After Modernity?: Secularity, Globalization, and the Reenchantment of the World

Notes

h 259 Notes CHAPTER 1 1 This is sometimes described as the “return of religion,” but this seems like a return only for academics solidly ensconced within the purified confines of the (supposedly) secular university. In fact, religion never left. For a representative of this “return” model, see Jacques Derrida, “Faith and Knowledge: The Two Sources of ‘Religion’ at the Limits of Reason Alone,” in Religion, eds. Jacques Derrida and Gianni Vattimo (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998), 1–77. 2 For select scholarly discussion, see Johan Meuleman, ed., Islam in the Era of Globalization (London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2002); Talal Asad, Formations of the Secular: Christianity, Islam, Modernity (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003); Khaled Abou El Fadl, Islam and the Challenge of Democracy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004); and Scott M. Thomas, TheGlobalResurgenceofReligionandtheTransformationofInternational Relations (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005). For more charged and contested, though influential, accounts, see Samuel Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996), and Bernard Lewis, The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror (New York: Modern Library, 2003). 3 Philip Jenkins, The Next Christendom (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003). See also David Martin, Pentecostalism: The World Their Parish (Oxford: Blackwell, 2002); Lamin Sanneh, Whose Religion is Christianity? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003); and Lamin Sanneh and Joel Carpenter , eds., The Changing Face of Christianity: Africa, the West, and the World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005). 260 Notes to pp. 3–5 4 For a particularly scintillating account of the latter, see Bernard-Henri Lévy, Who Killed Daniel Pearl? (London: Melville House, 2003), which tracks Pearl’s killer to his time in the halls of the London School of Economics. 5 See, for instance, the International Monetary Fund (IMF)’s definition of globalization as “the increasing integration of economies around the world, particularly through trade and financial flows. The term sometimes also refers to the movement of people (labor) and knowledge (technology) across international borders.” As one would expect, the IMF sees this largely (almost entirely) as a positive cultural development for the flow of capital. See IMF Issues Brief, Globalization: Threat or Opportunity? (April 12, 2000), available at http://www.imf.org/ external/np/exr/ib/2000/041200.htm. For a more recent and nuanced discussion in the IMF orbit, see M. Ayhan Kose et al., Financial Globalization : A Reappraisal, IMF Working Paper 06/189 (August 2006). 6 This tends to be the formulation most commonly found in antiglobalization literature, such as Naomi Klein, No Logo, 2nd ed. (New York: Picador , 2002), or Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Empire (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2000). 7 One could also suggest a theological parallel: just as Stanley Hauerwas argues that “ethics” is always qualified (there is no “neutral” ethics), so too globalization is always qualified—it will always be a particular kind of globalization. 8 For a helpful overview of the literature on the secularization thesis, see Kevin M. Schultz, “Secularization: A Bibliographic Essay,” Hedgehog Review 8 (2006): 170–77. 9 See Max Weber’s seminal reflections in “Science as Vocation,” in From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, trans. and ed., H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills, 129–56 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1977). See also Marcel Gauchet, The Disenchantment of the World: A Political History of Religion, trans. Oscar Burge (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997). 10 Even former advocates are recanting. See especially Peter L. Berger, “The Desecularization of the World: A Global Overview,” in The Desecularization of the World: Resurgent Religion and World Politics, ed. Peter L. Berger (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999). For other reassessments by former faithful of the secularization thesis, see David Martin, On Secularization : Towards a Revised General Theory (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005)— already anticipated in Martin, “Towards Eliminating the Concept of Secularization,” in Penguin Survey of the Social Sciences, ed. J. Gould (Hammondsworth: Penguin, 1965), 169–82—and Harvey Cox, Fire from Heaven: The Rise of Pentecostal Spirituality and the Reshaping of Religion in the Twenty-first Century (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1995). For a requiem with little eulogy, see Rodney Stark, “Secularization, R.I.P.,” Sociology of Religion 60 (1999): 249–73. For something of a last-gasp but Notes to p. 5 261 nuanced defense of the secularization thesis (suggesting that the rumors of its death are perhaps a bit exaggerated), see Steve Bruce, God Is Dead: Secularization in the West (Oxford: Blackwell, 2002). For rather excited hopes...