On Canaries, Icebergs and the public sphere: The pragmatic compromise of religious pluralism
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15575/kt.v5i1.20508Keywords:
Bruno Latour, cosmopolitanism, David Held, diversity, religious pluralism, secular space, Ulrich Beck.Abstract
The return of religion in western society has resulted in the expression of what is often termed post-secular socio-politics, closely linked to increasingly pluralistic societies that result from globalization. While the public sphere has, in the West, tended to follow a ‘WASP’- derived model of post-Westphalian secular public sphere and the privatization of religion, this model is increasingly under critique and complaint. How might pluralism and the expression of religion be re-thought and re-encountered? This paper, engaging with the work of Ulrich Beck (2004) on “realistic cosmopolitanism†argues for a more localised, urbanised approach and understanding. The public sphere is actually a series of everyday pragmatic engagements and experiences that require a more nuanced evaluation. Critiquing the utopian agendas of much cosmopolitan theory, this paper asks two questions: Firstly, what can the return of religion tell us about late modern society? Secondly, what changes may be necessary to re-engage (with) pluralistic public spheres – and societies? Arising in response to the increasing discussion and debate as how societies can seek to engage with growing religious pluralism, using the central metaphors of ‘the iceberg’ and ‘the canary’ as hermeneutic tools, undertaken within a wider Taubesean hermeneutical reading, it argues for a rethought, pragmatic cosmopolitics that is intermestic; that is, both international and domestic in focus and response.References
Agamben, G. (2005). The Time That Remains: A Commentary on the Letter to the Romans (P. Daly, Trans.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Anderson, E. (2004). The Cosmopolitan Canopy. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 595(1), 14–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716204266833
Appiah, K. A. (1997). Cosmopolitan Patriots. Critical Inquiry, 23(3), 617–639. https://doi.org/10.1086/448846
Appiah, K. A. (2006). Cosmopolitanism: Ethics In A World of Strangers. New York & London: W.W. Norton & Company.
Badiou, A. (2003). Saint Paul: The Foundation of Universalism (R. Brassier, Trans.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Beck, U. (2002). The Cosmopolitan Society and Its Enemies. Theory, Culture & Society, 19(1–2), 17–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/026327640201900101
Beck, U. (2004). The Truth of Others: A Cosmopolitan Approach. Common Knowledge, 10(3), 430–449. https://doi.org/10.1215/0961754X-10-3-430
Beck, U. (2005). Neither Order Nor Peace: A response to Bruno Latour. Common Knowledge, 11(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1215/0961754X-11-1-1
Beck, U. (2006). The Cosmopolitan State: Redefining Power in the Global Age. International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 18(3–4), 143–159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10767-006-9001-1
Beck, U. (2007). The Cosmopolitan Condition. Theory, Culture & Society, 24(7–8), 286–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/02632764070240072505
Calhoun, C. (2008). Secularism, citizenship, and the public sphere. Hedgehog Review, 10(3), 7–21.
Curtin, J. (2008). Women, Political Leadership and Substantive Representation: the Case of New Zealand. Parliamentary Affairs, 61(3), 490–504. https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsn014
Davidson, A., & Peter Lineham, P. (1987). Transplanted Christianity (2nd ed.). Palmerston North: The Dunmore Press.
Delanty, G. (2006). The cosmopolitan imagination: critical cosmopolitanism and social theory. The British Journal of Sociology, 57(1), 25–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-4446.2006.00092.x
Eckersley, R. (2007). From cosmopolitan nationalism to cosmopolitan democracy. Review of International Studies, 33(4), 675–692. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210507007723
Edwards, Catherine, & Wolf, G. (2003). Cosmopolis: Rome as World City. In C. Edwards & G. Wolf (Eds.), Rome: The Cosmopolis (pp. 1–20). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fraser, N. (2007). Special Section: Transnational Public Sphere: Transnationalizing the Public Sphere. Theory, Culture & Society, 24(4), 7–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276407080090
Hannerz, U. (1990). Cosmopolitans and Locals in World Culture. Theory, Culture & Society, 7(2–3), 237–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/026327690007002014
Hebdige, D. (1990). Fax to the Future. Marxism Today, January, 18–23.
Held, D. (1991). Democracy, the nation-state and the global system. Economy and Society, 20(2), 138–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085149100000007
Held, D. (2004). Democratic Accountability and Political Effectiveness from a Cosmopolitan Perspective. Government and Opposition, 39(2), 364–391. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-7053.2004.00127.x
Jackson, W. K., & Wood, G. A. (1964). The New Zealand Parliament and Maori representation. Historical Studies: Australia and New Zealand, 11(43), 383–396. https://doi.org/10.1080/10314616408595292
Kant, I. (1991). Idea For a Universal History With a Cosmopolitan Purpose. In Kant: Political Writings (pp. 41–53). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511809620.004
Kant, I., & Wood, A. W. (1795). Toward perpetual peace (1795). In M. J. Gregor (Ed.), Immanuel Kant: Practical philosophy (pp. 311–352). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813306.012
Latour, B. (2004). WHOSE COSMOS, WHICH COSMOPOLITICS? Common Knowledge, 10(3), 450–462. https://doi.org/10.1215/0961754X-10-3-450
Mignolo, W. (2000). The many faces of cosmo-polis: Border thinking and critical cosmopolitanism. Public Culture, 12(3), 721–748.
Mounk, Y. (2022). The Great Experiment: Why Diverse Democracies Fall Apart and How They Can Endure. New York: Penguin.
Nava, M. (2002). Cosmopolitan Modernity. Theory, Culture & Society, 19(1–2), 81–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/026327640201900104
O’Donnell, G. A. (2004). Why the Rule of Law Matters. Journal of Democracy, 15(4), 32–46. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2004.0076
Oxholm, T., Rivera, C., Schirrman, K., & Hoverd, W. (2022). Representing New Zealand Religious Diversity? The Removal of the Words “True Religion†and “Jesus Christ†from the Parliamentary Prayer. Journal of Church and State, 64(1), 87–109. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcs/csab004
Peukert, H. (2005). Enlightenment and Theology as Unfinished Projectsâ€. In E. Mendeita (Ed.), The Frankfurt School on Religion (p. 355). New York: Routledge.
Schmitt, C., Schwab, G., & Strong, T. B. (2005). Political Theology. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226738901.001.0001
Steinmetz-Jenkins, D. (2009). Claude Lefort and the Illegitimacy of Modernityâ€. Journal for Cultural and Religious Theory, 10(1), 102–117.
Taubes, J. (2010). From Cult to Culture. Fragments Toward a Critique of Historic Reason. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Taubes, J., & Assmann, A. (2004). The political theology of Paul (A. Assmann & J. Assmann, Eds.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Taylor, J. V. (1979). The theological basis of interfaith dialogue. International Review of Mission, 68(272), 373–384. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-6631.1979.tb01328.x
Turner, B. S. (2002). Cosmopolitan Virtue, Globalization and Patriotism. Theory, Culture & Society, 19(1–2), 45–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/026327640201900102
Vahanian, G. (2005). Tillich and the New Religious Paradigm. Aurora, Col: The Davies Group.
Versluis, A. (2006). Antimodernism. TELOS, 137, 96–130.
Waldron, J. (1991). Minority cultures and the cosmopolitan alternative. University of Michigan Law Review, 25, 751.
White, R., & Tadesse, B. (2007). Immigration policy, cultural pluralism and trade: Evidence from the white Australia policy. Pacific Economic Review, 12(4), 489–509. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0106.2007.00368.x
Zizek, S. (2000). The Fragile Absolute – or, why is the Christian legacy worth fighting for? London: Verso.
Zizek, S. (2003). The Puppet and the Dwarf: The perverse core of Christianity. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
