Abstract
The political significance of religion is back on the agenda of interdisciplinary academic debate. One does not need to recall the world-wide rise of Christian, Jewish and Islamic fundamentalism, the intensification of religious nationalism in South Asia, and the dynamics of religiously legitimated ethnic conflict to find evidence that religion continues to be strongly influential in modern society. Even within many seemingly “secularized” Western countries, new forms of politics of religious recognition have emerged which merit closer academic attention. It is indeed hard to find a country which is not witnessing public debates over religious symbols (headscarves, crucifixes etc.), constitutional conflicts over Church-State relations and political controversies over the accommodation of religious minorities.
A more comprehensive version of this paper has previously been published as Matthias Koenig, “Politics and religion in European nation-states — institutional varieties and contemporary transformations”, 291–315, in: Bernhard Giesen/Daniel Šuber, Religion and Politics. Cultural Perspectives, 2005.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
In the following, the term “incorporation” is used in its current sociological meaning, and not as a legal concept; it thus denotes the mode of including persons into an existing political community or corps politique; see e.g. J. Alexander, Theorizing ‘Modes of Incorporation’: Assimilation, Hyphenation, and Multiculturalism as Varieties of Civil Participation, Sociological Theory 19/3 (2001), 238–49.
For comprehensive overviews of sociological theories of secularization see K. Dobbelaere, Secularization: A Multi-Dimensional Concept, 1981; O. Tschannen, Les théories de la sécularisation, 1992; and for their recent defence D. Pollak, Säkularisierung: Ein moderner Mythos?, 2003; P. Norris/R. Inglehard, Sacred and Secular. Religion and Politics World-Wide, 2004.
See J. Casanova, Public Religions in the Modern World, 1994, 19–39 and 232.
D. Hervieu-Léger, La religion pour mémoire, 1993, 119 and 135.
Casanova (note 3), Public Religion, 5;65; 211.
See on this point the perceptive analysis of Casanova’s argument in Talal Asad, Formations of the Secular. Christianity, Islam, Modernity, 2003, 181–201.
See Hervieu-Léger (note 4), La religion, 171; and D. Hervieu-Léger, Croire en modernité: au-delà de la problématique des champs religieux et politique, in P. Michel (ed.), Religion et Démocratie. Nouveaux enjeux, nouvelles approches, 1997, 361–381, esp. 374. In his critical reply to Hervieu-Léger, Patrick Michel has therefore suggested pushing further her analysis towards a sociology of (religious and political) “belief”; see P. Michel, Politique et religion. La grande mutation, 1994.
Such a problem-shift has been suggested, most notably, by J. Matthes, Is secularization a global process? An exercise in conceptual history, in: Dai Kangsheng et al. (eds.), Religion and Modernization in China. Proceedings of the Regional Conference of the International Association for the History of Religion, Beijing 1992, 1995, 53–62; and F. Tenbruck, Die Religion im Maelstrom der Reflexion, in: J. Bergmann/A. Hahn/T. Luckmann (eds.), Religion und Kultur. Sonderheft 33 der Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 1993, 31–67.
See, for instance, S. Eisenstadt, Max Weber on Western Christianity and the Weberian Approach to Civilizational Dynamics, Canadian Journal of Sociology 14 (1989), 203–224.
E. Feil, Religion. Die Geschichte eines neuzeitlichen Grundbegriffs vom Frühchristentum bis zur Reformation, 1986; id, Religion. Die Geschichte eines neuzeitlichen Grundbegriffs zwischen Reformation und Rationalismus (1540–1620), 1997.
That the shift of charisma from “spiritual” to “secular” authorities, which has to be understood against the background of the Gregorian Revolution, cannot be equated with a differentiation of politics and religion has been shown by A. Pizzorno, Politics Unbound, in: Charles S. Maier (ed.), Changing Boundaries of the Political. Essays on the Evolving Balance Between the State and Society, Public and Private in Europe, 1987, 27–62, esp. 33, 44.
See on this point also G. Thomas/ J. Meyer, The Expansion of the State, Annual Review of Sociology 10 (1984), 461–482.
Cf. B. Anderson, Imagined Communities. Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, 2nd ed., 1991.
H. Berman, Law and Revolution. The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition, 1983, and id., Law and Revolution II. The Impact of the Protestant Reformations on the Western Legal Tradition, 2004; see also P. Prodi, Una storia della giustizia. Dal pluralismo dei fori al moderno dualismo tra scienza e diritto, 2000.
See the contributions in P. van der Veer/ H Lehmann (eds.), Nation and Religion. Perspectives on Europe and Asia, 1999.
See in this respect Reinhart Koselleck’s analysis of post-Reformation political discourse; R. Koselleck, Kritik und Krise. Eine Studie zur Pathogenese der bürgerlichen Welt, 1973 [1959], 18,29, 154.
“With the rise of the nation-state comes an enormous shift of what religion means. Religion produces the secular as much as the reverse, but this interaction can only be understood in the context of the emergence of nationalism in the nineteenth century”; P van der Veer, Imperial Encounters. Religion and Modernity in India and Britain, 2001, 20.
That de-differentiation of politics and religion was a major phenomenon in early modern Europe, most notably within Lutheran territories, has been stressed by P. Gorski, Historicizing the Secularization Debate, American Sociological Review 65 (2000), 138–167, esp. 150. Yet, while I concur with his criticism of the differentiation thesis as a paradigmatic core of the secularization theory, I would stress that the de-differentiation takes place within the modern condition and its conception of a “secular” social spa
See, for instance, with special reference to the government of religious diversity S. Monsma/ J.C. Soper, The Challenge of Pluralism: Church and State in Five Democracies, 1997.
For the most recent and comprehensive formulation of this typology see R. Jepperson, Political Modernities: Disentangling Two Underlying Dimensions of Institutional Differentiation, Sociological Theory 20 (2002), 61–85.
See S. Eisenstadt/ B. Giesen, The construction of collective identity, Archives européennes de sociologie 36 (1995), 72–102.
This point has been stressed by T. Modood, Anti-Essentialism, Multiculturalism, and the ‘Recognition’ of Religious Groups, Journal of Political Philosophy 6 (1998), 378–399.
E. Poulat, Liberté, Laicité. La guerre des deux France et le principe de la modernité, 1987.
This notion has been coined by J. P. Willaime, État, pluralisme et religion en France. Du monopole à la gestion des différences, in: J. Baubérot (ed.) Pluralisme et minorités religieuses, 1991, 32–43; ibid. Europe et religions. Les enjeux du XXIe siècle, 2004; for a related analysis see also M. Gauchet, La religion dans la démocratie. Parcours de la laïcité, 1998.
Y. N. Soysal, Limits of Citizenship. Migrants and Postnational Membership in Europe, 1994.
See in greater detail M. Koenig, Weltgesellschaft, Menschenrechte und der Formwandel des Nationalstaats, Zeitschrift für Soziologie 34 (2005), Sonderband Weltgesellschaft, 374–393.
To be sure, both the Council of Europe and the European Union tend to respect national traditions of church-state relations, as evinced by the jurisprudence of the ECrtHR on religious liberty and, even more explicitly, by the Eleventh Declaration amending the Treaty of Amsterdam. Yet legal discourse does contribute to partial convergence by means of the transnational circulation of normative frames of reference; see H.M. Heinig, Vom deutschen Staatskirchenrecht zum europäischen Religions(Verfassungs)Recht. Verfassungsrechtliche und verfassungstheoretische Anmerkungen zum Verhältnis von Staat und Religionsgemeinschaften in Europa, in: Dieter Fauth (ed.) Staat und Kirche im werdenden Europa. Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede im nationalen Vergleich, 2003, 71–91.
See J. Habermas, Glauben und Wissen. Rede anläßlich der Verleihung des Friedenspreises des Deutschen Buchhandels, 2001, 22.
For a similar argument see H. Joas, Braucht der Mensch Religion?, 2004, 122–128, who rightly emphasizes the internal transformation of religious languages.
T. Asad, op. cit.
See, e.g., Charles Taylor, Die Religion und die Identitätskämpfe der Moderne, in: N. Göle/ L. Ammann (eds.), Islam in Sicht. Der Auftritt von Muslimen im öffentlichen Raum, 2004, 342–378.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften e.V., to be exercised by Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Koenig, M. (2007). Religion and Public Order in Modern Nation-States: Institutional Varieties and Contemporary Transformations. In: Brugger, W., Karayanni, M. (eds) Religion in the Public Sphere: A Comparative Analysis of German, Israeli, American and International Law. Beiträge zum ausländischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht, vol 190. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73357-7_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73357-7_1
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-73355-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-73357-7
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)