Secularity, as commonly understood in the sociopolitical context of the United States, denotes a separation of religion from state, and often most public areas – the public sphere. Secularism is understood to mean that the United States has no official religion, and thus the public sphere, as created by the government, is free from religious control. Further, secularism is largely understood to be a Western sociopolitical body of thought. While secularism certainly exists in many non-Western countries, its cornerstone is in the West.
Thus, because of secularity’s inherent link to Western ideology, the secular “public sphere” becomes exclusive for those marginalized in the West – leaving out those people who do not also come from “secular” countries. Muslims in particular are in a precarious position – because most of the working knowledge Westerners have of many predominantly Muslim countries is that they are run by hyper-religious and oppressive governments, they associate these characteristics broadly with all Muslims. Thus, there is an implicit assumption in the minds of people from the West, especially those in the United States, that the secular public sphere and the Muslim
…show more content…
cannot coexist. Muslims are seen as inherently hyper-religious, and thus the secularity of the American “public sphere” limits the participation of Muslims in the it. How, then, should Muslims operate in the American public sphere? Are they free to embrace their religion and fully participate – or is that even possible in the American public sphere? This essay will seek to examine the purposely limited construction of the public sphere through the works of Habermas and Foucault, to understand how the public sphere is so egregiously misrepresented as an inclusive secular “public” sphere, and explore how Muslims can operate as some of the most influential critics of the public sphere that vehemently refuses their participation. The public sphere in the United States is considered to be “secular,” although Habermas notes that the power of religious communities is overwhelmingly prominent, and thus as long as people continue to associate with these communities and develop personal ideas from religious teachings, religion will be part of the public sphere (The Political, p. 24). While “religion,” as a broad category, certainly plays a large role in the discourse of the public sphere, it is clear that Protestantism, the values of which so much of U.S. society is based upon, domineers the discussion. So, to Habermas, all religions have participation rights in the publics sphere; but how far do those rights extend for Muslims? As made clear by Habermas, religion does not stop when someone walks out the door of their house; it would be absolutely preposterous to demand that it do. He understood this quite clearly, and was not embracive of any sort of dichotomic public or private sphere. In fact, for Habermas, these distinct spheres were very much not distinct at all – the public sphere was essentially all-inclusive. Further, he refused to entertain the idea that secular government requires a secular society in all realms of the “public” sphere (The Political, p. 23). So, therefore, if the lines between public sphere and private sphere are blurred (or if they even exist), what is acceptable to talk about in the “public?” As Habermas explained, something that shapes a person’s identity as fundamentally as religion is not a personality trait one can leave at home, nor an accessory that can be left behind when it doesn’t match the secular outfit. However, this is clearly not the fundamental problem. It is quite evident that Christianity has a place in the secular public sphere. Essentially, it really is the public sphere. Islam, however, does not have a place; it is relegated to the elusive and indistinct “private” sphere, and very much unwelcome in the public sphere. The issue is not whether religion is allowed in the public sphere, but rather which religions are allowed in the public sphere. This theme of discourse limitation runs deep in the American public sphere. It does not breed diverse discussions and it does not welcome outsiders like Muslims. It functions, rather, as a political device constructed by the ideological heavyweights of American society. It is open to political and religious discussion, but only insofar as that political and religious discussion is not too critical of the normative Protestant undertones of the American political fabric, nor overrun by people with religious and political ideologies that conflict with – or, worse yet – are critical of the Protestant/secular norm. To draw from Foucault, the public sphere essentially acts as a medium of knowledge and power reproduction for the dominant social classes – i.e. the Protestant Westerners. While Muslims can theoretically participate in the public sphere in whatever way they choose, their discussions and participations are purposely misguided or dismissed by the in-charge power structures of the public sphere. Foucault mentions in Two Lectures that we are “subjected to the production of truth through power” (p. 93). While this manifests in many ways, the public sphere is one very visible arena in which this reproduction of already-known truths and knowledge forms continues to take place. Because there are clear dominant ideologies within the public sphere – what might be referred to as “American values” – it is limited in its ability to contain and encourage discussions that are question these distinctly “American” ideologies. The public sphere is not interested in entertaining critical thoughts that don’t reproduce truths for the powerful. In fact, the public sphere, as constructed by Protestant, capitalist architects – those who create the Foucauldian power structures – operates in such a way that countering any truths, or “American values,” is regarded as anti-American; this sufficiently limits the ability of marginalized groups to participate fully - especially Muslims. What’s more, although the public sphere is both constructed and domineered by Protestant ideology, it then frames itself as secular. This then gives the public sphere an even greater shield of protection from critiques, both inside and out. This is because secularism in the United States propagates itself as the neutral; because there is no required allegiance to religion in the U.S. public sphere, it can don a façade of neutrality. This is extremely problematic, however. While it is true that secularists make no allegiances to religion, and thus are “neural” on that front, they do make allegiances to ideologies. These ideologies are the aforementioned “American values.” Muslims, then, are “outsiders” amongst the neutral secular Americans. They are the violently religious, the assaulters on American values, on secularism, on the American public sphere. If they critique the American public sphere, it is not received as a critique – it is an act of war. The public sphere is thus the Protestant and the neutral. It is open to dialogue, but only insofar as the dialogue fits an already prescribed narrative. It feigns neutrality when dealing with religious issues, but relegates those with non-mainstream religious views to the sidelines. If the public sphere is not available to all those who interact with it – then who is it really public for? Or is it even really “public” at all? To ask a Foucauldian question: Who really has the power?
What’s more, who has the power to reframe the dialogue of the narrow public sphere? Who has the power to critique it? If the public sphere acts as a capitalist, socially moderate, Protestant-dominated arena, do Muslims really have the strength or ability to change that? Foucault advocates understanding the power structures of the generally society through an external “visage,” as he puts it, where the fabric of the society is visible to the outsider (Two Lectures, p. 97). In other words, those who are outside the power structure – and, even further, those who are marginalized within the structure – are really the only ones who have the power to analyze how the greater societal fabric, but more narrowly, the public sphere,
works. Muslims are outsiders in the U.S. public sphere; as such, they actually have the power to change the architecture of the political sphere. Muslims, along with all other marginalized groups in the United States, have the real power to changed how the public sphere operates. They are most aware of the discrepancies in the conversations allowed in the public sphere, and can see how power works in ways that those who have the most participation rights cannot. Only those who can perceive the public sphere outside of the mentality of the framers, the empowered, and the Foucauldian truth-producers, can really change it. While the public sphere is not conducive to change, just as it is not conducive to the production of critical non-Protestant and secular viewpoints, it nonetheless is not as impervious as it portrays itself to be. There is real value in continuing critiques of the public sphere to be more inclusive. To reintroduce a question posed earlier: how should Muslims operate in the public sphere? This question is not an easy answer. Perhaps maybe they shouldn’t operate in the current public sphere – the one that was intentionally built not to allow their viewpoints. Perhaps Muslims can construct their own public sphere – one that is not bound to the rules of the secular and Protestant mainstream. The dissolution of total monopoloid power of the mainstream public sphere is a real threat to its narrow-mindedness, much more so than general critiques or changings of the already built.
Laura Deeb’s An Enchanted Modern: Gender and Public Piety in Shi’i Lebanon seeks to rectify post-9/11 notions of political Islam as anti-modern and incongruous with Western formulations of secular modernity. Specifically, Deeb is writing in opposition to a Weberian characterization of modern secular Western societies as the development of bureaucracies through social rationalization and disenchantment. Within this Weberian framework Deeb asserts that Shia communities are in-part modern because of the development of beuorocratic institutions to govern and regulate religious practice. However, Deeb makes a stronger argument oriented towards dislodging the assumptions "that Islamism is static and monolithic, and that
The United States is commonly thought to be on an inevitable march towards secularization. Scientific thought and the failure of the enlightenment to reconcile the concept of god within a scientific framework are commonly thought to have created the antithesis of religious practice in the rise of the scientific method. However, the rise of doubt and the perception that secularization is increasing over time has in actuality caused an increase in religious practice in the United States through episodic revivals. Moreover, practice of unbelief has developed into a movement based in the positive assertion in the supplantation of God by the foundations of science, or even in the outright disbelief in God. The perception of increasing secularism in the United States spurs religious revivalism which underscores the ebb and flow of religious practice in the United States and the foundation of alternative movements which combines to form the reality that the United States is not marching towards secularism but instead religious diversity.
than it has been in the past, it is the argument of whether or not
On September 11, 2001, since the terrorist attacks, many American Muslims have been stereotyped negatively in the United States. Salma, a Muslim woman, says that the way Muslims have been recognized in the media has played a big role in the antagonism directed at her. “I don’t know how many times I heard my classmates accuse me of being al-Qaeda or a terrorist” (Mayton 2013). Salma, along with other Muslims, even after a decade, are still struggling with trying to find their “American” and “Islamic” identities, while facing verbal attacks for their ethnicity. Too often, the general Muslim population gets lumped in with the immoral acts of a few because of the lack of knowledge about their culture.
For more than a century, the concept of secularism and its boundaries has been widely disputed by secularists and non-secularists alike. English dictionaries define secularism as simply the separation of church and state, or, the separation of religion and politics. Michael Walzer, a true secularist, believes that this separation is an essential democratic value and ultimately fosters toleration of a plurality of religions (Walzer, p. 620). Wæver, an opponent of secularism, defines secularism as “a doctrine for how society ought to be designed”– that religion and politics ought to be divided in order to ensure religious liberty, as well as religious-free politics. However, he does not deem that such a principle exists (Wæver, p. 210). Based on these different viewpoints, I have established a unique concept of secularism: the principle that religion and politics be kept apart, that the state remains neutral in regard to religion, and that liberty, equality, and fraternity be upheld in an attempt to successfully promote religious toleration and pluralism.
The secularization paradigm Bruce argues ‘is a set of associated explanations rather than a single theory’ (Pg.43). To build on this argument Bruce provides us with a diagram of the secularization paradigm with 22 key contributing factors; some showing the religiosity of societies i.e. the protestant reformation and monotheism, some exploring other factors which have contributed towards secularization such as Industrial Capitalism, Technological Consciousness and Social Differentiation and he provides an explanation of these concepts in order to provide the reader with an analysis of these themes. This can however be problematic in the sense that the terminology of the paradigm may well be understood by individuals studying or in the field of sociology but for individuals who are looking to develop their knowledge on the debate of secularization and religion can make this difficult. Bruce argues that modernization is one of the main causes of secularization. ‘‘Modernization brought with it increased cultural diversity in three different ways. First populations moved and brought their language, religion and social mores with them in a new setting. Secondly, the expansion of the increasingly expansive nation state meant that new groups were brought into the state. But thirdly…modernization created cultural pluralism through the proliferation of classes and class fragmentation with increasingly diverse
Christian Influence on the Progress of American Society. Charissa Bogner, Korissa Murphy, and Britni Killingsworth. Throughout history, standing up for our rights has been a big part of America’s growth in regards to women’s rights, segregation, taxation, religion.etc. However, with the expansion of America over the last few hundred years, Americans have gone from respecting others’ point-of-views to being offended when those point-of-views that differ are shared. “We often hear it said that ‘if your religious beliefs work for you, that’s great, but don’t impose them on others’”.
Consequently, it is no surprise that the most powerful media sources are spewing out pieces of hateful rhetoric that result in the “othering” of Muslims in the U.S. With the increase of Islamophobia and American nationalism. are currently driving hate crimes and institutional discrimination, human fear and emotion are becoming twisted and utilized as weapons in of its
...e, vague topics. The disunity made the Church too unstable to continue possessing political power and so the State became the head of politics, and now we have separation of Church and State, which is renders this time “a secular Western culture” (Powell 6).
Ayoob, M. (2007) The Many Faces of Political Islam: Religion and Politics in the Muslim
There is a strong belief that Islam and politics are directly tied. They are tied in the sense that the building blocks of the religion dictate how they ought to behave in the political environment. Through this mandatory follow up behavior that the religion delineates, many have come to believe that its teachings are a form of terrorism. Mandaville argues that what has challenged the Islamic link between politics and religion was the emergence of secularism, which went against the belief that politics and religion could go together. Islam has been a religion that has been accused of supporting terrorist activities in the world. Different assumptions have been brought up to understand better the linkages between what really lies behind the Islam religion and politics. Peter Mandaville argues that Islam is dynamic and that it has changed over time; situated within time and politics.
Secularization is a controversial form of social change in modern day society. Secularization is a concept derived from a Latin word meaning “the present age,” the term is generally associated with modern, technologically, and advanced societies. “Secularism is a political tradition that has been evolving for eighteenth centuries. It shares important relationships with other traditions, sustaining complex ties with Judeo-Christianity, and maintaining a long-standing relationship with Islam” ( Hurd, 2004). The term secular has taken on many different meaning through history. The earliest references can be traced to the 13th century, when the notion of the saeculum arose in reference to a binary opposition within Christianity. Priests who withdrew from the world (saeculum) formed the religious clergy, while those living in the world formed the secular clergy (Casanova, 1994). The notion of the ‘secular’ has taken on a range of different meanings over the past eighteen centuries. In today society, the world secular is used to describe a world thought to be in motion, the moving away from religious influence in everyday life.
Before I begin my findings I would like to define the nature of secularism which is a word you will hear throughout my research. Secularism: rejection of religious and sacred forms and practices in favour of rational assessment and decision-making, and civil institutions of government
Religious Fundamentalism is not a modern phenomenon, although, it has received a rise in the late twentieth century. It occurs differently in different parts of the world but arises in societies that are deeply troubled or going through a crisis (Heywood, 2012, p. 282). The rise in Religious Fundamentalism can be linked to the secularization thesis, which implies that victory of reason over religion follows modernization. Also, the moral protest of faiths such as Islam and Christianity can be linked to the rise of Religious Fundamentalism, as they protest the influence of corruption and pretence that infiltrate their beliefs from the spread of secularization (Heywood, 2012, p. 283). Religious Fundamentalists have followed a traditional political thought process, yet, have embraced a militant style of activity which often can turn violent (Heywood, 2012, p. 291).
...e pluralistic market needed to establish and maintain a high percentage of religious participation within a population. The Muslim Brotherhood provides many social welfare services and benefits that has permeated throughout the Islamic world. This has led to many embracing the religious extremism and social programs of the Brotherhood, despite increased violence from the state against the Brotherhood’s leadership and organizations. Sufism, also, portrayed a much more diverse interpretation of Sunni Islamic practices and has proven to be an example of conversion that follows closely along the lines of religious familiarity. Even when comparing the Islamic world to the United States, it was clear that diversity in the religious marketplace exists and that social movements and religious schools of thought create a supply and demand environment to win over constituents.