iGov workshop on Islam and Religious Norms in the Public Sphere
Return? It never left. Exploring the ‘sacred’ as a resource for bridging the gap between the religious and the secular
Matthew Francis
Kim Knott
Introduction
This paper draws on a critical discussion of the assumptions underlying both the secularization thesis as well as the contemporary discussion of religion in the public sphere. Building on our own research as well as a report we co-authored (as part of a wider team) for the UK government, we demonstrate both the need for a paradigmatic shift in understanding how religion and secularity relate to each other and highlight practical policy benefits of adopting such an approach.[1]
We start by critiquing the dominant theoretical paradigm for explaining religious/secular relations in modernity: the secularization thesis and assumed constructs of religion and secularity. We then move on to explain how the concept of the ‘sacred’ can be seen to signal deeply-held values on both sides of the religious/secular distinction. Moving on from this theoretical discussion, we provide a resource for determining the location of the sacred within religious/secular ideologies, through suggesting a matrix of markers than can be used to identify and capture data relating to these deeply-held values. We apply this matrix to some examples, to show how the presence of the sacred within contemporary debates can be mapped out. Recognizing the sacred as both secular and religious opens up constructive potential for serious democratic debate between differing ideological camps and we conclude by offering some examples of the value of this approach for policy makers and analysts.
Constructions of religion and secularity
The secularization thesis sets out that religion, since the enlightenment, has been of decreasing social significance. The withdrawal of religion from the public sphere has been understood to be a decline in the influence of religious values and institutions on society. Whether this decline is the result of the waning of religious belief,[2] or the retreat of beliefs from the public sphere to the private world of individuals[3] has been contested. However, despite varying positions on the continuing resilience of some form of religious belief the arguments are, more or less, framed in relation to the secularization thesis.
Whilst the thesis in its contemporary form has found a place in academic literature since the 1960s, its roots can be traced back through the founders of the sociological discipline - Comte,Durkheim and Weber all framed their discussions within a belief of the incompatibility of religious institutions within modernity - and further back still to the ideals of the enlightenment and its promotion of reason over superstition.
The assumed dominance of modern secular ideals over religious values, which has formed the basis of the academic conception of secularization,[4] has been adopted by popular European discourses in government and the media[5]and, to a lesser extent, within mainstream perceptions in the US.[6]These assumptions regarding the decline of religious belief and its significance have become so commonplace that the ‘return’ of the sacred in domestic and international arenas, from debates on the wearing of religious symbols in the UK,[7] to religious legitimations of terrorist actions,[8] has elicited widespread surprise – even within academia.[9]
However, despite the acceptance in popular assumptions of the secularization thesis, some academics have questioned the validity of the theory to account for the relationship between religion and society,[10] including those who previously championed it.[11] In our critique of it we are not primarily interested in its explanatory efficacy (though this is brought into question by our findings).Rather, we start by questioning the conceptualization of ‘religious’ and ‘secular’ which, in turn, subvert the assumption that the former has been subsumed by the latter.
In contemporary accounts of ‘religion’, especially within discussions of the secularization thesis, the concepts of ‘religion’ and ‘secular’ are assumed to be oppositionalepistemological categories separated by an impermeable boundary. Institutions, values, ideas, places and people are assumed to fall into either one or the other category – church and state; faith and reason; belief and science – and invariably,from the American constitution to the French educational system and the British National Health Service,this separation has led to the marginalization of religion in the public sphere. Likewise, when this boundary is threatened with transgression, it is seen as an imposition that should be forbidden, hence the opposition to an established church in America and to public displays of religiosity in the clothing of school pupils in France or nurses in the UK.
Within these debates lies an idea of what constitutes religious forms and their opposite, the secular. However, the idea of ‘religion’ as a reified concept can be seen to have its place within the development of European Christianity, for example in the distinction between religious and secular vocations,[12] and in the separation from ‘secular’ ideals in the burgeoning atheism of the European Enlightenment.[13] As such, the oppositional religious/secular binary can be seen to be a relatively recent, and clearly Western, construct. ‘Religion’ is commonly construed in emicterms (by people within Western cultures) as religious institutions, their traditions, beliefs and practices, and those who to a greater or lesser extent adhere to them, and ‘secular’ as all that falls outside this definition.[14]
However, the discursive division of these two categories suggests that they are interrelated, and as such we propose that they should be located as separate camps within a single epistemological field, as opposed to as an ‘either/or’ dichotomy.[15] Furthermore, we argue that the boundary separating them has rarely, in practice, been impermeable and is subject to struggles and movements between them. Tony Blair, for example, former British Prime Minister, rarely discussed religion despite the established status of the Anglican Church, and George Bush, although head of a government with strict separation from any particular religious institution, frequently invoked ‘God’ in matters of state.
This field can be portrayed dialectically, with a third, ‘post-secular’ position encompassing those who see the positive in both religious and secular positions, and who move beyond rigid conformity with one or the other or embrace both concepts strategically.[16] However, herewe will focus solely on dichotomous representations of the religious andsecular, and the placement of these positions within the field.
Figure 1 – The religious/secular field and its force relationships[17]
By drawing on the concept of the ‘sacred’, we aim to problematise the discursive distinction between these two camps,and thus to trouble the notion that we are seeing a return to the sacred in contemporary modernity. We will suggest that the ‘sacred’ never left modernity and that a proper exploration of it provides an explanation of its apparent ‘return’ and indeed a clearer understanding of the relationship between religious and secular thought. Before we discuss the concept of the ‘sacred’ in more depth, it is necessary to understand what values differentiate the various positions within the two broad camps of the religious and secularandwhat drives the various struggles that we witness between exponents in each camp, for example, holders of liberal-secularist positions, and religious fundamentalists. We will explore these issues using an example of the persistence of references to the ‘sacred’ in religious and secular discourse, one which also throws into sharp relief the discursive religious/secular struggles within British society.[18]
In 1988The Satanic Verseswas published,[19] quickly leading to protests in various countries, including the UK, on which we shall focus here.[20] The vehemence of the British Muslim community’s response is well-known. Many of them felt that their religious symbols had been desecrated, and this led to the book becoming a “litmus-test for distinguishing faith from rejection”[21] and so constituted a “boundary between Muslims … and non-Muslims (and thus religion and non-religion).”[22] However, it is also apparent that liberal-secularists who opposed the Muslim protests, also held deeply entrenched and non-negotiable positions. Rushdie, writing in a major British newspaper, noted that he cherished the art of the novel as much as Muslims did their brand of Islam.[23] Later, he utilized religious metaphors, in a public lecture entitled Is Nothing Sacred and an essay called In Good Faith. These metaphors were echoed in a pamphlet issued in support by the writer Fay Weldon, Sacred Cows, and also in statements by other liberal-secularists, not least in a joint statement published in the New Statesman on 3rd March 1989:[24]
We are embattled in the war between the cultural imperatives of Western liberalism, and the fundamentalist interpretations of Islam, both of which seem to claim an abstract and universal authority […] On the one hand there is the liberal opposition to book burning and banning based on the important belief in the freedom of expression and the right to publish and be damned […] On the other side, there exists what has been identified as a Muslim fundamentalist position.[25]
From these examples it is clear that the debate between the two opposing camps was played out in terms of a struggle, with each vying to assert the undeniable truth of their position and the uncompromising nature of that of their opponents. Interestingly, both invoked the language of the ‘sacred’ and of non-negotiable values. Thatsuch language and values were not confined to the religious camp supports our assertion that, irrespective of any decline in religious belief or belonging, the sacred had not disappeared.
Understanding the sacred
Figure 2 below utilizes the earlier diagram to illustrate the oppositional ideological positions articulated so forcefully during The Satanic Verses controversy. Strong Muslim positions were pitted against equally vociferous secularist ones in a discursive struggle fought out in the public media. With exponents on both sides of the argument drawing on the language of the ‘sacred’ to represent the importance and non-negotiability of their case, they repeatedly referred to the gulf or boundary between the two positions.
Such boundaries can lie dormant, invisible to outsiders, until they are threatened with transgression –as in this case when the deeply held but quietly expressed strength of feeling around the sanctity of the Prophet Muhammad was suddenly challenged and Muslims rose up in protest. Their response led liberal-secularists to come out in defense of Rushdie and his freedom as an author to express himself. In short, secularists realized the sanctity of their own position.
Figure 2 – The religious/secular field and The Satanic Verses controversy
The concept of the ‘sacred’, as utilized in this discussion, finds its genesis within a Durkheimian notion of “things set apart and forbidden”[26] although we have developed it in the context of recent spatial and cognitive approaches to the study of religion. In The Location of Religion Knott set out to develop a spatial methodology for locating religion within ‘secular’ contexts in which she modeled the inter-relational and dialectical nature of religious, secular and post-secular positions (see fig 1).[27] In an extended case study, whilst noting the capacity of exponents from these different camps to present themselves in opposition to others, she also found that the nature of their arguments and claims had much in common, particularly in so far as they drew on the language of the ‘sacred’ to stake their positions.
This observation is supported by the theoretical contributions offered by neo-Durkheimian anthropology, in particular the cognitive/cultural account of Veikko Anttonen. In his discussion of the ‘sacred’ as a category boundary,[28] Anttonen argues that the sacred is not confined to the religious context:
Sacrality is employed as a category-boundary to set things with non-negotiable value apart from things whose value is based on continuous transactions… People participate in sacred making activities and processes of signification according to paradigms given by the belief systems to which they are committed, whether they be religious, national or ideological.[29]
In acting as a category-boundary, the ‘sacred’ binds together those inside the boundary at the same time as separating them from those outside it. This understanding of the ‘sacred’, unlike the religious/secular distinction, is not a construct of modernity, and indeed “cuts across the modern religion-secular dichotomy”.[30] The following diagram reflects this: it shows that attributions of the ‘sacred’ appear everywhere in the field, in all camps – whether secular, religious or post-secular.
Figure 3: The religious/secular field and attributions of the “sacred”
The claim that one’s position is non-negotiable can be made by any exponent, according to the beliefs and values inherent in the worldview to which they subscribe. When such a position is strongly articulated – when a sacred boundary is transgressed – then differences are realized, dichotomous stances become apparent and battle-lines are drawn, as in the case of Muslim and secularist protagonists during The Satanic Verses controversy.
A resource for identifying ideological positions
Understanding where these non-negotiable boundaries lie is essential for policy-makers and analysts in order to understand the potential within society for conflict and thereby to avoid it. Therefore, we suggest a matrix of markers that can be used to assist in this process. Focusing on the public discourse of groups, these markers can be used to identify and capture data relating to key variables, such as the expression of ‘dichotomous world views’ or ‘external legitimating authorities’, that may signal conflict and even suggest capacity for violence. Utilization of this approach may assist in identifying and negotiating the sacred territory of various ideological positions, help in intervention and conflict mediation, and assist in policy formulation in areas such as public order, radicalization and community cohesion.
An initial matrix of markers was first suggested in the literature review produced by the team at Leeds for the British Home Office in response to the omission we identified in the literature relating to understanding the move to violence in the beliefs of religious groups.[31] In order to better explore this topic we suggested further research and some markers which could be used to facilitate this process. The matrix has been further developed by Francis in his exploration of the role of the sacred in the move to violence in religious and secular groups.[32]
The current list of markers has been developed iteratively through a number of case studies which have focused on violent religious (Aum Shinrikyo, al Qaeda) and secular groups (Red Army Faction) as well as a number of non-violent groups (Agonshu, Hizb ut-Tahrir in Uzbekistan and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee).[33] During each case-study, statements made by the groups – in the form of interviews, treatises, propaganda and so on, were coded into the markers. Where new areas for examination became apparent, new markers were developed to capture this information. Some of the markers captured significantly more information than others and we suggest that additional markers could be developedin light of future research topics.
The table below lists the matrix of markers ofparticular relevance to the subject of this paper. An explanation of the key markers follows before we go on to illustrate some of the data that these markers are designed to capture.
Name of marker / DefinitionAgainst Violence / Actual statement renouncing violence
Basic Injustice / A sense of some basic injustice, which is non-accidental (i.e., it expresses the core values, true nature of society and is irredeemable), and which reinforces the sense of opposition/dichotomy – ‘clash of worlds’
Context of Group's Internal Development / Evidence of confrontation within the development of the group, either accidental or intentional
Context of Group’s Origins/Development / Evidence of confrontation within the wider society within which the group originated and specifically interacted with
Conviction / A deep and incontestable sense of conviction
Desire for Social Change / The intended aim of actions for social change, either in a specific area or globally (this does not mean the end of the world, but could mean global conversion to a particular faith or way of ruling.)
Dichotomous World-View / An oppositional and dichotomous world-view (cosmology)
Emergency Situation / The field of action takes on the character of an emergency situation, through real or a conflation of symbolic and real pressures, leading to the suspension of normal moral codes which regulate and limit action and the justification of emergency forms of action
External Legitimating Authority / Worldview justified by appeal to legitimating authority external to/transcending the situation (God, religious scriptures, traditions, fundamental human rights or values)
Followers Differ from Leader / Where a follower consciously (or otherwise) expresses an idea that differs from a leader (or disagrees with). To show where beliefs expressed by leaders are not necessarily all taken on by followers.
Involvement in the Cycle of Reciprocal Violence / A clear awareness of the need and/or desire to frame actions within a discourse of ‘revenge’
No Common Ground / An absence of common ground with ‘Others’ allowing meaningful dialogue with other world views
No Innocent ‘Others’ / A sense that all members of the ‘Other’ group are involved and implicated in the opposition to the good, and so legitimate targets: there is no ‘innocence’
No Justice Available in System / Statement claiming that the group has no recourse to judicial protection
Personal Benefit / Explicit statement of benefits for followers – such as heightened physical or mental abilities, salvation, sense of righteousness, etc.
Question of Authority / Dispute within an ideology of who has the authoritative view of the historical and contemporary practice of the ideology
Recognition of Innocence / Recognition that there ARE innocent ‘Others’, and that they should not be targeted
Recourse to Sacrificial / Judicial Processes / Evidence of an attempt to conclude a cycle of violence through a sacrificial/judicial act
Symbolic Importance / A sense of symbolic importance given to the present action
Violent Traditions / Evidence of specifically violent traits/influences (imagery/myth) within the traditions/beliefs of the group
Wider Struggle / The present condition/field of action is situated within a wider struggle imbibed with normative value (good vs. evil; right vs. wrong).
Table 1 – Matrix of relevant markers