David Chia Jun Weng

Modern Social Thought

Prof. Jessica Ratcliff

Final Draft

A ‘Secular’ Age?: The Sacred Against The Secular Awash The Sea of Faith.

Being Malaysian, I grew up in a community where vampires, ghosts, and spirits

intersected myths, stories and folklores. Indeed, it is one where my “belief in God” is

professed during assembly every morning in our national Oath as we held onto

identification cards that encoded our religion. Atheism is not an option. Ironically, despite 1

such public religiosity, Malaysia was left with a “secular” constitution by British

colonialism. Such a paradox hence presents an interesting case-study to understand 1) how

the subject of religion and secularity is deployed by Weber and Taylor to understand why

society is “so and not otherwise” 2) what both their strengths and weaknesses are, and 3)

which theory best illuminates the role of religion in our global community today. Through

evaluating further points 1) and 2) while focusing on the role of religion by comparing the

context of Southeast Asia against that of France, I argue that Weber and Taylor, while

lending new perspectives to analyze modernity, are both flawed in assuming that modern

society is progressively becoming “disenchanted” world or one where religion is being

“relegated” the private sphere. On the contrary, our community today is one where the role

of religion (not ‘belief in God’ as Taylor suggests) in the public sphere is contested over and

over again as seen in the hiring of a shaman (‘bomoh’ in Malay) to solve the mystery of the

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/10/us-religion-atheists-idUSBRE9B900G201312101

1

Malaysia Airlines missing MH370 plane or in the legal case of Muslim headscarf in 2

France - both very different cases yet both witness a surfacing of religion into the public 3

sphere contrary to Taylor’s privatization-of-religion thesis. An analysis I would propose

therefore is that our modern world is merely becoming more pluralistic instead of one that

is becoming more of a monistic “iron cage” or “secular” as both Weber and Taylor suggest.

As such, modernity is not as Taylor claims an age of secularity where the “belief in God is

contested” but rather a contest between monism (a close-minded syncretism) and 4

pluralism (an open-minded conciliation).

Before attempting to understand the strengths and weaknesses of Taylor’s and

Weber’s deployment on secularity, it is important to first understand how secularity is

defined. As Taylor rightfully points out, the definition of “secular” is “tangled” in “a

baggage of ambiguity. ” Its meaning is complex and has its roots in Latin Christendom 5

from the word ‘saeculum’ - meaning temporal (or ‘of the world’). According to Taylor, the

term secular is often made use by the dyad “spiritual/temporal” during the Middle Ages

with its separation made obvious during the period of Reformation with the inception of

Protestantism. Here, we see undercurrents of Weberian thought of “disenchantment”

when he pessimistically portends the domination of “worldly morality ” bound by 6

“material goods.” To Weber , fate dictates that our future is an “iron cage ” – cold, sterile, 7

http://time.com/22803/watch-malaysian-witch-doctor-attempts-to-find-missing-jet/2

Scott, Joan W. (2005)3

Taylor, Charles. (2007). Page 49. 4

Taylor, Charles. (2007). Page 35.5

Weber, Max. The Protestant Ethic And The Spirit Of Capitalism. Page 123.6

Weber, Max. The Protestant Ethic And The Spirit Of Capitalism. Page 123.7

2

and to use Taylor’s words “immanent” and “secular. ” Furthering this, Taylor defines a 8

secularity that is build upon the separation between the spiritual and the temporal. He

claims that the “lower immanent or secular is all that there is and that the higher, or

transcendent is a human invention ” (notice how influences of Durkheimian religious 9

totemism are intertwined with Taylor’s thesis). Taylor adds that the rise of secularism -

that is to say - immanence is a result of a rationalization or “disenchantment” of religious

institutions, treating the church as a department of the state hence separating the church

from the state and by effect the secular from the transcendent.

Both Weber and Taylor would agree that a separation of the sacred and the secular

came as a result of Western Reformation. However, they differ in the way in which the

separation is viewed. Weber solemnly views modernity as an “irretrievable ” loss of 10

enchantment, subtracted from the world. While, on the other hand, Taylor rejects Weber’s

“subtraction theory” of secularization and adopts instead somewhat of a “remaking” or

“buffering. ” Unlike Weber’s view of secularization being a loss of sensibility, Taylor views 11

it more as a change of sensibility. Here, Taylor contrasts the modern “buffered” self with the

“porous” self of the enchanted world . The former has the ability of disengaging from 12

everything outside the mind, removed from the fear of demons, spirits, and cosmic forces

while the latter is vulnerable to such fear and is unable to disengage. The removing of such

Taylor, Charles. (2007). Page 33.8

ibid9

Weber, Max. From Weber: Essays in Sociology. Page 350.10

Taylor, Charles. (2007). Page 39.11

Taylor, Charles. (2007). Page 41.12

3

irrational fear from society the gives birth to the agency of the Self and consequently a rise

of “modern individualism. ” 13

From Weber to Taylor, we see a shift in the definition of secular - from one that is

more of a subtraction to one that is more of a change of sensibility. That is to say, Weber

claims that modern society have lost enchantment becoming more of an iron cage while

Taylor, building on Weber, postulates that the enchantment has merely relegated into the

private sphere. It is perhaps important to note here that Taylor’s public/private distinction

arises concurrently, or rather is mutually dependent, on the porous/buffered self

distinction. In essence, Taylor, acknowledging the multifold meaning of the term, defines

“secular” not only as a “separation of religion from public life” but also when the “belief of

God, transcendent in any form, is contested.” In so saying, the transcendent has not as

Weber describes disappeared but has been moved into the private spheres of individuals, a

kind of personal devotion, or relationship with God instead of one of a “collective ritual. ” 14

Taylor’s definition of “secularity” as one of “separation” and “belief in God

contested” succeeds in reshaping the pessimistic-lack-of-agency perspective that Weber’s

subtraction theory present us with . That said, Taylor agrees with Weber in saying that an 15

experience of the enchanted is lost, resulting in society’s desire to re-enchant this “sense of

lost” as manifested in Romanticism or magical realism. Taylor reconciles Weber’s

disenchantment with a dualistic analysis of public and private spheres, belief and unbelief,

and porous and modern selves. The French definition of secular "laicite - which Taylor

postulates to have originated from the French Revolution - secularity at its purest form,

Taylor, Charles. (2007). Page 49.13

Taylor, Charles. (2007). Page 37.14

Taylor, Charles. (2007). Page 49.15

4

aims to purge the public sphere from any religious reference. A contemporary instance he

cites where such belief in God is contested is in the ongoing debate over the banning of

Muslim headscarf in Paris. Here is where Taylor’s dualistic analysis fails.

Granted, the dualism of public and private, belief and unbelief presents a clear

method to analyze of why society is so not otherwise. However, as seen in the paradoxical

nature of Malaysia’s secular constitution and non-secular public sphere or in the revealing

of private spheres of religiosity in Muslim headscarves , society is far more complex than 16

just being dichotomously secular or sacred. A society with a secular constitution may not

necessarily be one who would elect an atheist president as seen in the case of America or

many other countries. So when Taylor published a book entitled “A Secular Age”, he has

began with what I would think to be a flawed assumption. Taylor assumes there is an

“obvious decline in belief” in the world. But can we really say that religion is at a decline 17

in the world? Is the world becoming more secular?

Empirically, as observed in the Muslim headscarf or in Malaysian shamans. I find it

slightly hard to agree with Taylor here. The legal case of Muslim headscarf ironically make

public the two domains of religion and sexuality - domains that are usually regarded as

being private . “And you, Madame Demiati, why do you wear this headscarf?” asked 18

Varault in October 2007 during the legal case. Varault was hired by Truchulet who

declared herself “very secular” when she sued Demiati for not agreeing to remove her

headscarf in before entering any common area. If we assume Taylor’s definition of secular

to be the relegation of religion into the private sphere to be true then Truchulet is wrong

Scott, Joan W. (2005). Page 122.16

Taylor, Charles. A Secular Age. Page 531.17

Fernando, Mayanthi L. (2014)18

5

in claiming herself to be “very secular.” As Fernando pointed out, such “public/private

distinctions” reveal the “contradictory imperatives of secularism” and the “cunning of

secular power. ” This contradiction reveals flaws not only in Taylor’s assumption of a 19

secular age, but also in his dualistic analysis of public/private.

It is untrue therefore to say that our society is becoming one where religion is

slowly being relegated into the private sphere. Rather, the role of religion - not the belief in

God - is being contested constantly in the public sphere (and even in the global sphere).

Does that still make our age one that is secular? I beg to differ.

Secularism has trespassed the very boundary it seeks to demarcate. No longer is it a

relegation of religion into the public, or a contest of the belief in God, but seems to me like

secularism has repressed religious discussions in the public sphere “inciting” it - to cite

Foucault - to further discourse . Indeed, millions of Facebook netizens echoed disbelief on 20

the Malaysian government’s hiring of shamans in searching for the MH370 missing plane.

With the prevalence of social media today, it is reductive to categorize secularity as one of

public and private. Would discussions of religion on Facebook constitute the public or

private sphere? The boundaries and blurred and contradictory.

As with Raimon Panikkar in analyzing society, I opt for a hybrid pluralistic

approach to analyze the role of religion in our society . God and the world are not two 21

realities, nor are they the same. Panikkar sums this up beautifully: “only worship can

prevent secularization from becoming inhuman, and only secularization can save worship

from being meaningless.” He calls this approach a kind of “tumultuous marriage” between

Fernando (2014)19

Foucault, Michel et al. The History Of Sexuality. Page 48.20

Panikkar, Raimundo. The Rhythm Of Being. (2010)21

6

God i.e. the sacred and the world i.e. the secularity –  somewhat a form of sacred-

secularity . He rejects the dichotomous “Eurocentric” church/state dualistic model or the 22

religious/secular monistic model of both Taylor and Weber and adopts instead a kind of

pluralism embracing both the sacred and secular. Building upon Taylor’s goal of reversing

Weber’s pessimism of modernity, Panikkar reverses the view of iron cage into some form

of a poetic “mutual fecundation among the different human traditions of the world.” In

Panikkar’s book “The Rhythm of Being”, the distinction between atheism and theism is

victim to the dichotomy-model that has perpetuated most of Western paradigm . 23

The role of religion in our community today - one that is increasingly becoming

more global - ought to tend towards conciliation (and not uniformity i.e. secularity as

Taylor suggest). It is a pluralistic interdependence and discourse between cultures and

peoples. The dualistic world view of Taylor, dichotomously and reductively categorizes the

world into the West and the Rest (as observed in the title of his paper “Western

Secularity”). Like the collective-individualistic cultural dichotomy of East and West, such

broad generalizations about the world fail to account for the micro-pluralistic perspectives

that exists. Indeed, in most Asian societies, much of religion is “neither private nor faith” 24

- especially in the context of diverse and complex Southeast Asia. Such private/pubic

divisions fail to work as a form of analysis. Here, Taylor theory’s weakness lie in narratives

he uses to account for popular religious commitment and social secularism in the North

Atlantic world. Such a template fails to be applied in most parts out of the world where

religion and faith are a lot more intertwined and complex. In short, Taylor’s and Weber’s

Dallmayr, Fred. 'Rethinking Secularism (With Raimon Panikkar)’ (1999)22

Panikkar, Raimundo. The Rhythm Of Being. (2010)23

Calhoun, Craig J, et al. Rethinking Secularism. Page 251.24

7

analysis succeeds in categorizing and understanding but fails to be inclusive due to its

failed paradigmatic assumption.

As Madsen insightfully puts, the “secular form of Asian political institutions often

masks a religious spirit. ” This is observed in my own country Malaysia among many 25

others Southeast and East Asian countries. The world is awash a sea of faith, and I’d

disagree with both Weber and Taylor in saying that the world becoming more

disenchanted or secular. In fact, like Panikkar, I would opt for a s similar stance in saying

that the world should not indeed be progressively more secular in the Taylorian sense of

the word “secular.” Repressing religious or cultural diversity or any public discussion as

seen in French laicite or in Singapore secularism (as in the Speaker’s Corner and many

other areas in Singapore that limit discourse of religion ) only uniforms humanity into a 26

monistic or dualistic identity instead of one that embraces pluralism. To reiterate, the role

of religion in our society today is not one where the belief in God is contested but one a

monism (a close-minded syncretism) and pluralism (an open-minded conciliation).

Contemporary religiosity has the power to bring about such open-minded conciliation. It

is not a matter of speaking the same language nor practicing the same religion, but

maintaining an awake consciousness - a consciousness of being different tones in the

melody, and different paths towards the same peak along a mountain and a symphony

awash a sea of faith.

Calhoun, Craig J, et al. Rethinking Secularism. Page 249.25

http://www.nparks.gov.sg/cms/docs/speakers_terms_n_conditions.pdf26

8

Works Cited

Arrouas, Michelle. 'WATCH: Malaysian ‘Witch Doctor’ Attempts To Find Missing Jet'. TIME.com. N.p., 2014. Web. 3 Nov. 2014.

Calhoun, Craig J, Mark Juergensmeyer, and Jonathan VanAntwerpen. Rethinking Secularism. Oxford, N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 2011. Print.

Dallmayr, Fred. 'Rethinking Secularism (With Raimon Panikkar)'. The Review of Politics 61.04 (1999): 715. Web. 3 Nov. 2014. Sacred-sovereign.uchicago.edu,

Fernando, Mayanthi L. 'Intimacy Surveilled: Religion, Sex, And Secular Cunning'. Signs 39.3 (2014): 685-708. Web. 3 Nov. 2014.

Foucault, Michel et al. The History Of Sexuality. New York: Pantheon Books, 1978. Print.

Panikkar, Raimundo. The Rhythm Of Being. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 2010. Print.

Reuters,. 'Atheists Face Death In 13 Countries, Global Discrimination: Study'. N.p., 2014. Web. 3 Nov. 2014.

Scott, Joan W. 'Symptomatic Politics – The Banning Of Islamic Head Scarves In French Public Schools'. French Politics, Culture & Society 23.3 (2005): 106-127. Web. 3 Nov. 2014.

Taylor, Charles. A Secular Age. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2007. Print.

Weber, Max. The Protestant Ethic And The Spirit Of Capitalism. New York: Scribner, 1958. Print.

Weber, Max, Hans Heinrich Gerth, and C. Wright Mills. From Max Weber. New York: Oxford University Press, 1946. Print.

9