By drawing mainly, but not only, on the work of Jürgen Habermas and Charles Taylor, I suggest that the postsecular turn provides a more substantial and insightful contribution to the understanding of religious pluralism in contexts of late secularization thanks to its focus on how the self-understanding of religious and secular actors is affected by their co-implication within the same discursive space. The ensuing attention for the processes of self-critique and reciprocal learning allows for a fairer distribution of the burdens of participation, consistently with standards of parity which can be properly, but not exclusively, understood within an egalitarian liberal outlook. The participation to a shared conversation about the primary goods is seen, here, as a primary good in itself. I argue that it is possible to overcome the problem of the burdens of participation while still retaining the distinct awareness that the postsecular stance articulates about the role played by self-critical understandings of religious and secular views when it comes to the cooperative effort necessary to realize conditions of genuine epistemic parity and equal access to public discourse. To this purpose, I suggest that three further steps should be taken: the boundary between the religious and the secular should be more decisively conceived as a shifting and porous border, the resources of public discourse shouldn’t be too rigidly divided between argumentative and non-argumentative, and the presence of stoppers and enablers of public conversation should be acknowledged both in the religious and in the secular domain. The resulting kind of postsecular perspective will turn out to be relevant at two levels: that of the relationships between individuals who actively engage in public discourse and that of the relationships between religious and secular institutions.
Ispirandomi principalmente, ma non esclusivamente, al lavoro di Jürgen Habermas e Charles Taylor, in questo saggio suggerisco che l'adozione di una prospettiva postsecolare porta ad una maggiore comprensione del pluralismo religioso nei contesti di tarda secolarizzazione grazie alla concentrazione sulle modalità in cui l'auto-comprensione degli attori religiosi e secolari viene affetta dalla reciproca co-implicazione nello stesso spazio di discorso. La conseguente attenzione per i processi di autocritica a apprendimento reciproco consente una più equa distribuzione degli oneri della partecipazione politica, coerentemente con standard di giustizia che possono essere intesi, anche se non necessariamente, entro una prospettiva di liberalismo ugualitario. La partecipazione a una conversazione condivisa circa i beni primari è vista, in questo contesto, come un bene primario in se stesso. Sostengo in questa direzione che è possibile superare il problema della equa distribuzione degli oneri della partecipazione politica intraprendendo almeno tre passi: adottare una concezione dei confini fra religioso e secolare come mobili e porosi, non considerare troppo rigidamente la separazione fra risorse argomentative e non argomentative del dibattito pubblico, riconoscere che elementi di ostacolo e abilitazione della possibilità della conversazione pubblica sono individuabili sia in ambito religioso sia in ambito secolare. La prospettiva di carattere postsecolare che emerge da queste pagine ha implicazioni su due livelli: quello delle relazione fra individui impegnati attivamente nel discorso pubblico e quello delle relazioni fra istituzioni religiose e secolari.
Monti, P. (2014). Postsecular awareness and the depth of pluralism. In Requejo Ferran, Ungureanu Camil (a cura di), Democracy, Law and Religious Pluralism in Europe. Secularism and post-secularism (pp. 86-105). USA : Routledge [10.4324/9781315758800].
Postsecular awareness and the depth of pluralism
Monti, Paolo
2014
Abstract
By drawing mainly, but not only, on the work of Jürgen Habermas and Charles Taylor, I suggest that the postsecular turn provides a more substantial and insightful contribution to the understanding of religious pluralism in contexts of late secularization thanks to its focus on how the self-understanding of religious and secular actors is affected by their co-implication within the same discursive space. The ensuing attention for the processes of self-critique and reciprocal learning allows for a fairer distribution of the burdens of participation, consistently with standards of parity which can be properly, but not exclusively, understood within an egalitarian liberal outlook. The participation to a shared conversation about the primary goods is seen, here, as a primary good in itself. I argue that it is possible to overcome the problem of the burdens of participation while still retaining the distinct awareness that the postsecular stance articulates about the role played by self-critical understandings of religious and secular views when it comes to the cooperative effort necessary to realize conditions of genuine epistemic parity and equal access to public discourse. To this purpose, I suggest that three further steps should be taken: the boundary between the religious and the secular should be more decisively conceived as a shifting and porous border, the resources of public discourse shouldn’t be too rigidly divided between argumentative and non-argumentative, and the presence of stoppers and enablers of public conversation should be acknowledged both in the religious and in the secular domain. The resulting kind of postsecular perspective will turn out to be relevant at two levels: that of the relationships between individuals who actively engage in public discourse and that of the relationships between religious and secular institutions.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
ch 5 9780415828338_text-2.pdf
Solo gestori archivio
Dimensione
964.13 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
964.13 kB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri Richiedi una copia |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.