I haven't posted here for about half a year. I would say I'm sorry about that, but the fact is, I have had good reasons not to blog. I've been busy moving from the UK to the US, getting settled back in Princeton, NJ, and finally getting some dissertation writing done. But in any case, I'll try to be better about this in the future.
In this post, I'd like to define a couple of terms and discuss the distinction thereby established. I realize the terms as I define them are not exactly as others use them or define them. I don't see this as a problem. To do one's own thinking, one often needs one's own words.
This distinction has to do with politics. This is an important point to make, because these words might be used differently in other contexts, perhaps even by me. I am not here discussing those contexts, but only the context of politics. Keep this firmly in mind as this discussion proceeds.
So, in the context of politics, I would like to use the words "pluralism" and "secularism" to denote two distinct approaches to what might be called the intersection (or lack thereof) of the social and the political. Unfortunately, this brings us again to the necessity of explaining some idiosyncratic word usage. When I say "social" in this case, I do not mean to use the word to denote the various economic goods, issues, or rights often dealt with under certain so-called "social programs," "social safety-nets," and the like. Quite aside from the issue of the exact proper interaction of this "social" and the political, I am convinced that it is a different issue from that of the interaction of another "social" and the political. This other social is what is generally meant in terms like one's "social life," "social networking," etc. It denotes the sphere of voluntary association. Under this definition of the word "social," religion is obviously included.
Given that religion, among other "social" bonds, is a matter of voluntary association, and that politics (which involves, however indirectly, the government) is not a matter of voluntary association, two options present themselves. Either (a) political participation must involve the subtraction or (at least partial) suppression of one's social bonds/views/beliefs/etc., or (b) it involves creative agreements, compromises, etc., between those of different social groups and viewpoints. The first option (a) I call secularism, the second (b) I call pluralism.
I think that once this distinction is in place, it becomes clear that much of our present political/social discourse is very confused. Too often combatants in the "culture wars" shift almost imperceptibly from secularist to pluralistic assumptions and back, ignoring the irreconcilable distinctions. Or, on the other hand, some apparent pluralists are treated as if they simply equate the social (especially the religious) and the political, which ignores the similarities between pluralism and secularism (i.e., that they both assume that social bonds are voluntary).
It may have occurred to the reader by this point that I prefer pluralism as a solution to the problem. This is for two reasons. First, as a Christian, I do not consider it a live option for me to leave my faith behind when I consider politics. The second reason is related: I do not think anyone, in point of fact, actually does leave their social beliefs behind when they enter politics. In any case, I have yet to encounter an example. This seems to be the case for obvious reasons. Politics involves not only facts, but values. It seems incredible to me that at this point in history, anyone thinks that there are a set of values that all social groups can agree to. Secularism, on the other hand, seems to inevitably involve the view that there are such values.
Under pluralism, it is necessary to re-instate the value of tolerance. Obviously, tolerance cannot be the only value we live by, particularly in our social lives. But in politics, it is necessary. Again, I think our current political/social conversation sorely lacks this value. The "culture wars" are the case-in-point. These battles assume that, at least in politics, tolerance is not to be tolerated. Tolerance means you disagree with and/or disapprove of something, yet put up with it. In the culture wars, it is assumed by many in the right-wing that you cannot put up with anything you disagree with, whereas on the (so-called) left-wing it is often assumed that if you do not approve of something, you will inevitably stop putting up with it. As a consequence, it is assumed that (mere) tolerance cannot be tolerated. As is often the case in dualistic arguments, the two extreme sides feed off each other.
Obviously, there is a lot more to say on this issue. I will be very interested in continuing this conversation, and would like to hear your thoughts.
