| Review |
 |
Formations of the Secular: Christianity, Islam, Modernity Talal Asad Stanford, Stanford University Press, 2003 |
| An interesting exploration and discussion of
the historical and current relationship of religion within the intellectual
and political frameworks of Modernity. His major premise in this analysis is
"that 'the secular' is conceptually prior to the political doctrine of
'secularism,' that over time a variety of concepts, practices, and
sensibilities have come together to form 'the secular.'" The fundamental
debate explored is the following: "Is 'secularism' a colonial imposition, an
entire worldview that gives precedence to the material over the spiritual, a
modern culture of alienation and unrestrained pleasure? Or is it necessary
to universal humanism, a rational principle that calls for the suppression -
or at any rate, the restraint - of religious passion so that a dangerous
source of intolerance and delusion can be controlled, and political unity,
peace, and progress secured?" (p.21) I found his second chapter of particular interest, raising dimensions I hadn't thought of before in relation to the connection between human agency and pain and their importance as markers of difference between Modern secularism and religion. A significant aspect of progress in the Modern view lies in building up human agency (through intellectual construction of human autonomy, political processes and technological competence) in order to progressively replace pain by pleasure, or at least what pleases one. Religion was seen as incompatible with this view because it providing spiritual justifications for the presence and acceptance of pain, significantly reducing one of the impulses for the development of human agency and competence. Asad explores this issue in an interesting way, challenging the secular viewpoint that pain and agency are mutually exclusive: one is either an agent (representing and asserting himself or herself) or a victim (the passive object of chance or cruelty). "When we say someone is suffering, we commonly suppose that he or she is not an agent. To suffer (physical or mental pain, humiliation, deprivation) is, so we usually think, to be in a passive state." Who would willingly choose to suffer or be deprived. Much of modern development and the dynamic of capitalist acquisition is built on this assumption. So also is the control exercised by nation states over their citizens by the threat of violence through terror or legal punishment. The religious viewpoint challenges this way of thinking. "Early Christian martyrologies refuse to read the martyrs broken bodies as defeat, but reverse the reading, insisting on interpreting them as symbols of victory over society's power. Far from shunning physical suffering, the martyrs actively sought to live it. Like Christ's passion on the cross, the martyr's passivity was an act of triumph." (p.85). A similar dynamic can be seen in the current practices of suicide bombers who martyr themselves for political cause. Mel Gibson was making a similar statement in his very violent portrayal of the execution of Jesus in "Passion of the Christ." So the religious viewpoint challenges the secular in a number of fundamental ways, and threatens the secular state not only by its unpredictable passion but also potentially through its undermining of some of the fundamental mechanisms by which nation states and economies maintain themselves. "The categories of 'politics' and 'religion' turn out to implicate each other more profoundly than we thought." The book provides some very interesting discussions and valuable insights into this redefining relationship. Table of Contents: Review by Peter Horsfield |