Religion, Secularisation and Politics: a Postmodern Conspectus
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
ThirdWorld Quarterly, Vol 18, No 4, pp 709± 728, 1997 Religion,secularisation and politics: a postmodernconspectus JEFF HAYNES Someassert thatwe are witnessinga globalresurgence of religion of great politicalsigni® cance. 1 Otherscontend, however, that secularisation is generally continuing,except under certain limited circumstances and conditions. 2 The continuingdebate about the political importance of religion suggests that there is alackof clarity concerning just how religiousvalues, norms and beliefs stimulateand affect sociopolitical developments and vice versa. Thispaper aims tobe acontributionto thedebate. Its mainarguments are that: (a) thepostmodern condition stimulates a turningto religion under certain circumstances; (b)secularisation continues in much of theindustrialised West but not in many partsof the Third World; (c) inthe Third World, secular political ideologiesÐ such as socialismand liberaldemocracyÐ are notnecessarily regarded as themost useful for the pursuanceof group goals; instead, religion, perhaps allied with nationalism, ethnicityor communalism, often functions as amobilisingoppositional ideology. Thepaper is infourparts. The ® rst assesses interactionsof religionand politics; inthe second, I examinethe claim that the current era isoneof globalreligious resurgence.The third focuses onpostmodernism, arguing that it is acondition conduciveto thegrowth of popularreligion. The fourth part describes two types ofpopular religion used as oppositionalideologies: fundamentalist and `cul- tural’. Religion andpolitics Beliefis atthe core of religion. Bellah noted more than 30 years agothat it is extremelydif® cult to come up witha `briefhandy de® nition of religion’; nothing has changedsince then to makethe task any easier. He de®nes religionas `aset ofsymbolic forms andacts whichrelate man [sic] tothe ultimate conditions of hisexistence’ 3 Iuse theterm in this paper in two distinct, yet related, ways. First,in a materialsense itrefers toreligious establishments (ie institutions and of®cials), as wellas tosocial groups and movements whose raisonsd’ eÃtre are religiousconcerns. Examples include the conservative Roman Catholic organis- Jeff Haynes is attheDepartment of Politics and Modern History, London Guildhall University, CalcuttaHouse, OldCastle Street, London E1 7NTUK . 0143-6597/97/040709-20$7.00 Ó 1997Third World Quarterly 709 JEFF HAYNES ation,Opus Dei, the reformist Islamic Salvation Front of Algeria ( FIS), and the Hindu-chauvinistBharatiya Janata Party of India. Second, in a spiritualsense, religionpertains to modelsof socialand individual behaviour that help believers toorganisetheir everyday lives. Religion is todowiththe idea of transcendence, ieitrelatesto supernatural realities; with sacredness, ieas asystem oflanguage andpractice that organises the world in terms ofwhatis deemedholy; and with ultimacy,ie it relates people to the ultimate conditions of existence. In sum, for purposesof socialanalysis, religion may be approached a) fromthe perspective ofa bodyof ideas and outlooks (ie as theologyand ethical code); b) as atype offormal organisation (eg the ecclesiastical Church); c) as asocialgroup (eg religiousmovements). Therbornargues that there are twobasic ways `in which religions can affect thisworld’ Ð bywhatthey say andby what they do. 4 Theformer is thedoctrine ortheology. The latter refers toreligion as asocialphenomenon working throughvariable modes of institutionalisatio n,including political parties and church±state relations, and functioning as amarkof identity. In other words, religiondoes not simply have meaning at the individual level. It is also,like politics,a matterof group solidarities and often of inter-group tension and con¯ict, focusing either on shared or disagreed images of the scared, or on culturaland class issues. Tocomplicatematters, `these ¼ in¯uences ¼ tendto operatedifferently and with different temporalities for the same theologically de®ned religion in different parts of the world’ . 5 Inaddition, `assessing the politicalimpact of religion depends greatly on what facet of religion is being consideredand which speci® c politicalarena is underinvestigation’ . 6 In sum, it is verydif® cult to isolate religion’ s in¯uence alone, because it will almost invariablybe part of a combinationof causal forms. Itis, however, possible to assess thepolitical importance of religion in the area ofchurch± state relations. Therborn argues that, `the more close the relationship[of the church 7]tothe state, the less resistanceto adaptation [to modernity]’. 8 Overtime, especially in the industrialised West, mainstream religiousorganisations generally develop an empathetic relation with political power,even when they oppose it. Mosttypologies of church± state relations underscore their mutual synergy. Over80 years ago,for example, Weber identi® ed three types of relations betweensecular and ecclesiastical power: hierocratic, where secular power is dominantbut cloaked in a religiouslegitimacy; theocratic, where ecclesiastical authorityis pre-eminentover secular power; and caesaro-papist, where secular powerholds sway over religion itself. 9 Recenttypologies take into account the growingseparation between church and state, a functionof Western-style modernisation,leading to increasing secularisation. Parsons, re¯ ecting the cre- ationof anti-religion states inthe USSR, Albania and elsewhere, notes that a churchmay have a symbioticrelationship with the state at one extreme or be totallyseparate from it at the other; 10 thelatter position is notin Weber’ s typology. Medhurstextends the range of types of state± church relationship from three tofour, proposing: `The Integrated ª Religio-PoliticalSystemº ( IRS)’ , `The ConfessionalPolity (or State)’ , `TheReligiously Neutral Polity (or State)’ , and 710 RELIGION, SECULARISATION AND POLITICS `TheAnti-Religious Polity (or State)’ . 11 The IRS,atypeof theocracy virtually extinct,with Saudi Arabia Medhurst’ s onlyextant example, pertains to pre- modernpolitical systems wherereligious and spiritual power converge in one ®gure.Historical examples include pre-1945 Japan and ancient Mesopotamia. The IRS israre becauseone of themost consistent effects ofmodernisationis to separatereligious and secular power. With the demise of the Marxist states of EasternEurope, the `Anti-Religious Polity’ , wherereligion is `throttled’, isalso veryuncommon. Theremaining two categories of church± state relationship highlighted by Medhurstare, in contrast, frequently encountered. The `Confessional Polity’ emerges whenthe `traditional ª religio-politicalsystemº begins to crumble and givesway to a newsituation of religious or ideological pluralism’ . 12 In other words,this is asituationcharacterised by a (moreor less) formalseparation of stateand (dominant) religion, although in practice close links between the two endure.Examples include Ireland, Colombia and post-revolutionar yIran.The `ReligiouslyNeutral Polity’ , onthe other hand, includes constitutionally secular states likeIndia, the USA and the Netherlands. No religion is givenof® cial predominance. Re¯ecting the demise of the Eastern European communist bloc, Mitra offers fourdifferent categories of church± state relations: a) hegemonic,where one religiondominates, but other religions are tolerated,as inBritain,corresponding closelyto Medhurst’s `ConfessionalPolity’ ; b)theocratic:eg Iran, IsraelÐ unlike Medhurst’ s IRS category,state power is dependentupon a closerelationship with thedominant religion; c) secular: egFrance, the former USSR, USA, corre- spondingto Medhurst’ s `ReligiouslyNeutral Polity’ ; andd) neutral: eg India, wheregovernment is even-handedin its approach to all religions, including the dominant.13 ForMitra, religion provides the moral basis ofthestate’ s authority,as wellas aninstitutional and metaphysical structure for social transactions. Yet religion is affectedby thedispositions of temporalpower and by changing social norms and attitudes,especially secularisation. In the context of church± state relations, accordingto Mitra, the `speci® c roleattributed to religion at a giventime and placedepends primarily upon the status of religion in the constitutional frame- workand the social meaning attached to it’ . 14 Theconstitutional position of religionis re¯ected in histypology. The social meaning, on theother hand, may alter,perhaps radically, as aresultof changing circumstances. Ithas traditionallybeen assumed thatthe connection between politics and religionis onlya problemamong nations which are notreligiously homoge- neous.Most political thinkers since Aristotle have taken it for granted that religioushomogeneity is aconditionof political stability within a polity.When, however,opposing beliefs about `ultimate values enter the political arena, they exacerbatestruggles by preventingcompromise’ . 15 Suchis clearin relationto the countryupon which Mitra focuses, India, where communal strife between Hindusand Muslims is common,and has beenfor decades. While the relation- shipbetween state and church within a countrymay well be of importance politically,the sociopolitical position of a religioncannot only be dependent on theconstitutional position. 711 JEFF HAYNES State Society Religion FIGURE 1 Thetriadic relationship of state, society and religion. Mitraviews the relationship between state, society and religion as triadic,as Figure1 shows.The role of religionin politicsin anationalsetting, he believes, is `in¯uenced by the speci® c kindof state and society relation that obtains in a