A Critical Examination of the Underlying Sociological Theory of Secularization in the West in the Work of Charles Taylor
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA A Critical Examination of the Underlying Sociological Theory of Secularization in the West In the Work of Charles Taylor A DISSERTATION Submitted to the Faculty of the School of Theology and Religious Studies Of The Catholic University of America For the Degree Doctor of Philosophy © Copyright All Rights Reserved By German F. McKenzie Washington, D.C. 2015 A Critical Examination of the Underlying Sociological Theory of Secularization in the West In the Work of Charles Taylor German F. McKenzie, Ph.D. Director. William E. Dinges, Ph.D. Scholarly debate on secularization in the West has been largely developed in sociological terms. Two extreme positions in the conversations are those I label as “orthodox” and “counter- orthodox”, with several authors taking middle stances. “Orthodox” theorists affirm that modernity necessarily erodes religion, whereas “counter-orthodox” ones —also known as Rational Choice Theorists (RCT)— see secularization as a self-limiting process within modernity. As the debate between these views has somewhat stalled, other perspectives have caught the interest of researchers. An important contribution among them is that made by Canadian thinker Charles Taylor in his book A Secular Age (2007). This dissertation analyses the sociological basis of Charles Taylor’s account of secularization in order to elucidate what new insights he brings to the debate on the issue. It relies on textual analysis of all the pertinent works by Taylor, as well as his classical and contemporary sociological influences. As a sociological framework, it relies on the scholarship of British sociologist Margaret Archer, particularly on her views about the relationship between social and cultural structures and human agency, as well as about social change. My claim is that it is possible to uncover a consistent “Taylorean sociology” in his work. This particular sociological approach finds its roots in Taylor’s philosophical anthropology, his critique of mainstream social science, his position on the problem of human agency in sociology, and his affirmation of the inextricable linkage between the social and cultural realms. In this light, secularization in the West is better understood as the change of religion due to social movement dynamics which relocates the place of religion in society and in individual experience. This change has entailed the decline of some religious forms and the appearance of new ones, a process which is not linear but more of a zigzag-shape. In spite of some shortcomings, Taylorean sociology’s account of religious change is consistent with an important body of empirical data. It supersedes important theoretical and methodological problems within “orthodox” and RCT-inspired explanations. In regard to the former, this is not surprising since such views have been marginalized by the most part of scholars today. However, in regard to the latter, criticisms advanced by Taylorean sociology are more interesting because of RCT’s prevalence, particularly in North America’s scholarship. Among the most important of them, is the inadequacy of considering structures as closed systems —something crucial for RCT, the diminished role given to cultural structures as compared to that of social structures in religious change, and the inadequacy of RCT’s view of religious choice as one between options that appear before the human agent all at the same time and in a clear fashion. Among the new paths opened by Taylorean sociology for the study of secularization, the more important are its integration of human agency and structure, and its focus on our contemporary conditions of belief, particularly its view of the “immanent frame” as our given cultural context in the West, the notion of a continuum that goes between exclusive humanism and transformative religion, two extreme positions which fragilize each other and between which a myriad of unstable intermediate positions that are taken by many Westerners. This dissertation by German F. McKenzie fulfills the dissertation requirement for the doctoral degree in Philosophy approved by William E. Dinges, Ph.D. as Director, and by William A. Barbieri, Ph.D. and Enrique Pumar, Ph.D. as Readers. ________________________________ William E. Dinges, Ph.D, Director ________________________________ William A. Barbieri, Ph.D, Reader ________________________________ Enrique Pumar, Ph.D., Reader ii To Giuliana, My Beloved Wife To Hugo and María Cecilia, My Parents To Luis Fernando, Who Introduced Me To Intellectual Life iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................................................ vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................................ viii INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 1 PART I: META-NARRATIVE ...................................................................................................................... 5 Chapter 1: The Contemporary Landscape of Theories of Secularization ................................................. 6 1.1. Secularization in Classical Sociology ................................................................................................... 6 1.2.The Contemporary Debate on Secularization .................................................................................. 17 A. The Orthodox Paradigm: “Modernization Entails Religious Decline” .................................. 19 B. The Counter-Orthodox Paradigm: “Modernization Entails Religious Vitality; ................... 27 Secularization is a Self-Limiting Process in such a Context” C. Revisionist Approaches: “Modernity is About Religious Change, ......................................... 30 Not Necessarily Decline nor Revitalization” 1.3. Balance of the Debate and Important Related Issues .................................................................... 39 1.4. Where Are We Now and the Taylorean Position ........................................................................... 44 Chapter 2: Charles Taylor’s Account of Secularization (I) ........................................................................ 47 2.1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 47 2.2. Defining the Problem ......................................................................................................................... 48 2.3. (Re)Describing the Secularization Process in the West ................................................................. 55 2.4. How Did Secularization Happen? .................................................................................................... 57 2.5. North Atlantic Secularization ............................................................................................................ 59 A. Ancien Régime ................................................................................................................................ 60 B. Age of Mobilization ........................................................................................................................ 66 C. Age of Authenticity ........................................................................................................................ 71 D. The American (or European?) Exception .................................................................................. 77 Chapter 3: Charles Taylor’s Account of Secularization (II) ....................................................................... 81 3.1. The Way to Exclusive Humanism .................................................................................................... 81 A. A History of Reform ...................................................................................................................... 82 B. Providential Deism, Impersonal Order and Exclusive Humanism ......................................... 86 3.2. Our Contemporary Conditions of Belief ......................................................................................... 88 A. Living in an Immanent Frame ...................................................................................................... 88 B. Close World Structures .................................................................................................................. 90 C. Living Cross-Pressured .................................................................................................................. 93 D. Mutual Fragilization of the Poles ................................................................................................. 95 3.3. Looking into the Future ..................................................................................................................... 97 iv PART II: SOURCES ..................................................................................................................................... 104 Chapter 4: Philosophical and Classic Sociological Sources ..................................................................... 105 4.1. “Philosophical Anthropology” and the Hermeneutical View of the Sciences of Man ........... 105 A. Humans as “Self-Interpreting” Beings ...................................................................................... 107 B. Ethically-Bounded