Reconceiving Religion in the Postsecular Public Sphere
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
B CT Berlin Journal of Critical Theory Volume 4, Number 2 (July, 2020) Special Issue: Reconceiving Religion in the Postsecular Public Sphere Introduction: Challenges of a Postsecular Public Sphere Hans-Herbert Kögler Religion in the Public Sphere Habermas, His Critics, and Hegelian Challenges Andrew Buchwalter The Prospects of Postsecular Religion: A Sociological Perspective Rick Phillips Religion in – and as – the Public Sphere: A West Africa-Based Critique of Critical Theory of Democracy Joseph Hellweg Tradition, Transcendence, and the Public Sphere: A Hermeneutic Critique of Religion Hans-Herbert Kögler www.bjct.de enomoi Editors Amirhosein Khandizaji Wolfgang Sohst Editorial Board C. Fred Alford, University of David Held, Durham University Maryland. (former member). Amy Allen, Pennsylvania State Christopher Horrocks, Kingston University. University London. Andrew Arato, The New School. David B. Ingram, Loyola University Jay Bernstein, The New School. Chicago. David Berry, University of Sussex. Martin Jay, University of California, Roland Boer, University of Newcastle. Berkeley. Geoff Boucher, Deakin University. Hans-Herbert Kögler, University of Andrew Bowie, Royal Holloway North Florida. University of London. Claudia Leeb, Washington State Stephen Eric Bronner, Rutgers University. University. Stephan Moebius, University of Graz. Hauke Brunkhorst, University of Jeffrey T. Nealon, Penn State Flensburg. University. Ian Buchanan, University of William Outhwaite, Newcastle Wollongong. University. Craig Calhoun, Berggruen Institute. Stefano Petrucciani, Sapienza Mary Caputi, California State University of Rome. University. Max Paddison, Durham University. James J. Chriss, Cleveland State Davide Ruggieri, University of University Bologna Deborah Cook, University of Darrow Schecter, University of Windsor. Sussex. Heiko Feldner, Cardiff University. William Scheuerman, Indiana Dino Franco Felluga, Purdue University Bloomington. University. Simon Susen, City, University of Alessandro Ferrara, University of London. Rome Tor Vergata. Fabio Vighi, Cardiff University. Gary Genosko, University of Ontario. Thomas Wheatland, Assumption Stefano Giacchetti, Loyola University College. Chicago. Richard Wolin, City University of Graeme Gilloch, Lancaster University. New York. 3 Contents Special Issue: Reconceiving Religion in the Postsecular Public Sphere Introduction: Challenges of a Postsecular Public Sphere 5 Hans-Herbert Kögler Religion in the Public Sphere Habermas, His Critics, and Hegelian Challenges 17 Andrew Buchwalter The Prospects of Postsecular Religion: A Sociological Perspective 55 Rick Phillips Religion in – and as – the Public Sphere: A West Africa-Based Critique of Critical Theory of Democracy 81 Joseph Hellweg Tradition, Transcendence, and the Public Sphere: A Hermeneutic Critique of Religion 107 Hans-Herbert Kögler ISSN: 2567-4048 (print) / 2567-4056 (online) xenomoi Verlag, Heinersdorfer Str. 16, D-12209 Berlin Phone: ~49(30)755 11 712, Email: [email protected] 4 Berlin Journal of Critical Theory | Vol. 4, No. 2 (July, 2020) 5 Introduction: Challenges of a Postsecular Public Sphere Hans-Herbert Kögler he essays collected in this special issue are all, despite their differ- Tences in outlook and method, driven by a shared conviction: that philosophical and social-scientific reflections are able to point towards a reconciliation of religious thought and experience with the complex normative and cognitive demands of a democratic public sphere. The di- verse approaches all culminate in a reassessment, a reconceptualization of religion in ways that make it compatible, even productive and perhaps indispensable for a secular, or now perhaps postsecular, public sphere. This provocative claim is borne out through careful reconstructions of the current discourse and status concerning religion in contemporary so- cieties, backed by innovative claims and proposals as to how religious claims and convictions can be reconciled with a pluralistic and egalitari- an public sphere characteristic of contemporary democracy. The idea of democracy presupposed here is deliberate or discursive democracy, according to which the citizens determine their own fate via public deliberation and subsequent decision-making via voting.1 This Rousseauian idea of a deliberative republic assumes that all citizens have equal rights to participate in and be represented by their collective will. The collective will is conceived as the outcome of egalitarian processes that assure that ‘the people’ will have articulated their own will, i.e. that the political process is one of self-determination. The normative bond that accrues through this process is determined by the mutual recognition of citizens that engage each other as free and equal. In a proceduralist read- ing of this collective will, its content is (ideally) determined via a process 1 For a representative overview, see James Bohman/ William Rehg (eds.), De- liberative Democracy (Cambridge, MIT Press, 2005). 6 Berlin Journal of Critical Theory | Vol. 4, No. 2 (July, 2020) of will-formation and decision-making in a public sphere (Habermas)2 determined by a commitment to public reason (Rawls).3 For the longest time, this conception of deliberative democracy has been identified with a secular self-understanding of its grounds--meaning, roughly, that reli- gious foundations (as in political theology), religious language (as open- ly endorsed in public dialogue), and religious justifications for norms and values (as in confessional traditions) are to be excluded from the public realm. Yet—and this is what we today may perceive as the multiple sourc- es of our contemporary challenge—the confidence in such an unmiti- gated ‘laicist’ secularism is fading. One reason is that the accompanied assumption of an ongoing secularization of society has not been borne out: religions persist.4 This perception is, second, enforced by the turn to globalization in social and political theory which brought less secu- larized societies and the global force of continued religious practices to the fore.5 Third, social and political theorists increasingly reject the ‘pri- vatist’ conception of religion by highlighting the essential ‘public’ role of religion in social and political struggles, and public life generally, thus reckoning with religion as a powerful force in allegedly ‘secular’ consti- tutional regimes.6 Fourth, religiously inclined theorists (of quite different stripes) aim to enhance the public influence of religious views in order to 2 Jürgen Habermas, “Popular Sovereignty as Procedure (1988),” in Jürgen Habermas, Between Facts and Norms, (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1996), 463-490. 3 John Rawls, Political Liberalism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), esp. 247 f. 4 Jose Casanova, Public Religions in the Modern World (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994). 5 Richard Madsen, “What is Religion? Categorical Reconfigurations in a Glob- al Horizon,” in Philip S. Gorski et al (eds.), The Post-Secular in Question. Re- ligion in Contemporary Society (New York: New York University Press, 2012), 23-42. 6 Judith Butler/Jürgen Habermas-Charles Taylor/Cornel West, The Power of Re- ligion in the Public Sphere, Eduardo Mendieta/Jonathan VanAntwerpen (eds.), New York: Columbia University Press, 2011); Gianni Vattimo and Richard Rorty, The Future of Religion, ed. Santiago Zabala, (New York: Columbia Uni- versity Press, 2007); see also the early suggestions in Rawls (1993). Introduction: Challenges of a Postsecular Public Sphere 7 reinvigorate, via their spiritual or religious sources, the opportunities for meaningful rich existences; in this vein, thinkers like Charles Taylor and Maeve Cooke, for instance, aim to reestablish religious worldviews as valid and important public voices or social options, and to dismantle rig- id and exclusionary atheistic conceptions of ‘secularism.’7 And fifth, there is a view like Jürgen Habermas’, who figures prominently in these de- bates8 as well as in our volume. Habermas acknowledges many factors of the previous views; and while maintaining an unabashed commitment to the non-religious and ‘post-conventional’ normative foundations of democratic politics, he is specifically invested in retaining religion as a unique form of potential ethical and moral insight, as a mode of ‘objec- tive spirit’ harboring ‘semantic potentials’ still awaiting secular transla- tion.9 Religious practices, traditions, and public articulations thus need to be recognized, integrated, and dialogically engaged. Now the challenge of reconciling religion and democracy—or of the role and function of religious thought and practice within a public sphere defined by an unmitigated commitment to an egalitarian, pluralistic, and inclusive deliberation—has in large part to do with the (perceived) nature and scope of religious convictions and practices. Whereas public delibera- tion is self-sustained via the constructive creation of rationally justified and accepted norms and values, religious discourse seems bound by “the dogmatic authority of an inviolable core of infallible revealed truths.”10 7 Charles Taylor, A Secular Age, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007); Maeve Cooke, “Violating Neutrality? Religious Validity Claims and Democratic Legitimacy,” in Greg Calhoun et al (eds.), Habermas and Religion (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2013), 249-274. 8 See Graig Calhoun/Eduardo Mendietta/Jonathan VanAntwerpen (eds.), Habermas and Religion (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2013). 9 Jürgen Habermas, “Religion in the Public Sphere: