.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillon, M. (2012). ‘Jürgen Habermas and the Postsecular Appropriation of Religion: A Sociological Critique.’ In P.S. Gorski, D.K. Kim, J. Torpey, and J. VanAntwerpen (eds) The Postsecular in Question. Religion in Contemporary Society, 249–278. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (2004). ‘Religious Tolerance — The Pacemaker for Cultural Rights.’ Philosophy 79(1), 5–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (2006). ‘Religion in the Public Sphere.’ European Journal of Philosophy 14(1), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (2008). ‘Notes on Postsecular Society.’ New Perspectives Quarterly 25(4), 17–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsi Ali, A. (2006). ‘The Right to Offend.’ Speech delivered in Berlin, 9 February 2006. NRC Handelsblad, 10 February 2006. Retrieved from http://www.nrc.nl/opinie/article1654061.ece/The_Right_to_Offend.

  • Huntington, S. (1996). The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klausen, J. (2009). The Cartoons That Shook the World. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levey, G.B. and Modood, T. (2009). ‘Liberal Democracy, Multicultural Citizenship and the Danish Cartoon Affair.’ In G.B. Levey and T. Modood (eds) Secularism, Religion and Multicultural Citizenship, 216–242. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahmood, S. (2009). ‘Religious Reason and Secular Affect: An Incommensurable Divide?’ In T. Asad, W. Brown, J. Butler, and S. Mahmood (eds) Is Critique Secular? Blasphemy, Injury, and Free Speech, 64–100. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • March, A. (2012). ‘Speech and the Sacred: Does the Defense of Free Speech Rest on a Mistake about Religion?’ Political Theory 40(3), 319–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGowan, M.K. (2009). ‘On Silencing and Sexual Refusal.’ The Journal of Political Philosophy 17(4), 487–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naef, S. (2007). Bilder und Bilderverbot im Islam. Vom Koran bis zum Karikaturenstreit. München: Verlag C.H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, P. (2008). Public Deliberation and Public Culture. The Writings of Bernhard Peters1993–2005. Edited by H. Wessler. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, F. (2006). ‘Why I Published Those Cartoons.’ Washington Post. 19 February. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021702499.html.

  • Rostboll, C.F. (2009). ‘Autonomy, Respect and Arrogance in the Danish Cartoon Controversy.’ Political Theory 37(5), 623–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scanlon, T. (2003). The Difficulty of Tolerance. Essays in Political Philosophy. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Department of Public Information, Secretary General SG/2105. (2006). ‘Joint UN, European Union, Islamic Conference Statement Shares “Anguish” of Muslim World at Muhammad Caricatures, but Condemns Violent Response.’ Retrieved from http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sg2105. doc.htm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wessler, H. and Wingert, L. (2008). ‘Study of the Public Sphere. Bernhard Peters’ Interest and Contribution.’ In B. Peters (author) and H. Wessler (ed.) Public Deliberation and Public Culture. The Writings of Bernhard Peters1993–2005, 1–13. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Copyright information

© 2014 Christoph Baumgartner

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Baumgartner, C. (2014). Re-examining an Ethics of Citizenship in Postsecular Societies. In: Braidotti, R., Blaagaard, B., de Graauw, T., Midden, E. (eds) Transformations of Religion and the Public Sphere. Palgrave Politics of Identity and Citizenship Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137401144_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics