BHtZHHn &hrLVtLDn DHPRFrDF\ Dnd &rLtLFDl ThHRr\: HDbHrPDV,BFNHnfrdH, Dnd thH DLDlHFtLFV Rf 6HFXlDrLzDtLRn LnPRVtZDr *HrPDn\Peter E. Gordon

Social Research: An International Quarterly, Volume 80, Number 1,Spring 2013, pp. 173-202 (Article)

PXblLVhHd b\ ThH JRhnV HRpNLnV 8nLvHrVLt\ PrHVVDOI: 10.1353/sor.2013.0026

For additional information about this article

Accessed 30 Oct 2014 12:53 GMT GMT

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/sor/summary/v080/80.1.gordon.html

Peter E. Gordon Between Christian Democracy and Critical Theory: Habermas, Bockenforde, and the Dialectics of Secularization in Postwar Germany

Noth in g o f th eological con ten t w ill persist w ith ou t bein g t ran sform ed; every con ten t w ill h ave to pu t it se lf to the test o f m igrat in g in to th e realm o f th e secular, th e profane.

Th eodor W. Adorno, Reason an d Revelation

OVER THE LAST TW ENTY YEARS, THE CLASSICAL THEORY OF secular izat ion h as suffered a ser ies o f n ear fatal h um iliat ion s. It w as Max W eber w h o deserves greatest credit for th e or th odox th esis, accordin g to w h ich m odern izat ion brou gh t an in evitable differen tiat ion o f value sph eres, a th orough goin g rat ion alizat ion o f procedure, an d the con sequen t disen ch an tm en t o f th e world. The classical th eoiy presupposed th at th e com preh en sive m etaph ysical an d n orm ative au th ority o f religion could n ot lon g survive on ce it stood exposed to th e d isar t icu lat in g processes o f rat ion alizat ion : ch ar ism a w ould yield to bureaucrat ic routin e and, w ith out th e requ isite au th orizat ion for n orm ative consen-

social research Vol. 80 : No. 1 : Spring 2013 173

sus, the social w h ole w ould sh at ter in to a m osaic o f in com m en surable par ts. W ith eviden tiary su ppor t from sociologists such as David Martin an d th eoret ical refin em en ts from m aster-sch olars such as Peter Berger, th e classical th eory survived w ell in to th e 1960s, its en duran ce assured th an ks to a m arr iage o f con ven ien ce w ith the dom in an t social science paradigm o f m odern izat ion theory. Even pat tern s o f im m igrat ion from m ore observan t par ts o f th e globe did n ot t rouble th e con fiden t view th at accu ltu rat ion w ou ld rob th e n ew com ers o f th eir t rad it ion alist faith (Martin 1978; Berger 1967).

The classical th esis h as died a h ard death am on g sociologists, alth ou gh som e h ave r esist ed (Bruce 2002). But today it seem s abu n dan tly clear th at secu lar izat ion th eory in th e or th odox m ode is ready for its last r ites (W arner 2010). The em pir ical coun tereviden ce appears overw h elm in g, from th e ter ror ists in spired by a m ilitan t Islam to the set t lers o f Jew ish ultra-orth odoxy, an d from th e ideologues o f Hindu n at ion alism to th e aston ish in g vigor o f evan gelical Ch ristian s n ot on ly in sub-Sah aran Africa bu t in m egach u rch es across th e Un ited States. In th eoret ical literatu re as w ell, th e plausib ility o f th e secu lar izat ion n arrat ive h as recen tly en coun tered resistan ce, from sociologists such as Grace Davies an d Jos Casan ova, an th ropologists such as Talal Asad, an d ph ilosoph ers such as Ch arles Taylor (Davies 1994; Casan ova 1994; Asad 2003; Taylor 2007). Rodn ey Stark h as gon e so far as to au th or an essay w ith th e provocative t it le Secu lar izat ion R.I.P (Stark 1999, 2000). W h atever th eir d ifferen ces, all o f th ese sch olars con test th e in evitabilism o f th e classical th esis, an d som e o f th em even advan ce in to prescr ipt ive terrain , su ggest in g th at m odern societies carve out a space for a persisten t an d public m ode o f religion th at , in th eir view, m ay offer an altern ative to th e n orm atively im poverish ed discourse o f secu lar modern ity.

A sim ilar ch allen ge to th e secu lar ist prem ise is eviden t w h en we con sider curren t steps tow ard th e tran sform ation o f critical th eory u n der taken by its forem ost represen tat ive, J rgen Haberm as. Over the past decade th e ph ilosoph er an d social th eor ist h as m ore or less aban don ed th e assu m pt ion o f th orou gh goin g rat ion alizat ion th at h e h ad

174 social research

in h er ited from th e can on s o f post-W eberian sociology an d h as com e to em brace a n ew vision o f th e m odern W est as a postsecular society (Haberm as 2009, 59-77). In h is m ost recen t work, H aberm as h as je t t ison ed h is ear lier expectat ion th at com m un icative reason m u st leave religion beh in d; h e argues in stead th at religion m ay very w ell per sist lon g in to th e fu ture. W ith som e deferen ce to th e secu lar ch aracter o f dem ocratic reason , h e con tin ues to in sist on th e Raw lsian proviso th at religious cit izen s m u st su bm it th eir claim s to th e con strain ts o f falli- b ilist ic argum en tat ion th at defin e th e pluralist ic public sph ere (Rawls 2005; H aberm as 2008, 114-147). However, H aberm as also takes th e fu r th er an d m ore su rpr isin g step o f im plyin g th at religion s persisten ce m ay prove vital for th e survival o f dem ocracy itself, sin ce com m un icat ive reason alon e m ay suffer from a deficit o f n orm ative con ten t. The presen t essay explores th e ideological or igin s o f th is idea an d poses th e quest ion as to w h eth er th e idea o f such a n orm ative deficit can be recon ciled w ith H aberm ass th eory o f com m un icat ive reason .

HABERMASS CHANGING PERSPECTIVE ON RELIGIONTh at H aberm as h as m odified h is stan d on secu lar izat ion n ow appears self-evident. In th e fall o f 2001, ju st a m on th after th e ter ror ist at tacks o f Septem ber 11, H aberm as delivered a sh or t address on Faith an d Kn ow ledge (Glauben und W issen) as h is acceptan ce speech for th e Fran kfu r t Bookseller s Peace Prize. Alth ough on e cou ld glim pse an in terest in religion in th e 1988 essay collection Postmetaphysical Thinking (Nachmetaphysisches Denken), it is really on ly w ith th e 2001 address th at H aberm as turn ed decisively to religion as a ph en om en on dem an din g th eoret ical at ten t ion . Since th at t im e h e h as n ot ceased to com m en t on religion an d h e n ow appear s ready to accept n ot on ly its lon gevity bu t also its vital ben efit to m odern democracy. In 2004 h e m et at th e Cath olic Academ y in Bavaria w ith Cardin al Joseph Ratzin ger (later n am ed Pope Ben edict XVI) for a d iscu ssion con cern in g th e ch aracter an d con sequen ces o f secu lar izat ion a dialogue to w h ich I will return later in th is essay. In 2005 H aberm as pu blish ed h is n ew est an d m ost expan sive volu m e o f essays u n der th e t it le Between Naturalism and

Between Christian Dem ocracy and Critical Theory 175

rodrigo chacon2

rodrigo chacon2

Religion, an d in 2007 he m et in Mun ich w ith a group o f Jesu it sch olars for a con versat ion publish ed as An Awareness of W hat Is Missing: Faith and Reason in a Postsecular Age. More recen tly h e h as m et in New York w ith Ch arles Taylor, Ju d ith Butler , an d Corn el W est for a public colloquy, th e t ran scr ipt o f w h ich w as later publish ed as The Power of Religion in the Public Sphere (Butler et al. 2011). It is also know n th at he h as been w ritin g a n ew an d m ajor w ork on religion , por t ion s o f w h ich h ave been presen ted in various w orksh ops w ith colleagues in both Europe an d North America.

One m igh t h ave th ou gh t H aberm as an un likely can didate for religious aw aken in g. Raised in th e stables o f th e Fran kfurt-based an d M arxist-or ien ted In st itu t fu r Sozialforsch u n g, H aberm as fir st cam e to prom in en ce in th e 1950s an d 1960s as a fierce crit ic o f postw ar Germ an ys con servat ive ideological con sen su s. He is an in tellectu al com m itted, both in th eoiy an d practice, to retr ievin g th e prom ises o f th e En ligh ten m en t after its catast roph ic im plosion durin g th e m iddle decades o f th e tw en t ieth cen tury. Despite var iou s m od ificat ion s in h is th eoret ical system , H aberm as h as k ept faith over th e last several decades w ith th e gu id in g idea th at h u m an ity bear s w ith in it se lf a capacity for a cer tain kin d o f discursive logic th at h e calls com m un icative ration ality. The th eory is forbiddin g in par t because it borrow s prom iscuously from a broad ran ge o f sociologists, an th ropologists, an d ph ilosoph ers o f lan guage. But its basic t ask is to defen d rat ion al m oder n ity by dem on strat in g th at w e can fin d reliable pr in ciples for dem ocracy in reason itself. Em bedded in all discourse, H aberm as argues, is a quasi- tran scen den tal presupposit ion o f un forced un derstan din g: every act o f com m un ication aim s tow ard a m u tu al in telligibility th at n ecessar ily exposes all claim s to criticism . Discourse th us con tain s an in ter- subjective rat ion ality th at is or ien ted pragm atically tow ard con sen sus.

Now it is crucial to n ote th at for H aberm as th e statu s o f such a con sen su s is m erely regu lat ive: it can n ot secure th e m etaph ysical gu aran tee o f a fin al t ru th . Th is m ean s H aberm as exten ds th e ban on m etaph ysics to reason itself: th e ear lier (Kantian-Hegelian) con ception o f t ran scen den tal reason h as given w ay to a post- tran scen den tal an d

176 social research

m erely pragm atic con ception o f reason as a m un dan e an d fallibilist ic m edium for public debate. The distin ction betw een idealist t ran scen den talism an d un iversal pragm aticsw as a m ajor th em e in th e dispute betw een H aberm as an d Karl-Otto Apel (Habermas 2000). Alth ough critics com m on ly fau lt h im for placin g un w arran ted con fiden ce in reason , H aberm as abju res faith in a W eltgeist or a t ru ly t ran scen den tal m odel o f reason th at could serve as th e groun din g for absolu tist ic con sen sus. He in sists in stead th at a u n iversal pragm atics o f rat ion al d iscourse m u st accept th e tu rn to postm etaph ysical th in kin g. Reason itself, in oth er w ords, h as passed th rough th e t r ial o f secular ization .

Although th is th esis h ad been gestatin g for m an y years, it m ade its fu ll debut on ly in 1981 in th e two-volume Theory of Communicative Action (TCA) at a t im e w h en Haberm as w as not yet fully prepared to surrender th e inevitabilist com m itm en ts o f secularization theoiy. The basic claim at th is poin t w as th at religion belon gs to th at rich stock o f cultural n orm s th at h ave accum u lated h istor ically in to th e talcen-for-granted back groun d o f any given lifeworld. Alth ough accordin g to H aberm as such n orm s belon g to th e w ellspr in g o f m oral in sigh ts from w h ich a culture can draw instruction , in th e TCA Haberm as seem ed to im ply th at h um an h istory was on th e track tow ard a full rat ion alizat ion o f th e lifeworld, an d he did litt le to w ard off th e im pression th at th is ration alizin g process would u lt im ately deplete the reservoir o f sacred belief an d leave n oth in g beh ind. The com pulsoiy ch aracter o f religious n orm s, wh ich once served to bin d society in to a whole, w ould be retain ed but on ly as the bin din g ch aracter o f the bet ter argum en t. In th e secon d volum e o f The Theory of Communicative Action, H aberm as called th is process die Versprachlichung des Sakralen, or th e lin guistification o f the sacred (1985, 77).

In h is m ost lucid presen tat ion o f th is idea, H aberm as descr ibes th e em ergen ce o f com m un icat ive act ion n ot as an accom plish ed fact bu t m erely as a gu id in g h ypoth esis th at h elps us to con ceptualize the path o f societal rat ion alizat ion :

th e socially in tegrative an d expressive fun ction s th at wereat first fu lfilled by th e r itual practice pass over to commu-

Between Christian Dem ocracy and Critical Theory 177

n icat ive act ion ; th e au th or ity o f th e h oly is grad u ally replaced by th e au th or ity o f an ach ieved con sen sus. Th is m ean s a freein g o f com m u n icat ive act ion from sacrally protected n orm at ive con texts. Th e d isen ch an tm en t an d d isem pow er in g o f th e dom ain o f th e sacred tak es place by w ay o f a lin gu ist ificat ion o f th e r itually secured, basic n orm ative agreem en t ; goin g alon g w ith th is is a release o f th e rat ion ality poten t ial in com m un icative action . The au ra o f rapture an d ter ror th at em an ates from th e sacred, th e spellbinding pow er o f th e holy, is su blim ated in to th e binding/bonding force o f crit icizable validity claim s an d at th e sam e t im e tu rn ed in to an everyday occurren ce (1985,77; em ph asis in original).

The argum en t as stated above seem s to com m it H aberm as to an ideal o f th orou gh goin g secu lar izat ion . For in th e passage quoted above, it w ould be im possible for society to retain religion as an yth in g m ore th an an h istor ical ar t ifact or th e object o f em otion al or aesth et ic cath exis. The gen u in e au th ority o f th e h oly w ill fin d it is gradually replaced by th e au th ority o f an ach ieved con sen su s (my em ph asis). From th e logical poin t o f view th is idea o f replacem en t im plies su persession ism rath er th an cooperat ion : th e old can n ot persist alon gside th e new. If th is r eadin g is correct we can on ly con clude th at in 1981 H aberm as st ill cleaved to th e classical th eory o f secu lar izat ion , albeit w ith cer tain qualification s. The t r ium ph o f proceduralist reason an d th e con sequen t d isen ch an tm en t o f th e social order h ad lost th e qu ality o f h istor ical inevitability, bu t th ey n on eth eless survived in H aberm ass th eoiy in th e form o f a pragm atic ideal for societal rat ion alizat ion (J. Berger 1991).

In h is m ost recen t w ork, h ow ever, H aberm as (2012) seem s to have con siderably relaxed th e expectat ion o f th orou gh goin g secu lar ization . Over th e last 10 years h e h as gradually distan ced h im self from th e logic o f su per session ism an d h e h as adopted a far m ore n uan ced an d cooperat ive u n derstan d in g o f th e relat ion betw een religion an d m odern ity. Iron ically, w ith th is t ran sform at ion h e h as also effected

178 social research

a su rpr isin g rapproch em en t w ith m ajor cur ren ts in m odern Germ an con servative th ough t . Specifically, we can discern in h is recen t argu m en ts a ser ies o f p resu pposit ion s th at su ggest cer tain affin it ies w ith th e postw ar discourse o f Ch rist ian Democracy.

To th ose wh o know H aberm as prim arily th rough h is in terven tions in public political debate in Germany, the idea th at h e h as em braced even m in im al elem en ts o f Christian Democratic discourse m ay seem im plau sible. Alth ough h e is n ow w ell past h is eigh t ieth birth day, H aberm as rem ain s an un flaggin g critic o f Germ an con servat ism in all its form s. A geopolit ical posit ion in g system w ould locate h im on a well-traveled Autobah n o f dem ocratic socialism ; h e h as rarely strayed on to m ore exotic roads. To be sure, h is readin ess to con dem n peers on th e radical left for w h at h e once called left fascism lon g ago brough t a perm an en t rupture w ith popu list left-militancy; in deed, h is adm irat ion for American-style liberal th eorists such as Joh n Rawls h as earn ed h im a reputation as an ideological moderate. But he is, n on eth eless an d indisputably, a part isan o f th e social-democratic left w h ose fidelity to En ligh tenm en t th em es o f progress an d critique h ad already begun to solidify durin g th e m iracle years o f Germ anys postw ar econ om ic recovexy. Even today th is polit ical orien tation rem ain s un ch an ged. These caveats n otw ith standing, we can see in H aberm ass recen t tu rn to religion a readin ess to en tertain certain ideas associated w ith th e conservative an d Christian Democratic critique o f secular modernity. My task in w h at follows will be to explore th e n ature o f th is rapproch em en t.

CHRISTIANITY AND DEMOCRACY IN GERMANYWe can begin by con siderin g th e defin itive role o f Ch rist ian ity in post w ar Germ an polit ical life. Th e im portan ce o f Ch rist ian ity for m odern Germ an yor, at th e very least , Ch r ist ian ity u n derstood as a cu ltural an d eth ical form at ion is im m ed iately apparen t , especially i f on e com pares Germ an con st itu t ion al resolu tion s to th ose in France, wh ere th e lacit o f th e republic h as been an art icle o f faith at least since the 1905 Law o f Separat ion th at deprived th e Ch urch o f its public-political stan din g.

Between Christian Dem ocracy and Critical Theory 179

Sch olars h ave lon g r em ark ed on th e fact t h at th e Germ an Aufklrung n ever tu rn ed again st r eligion w ith th e sam e vigor as did th e distin ctive varian ts o f En ligh ten m en t in En glan d or France (Sorkin 2008). Already in Kan ts Religion within the Bounds of Mere Reason th ere em erged a pow er fu l t r ain o f liber al P rotestan t ism , w h ich by th e later n in eteen th cen tury h ad con gealed in to th e Kulturprotestantismus expou n ded by th eologian s such as Adolf von H arn ack. Th e fu sion betw een a presum ptively Protestan t Ch rist ian ity an d Germ an n ation al iden tity served as an ideological ju st ificat ion for th e m ilitan cy o f the Kulturkam pf an d in 1914 en flam ed polit ical- th eological passion s for war. It en dured in to th e 1920s an d even survived th e wave o f dialect ical th eology w h ose m ajor represen tat ive, the Sw iss pastor Karl Barth , con dem n ed H arn acks fu sion o f n at ion alism an d Ch rist ian ity as state idolatry. A cer tain fascin at ion w ith radicals on th e W eim ar left m ay h ave discouraged us from recallin g th at for m ost liberals an d con ser vat ives in Germ any, m odern society st ill bore a st ron gly Ch rist ian im prin t. Even Max W eber, th at th eor ist o f in evitable disen ch an tm en t, saw in cap italism a r eper toire o f eth ical d isposit ion s th at h ad once sprun g from a doctr in ally m odified Calvin ism. Meanwhile, th e polit ical an d legal th eor ist Carl Sch m itt (by or igin a Catholic) claim ed th at all sign ifican t polit ical con cepts were t raceable to Ch rist ian theology, an d h e believed th at liberal procedures o f par liam en tary debate w ould soon b reak dow n in to un w orkable fact ion alism w ere it n ot for th e quasi- th eological m iracle o f a sovereign decision . W ith out religious t rad it ion or its fun ction al equivalen t, th e m odern polit ical order could not survive (Sch m itt 2005).

We sh ou ld keep th is b ackgrou n d in m in d w h en w e con sider th at in postw ar Germany, con servat ive an d Ch rist ian polit ician s were un ited in declar in g th at th e evils o f th e Th ird Reich h ad ar isen in par t becau se th e n at ion h ad aban don ed its sp ir itu al h er itage. Th e h agiograph ie rem em bran ce o f d issen t in g Ch urch leaders such as Dietrich Bon h oeffer h elped to for t ify th e w idespread con vict ion am on g con ser vative legal an d polit ical th eor ists th at in th e fu tu re Germ an y could on ly r etain its m oral equ ilibr iu m i f it r em ain ed open to th e n orm a

180 social research

tive gu idan ce o f Ch rist ian ity. Th e old H arn ackian ideal o f a par tn er sh ip betw een Ch rist ian ity an d culture rem ain ed un sh aken , n ot on ly in th e pr im ar ily P rotestan t Lnder o f n or th ern Germ an y bu t also in m ain ly Cath olic Bavaria. Un der Ch an cellor Kon rad Aden au er s carefu l leadersh ip an d th e an ti-u topian slogan o f n o exper im en ts, W est Germ an con servat ives after 1945 rallied to th e ideology o f Ch r ist ian Dem ocracy as in st itu t ion alized in th e postw ar Ch rist ian Dem ocrat ic Un ion (CDU) an d it s sist e r par ty in Bavar ia, th e Ch r ist ian Social Un ion (CSU).

It is crucial to recall th at Germ an Ch rist ian Dem ocracy gain ed in st itu t ion al an d ideological legit im acy in th e ear ly years o f polit ical t raum a w h en a clean break from th e Th ird Reich seem ed a prerequ isite for dem ocratic par t icipat ion . Germ an con servatives w h o m igh t oth erw ise h ave suffered from th e st igm as o f th e past developed a legit im izin g polit ical- th eological n arrat ive th at saw Nazism as th e den ouem en t o f secular ization . As Maria Mitch ell h as sh own, W est Germ an ys Ch ristian Dem ocrats an d par ty apparatch iks in th e late 1940s an d ear ly 50s ch aracter ized Nazism as a path ological sym ptom o f m ater ialism a capacious term th at em braced all o f th e afflict ion s o f m odern ity: liberalism , r am pan t capitalism , even M arxism (Mitchell 1995, 2012). The paradoxical con sequen ce o f th is defen sive in terpretat ion w as to excu lpate Germ an con servat ives o f an y ideological k in sh ip w ith th e Nazi past , h eapin g th e greater sh are o f b lam e upon th e polit ical left for th e Germ an catastroph e. M ost iron ic o f all w as th at th e n ew ch arge o f m ater ialism recapitu lated a con caten ation o f an xieties about liberal m odern ity th at th e Nazis th em selves h ad on ce m an ipu lated to th eir ow n advan tage. O ccasion ally postw ar Ch r ist ian Dem ocrats reverted to th e older lan guage o f an t im odern ist resen tm en t: Aden auer h im self descr ibed the Jew s as an in flu en t ial force in big busin ess. As Norbert Frei h as explain ed, Aden auers Germ an y w as keen to pu t th e m em ory o f Nat ion al Socialism aside as qu ickly as possib le even i f th is m ean t retain in g a great m an y represen tat ives o f th e Th ird Reich in th e W est Germ an polit ical bureaucracy. The com prom ise w as perh aps n ecessaryW est Germ an y m igh t n ot h ave survived a m ore zealous purge

Between Christian Dem ocracy and Critical Theory 181

bu t for m an y youn ger Germ an s on th e left it called in to quest ion the legit im acy o f th e fledgin g dem ocracy (Frei 2002).

At th e level o f in form al d iscourse an d social theory, Ch r ist ian Dem ocracy drew upon an d h elped to suppor t an ideological syllogism : Nazism w as born from secu lar m ater ialism , an d h en cefor th W est Germ an y w ould retain its m oral equ ilibr iu m on ly i f it cleaved to its Ch ristian h eritage. This polit ical logic gain ed prest ige w ell beyon d the ran ks o f th e con servative par t ies. The 1959 revision o f th e SPD plat form in troduced in Bad Godesberg aban don ed th e m ilitan t secu lar ism th at h ad lon g dist in gu ish ed European socialism sin ce th e n in eteen th cen tury an d explicit ly ackn ow ledged th at dem ocratic socialism h as its roots in Ch rist ian eth ics, h u m an ism an d classical ph ilosoph y even w h ile it also ab ju red an y appeal to u lt im ate t ru th s. It h asten ed to explain th e platform s resistan ce to epistem ological certitude w as n ot due to an y lack o f u n derstan d in g for or in differen ce to ph ilosoph ical or religious t ru th s, bu t ou t o f r espect for th e in dividuals ch oice in th ese m at ters o f con scien ce in w h ich n eith er th e state n or an y polit ical par ty sh ould be allow ed to in terfere (Grebing 2005, 406-464).

W h ile th e SPD st ru ggled to adm it its h istor ical affiliat ion w ith Ch ristian ity, it w as th e con servat ive en d o f th e W est Germ an polit ical spectrum th at foun d greater solace in religion . W ith th e Cold W ar r ivaliy again st an avowedly secu lar ist an d m ater ialist en em y to th e East, W est Germ an ys con servatives in both th e CDU an d th e CSU en dorsed Article 7(3) o f th e 1949 Grun dgesetz or Basic Law, w h ich m an dated religiou s in st ru ct ion in state sch ools. An im atin g th is requ irem en t w as a crucial h istor ical an d ideological prem ise th at m odern dem ocracy lacks its own secu lar n orm s o f m oral-polit ical stabilizat ion an d for its own sake it m ust draw upon th e resources o f religious t radit ion an d convey th ese values th rough com pulsory in st ruct ion to th e cit izen s o f th e n ext gen eration .

The idea th at Ch rist ian ity sh ould play a leadin g role in th e m oral education o f Germ an cit izen s h as both practical an d th eoret ical im plication s. One o f th e pract ical effects can be seen in th e paragraph 13, sect ion 11 o f th e Bavarian Gen eral Sch ool Law (Volkssch ulordn un g):

182 social research

The sch ool suppor ts th e paren ts in th e religious education o f ch ildren . Sch ool prayer, religious service in school, an d w orsh ip are possibilit ies o f th is suppor t . In each classroom a cross it to be pu t u p . It is w ell kn ow n th at th is law h as provoked great con troversy. In 1995, in the Bavarian tow n o f Sch w an dorf, a legal com plain t w as brough t again st a local sch ool (Der Spiegel 1995). The p lain t iffs in th e case, th e fam ily o f Ern st Teler (follow ers o f Ru dolf Stein er s an th roposoph ist m ovem en t) objected th at th e Bavar ian law violated th eir r igh t to freedom o f con scien ce an d religion an d violated th e prin ciple o f state n eu trality in religion . They fu r th er com plain ed th at th e represen tat ion o f the crucified Jesu s w ou ld cause th eir ch ildren psych ological h arm . Local cour ts in it ially foun d again st th e plain t iffs an d recon firm ed Bavarian law. But in May 1995 th e Federal Con st itu t ion al Court in Karlsruh e, determ in ed th at th e Bavarian law con tradicted Germ an ys Basic Law, or Grun dgesetz.

The Con stitu tion al Cour ts ru lin g provoked im m ediate com plain t an d critics were qu ick to n ote th at th e crucifix belon ged to th e everyday fu rn ish in gs o f Bavar ian sch oolin g. Even beyon d th e m ain ly Cath olic region s o f sou th eastern Germany, m ost Germ an s h ad lon g foun d th e crucifix un object ion able: on ly on e quar ter o f th e n at ion al popu lat ion agreed w ith th e Con st itu tion al Courts ban on th e d isplay o f crucifixes in th e classroom . In an in terview w ith Der Spiegel, the Bavarian min ister- presiden t Edm un d Stoiber explain ed th at

in Bavaria we h ave accordin g to th e con st itu t ion a Ch ristian com m un ity school. Th is w as even rat ified by popu lar decision in 1968. The overw h elm in g m ajority o f the populat ion , in cludin g th ose wh o are rem ote from th e official Church , agreed u pon th is con st itu t ion al decision . Values su ch as toleran ce, broth er lin ess an d social ju st ice flow from [sind Ausflsse aus] Ch ristian eth ical law [Sittengesetz].

In Stoiber s view it w as sim ply in coh eren t th at th e con st itu t ion al cou r t cou ld sim u ltan eou sly affirm th e sch ools m oral an d h istor ical

Between Christian Dem ocracy and Critical Theory 183

Ch rist ian im pr in t bu t n on eth eless disallow th e sym bol th at expressed th is ch aracter . Th is perspect ive w as broad ly sh ared by r ep resen tat ives o f Germ an ys cen ter-righ t par t ies, in cludin g Ch an cellor H elm ut Kohl, wh o w arn ed th at th e ru lin g th reaten ed th e values o f occiden tal culture [abendlndischen Kultur] (Der Spiegel 1995).

Th e st r ik in g th in g ab ou t th is case is th at con servat ives w ere qu ick to evoke fears o f occiden tal collapse. Th is is perh aps all th e m ore su rpr isin g w h en we con sider th at th e case con cern ed th e h istor ically r eson an t qu est ion o f r igh ts for religious m in or it ies in Germany. But th is could n ot ch allen ge th e overr idin g con servative logic th at equated Ch ristian ity w ith W estern civilization . Support for th is equation could be foun d in older m em ories from th e era o f th e Th ird Reich, w h en the Nazis h ad t r ied (albeit w ith am bivalen t resu lts) to b r in g Ch rist ian ity in to ideological align m en t w ith the regim e (Lewy 1964; Bergen 1996).

For Ch r ist ian con servat ives in postw ar Germ any, th e m em ory o f Nazi de-Ch rist ian izat ion effor ts h elped to for t ify th eir polit ically advan tageou s u n d er stan d in g o f th e Th ird Reich as a pagan regim e w h ose r ise w as predicated u pon th e rad ical secu lar izat ion o f society an d th e con com itan t destru ct ion o f Ch r ist ian n orm s. Con servatives could th erefore con firm an equat ion betw een Ch rist ian ity an d civilization th at served to ju st ify th e con tin ued presen ce o f Ch rist ian ity in th e public sph ere. Im plicit in th is assum pt ion w as th e correlative belief th at , absen t th e m oral n ou r ish m en t or value-or ien tat ion s provided by Ch rist ian ity, liberal dem ocracy w ou ld su ffer a n orm at ive deficit an d m igh t n ot lon g survive. Eith er it w ould ossify in to th e value-free n igh tm are o f bu reaucrat ic totalitar ian ism , or it w ould succum b on ce again to n eo-pagan n at ion alism (as w as th e cau t ion ary lesson o f th e W eimar Republic). The un der lyin g logic o f Ch ristian Dem ocracy is th at th e m odern dem ocratic order lacks sufficien t m oral-polit ical substan ce becau se it is in essen ce lit t le m ore th an a procedure or m ach in e (McCormick 1999).

The m ost fam ous expon en t o f th is view w as Carl Sch m itt , wh o ch aracter ized liber alism as a system o f legality w ith ou t in tern al groun ds for legitimacy. Sch m itt s in fluen ce can be t racked w ell in to the

184 social research

Germ an postw ar era (Mller 2003), bu t it w ould be w ron g to d ism iss th e crit ique as n ecessar ily Sch m itt ian in or igin or in tr in sically an tagon ist ic to liberal modern ity. On th e con trary: bu t t ressed by broad-m inded appeals to a Judeo-Ch ristian h eritage, th e affirm ation o f religion an d th e correlative an xiety abou t m ere proceduralism is a h allm ark o f the Ch rist ian Dem ocrat ic con sen sus th at h as played an im por tan t role in sh apin g postw ar Germ an ys self-un derstan din g as a dem ocratic polity (Huber 2008). It h as in form ed n ot on ly pract ices in form al education bu t also th e far broader con cept ion o f th e form ative role assign ed to religion in th e public sph ere.

THE BCKEN FRDE DICTUMTh e idea o f Ch r ist ian ity as a vital resource o f n orm ative in st ru ct ion h as also played an im por tan t role in Germ an social th ough t. One o f its m ost m em orable propon en ts h as been Ern st W olfgan g Bcken frde, a Cath olic associated w ith th e so-called Ritter Sch ool in Mnster, w h o is a social dem ocratic ju dge an d legal th eor ist best known for h is at tem pts to liberalize w ith ou t w h olly aban don in g th e polit ical- th eological in sigh ts o f Carl Sch mitt.

Bcken frdes m ost im por tan t statem en t o f th e con sen sus view appeared in a lectu re presen ted in Ebrach an d pu blish ed in 1967 as The Rise o f th e State as a Process o f Secu lar izat ion (2004, 213-230). In a gran d survey o f th e past m illen n ium , Bcken frde sum m arizes th e r ise o f th e European state as th e gradual em an cipat ion o f state procedures from th eir or igin al m atr ix in Christian ity. Medieval Ch rist ian ity or igin ally con ceived o f it se lf as a total w orld order th at un ited ecclesiast ical an d tem poral fun ction s in a res publica Christiana. But secu lar izat ion en tailed a grow in g divide betw een th e n on polit ical task s o f religion on th e on e h an d an d th e n on sacred task s o f polit ical adm in ist rat ion on th e oth er. Bcken frde t races th is process o f separat ion from th e eleven th -cen tury In vest itu re con troversy th rou gh th e set t lem en ts o f th e Reform ation an d th e Edict o f Nan tesdecision s th at first m ade it possib le to im agin e th e n on h om ogen eity o f religious iden tity w ith in a sin gle polit ical regim e. The French Revolution com pleted th is process

Between Christian Dem ocracy and Critical Theory 185

o f secu lar division w h en it r edefin ed th e polit ical order as a system for safeguardin g th e r igh ts o f m an un derstood in a w h olly n atu ralist ic sen se even w h ile it allow ed for the persisten ce o f religion in th e priva- t ist ic an d n on polit ical sen se o f in dividual faith .

The dilem m a th at Bcken frde presen ts in th e con clusion to h is essay is th at religion h ad always been (in h is words) the strongest bonding agent for the political order (em ph asis added). The r ise o f m od em dem ocracy th erefore con fron ts u s w ith a n ew quest ion o f h ow to in tegrate th e em an cipated in d ividu al in to a state th at h as n o oth er fun ct ion th an the preservat ion o f r igh ts con ceived as pr ior to its purely adm in istrative existen ce. People h ad to fin d a n ew togeth ern ess, Bcken frde observes, a n ew h om ogen eity, i f th e state w as n ot to fall vict im to the social atom ism o f m erely procedural reason . Th is quest ion o f bon din g prom pts Bcken frdes fam ous form ula (the first sen ten ce is italicized in th e original):

The liberal, secularized state is nourished by presuppositions that it cannot itself guarantee. [Der freiheitliche, skularisierte Staat lebt von Voraussetzungen, die er selbst night garantieren kann.]Th at is th e great gam ble it h as m ade for liber tys sake. On th e on e h an d, it can on ly survive as a liberal state i f th e liber ty it allow s its cit izen s regu lates it se lf from w ith in on th e basis o f th e m oral substan ce o f th e in dividual an d th e h om ogen eity o f society. On th e oth er h an d, it can n ot at tem pt to gu aran tee th ose in n er regu latory forces by its ow n effor tsth at is to say, w ith th e in st ru m en ts o f legal coercion an d au th oritat ive com m an dw ith ou t aban don in g its liberaln ess an d, at a secu lar ized level, lapsin g in to th at preten sion to totality out o f w h ich it led th e way in to th e den om in ation al civil w ars (Bckenfrde 1976, 60).

From the perspect ive o f social an d legal theory, th e dictum (as presen ted in italics above) su ggests th at liberal dem ocracy fin ds its sou rces o f both m orality an d coh esion in the prepolit ical groun ds o f th e Ch ristian

186 social research

religion . First, it is Ch rist ian ity th at provides cit izen s w ith th e substan t ive m oral or ien tat ion th ey requ ire i f th ey are to direct th eir con duct tow ard th e greater w elfare o f th e polity. Second, it is Ch rist ian ity th at fu rn ish es a sh ared or h om ogen eou s cu ltu ral fram ew ork for dem ocrat ic cit izen s w h o w ould oth erw ise r em ain dissociated players in a norm-free gam e o f social com petit ion . Th ese two pr in ciples fin d th eir com m on root in a deep an xiety abou t dem ocracy as m ere procedural- ism : i f secu lar izat ion is allow ed to progress un ch ecked, dem ocracy will lack an y un ifyin g m oral substan ce w h atsoever an d it w ill disin tegrate in to th e norm-free m ater ialism Ch ristian Dem ocrats h ave lon g feared.

It would be a m istake to d ism iss Bcken frdes essay as m erely th e recondite reflections o f an in tellectual w ith out in fluence. As a judge for th e secon d sen ate o f the Germ an con stitution al court from 1982 to 1996, Bckenfrde h elped th e federal republic to navigate th e un certain w aters o f political un ification an d the en su in g period o f tran sit ion (die W ende). In W est Germ an legal an d polit ical discourse, h is argum en t for th e Ch ristian foun dation s o f secular dem ocracy h as assum ed such prestige th at it is known sim ply as the dictum . His opin ion s have also received con siderable atten tion in th e popu lar press (Bckenfrde 2009).

Now, it sh ou ld be n oted th at Bcken frde h im self h as resisted th e m ore exclusion ary con clusion s o f Ch ristian Dem ocratic con servatives. By par ty affiliat ion he is a social dem ocrat, an d he h as stated h is readin ess to gran t th e legitimacy, alon gside Christian ity, o f oth er sources o f m oral com m itm en t. In a 2009 in terview w ith th e Tageszeitung he w en t so far as to reject th e con servative in feren ce th at on ly Ch rist ian ity could fu rn ish th e requ ired prepolit ical m oral foun dation s for democracy, an d h e accepted th e proposal th at Islam m igh t also be seen as a legit im ate w ellspr in g o f prepolit ical m orals (Bckenfrde 2009). But h is argum en t w as frequen tly perceived by con servatives in a m ore exclusivist sen se. Seen in th e broader con text o f postw ar Germ an ideology, th e sign ifican ce o f th e Bcken frde dictum derives from th e w ay it com presses in to a sin gle ph rase a h ost o f claim s th at con tin ue to an im ate public d iscussion con cern in g th e relat ion betw een liberal dem ocracy an d its m oral or cultural prerequ isites. The dictum is n ot on ly a con tr ibution

Between Christian Dem ocracy and Critical Theory 187

to th eor ies o f secu lar izat ion it also len ds ideological su ppor t to th e n ot ion th at th e Germ an govern m en t sh ou ld be cer tain to w elcom e Ch rist ian ity as th e crucial resource for n orm ative in struct ion , n ot on ly in education al set t in gs bu t in society at large.

HABERMAS, CHRISTIAN DEMOCRACY, AND ISLAMIn th e m ost r ecen t decad es, d iscu ssion con cern in g th e r eligiou s backgrou n d for dem ocracy h as assu m ed greater in ten sity, ch iefly in respon se to th e grow in g prom in en ce o f th e Muslim m in or ity popu lat ion w h ose n orm ative-religious differen ce is seen by som e critics as a poten t ial th reat to the cu ltural h om ogen eity an d th e m oral or ien tat ion th at a dem ocracy osten sibly n eeds (Reimann an d Riem an n 1987; Hunn 2005; Chin 2007).

It is h ereat th e n exu s betw een an older d iscou rse con cern in g th e Ch rist ian precon dit ion s for dem ocracy an d a n ew er discourse con cern in g th e possibility o f Muslim in clusion th at we can begin to appreciate wh y H aberm as h as directed h is at ten t ion in h is latest writin gs to qu est ion s o f religion . In 2004 H aberm as m et w ith Cardin al Josep h Ratzin ger for a pu b lic d ialogu e spon sored by th e Cath olic Academ y o f Bavaria for a discussion th at w as th en publish ed un der the t it le The Dialectics o f Secularizat ion .

In h is open in g rem arks, H aberm as m akes a direct allusion to th e Bcken frde dictum :

Th e top ic th at h as b een p r op osed for ou r d iscu ssion rem in ds m e o f a quest ion th at Ern st W olfgan g Bcken frde su m m ed u p in th e m id-1960s in th e follow in g pregn an t form ula: Does th e free, secu lar ized state exist on the basis o f n orm ative presupposit ion s th at it it se lf can n ot gu aran tee? Th is qu est ion expresses a dou bt abou t w h eth er th e dem ocrat ic con st itu t ion al state can ren ew from its ow n resources th e n orm ative presu pposit ion s o f its existen ce; it also expresses th e assum pt ion th at such a state is depen den t on eth ical t radit ion s o f a local n ature. Th ese m ay be

188 social research

t radit ion s o f on e par t icu lar world view or o f a religion , but in an y case, th ey h ave a collectively b in din g ch aracter . In view o f w h at Rawls h as called th e fact o f p lu ralism , th is w ou ld in deed be an em b ar r assm en t to a state th at w as com m itted to n eutrality in term s o f its w orld view; bu t th is con sequen ce is n ot per se an argu m en t again st th e assu m p t ion (Habermas 2006, 21).

The m ere fact th at H aberm as recalls Bcken frde does n ot im ply he en dorses the dictum itself: allu sion is n ot agreem en t. In fact, th e very t it le o f h is lecture con tains an in terrogativePrepolitical Foundations o f th e Dem ocratic Con stitu tion al State?th at m ay sign al H aberm ass unw illingness to suppress doubts regardin g th e true force o f the dictum. In th e rem ain der o f h is address, Haberm as concedes th e h istorical poin t th at m odem dem ocracy in Europe did in fact em erge from the secularizat ion o f substan tive m oral an d cultural in sigh ts th at h ad th eir origins in Christianity. Unlike Ratzinger, however, Haberm as is reluctan t to derive from th is h istor ical observat ion th e n orm ative pr in ciple th at m odern dem ocracy m ust necessarily continue to rely upon th ese religious origins:

I m yself th in k it bet ter n ot to pu sh too far th e quest ion w h eth er an am bivalen t m odern age w ill stab ilize it se lf exclusively on th e basis o f th e secu lar forces o f a com m u n icative reason . Rather, let us t reat th is un dram atically, as an open , em pir ical quest ion . In oth er words, I do n ot w ish to speak o f th e ph en om en on o f th e con tin ued existen ce o f religion in a largely secu lar ized en viron m en t sim ply as a societal fact: ph ilosoph y m u st take th is ph en om en on seriously from w ith in , so to speak, as a cogn it ive ch allen ge (Habermas 2006, 38).

The object ion to Bcken frde is subtle an d it in jects a st ron g elem en t o f con dit ion ality in to th e p rop osal th at secu lar society n ecessar ily requ ires religious in st ruct ion . H aberm as coun ters th is p roposal w ith

Between Christian Dem ocracy and Critical Theory 189

th e suggest ion th at we can n ot yet kn ow i f secu lar society m igh t arrive at a self-sustain in g n orm ative fram ew ork. To presum e such know ledge w ould be to relapse in to th e dogm at ism th at postm etaph ysical ph ilosoph y disallow s.

To u n derstan d in greater detail ju st h ow H aberm as differs from Bcken frde, we sh ou ld t ak e n ote o f th e fact th at in r ecen t years som e polit ical leaders in th e CDU h ave sough t to con firm a con servat ive version o f th e dictum . Germ any, th ey say, sh ou ld n ot su r ren der its cu ltural h om ogen eity, sin ce dem ocracy it se lf requ ires w h at is n ow popu lar ly iden t ified as a Leitkultur or leadin g cu lture. In respon se to th is con servative argum en t , H aberm as took th e u n usual m easu re of publish in g an editor ial in th e New York Times in w h ich h e con dem n ed advocates o f cultural h om ogen eity for len din g a pat in a o f legit im acy to an ti-Muslim h atred. To th e presen t day, Haberm as observed,

the idea o f th e Leitkultur depen ds on th e m iscon ception th at th e liberal state sh ou ld dem an d m ore o f its im m igran ts th an learn in g th e lan gu age o f th e coun try an d accept in g th e pr in cip les o f th e Con st itu t ion . We h ad, an d ap p ar en tly st ill have, to overcom e th e view th at im m igran ts are supposed to assim ilate th e valu es o f th e m ajority culture an d to adop t its cu stom s. Th at w e are exper ien cin g a relapse in to th is eth n ic un derstan din g o f our liberal con st itu tion is bad en ough . It doesn t m ake th in gs an y bet ter th at today Leitkultur is defin ed n ot by Germ an cu ltu re bu t by religion . W ith an ar rogan t appropr iat ion o f Ju daism an d an in credible d isregard for th e fate th e Jew s su ffered in Germ anythe apologists o f th e Leitkultur n ow appeal to the Judeo-Ch ristian t radit ion , w h ich dist in guish es u s from th e foreign ers (H aberm as 2010).

W h at is rem arkable in th is in ciden t is th e way th at H aberm ass in terven t ion saw beyon d th e d ir ty bu sin ess o f an t i- im m igran t popu lism to address th e un der lyin g th eoret ical prem ise, n am ely, th at a dem o

190 social research

cratic polity requires sh ared cultural-religious n orm s. The Bcken frde dictum im plied th at dem ocracy m u st ask for m ore th an w h at H aberm as h im self h as called con st itu t ion al pat r iot ism , an allegian ce to dem ocrat ic procedure (Mller 2000). W h ile a con servat ive read in g o f th e dictum im plied th at procedure w ould n ot suffice, H aberm as saw th at the requ irem en t o f cultural-religious h om ogen eity w ould on ly fan the flam es o f n ation al ch auvin ism .

The h istor ical st ruggle for acceptan ce o f cu ltural h eterogen eity in Germ an society h as been slow an d subject to frequen t con testation . Politicians on th e r igh t have lon g resisted Multikulti (multiculturalism ), a t erm w h ich on ly cam e in to com m on u sage in Germ an y in th e year o f reun ificat ion (Chin 2007, 191 an d passim). Meanwhile, xen oph obic m ilitan ts h ave occasion ally pu r su ed th e ideal o f cu ltu ral h om ogen eity th rou gh violen ce an d even m urder. As th e h istor ian Rita Chin h as observed, th e ser ies o f violen t (and som etim es leth al) xen oph obic at tacks on gu est w orkers in th e ear ly 1990s revealed a reluctan ce am on g som e Germ an s to accept th e pr im ary lesson o f m igran t presen ce, th at Germ an y h ad becom e a m ult ieth n ic society dur in g th e postw ar per iod an d [that] the ideal o f a recon st itu ted h om ogen ous Germ an Volk w as no lon ger possib le (Chin 2007, 257).

H aberm ass recen t tu rn to th e quest ion o f religion is a respon se to th ese n ew ch allen ges. Sin ce Septem ber 11, H aberm as h as grow n ever m ore cogn izan t o f the n ew visibility o f religious m in ority cultures th rough out W estern Europe, an d w ith th is aw aren ess h as com e a n ovel recogn it ion o f th e n eed to recon ceptu alize (w ith out w h olly d ism an tling) th e prem ise o f secu lar izat ion th at bu t t ressed h is ear lier socio- h istor ical th eory o f polit ical m odern ity. W h en he n ow speaks w ith approval o f postsecular society, it is largely because h e u n derstan ds h ow th e n ew proph ets o f an ti-Islam ic in toleran ce all too often h ide ben eath th e m ask o f a pr in cip led secu lar ism (H aberm as 2009). The struggle, especially in Germany, to secure a space o f public acceptan ce for Muslim im m igran ts an d th e ch ildren o f Gastarbeiter h as m oved him to form ulate th e requ irem en ts o f liberal dem ocracy as a reciprocal learn in g process:

Between Christian Dem ocracy and Critical Theory 191

On th e on e h an d, th ose w h o are n eith er w illin g n or able to separate th eir m oral con vict ion s an d vocabu lary in to profan e an d religious stran ds m u st be perm it ted to par t icipate in polit ical w ill form at ion even if th ey u se religious lan guage. On the other, the democratic state should not overhast- ily reduce the polyphonic complexity of the range of public voices, for it cannot be sure whether in doing so it would not cut society off from scarce resources for generating meanings and shaping identities. Especially regarding vulnerable domains of social life, religious traditions have the power to provide convincing articulations of moral sensitivities and solidaristic intuitions. W hat causes difficult ies for secu lar ism , th en , is th e expectat ion th at the secu lar cit izen s in civil society an d in th e polit ical aren a m u st be able to en cou n ter th eir r eligious fellow cit izen s face to face as equ als (H aberm as 2009, 76-77; em ph asis added).

W h at is st r ik in g in th is argu m en t is it s torn ideological allegian ce. It sim u ltan eously ackn ow ledges th e t ru th o f Bocken fordes in sigh t in to th e religious sources o f dem ocrat ic m ean in g, even w h ile it d issen ts from the m ore con servative requ irem en t o f moral-religious h om ogen eity th at or igin ally served as th e prem ise for Bocken fordes th eoiy.

A skept ic m igh t respon d th at su ch a balan cin g act can n ot be sustain ed. For, on th e on e h an d, H aberm as gran ts th at religion m ay serve as a reservoir o f n orm ative poten t ials for democracy. Indeed, he goes so far as to im ply th at dem ocrat ic procedures may very well need th e prepolit ical in struct ion best foun d in religion . But h e deploys th is argum en t in such a w ay th at it lends support to th e voices o f an oth erw ise excluded m in or ity popu lat ion w h ose religious iden tity h as typically been t reated n ot as a poten t ial ben efit to dem ocracy bu t on ly as a th reat . Th e resu lt is a deeply con flicted th eory: H aberm as seem s to accept th e con servat ive cr it ique o f secu lar izat ion as n orm ative loss, even w h ile h e st ill em braces th e secu lar ist requ irem en t th at religious n orm s pass th rough a filter o f tran slat ion . He recapitu lates th e con ser

192 social research

vative argum en t for religion , bu t he t ran sform s th is argum en t in to an appeal for plu ralism an d religious in clusion .

A WORKABLE PARTNERSHIP?In h is 2001 acceptan ce speech for th e Fran kfurt Peace Prize, H aberm as w arn ed again st adopt in g th e facile slogan o f a clash o f civilization s, sin ce it w as clear th at religious fu n dam en talism w as a ph en om en on o f th e Ch rist ian W est as w ell as th e Islam ic East. We m u st keep in m in d, he declared, th at th e dialectic o f our own occiden tal process o f secu larization h as yet n ot com e to a close. The en tire speech is a m editat ion on th e sign ifican ce o f religion for th e public sph ere an d it can th erefore stan d as a h elpfu l su m m at ion o f th e argu m en ts H aberm as h as been grapplin g w ith for th e last decade.

The m ajor con cern o f th e address w as to ch aracter ize th e proper r elat ion betw een su bstan t ive r eligiou s valu es an d rat ion al-secu lar n orm s w ith in th e fram ew ork o f m odern democracy. Like Bcken frde, H aberm as gran ted th at religion m ay con tain n orm ative in sigh ts th at can be o f service for a dem ocratic polity. Religious lan guage preserves an d bears th e capacity for expressin g th e sorts o f m oral feelin gs th at secu lar m odern ity m ay h ave oth erw ise forgotten . But H aberm as is reluctan t to accept th e con servative con clusion th at Ch rist ian ity m ust th erefore retain a cer tain preem in en ce as th e sin gu lar cultural foun dat ion for democracy. In stead, h e in sist s th at i f it is to retain its legit im acy as a gen u in ely open an d dem ocratic state, Germ an y m u st ackn ow ledge its cu ltu ral an d religious p lu ralism , sin ce it can n ot appeal to n orm s th at are recogn izable on ly to on e religiou s com m u n ity (H aberm as2005, 332).

W ith in a dem ocracy, th e on ly perm issib le lan gu age o f public debate is on e th at rem ain s in pr in ciple in telligible to all par t icipan ts r egard less o f cu ltu ral or religiou s iden tity. Th is m ean s th at reason s an im ated by religious con vict ion m u st pass th rou gh a filter o f t r an slat ion . The idea o f a t r an slat ion provisoth at is, a t ran slat ion from com preh en sive doct r in es in to th e lan gu age o f pu blic r eason is borrow ed from th e later Rawls. But H aberm as h as elsew h ere expressed

Between Christian Dem ocracy and Critical Theory 193

cer tain reservat ion s abou t th e Raw lsian requ irem en t th at (as cr itics like Nich olas W olterstoff an d Paul J. W eith m an h ave com plain ed) m ay im pose an asym m etr ical bu rden on religious cit izen s (Audi an d W olterstorff 1997; Lafon t 2007). Oth er critics such as Maeve Cooke have suggested th at th e burden o f t ran slat ion does n ot differen tiate betw een two epistem ic types o f religious belief, au th or itar ian an d n on auth or itar ian (Cooke 2007). Again st such crit ics H aberm as seem s to fin d the t ran slat ion proviso un object ion able in sofar as it places equal bu rden s on both par t ies: ju st as th e religious m u st m ake th em selves in telligible in th e un iversally accessib le lan gu age o f public reason , so too n on religious cit izen s m u st adopt a cer tain h u m ility an d open n ess tow ard th eir religious co-citizens. Indeed, h e prefers to em ph asize th e n orm ative gain to th e public sph ere i f it open s it se lf up via t ran slat ion to the m oral feelin gs preserved in religious tradit ion : Th ose m oral feelin gs w h ich on ly religious lan guage h as as yet been able to give a sufficien tly differen tiated expression m ay fin d un iversal reson an ce once a salvagin g form ulat ion turn s up for som eth in g alm ost forgotten , bu t im plicit ly m issed. The m ode for n on destruct ive secu lar izat ion is t ran slat ion (Habermas 2005, 335-6).

W ith th e argum en t above, H aberm as an n oun ces h is allegian ce to th e lon g lin e o f left-Hegelian th eor ists w h o h ave sough t to h arn ess the redem ptive in sigh ts o f th e W estern m on oth eist ic t radit ion for a th is- w orldly realizat ion o f h u m an h appin ess (Habermas 2005,334). But m ore th an Rawls, H aberm as is keen ly aw are th at th e requ irem en t o f t ran slat ion m ay seem to place an u n equ al bu rden on religious cit izen s: To date, on ly cit izen s com m it ted to religious beliefs are requ ired to split u p th eir iden tifies, as it w ere, in to th eir public an d pr ivate elem en ts. Th ey are th e on es w h o h ave to t ran slate th eir religious beliefs in to a secu lar lan gu age before th eir argu m en ts h ave an y ch an ce o f gain in g m ajority su ppor t (Haberm as 2005, 332). In respon se to th is perceived in equality, H aberm as h asten s to n ote th at th ose o f a secu lar or ien tat ion also bear an im por tan t respon sibility to th eir religious cit izen s: the secu lar side m u st rem ain sen sit ive to th e force o f ar t icu lation in h eren t in religious lan guages. For it w ould be un fair to exclude religion s

194 social research

from th e public sph ere or to sever secular society from important sources of meaning (Habermas 2005, 332; em ph asis added).

Th e ar gu m en tat ion su m m ar ized above leaves on e w ith th e dist in ct im pression th at H aberm as is n avigat in g betw een two ideological con tin en tsth e secu lar ist prem ises o f ow n left-Hegelian ph ilosoph y an d th e religious prem ises o f a Ch ristian Dem ocrat ic ideology th at is slowly adaptin g it se lf to th e facts o f religious pluralism . The secular ist prem ises are easily discern ed. After all, com m un icat ive reason im poses th e proviso o f public reason on all par t icipan ts: The public sph ere m u st rem ain open to cit izen s w h o draw th eir m oral in sigh ts from religion , bu t th ose cit izen s are expected to presen t argu m en ts for th eir policy claim s in a profan e lan gu age in telligible to all cit izen s ir respect ive o f th eir pr ivate adh eren ce to com preh en sive doctrin es. Here we m igh t say th at t ran slat ion is m erely th e n ew n am e for w h at H aberm as once called lin gu ist ificat ion . It is apparen t th at H aberm as w ould like to u n der stan d th e pr in ciple o f t ran slat ion as im posin g an equal burden on both sides bu t it seem s clear th is is n ot actually th e case. After all, t ran slat ion is a m ore or less un id irect ion al ph en om en on , a lin gu ist ic even t o f sem an t ic t r an sfer from a lan gu age o f or igin to a t arget lan guage, or, in oth er w ords, from religion to the secu lar public sph ere. In th is pr in ciple, I w ould suggest , w e can discern th e way H aberm ass ear liest ideas con cern in g th e ch aracter o f public reason h ave n ot w h olly lost th eir validity; th e th eoiy o f t ran slat ion is essen t ially a th eoiy o f un idirection al, con sen sus-orien ted secu lar izat ion th at h as been st r ipped o f its h istor ical m ean in g an d h as been m apped on to the h or izon tal experien ce o f dem ocratic discourse it se lf (Gordon 2012).

In th is r espect it m ay seem th at H aberm as rem ain s faith fu l to th e requ irem en t o f secu lar izat ion . But th is is on ly h a lf th e story. As I su ggested earlier, th e great iron y is th at H aberm as h as m oved tow ard a m ore in clu sive at t itu de abou t religion on ly becau se h e h as also accepted th e critique o f m ere proceduralism th at w as a h allm ark o f th e postw ar Ch rist ian Dem ocratic con sen sus. Th is critique sh ow s up in h is recen t w ork as a n aggin g an xiety as to w h eth er com m un icative reason could ever suffice for th e m oral or ien tat ion dem ocracy seem s to require.

Between Christian Dem ocracy and Critical Theory 195

H aberm as goes w ell beyon d en ter tain in g th e th ou gh t th at religion could also serve as one am on g the m an y voices o f m oral in sigh t in th e public sph ere. Had h e opted to rest con ten t w ith th is m ore m oderate an d pluralist ic claim , h is th ough ts on religion w ould be un rem arkable an d w ould n ot su ggest a st ron g revision to the th eory o f com m un icative action .

Surprisin gly, however, H aberm as en tertain s th e far m ore robust Ch rist ian Dem ocratic stan ce th at perh aps on ly religious tradit ion s are su itable reservoirs o f n orm ative in sigh t . In th e key sen ten ce quoted above, H aberm as m akes referen ce to th ose m oral feelin gs w h ich only religious lan gu age h as as yet been able to give a su fficien tly differen t iated expression (my em ph asis). He h as also recon sidered th e hypoth et ical telos o f th orough goin g secular ization . Already in an essay from Postmetaphysical Thinking (1988), H aberm as h ad begun , albeit cautiously, to en ter tain th e possib ility th at th e process o f lin gu ist ificat ion m igh t n ot com e to an end:

Ph ilosophy, even in its postm etaph ysical form , will be able n eith er to replace n or to repress religion as lon g as religious lan guage is th e bearer o f a sem an t ic con ten t th at is in spir in g an d even in d ispen sable, for th is con ten t eludes (for the time being?) th e explan atory force o f ph ilosoph ical lan guage an d con tin ues to r esist t ran slat ion in to reason in g discourses (Haberm as 1994, 51; em ph asis added).

The qu alificat ion s in th is passage are legion : H aberm as h esitates to affirm th at religion bears m ean in g th at is in dispen sable; an d h e h edges h is bets on th e ou tcom e o f th e t ran slat ion process w ith a paren th et ical question . In th e in troductory rem arks to h is m ost recen t collection o f essays, h e h as in troduced fu r th er n uan ce an d com plexity in to the th em e o f a lin guistificat ion o f th e sacred (Habermas 2012). Such qualification s m ay be sym ptom atic o f th e fact th at H aberm as is at tem pt in g to n avigate betw een two ideological con tin en ts th at do n ot easily coexist. In a postsecu lar society, H aberm as argues, th e lin guist ificat ion o f the

196 social research

sacred m ay n ever com e to an en d, an d th e procedures o f dem ocracy m ay forever n eed th e in st ruct ion on ly religion can provide. Th is n ew perspect ive represen ts w h at on e m igh t call a chastened secularism. But its con cession to th e con servative critique o f secu lar ism is so pron oun ced th at it p laces its secu lar ist creden tials in jeopardy.

W h en we con sider the t ran sform ation o f H aberm ass ph ilosoph y as par t o f th e long dure of European social democracy, h is curren t stan ce appears less o f a surprise. Ever sin ce the great sch ism betw een revolu t ion ary an d revision ist social dem ocrats in th e years leadin g up to the first w orld war, the socialist m ovem en t in W estern Europe w as caugh t in a n early ir resist ible flow o f ideological rou tin izat ion th at even tually brough t it in to align m en t w ith both par liam en tar ism an d th e welfare state. By 1959 it h ad cast overboard th e last rem n an ts o f Marxian ideology th at w ere th reaten in g to sin k th e par ty sh ip, an d follow in g th ese ad justm en ts European socialism w on th e first m ajor victoriesin 1969 w ith W illy Bran dt in Germ an y an d in 1981 w ith Fran ois Mitterran d in France. In th e last decades o f the tw en tieth cen tury th e con fiden tial m odern ism o f social dem ocracy faced fu r th er ch allen ges both from th e left (ch iefly from th e Greens) an d from th e r igh t (especially from th e Ch rist ian Dem ocrats un der H elm ut Kohl).

Social th eoiy is n ot m erely a seism ograph o f polit ical ch an ge. But it is h ard to r esist th e th ough t th at H aberm ass own ph ilosoph y, th ough lon g associated w ith social dem ocratic reform , h as n ow join ed h an ds with on e elem en t o f Ch rist ian Dem ocracy in a kin d o f gran d coalition . To be sure, we h ave lon g ago com e to expect from H aberm as an adm irable ecum en icism an d readin ess to borrow from a w ide variety o f th eoret ical t radit ion s w h atever th eir ideological or polit ical m arks. But if th e gen ealogy proposed above is correct, th en H aberm as n ow stan ds at the m eet in g poin t o f two in tellectual curren ts w h ose deepest pr in ciples m ay n ot prove w h olly com patible. From a polit ical poin t o f view alon e th eir par tn ersh ip appears un likely, sin ce Ch rist ian Dem ocracy draw s upon n um erous assum pt ion s con cern in g th e m orally deficien t m ater ialism an d n orm ative im pover ish m en t o f th e secu lar dem ocratic order th at h ave som et im es car r ied a d ist in ct ly an t im odern ist an d illiberal

Between Christian Dem ocracy and Critical Theory 197

m essagea m essage th at is n ot easily h arm on ized w ith th e m odern ist an d rat ion alist un derpin n in gs o f crit ical theory.

But th e t rue sources o f poten t ial fr ict ion betw een th ese tw o tradit ion s lie deeper still. On th e on e h an d, Haberm as proposes th at all citizen s join togeth er in th e procedures o f com m un icat ive reason , locatin g dem ocratic legit im acy in n oth in g bu t th e un groun ded activity o f in ter- subjective discourse itself. On the oth er h and, h e join s ran ks w ith the con servative cr it ique o f proceduralism , extollin g religion as perh aps th e on ly resource st ron g en ough to fu rn ish th e m oral substan ce th at dem ocracy requires. The fir st extols m odern reason precisely as an argu m en tat ive procedure th at su stain s ru les o f fairn ess for par t icipat ion wh ile it h olds in abeyance an y pr in ciples th at w ould require all par t icipan ts to com m it th em selves to a sin gle an d m etaph ysically su bstan tive idea o f th e good. The secon d w arn s th at such a procedure suffers from a deficit o f n orm ative in sigh t an d it th erefore reach es beyon d th e st ructu res o f com m un icat ive rat ion ality to religion as th e m ost prom isin g source o f m oral-polit ical in struction . One sch ool o f th ough t detach es it se lf from w h at Rawls term ed com preh en sive doct r in es an d it em braces postm etaph ysical th in k in g as th e on ly n on auth or itar ian logic for social coh esion . Th e oth er sch ool o f th ough t can n ot wh olly abstain from m etaph ysics w ith ou t aban don in g its dist in ctive ch aracter. For h ow ever m uch religious cit izen s m ay be w illin g to adapt th em selves to th e fallibilist ic an d relat ivist ic prem ises o f dem ocratic debate, th e groun din g o f n orm ativity in m etaph ysical pr in ciples is precisely w h at dist in guish es religious claim s from th ose th at are m erely cultural, aesth et ic, or emotive.

H aberm as w ish es to recon cile th ese tw o sch ools o f th ou gh t th rough th e n on destruct ive in st ru m en t o f t ran slat ion . But th e viability o f h is proposal is quest ion able precisely because th e H aberm asian accoun t o f t ran slat ion presu m es a separat ion betw een sem an t ics an d m etaph ysics: i f religion is a m ere veh icle for sem an t ic con ten ts, th en th ose con ten ts can presum ably be salvaged even if religion is destroyed. But i f the very n atu re o f th ose con ten ts requires an in elim in able appeal to m etaph ysical pr in ciples th en t ran slat ion w ould prove fru it less, sin ce

198 social research

it w ou ld fail to con vey th e very con ten ts religious cit izen s con sider essen t ial. The gap betw een cr it ical th eory an d Ch rist ian Dem ocracy is th erefore form idable. W h eth er H aberm as can succeed in ach ievin g a w orkable par tn ersh ip betw een th ese two ideological t radit ion s rem ain s to be seen .

REFERENCES

Adorn o, Th eodor W. 1998. Reason an d Revelat ion . Critical Models: Interventions and Catchwords, t ran s. H. W. Pickford. New York: Colum bia University Press: 135-142; epigraph from 136.

Asad, Talal. 2003. Formations of the Secular: Christianity, Islam, Modernity.Stanford: University Press.

Audi, Robert , an d W olterstorff, Nich olas. 1997. Religion in the Public Square: The Place of Religious Convictions in Public Debate. Lanham, MD.: Rowman an d Littlefield.

Baxter, Hugh. 2011. Habermas: The Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy.Stanford: Stan ford Law Books.

Bergen , Doris L. 1996. Twisted Cross: The German Christian Movement in the Third Reich. Chapel Hill: University o f North Carolina Press.

Berger, Joh an n es. 1991. Th e Lin gusit ificat ion o f th e Sacred an d th e Delin guist ificat ion o f th e Economy. In Axel Hon n eth an d Hans Joas, eds. Communicative Action. Cambridge: MIT Press: 165-180.

Berger, Peter. 1967. The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion. New York: Ran dom House.

Bcken frde, Ern st W olfgang. 1976. Die En tsteh un g des Staates als Vorgang der Sku lar isation . In Staat, Gesellschaft, Freiheit. Studien zur Staatsth eorie un d zum Verfassungsrech t. Frankfurt, Suh rkamp.

-------- . 2009. Freih eit ist an steck en d : Ver fassu n gsrech t ler Ernst-W olfgang Bcken frde ber den m oralisch en Zusam m en h alt im m odern en Staat. In terview w ith Ch rist ian Rath. Die Tageszeitung, Septem ber 23.

Bruce, Steve. 2002. God Is Dead: Secularization in the West. Malden , MA: W iley-Blackwell.

Butler, Judith , J rgen Haberm as, Charles Taylor, an d Cornel W est. 2011.

Between Christian Dem ocracy and Critical Theory 199

The Power of Religion in the Public Sphere. Edited an d w ith an in troduct ion by Eduardo Mendieta an d Jon ath an VanAntwerpen. Afterword by Craig Calhoun. New York: Colum bia University Press.

Casan ova, Jos. 1994. Public Religions in the Modem World. Ch icago: The University o f Chicago Press.

Chin, Rita. 2007. The Guest W orker Question in Postwar Germany. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cooke, Maeve. 2007. Salvagin g an d Secularizin g th e Sem an tic Contents o f Religion : The Lim itat ion s o f H aberm ass Postm etaph ysical Proposal. In Self and Other: Essays in Continental Philosophy of Religion: 187-207.

Davie, Grace. 1994. Religion in Britain since 1945: Believing without Belonging. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Frei, Norbert . 2002. Adenauers Germany and the Nazi Past. New York: Columbia University Press.

Gordon, Peter E. 2012. W hat Hope Rem ain s? Habermas on Religion . The New Republic, December 14.

Grebin g, H elga. 2005. Ideengeschichte des Sozialism us in Deutschland, Teil II. In Geschichte der sozialen Ideen in Deutschland. Sozialismus katholische Soziallehre protestantische Sozialethik. Ein Handbuch, h rsg. von Helga Grebin g, 2. Auflage, VS. W iesbaden : Verlag fr Sozialwissenschaften .

Habermas, Jrgen . 1985. The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. II: Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason. Boston : Beacon Press.

-------- . 1994. Th em es in P ostm etaph ysical Th in k in g. Essays inPostmetaphysical Thinking. Cambridge: MIT Press.

-------- . 2000 (1976). W h at is Un iversal P ragm at ics? Repr in ted inH aberm as, On the Pragm atics of Communication, edited by Maeve Cooke. Cambridge: MIT Press.

-------- . 2002. Religion and Rationality: Essays on Reason, God, and Modernity.Edited by Eduardo Mendieta. Cambridge: MIT Press.

-------- . 2005. Faith an d Knowledge. In The Frankfurt School on Religion:Key W ritings by the Major Thinkers, edited by Eduardo Mendieta. New York: Routledge: 327-338.

2 0 0 social research

-------- . 2008. Between Naturalism and Religion: Philosophical Essays. Translatedby Ciaran Cronin. Malden, MA: Polity Press, 2008.

-------- . 2009. W h at Is Meant by a Post-Secular Society? A Discussion onIslam in Europe. Europe: The Faltering Project, t ran slated by Ciaran Cronin. Malden, MA: Polity Press.

-------- . 2010. Leadersh ip an d Leitkultur. The New York Times, October 28.-------- . 2012. Versprach lich un g des Sakralen . In Nachmetaphysisches

Denken II. Berlin: Suh rkam p Verlag.H aberm as, J rgen , an d Jo sep h Ratzin ger . 2006. The Dialectics of

Secularization: On Reason and Religion. Translated by Brian McNeil. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2006). Originally in Germ an as Dialektik der Skularisierung: ber Vernunft und Religion (Freiburg: H erder Verlag, 2005). H aberm ass essay, Pre-political Foundation s o f the Democratic Con stitutional State? Ratzin gers essay, That W hich Holds the W orld Together: The Pre-political Moral Foundations of a Free State.

Huber, W olfgang. 2008. The Judeo-Ch ristian Tradition . In The Cultural Values of Europe, edited by Hans Joas an d Klaus W iegandt. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press: 43-58.

Hunn , Karin . 2005. Nchstes Jah r kehren w ir zurck: die Geschichte der trkischen Gastarbeiter in der Bundesrepublik. Gttingen: W allstein .

Lewy, Guenter. 1964. The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany. New York: McGraw Hill.

Lafon t, Ch rist in a. 2007. Religion in th e Public Sph ere: Rem arks on H aberm ass Con cept ion o f Public Deliberat ion in Postsecu lar Societies. Constellations 14 (2): 239-259.

Martin , David. 1978. A General Theory of Secularization. New York: Harper Coloph on Books.

McCormick, Joh n P. 1999. Carl Schmitts Critique of Liberalism: Against Politics as Technology Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

M en d ieta, Ed u ar d o . 2011. R at io n alizat io n , M odern ity , an d Secularization . Habermas: Key Concepts, edited by Barbara Fultner. Durh am, UK: Acumen Press.

Mitchell, Maria. 1995. Materialism an d Secularism : CDU Politicians an d

Between Christian Dem ocracy and Critical Theory 201

National Socialism, 1945-1949. The Journal of Modem Histoiy 67 (2): 278-308.

Mitchell, Maria. 2012. The Origins of Christian Democracy: Politics and Confession in Modem Germany. Ann Arbor: University o f Mich igan Press.

Mller, Jan-W emer. 2000. Another Country: German Intellectuals, Unification, and National Identity. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Mller, Jan-W erner. 2003. A Dangerous Mind: Carl Schmitt in Post-W ar European Thought. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Rawls, John . 2005. The Idea o f Public Reason Revisited. Political Liberalism. Expan ded Edition. New York: Colum bia University Press.

Reder, Michael, ed. 2008. Ein Bewutsein von dem, was fehlt: Eine Diskussion mit Jrgen Habermas. Frankfurt: Suh rkam p Verlag, 2008., in En glish as Habermas, et. al An Awareness of W hat is Missing: Faith and Reason in a Post-Secular Age. Ciaran Cronin, trans. Malden, Mass: Polity Press.

Sch m itt , Carl. 2005. Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty. Translated by George Schwab. Chicago: The University o f Chicago.

Sorkin , David. 2008. The Religious Enlightenment: Protestants, Jews, and Catholics from London to Vienna. Prin ceton : Prin ceton Un iversity Press.

Der Speigel 1995. Das Kreuz ist der Nerv. Der Spiegel, August 14, 1995: 22-32.

Stark, Rodney. 1999. Secu lar izat ion R.I.P. Sociology of Religion 60 (3): 249-73.

Taylor, Charles. 2007. A Secular Age. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.W arner, Rob. 2010. Secularization and its Discontents. London an d New York:

Con tinuum Books.

202 social research