Habermas, Taylor, and Connolly on Secularism, Pluralism, and the Post-Secular Public Sphere
The main purpose of this paper is to explore and understand the relationships between secularism, pluralism, and the post-secular public sphere in the thought of Jürgen Habermas, Charles Taylor, and William Connolly. The three authors develop a thorough critique of secularism which implies a radical...
1. VerfasserIn: | |
---|---|
Medienart: | Elektronisch Aufsatz |
Sprache: | Englisch |
Verfügbarkeit prüfen: | HBZ Gateway |
Journals Online & Print: | |
Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
Veröffentlicht: |
MDPI
[2019]
|
In: |
Religions
Jahr: 2019, Band: 10, Heft: 8, Seiten: 1-19 |
weitere Schlagwörter: | B
Jürgen Habermas
B Charles Taylor B Legitimation B Public Sphere B Pluralism B William Connolly B ethics of citizenship B post-secular society B Secularism |
Online Zugang: |
Vermutlich kostenfreier Zugang Volltext (Resolving-System) Volltext (doi) |
Zusammenfassung: | The main purpose of this paper is to explore and understand the relationships between secularism, pluralism, and the post-secular public sphere in the thought of Jürgen Habermas, Charles Taylor, and William Connolly. The three authors develop a thorough critique of secularism which implies a radical break with the dogmatic idea of removing religion from the public sphere. My main objective is to show that this critique is related to a normative understanding of our post-secular situation and requires a rethinking of the boundaries of the public sphere in relation to the predicament of pluralism. Arguing against the post-metaphysical conception of secularism, Taylor develops a critique of Habermas's "institutional translation proviso", and Connolly stresses the agonistic dimension of the post-secular public sphere. I take these criticisms into account, while arguing that Taylor and Connolly are unable to provide a sound basis for the legitimacy of our institutional settings. In contrast to Taylor and Connolly, I propose a reading of Habermas's theory based on the internal relationship between universal justification and the everyday contexts of pre-political solidarity. I conclude with a focus on the need to take into account the agonistic dimension of the post-secular public sphere. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 2077-1444 |
Enthält: | Enthalten in: Religions
|
Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.3390/rel10080460 |