Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T09:32:58.710Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Secularization and States of Modernity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2011

Terrance G. Carroll
Terrance G. Carroll
Affiliation:
Brock University
Get access

Abstract

Extensive secularization is frequently held to be a necessary condition for political modernity. The author argues that the relationship between religion and the modern state is considerably more complex than this general proposition suggests. It is necessary to specify particular ideological models of the modern state, since these differ significantly from one another; and it is necessary to specify particular religions in their contemporary manifestations, since these also differ in important ways. A detailed analysis of this type suggests that there is no general incompatibility between the main religions of the third world and widely shared, nonideological features of political modernity. Specific religions are shown to be incompatible with some specific forms of the modern state, while presenting no significant obstacle to other models of political modernity.

Type
Research Article
Information
World Politics , Volume 36 , Issue 3 , April 1984 , pp. 362 - 382
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Smith, Donald Eugene, Religion and Political Development (Boston: Little, Brown, 1970), xi.Google Scholar

2 For convenient and thoughtful surveys of the literature on political development, see Huntington, Samuel P. and Dominguez, Jorge I., “Political Development,” in Greenstein, Fred I. and Polsby, Nelson, eds., Handbook of Political Science, Vol. Ill (Reading, Mass.: Addison Wesley, 1975), 98–114Google Scholar, and Higgott, Richard A., Political Development Theory (London: Croom Helm, 1983).Google Scholar

3 See Means, Gordon P., “The Role of Islam in the Political Development of Malaysia,” Comparative Politics 1 (Summer 1969), 264–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nash, Manning, “Buddhist Revitalization in the Nation State: The Burmese Experience,” in Spencer, Robert F., ed., Religion and Change in Contemporary Asia (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1971), 105–22Google Scholar; Williams, Edward J., “The Emergence of the Secular Nation-State and Latin American Catholicism,” Comparative Politics 5 (January 1973), 261–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and the collection of articles in Esposito, John L., ed., Islam and Development: Religion and Sociopolitical Change (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1980).Google Scholar

4 Eisenstadt, S. N., “Varieties of Political Development,” in Eisenstadt, S. N. and Rokkan, Stein, eds., Building States and Nations, Vol. I (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1973), 41–48.Google Scholar See also Stein Rokkan, “Centre-Formation, Nation-Building and Cultural Diversity: Report on a UNESCO Programme,” ibid., 20, 26.

5 When, in the interests of euphony, I use the phrase “political modernity,” this should be taken as a synonym for “the modern state.”

6 Glasner, Peter E., The Sociology of Secularization: A Critique of a Concept (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1977).Google Scholar

7 Smith (fn. 1), 6–7.

8 Glasner (fn. 6), 67–76.

9 Rudebeck, Lars, “Political Development: Towards a Coherent and Relevant Theoretical Formulation of the Concept,” Scandinavian Political Studies 5 (1970), 35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 The quoted phrase is from Smith (fn. 1), 85. For a similar view see Eisenstadt (fn. 4), 52.

11 Portes, Alejandro, “On the Sociology of National Development: Theories and Issues,” American Journal of Sociology 82 (July 1976), 63–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 For examples of how Soviet Marxist scholars conceive of a modern political culture, see Chekharin, E., The Soviet Political System Under Developed Socialism (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1977), 219–78Google Scholar, and Kim, Maxim, The Soviet People—A New Historical Community, trans. Fidlon, D. (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1974), 191–203.Google Scholar On the meaning of “rationality” in the Soviet system, see Paul Cocks, “Bureaucracy and Party Control,” in Mesa-Lago, Carmelo and Beck, Carl, eds., Comparative Socialist Systems: Essays on Politics and Economics (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Center for International Studies, 1975), 215–48.Google Scholar

13 This theme is explored in Basmanov, M. I. and Leibzon, B. M., The Revolutionary Vanguard: Battle of Ideologies, trans. Skvirsky, D. (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1977)Google Scholar, and in Shahnazarov, G., Socialist Democracy: Aspects of Theory, trans. Bean, B. (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1974), 44–54.Google Scholar

14 Lowenthal, Richard, “The Postwar Transformation of European Social Democracy,” in Denitch, Bogdan, ed., Democratic Socialism: The Mass Left in Advanced Industrial Societies (Montclair: Allenheld, Osmun, 1981), 33.Google Scholar The classic statement of the principles of Swedish social democrats is Tingsten, Herbert, The Swedish Social Democrats: The Ideological Development, trans. Frankel, G. and Howard-Rosen, P. (Totowa, N.J.: Bedminster Press, 1973), esp. 345–461.Google Scholar

15 See Myrdal, Gunnar, “What is Wrong with the Welfare State?” in Greene, Nathanael, ed., European Socialism Since World War I (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1971), 198–207.Google Scholar

16 This distinctly conservative body of thought is to be found largely in the works of British and European writers. In the United States the terms “conservative” and “liberal” are commonly applied to political positions that differ from each other in ways that are interesting and important, but that are both essentially liberal in their fundamental principles.

17 For discussions of British and European conservatives' perspectives on stability and change, see Oakeshott, Michael, Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays (London: Methuen, 1962), 182–96Google Scholar, and Irving, R.E.M., The Christian Democratic Parties of Western Europe (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1979), 33.Google Scholar

18 Irving, 51–56.

19 Fogarty, Michael P., Christian Democracy in Western Europe, 1820–1953 (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1957), 89–96.Google Scholar

20 Oakeshott (fn. 17), 184.

21 Young, Crawford, Ideology and Development (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982)Google Scholar, provides a stimulating comparison of the effects of different ideological frameworks on the performance of African states.

22 Concepts of development and modernization that emphasize the capacity of the state have been criticized on the grounds that they ignore the input side of politics, and imply a preference for control rather than human choice. On the latter point see Loveman, Brian, “The Comparative Administration Group, Development Administration, and Antidevelopment,” Public Administration Review 36 (November/December 1976), 616–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar My analysis suggests that the nature of input processes cannot be specified without entering into an ideological debate. An emphasis on state capacity is not value free, as Loveman's argument shows, but neither is it a focus of dispute between widely held ideologies.

23 This list of “essential capabilities” seems not to be identical to those suggested by any other author, probably because of my desire to exclude ideologically contested elements, and focus on state capacity. My thinking on this matter was influenced by a great many authors, among the most helpful of whom were Easton, David, A Systems Analysis of Political Life (New York: Wiley, 1965)Google Scholar, and Heady, Ferrel, Public Administration: A Comparative Perspective, 2d ed. (New York: Marcel Dekker, 1979).Google Scholar

24 Fernando, Anthony, “Contemporary Buddhism in Sri Lanka (Ceylon),” in Dumoulin, Heinrich, ed., Buddhism in the Modern World (New York: Macmillan, 1976), 66–72.Google Scholar

35 In the collection edited by Dumoulin, ibid., see Swearer, Donald K., “Recent Developments in Thai Buddhism,” 99–108Google Scholar, and Zago, Marcello, “Contemporary Khmer Buddhism,” 109–19.Google Scholar

26 On Islam and state coercion, see Rahman, Hamoodur, “The Islamic Concept of State,” Hamdard Islamicus 2 (Spring 1979), 55.Google Scholar The contemporary Roman Catholic position is outlined in Smith, Brian, “Churches and Human Rights in Latin America: Recent Trends on the Subcontinent,” in Levine, Donald H., ed., Churches and Politics in Latin America (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1980), 155–93.Google Scholar

27 Yinger, Milton J., The Scientific Study of Religion (New York: Macmillan, 1970), 409ff.Google Scholar

28 Hudson, Michael C. makes this point with regard to Islam in his “Islam and Political Development,” in Esposito (fn. 3), 14–20.Google Scholar

29 See Smith (fn. 1), 104–7, and Pardue, Peter A., Buddhism: A Historical Introduction to Buddhist Values and the Social and Political Forms They Have Assumed in Asia (New York: Macmillan, 1968), 137.Google Scholar

30 Edens, D. G., “The Anatomy of the Saudi Revolution,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 5 (January 1974), 50–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

31 MacIntyre, Ronald R., “Saudi Arabia,” in Ayoob, Mohammed, ed., The Politics of Islamic Reassertion (London: Croom Helm, 1981), 17.Google Scholar

32 Heginbotham, Stanley J., Cultures in Conflict: The Four Faces of Indian Bureaucracy (New York: Columbia University Press, 1975), 20–34.Google Scholar

33 Milton Singer discusses the compartmentalization of religious and professional life in his When a Great Tradition Modernizes: An Anthropological Approach to Indian Civilization (New York: Praeger, 1972), 315–50. For an examination of the difficulties created by caste see Prasad, G. K., Bureaucracy in India: A Sociological Study (New Delhi: Sterling Publishers, 1974), 112–15.Google Scholar

34 Glasner (fn. 6), 67–89.

35 Bochenski, J. M., “Marxism-Leninism and Religion,” in Bociurkiw, Bohdan R. and Strong, John, eds., Religion and Atheism in the U.S.S.R. and Eastern Europe (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1975), 1–17.Google Scholar

36 On Buddhism and Marxism see Mehden, Fred R. von der, Religion and Nationalism in Southeast Asia: Burma, Indonesia, the Philippines (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1963), 54–73.Google ScholarSankar Ghose discusses Hinduism and Marxism in his Socialism and Communism in India (Calcutta: Allied Publishers, 1971), 2.7ff.Google Scholar

37 See, for example, Welch, Holmes, Buddhism Under Mao (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1972), 364–80Google Scholar; and, in the Bociurkiw and Strong collection (fn. 35), Bennigsen, Alexandre, “Islam in the Soviet Union: The Religious Factor and the Nationality Problem,” 91–100Google Scholar, and Simon, Gerhard, “The Catholic Church and the Communist State in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe,” 190–221.Google Scholar

38 This argument is associated with Rudolph, Lloyd I. and Rudolph, Susanne Hoeber, The Modernity of Tradition: Political Development in India (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967), 103–31.Google Scholar Relevant empirical evidence may be found in Bhatt, Anil, Caste, Class and Politics: An Empirical Profile of Social Stratification in Modern India (Delhi: Manohar Book Service, 1975), 127–99.Google Scholar

39 This may be an example of secularization being required and taking place. In some other Hindu societies (such as Nepal) religion may still constitute a significant obstacle to liberalism.

40 Hicks, John, “Notions of Legitimacy in Islamic and Liberal-Democratic Political Thought,” Journal of South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies 3 (Summer 1980), 9–22.Google Scholar

41 See Smith (fn. 1), 195–200, 224–26, and Cummings, John Thomas, Askari, Hassein and Mustafa, Ahmad, “Islam and Modern Economic Change,” in Esposito (fn. 3), 34–44.Google Scholar