Casanova and Calhoun from Rethinking Secularism
In his article, “The Secular Secularizations, and Secularism,” Jose Casanova attempts to distinguish the various terms deployed when discussing secularism. He defines the secular as “a central modern epistemic category (54),” one that is inherently different from the religious, secularization as the transformation of institutional spaces from the religious into the secular, and secularism as the worldviews and ideologies that uphold and maintain the processes that secularization and the prominence of the secular possible. Throughout the essay, he also traces back secularism’s roots in Christianity and warns of “trying to elevate this particular and historical process to some general universal model” (72). Ultimately, he argues for more social scientists to study these developing and changing manifestations of secularism more ineptly much as like what has been done with religion instead of just reaffirming secularism’s false absence.
My biggest concern with this essay is the fact that the author clearly states that the differentiation between secularism, secularization, and secular but also introduces different terms that in my opinion also require clarification and explanation. He casually mentions the term …show more content…
He suggests that the idea of citizenship is inherently rooted in a secular attitude that is naturally prejudiced against religious participation in the public sphere. However, he reminds us of the integrated relationship secularism and religion, for religion has been very active in areas typically relegated to the secular. Thus, he calls for an integration of religious orientations within the secular mainframe instead of just mere secular rejection of religious affiliation and public
In his article, “The Secular Secularizations, and Secularism,” Jose Casanova attempts to distinguish the various terms deployed when discussing secularism. He defines the secular as “a central modern epistemic category (54),” one that is inherently different from the religious, secularization as the transformation of institutional spaces from the religious into the secular, and secularism as the worldviews and ideologies that uphold and maintain the processes that secularization and the prominence of the secular possible. Throughout the essay, he also traces back secularism’s roots in Christianity and warns of “trying to elevate this particular and historical process to some general universal model” (72). Ultimately, he argues for more social scientists to study these developing and changing manifestations of secularism more ineptly much as like what has been done with religion instead of just reaffirming secularism’s false absence.
My biggest concern with this essay is the fact that the author clearly states that the differentiation between secularism, secularization, and secular but also introduces different terms that in my opinion also require clarification and explanation. He casually mentions the term …show more content…
He suggests that the idea of citizenship is inherently rooted in a secular attitude that is naturally prejudiced against religious participation in the public sphere. However, he reminds us of the integrated relationship secularism and religion, for religion has been very active in areas typically relegated to the secular. Thus, he calls for an integration of religious orientations within the secular mainframe instead of just mere secular rejection of religious affiliation and public