Michael Rectenwald Mid-Nineteenth-CenturySecularism as Modern Secularity 1Introduction In the early1850s, anew philosophical, social, and political movement evolved from the Freethought tradition of Thomas Paine, Richard Carlile, Robert Owen, and the radical periodicalpress.The movement was called “Secularism.”¹ Its founderwas George Jacob Holyoake (1817–1906) (Grugel1976, 2– 3).² Holyoake was aformer apprentice whitesmith turned Owenitesocial missionary, “moral force” Chartist,and radical editor and publisher.Given his earlyexposure to Owenism and Chartism,³ Holyoake had become aFreethinker.With his involve- ment in Freethought publishing, he became amoral convert to atheism.Howev- er,his experiences with virulent proponents of atheism or infidelity and the hos- tile reactions to them on the part of the state, church, and press induced him to develop in 1851–1852 the new creed and movement he called Secularism. In retrospect,Holyoake claimed thatthe words “Secular,”“Secularist,” and “Secularism” wereused for the first time in his periodical TheReasoner (founded in 1846), from 1851 through 1852, “as ageneral test of principles of conduct apart from spiritual considerations,” to describe “anew wayofthinking,” and to de- fine “amovement” based on that thinking, respectively(Holyoake 1896a, The foundationaltexts of Secularisminclude Holyoake (1854) and Holyoake(1870). In addition to Grugel’sbiography, for biographical sketchesofHolyoake,see Royle (1974,esp. at 3–6, 72– 74,and 312); and McCabe (1908). Chartism was aworking-class movement that emergedin1836and was most active between 1838 and 1848. The aim of the Chartists was to gainpolitical rights and influence for the working classes.Chartism gotits name from the formal petition, or People’sCharter, that listed the six main aims of the movement.These were:1)avote for all men over twenty-one, 2) the secret bal- lot,3)noproperty qualification to become an MP,4)payment for MPs, 5) electoral districts of equal size, 6) annual elections for Parliament. The movement presented three petitions to Parliament – in 1839,1842and 1848 – but each of these was rejected. The last great Chartist petition was collected in 1848 and represented, it was claimed, six million signatories. The Chartists planned to deliverthe petition to Parliament, after apeaceful mass meetingonKennington Common in London. The government sent 8,000 soldiers,but only20,000 Chartists turned up on acoldrainyday.The demonstration was deemed afailure, and the rejection of this final petition marked the end of Chartism. Manyex- cellent works on Chartism have been published, includingChase (2007) and Royle (1996). OpenAccess. ©2017 Michael Rectenwald, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the CreativeCommons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110458657-004 Brought to you by | Sacred Heart University Authenticated Download Date | 1/11/18 4:04 PM 32 Michael Rectenwald 45 – 49). In using these new derivatives, he redefined in positive terms what had been an epithet for the meaner concerns of worldlylife or the designation of a lesser state of religiosity within the western Christian imaginary.His bold claims for the original mobilizationofthe terms are corroborated by the Oxford English Dictionary.Never before Holyoake’smobilization had “secular” been used as an adjectivetodescribeaset of principles or “secularism” as anoun to positively delineate principles of moralityand epistemology,orasamovement to carry them forth. Like Thomas H. Huxley’slater agnosticism, Holyoake’sSecularism deemed that whatever could not be “tested by the experience of this life” should simply be of no concern to the science practitioner,progressive thinker,moralist,orpol- itician. The “Secularist” was one who restricted efforts to “thatprovinceof human duty which belongstothis life” (Reasoner 1852, 12: 34). But,asinHux- ley’sagnosticism, atheism was not aprerequisitefor Secularism. Secularism rep- resented “unknowingness without denial” (Holyoake 1896a, 36–37). Holyoake did warn against the affirmation of deity and afuture life, giventhat reliance on them might “betray us from the use of this world” to the detriment of “prog- ress” and amelioration, but belief in the supernatural wasregarded as amatter of speculationoropinion to which one was entitled, unless such beliefs preclud- ed positive knowledge or action. It is important to distinguish Holyoake’sbrand of Secularism from that of his eventual rival for the leadership of the Secularist movement,Charles Bradlaugh. UnlikeBradlaugh, for Holyoake the goal of Freethought under Secularism was no longer first and foremost the elimination of religious ideologyfrom the public sphere. While Bradlaughmaintained that the primary task of Secularism was to destroy theism – otherwise the latter would impedethe progress of the new secular order – Holyoake envisioned Secularism as superseding or superintend- ing both theism and atheism – from the standpoint of anew scientific, educative, and moral system. Holyoake insisted thatanew,secular moraland epistemolog- ical system could be constructed alongside, or above, the old religious one.⁴ Mid-century Secularism thus represents an important stageofnineteenth- century Freethought – an intervention between the earlier infidelity of Richard Carlile and “Bradlaugh’srather crude anti-clericism and loveofBible-bashing” (Lightman1989,287– 88). While he inherited much from the earlier infidelity of Carlile and Owen, Holyoake offered an epistemology and moralityindepend- ent of Christianity,yet supposedlynolongeratwar with it.Bytheterm “secular,” Colin Campbell(1971,54) referred to these twoapproaches as the “substitutionist” (Holyoake) and “eliminationist” (Bradlaugh) camps. Brought to you by | Sacred Heart University Authenticated Download Date | 1/11/18 4:04 PM Mid-Nineteenth-CenturySecularism as Modern Secularity 33 Holyoake did not mean the mere absence or negation of religion or belief, but rather asubstantivecategory in its own right.Holyoake imagined and fostered the co-existence of secular and religious elements subsisting underacommon umbrella. In this essay, Iexamine the development of Secularism as amovement and creed, but also connect it to modernnotions of the secular and secularity. Ibegin by brieflysketching Holyoake’speriodicaland pamphleteeringcareer in the 1840s, distinguishingitfrom that of another prominent freethinker, Charles Southwell, and showinghow Holyoake eventuallydevelopedSecularism as a moral program – to escape the stigma of infidelity,but more importantlyto moveFreethought toward apositive declaration of principles as opposed to the mere negation of theism. Itreat Holyoake’sSecularism in terms of classcon- ciliation between artisan-basedFreethinkers and middle-class skeptics,literary radicals, and liberal theists. Icontinue by outlining the principles of Secularism as sketched by Holyoake in several formats and across four decades,which also amountstoabrief wordhistory of the associatedterm. Ithen distinguish Holy- oake’sbranch of Secularism from that led by Bradlaugh, especiallyonthe ques- tions of atheismand sexual policy.Iconclude with further remarks regarding the significanceofmid-centurySecularism as ahistoric moment inaugurating mod- ern secularity. 2FromInfidelity to MoralPhilosophy Aseriesoffreethought periodicals from whenceSecularism emergedbegan as working-class productions aimed at working-class readers and others with inter- ests in the condition of the workingclasses. By the early1850s, the policies of Secularism changed that exclusive basis. In 1841, the formerOweniteSocial Mis- sionary,Charles Southwell – with Maltus Questell Ryall, “an accomplished icon- oclast,fiery,original, and, what rarelyaccompanies thosequalities, gentleman- ly,” and William Chilton, aradical publisher and “absoluteatheist”–founded in Bristol, England, aperiodicalthat its editors claimed was “the onlyexclusively ATHEISTICALprint that has appearedinany ageorcountry,” entitled TheOracle of Reason, or PhilosophyVindicated (Oracle 1842, 1: ii).⁵ Charles Southwell might,with important exceptions, be thought of as the Ludwig Feuerbach of British infidelity in the early1840s, at least as Karl Marx Holyoake(1892,Vol. 1, 142) described Chilton as “acogent,solid writer,ready for anyrisk, and the onlyabsoluteatheist Ihaveeverknown.” Brought to you by | Sacred Heart University Authenticated Download Date | 1/11/18 4:04 PM 34 Michael Rectenwald and Friedrich Engels characterized the latter in TheGerman Ideology (1845).⁶ In this work, contemporaneous with the founding of TheReasoner (founded in 1846), Marx and Engels argued thatthe Young Hegelian Feuerbach was merely substitutingone kind of consciousness for another, “to produce acorrect con- sciousnessabout an existing fact; whereas for the real communist it is aquestion of overthrowingthe existing state of things” (Marxand Engels 1988, 65). Marx and Engels wrote: The Young Hegelians consider conceptions,thoughts, ideas,infact all the products of con- sciousness, to which they attributeanindependent existence, as the real chains of men […] it is evident that the YoungHegelians have to fight onlyagainst these illusions of con- sciousness. Since, according to their fantasy,the relationships of men, all their doings, their chains and their limitationsare products of their consciousness,the YoungHegelians logicallyput to men the moral postulateofexchangingtheir present consciousness for human, critical or egoistic consciousness,and thus of removing