What do you think?
Rate this book
The Power of Religion in the Public Sphere (A Columbia / SSRC Book) by Judith Butler
The Power of Religion in the Public Sphere represents a rare opportunity to experience a diverse group of preeminent philosophers confronting one pervasive contemporary concern: what role does—or should—religion play in our public lives? Reflecting on her recent work concerning state violence in Israel-Palestine, Judith Butler explores the potential of religious perspectives for renewing cultural and political criticism, while Jürgen Habermas, best known for his seminal conception of the public sphere, thinks through the ambiguous legacy of the concept of "the political" in contemporary theory. Charles Taylor argues for a radical redefinition of secularism, and Cornel West defends civil disobedience and emancipatory theology. Eduardo Mendieta and Jonathan VanAntwerpen detail the immense contribution of these philosophers to contemporary social and political theory, and an afterword by Craig Calhoun places these attempts to reconceive the significance of both religion and the secular in the context of contemporary national and international politics.
Paperback
First published February 11, 2011
34 people are currently reading
760 people want to read
About the author
Judith Butler
215 books3,642 followersJudith Butler is an American post-structuralist and feminist philosopher who has contributed to the fields of feminism, queer theory, political philosophy and ethics. They are currently a professor in the Rhetoric and Comparative Literature departments at the University of California, Berkeley.
Butler received their Ph.D. in philosophy from Yale University in 1984, for a dissertation subsequently published as Subjects of Desire: Hegelian Reflections in Twentieth-Century France. In the late-1980s they held several teaching and research appointments, and were involved in "post-structuralist" efforts within Western feminist theory to question the "presuppositional terms" of feminism.
Their research ranges from literary theory, modern philosophical fiction, feminist and sexuality studies, to 19th- and 20th-century European literature and philosophy, Kafka and loss, and mourning and war. Their most recent work focuses on Jewish philosophy and exploring pre- and post-Zionist criticisms of state violence.
Butler received their Ph.D. in philosophy from Yale University in 1984, for a dissertation subsequently published as Subjects of Desire: Hegelian Reflections in Twentieth-Century France. In the late-1980s they held several teaching and research appointments, and were involved in "post-structuralist" efforts within Western feminist theory to question the "presuppositional terms" of feminism.
Their research ranges from literary theory, modern philosophical fiction, feminist and sexuality studies, to 19th- and 20th-century European literature and philosophy, Kafka and loss, and mourning and war. Their most recent work focuses on Jewish philosophy and exploring pre- and post-Zionist criticisms of state violence.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews
March 13, 2018
My notes on Charles Taylor are at least as long as the chapter itself.
Read
April 20, 2021"I’m going to close with the notion of “utopian interruptions.” What I’m talking about is always tied to failure. It’s no accident that the figures that I invoke – Beckett has an aesthetic for failure, doesn’t he? So does Chekhov. So does Kafka. That wonderful letter that Benjamin writes to Gershom Scholem, July 1938: “You’ll never understand the purity and the beauty of Kafka if you don’t view him as a failure.” Of course, if it wasn’t for Max Brod, we wouldn’t even have the text. Kafka believed he was a failure through and through.
Or, as Beckett says in his last piece of prose fiction Worstwood Ho, “Try again. Fail again. Fail better.”
Try again. Fail again. Fail better. Like Sheldon Wolin’s fugitive democracy, prophetic religion is a fugitive affair – an empathetic and imaginative power that confronts hegemonic powers always operating. Prophetic religion is a profoundly tragicomic affair.
The dominant forms of religion are well-adjusted to greed and fear and bigotry. Hence well-adjusted to the indifference of the status quo toward poor and working people. Prophetic religion is an individual and collective performative praxis of maladjustment to greed, fear, and bigotry. For prophetic religion the condition of truth is to allow suffering to speak. Yet it is always tied to some failure – always. There are moments, like the 1960s in capitalist civilization or the 1980s in communist civilization that prophetic awakening takes place. It doesn’t last too long, because the powers-that-be are not just mighty, but they’re very clever and they dilute and incorporate in very seductive ways – or sometimes they just kill you!"
– Cornel West, Prophetic Religion and the Future of Capitalist Civilization
Or, as Beckett says in his last piece of prose fiction Worstwood Ho, “Try again. Fail again. Fail better.”
Try again. Fail again. Fail better. Like Sheldon Wolin’s fugitive democracy, prophetic religion is a fugitive affair – an empathetic and imaginative power that confronts hegemonic powers always operating. Prophetic religion is a profoundly tragicomic affair.
The dominant forms of religion are well-adjusted to greed and fear and bigotry. Hence well-adjusted to the indifference of the status quo toward poor and working people. Prophetic religion is an individual and collective performative praxis of maladjustment to greed, fear, and bigotry. For prophetic religion the condition of truth is to allow suffering to speak. Yet it is always tied to some failure – always. There are moments, like the 1960s in capitalist civilization or the 1980s in communist civilization that prophetic awakening takes place. It doesn’t last too long, because the powers-that-be are not just mighty, but they’re very clever and they dilute and incorporate in very seductive ways – or sometimes they just kill you!"
– Cornel West, Prophetic Religion and the Future of Capitalist Civilization
April 24, 2014
كتاب جميل لولا أن الترجمة ظلمته جداً. أعتقد أن أهم نقطة طرحها المتحاورون هي الرؤية الجديدة للدين في المجال العام والّتي لم يتنبئ بها نظرائهم من الفلاسفة الّذين سبقوهم كماركس وفرويد، بل توقّعوا العكس تماما. وأيضا النقاش المثري حول كيفيّة وجود هذا الدين وماهي حدوده وتأثيراته. لا أنسى بالطبع ورقة بتلر المميزة عن الصهيونية والدين. لو كانت الترجمة أفضل لمنحته تقييمًا أعلى
January 26, 2024
This was an interesting contrast of speakers. You have Jürgen Habermas who is just about the most formal intellectual communicator ever. As a German philosopher he is the opposite of everything nostalgically burning about German philosophy in the 1800s. Maybe comparable to Kant if you can go back that far. But anyway, so you have Habermas next to Cornel West. West being the epitome of spiritual spontaneity in both theory and practice. And they are discussing secularism. What a treat! It's almost hilarious when Habermas chimes in about "prophetic" tradition, silencing Cornel West who you'd think would fully realize just how ridiculous it is to not only use the word prophetic but to shout it with dignity these days. It's great when such diversity in spiritual motivations can spar on the debate stage.
In emotional spirit, Habermas represents all that is convoluted with intellectual culture these days. All that is unrelatable and unpractical. The kind of scholar still fixated on planning the future by way of idealism and theology. While West is like "my brother", "my sister"! Cutting the bullshit to the emotional core of what's going on. And yet Habermas is the intellectually agnostic one. The one who doesn't let his emotionality carry him away. Recognizing intellectually rather than practically, that religion needs help in being accepted as just one of many modes of democratic participation. Habermas sees, almost prophetically, that the separation of church and state is already causing a stigma of religion that makes communicating governance even more convoluted.
The language of governance has always been written with Christian connotations and yet it isn't clear whether the tool of religion or governance itself is to blame for all the explotiation. They discuss Kantian era enlightenment and how it was a positive, ridding ourselves of religious control when modern egalitarian government steps in. It's so hard to separate religion as hegemony from religion as exploitative tool. In either era!
And then Cornel West is like come on man, we need to stay democracy positive when it comes to religion. He's all about how people are going to worship and misconstrue government for spiritual authority anyway, so why not attempt to restore Christian values? Not the one's exploited by power...you know, the real ones...hmm...But who is the one being impractical. Adorno as the pessimist who thinks the culture industry irreparably ruins all values, including Christian ones? Or West who walks the non-hypocritical Adorno walk, even more so than Adorno himself?
It brings to the foreground the two categories of intellectual in my opinion. There's the one who will talk all day about abstract idealism. Still living in a pre-Nietzschian utopic past. And then there is Cornel West, who trots out his actual faith on stage. Who exposes his true weaknesses and says here, you can take advantage of my soulfulness if you want. Is there no quicker way to discover the true meaning of humanism, democracy, secularism etc... Any more practical way to discover what is left of political life, the current state of moral value etc?
I enjoyed this talk so much! Everyone involved here. Judith Butler and Cornel West are the emotional leaders we are too often missing in America. Not because they are the smartest in the room. Because their conscience is the place where their best thinking begins and ends. If we can take the time to listen to what they are saying we can begin to understand some inspiring things about being American. They both embody the emotional spirit of understanding difference, religious or otherwise, while respecting equity. This is the balance we are trying to strike with egalitarian secularism.
In emotional spirit, Habermas represents all that is convoluted with intellectual culture these days. All that is unrelatable and unpractical. The kind of scholar still fixated on planning the future by way of idealism and theology. While West is like "my brother", "my sister"! Cutting the bullshit to the emotional core of what's going on. And yet Habermas is the intellectually agnostic one. The one who doesn't let his emotionality carry him away. Recognizing intellectually rather than practically, that religion needs help in being accepted as just one of many modes of democratic participation. Habermas sees, almost prophetically, that the separation of church and state is already causing a stigma of religion that makes communicating governance even more convoluted.
The language of governance has always been written with Christian connotations and yet it isn't clear whether the tool of religion or governance itself is to blame for all the explotiation. They discuss Kantian era enlightenment and how it was a positive, ridding ourselves of religious control when modern egalitarian government steps in. It's so hard to separate religion as hegemony from religion as exploitative tool. In either era!
And then Cornel West is like come on man, we need to stay democracy positive when it comes to religion. He's all about how people are going to worship and misconstrue government for spiritual authority anyway, so why not attempt to restore Christian values? Not the one's exploited by power...you know, the real ones...hmm...But who is the one being impractical. Adorno as the pessimist who thinks the culture industry irreparably ruins all values, including Christian ones? Or West who walks the non-hypocritical Adorno walk, even more so than Adorno himself?
It brings to the foreground the two categories of intellectual in my opinion. There's the one who will talk all day about abstract idealism. Still living in a pre-Nietzschian utopic past. And then there is Cornel West, who trots out his actual faith on stage. Who exposes his true weaknesses and says here, you can take advantage of my soulfulness if you want. Is there no quicker way to discover the true meaning of humanism, democracy, secularism etc... Any more practical way to discover what is left of political life, the current state of moral value etc?
I enjoyed this talk so much! Everyone involved here. Judith Butler and Cornel West are the emotional leaders we are too often missing in America. Not because they are the smartest in the room. Because their conscience is the place where their best thinking begins and ends. If we can take the time to listen to what they are saying we can begin to understand some inspiring things about being American. They both embody the emotional spirit of understanding difference, religious or otherwise, while respecting equity. This is the balance we are trying to strike with egalitarian secularism.
November 14, 2023
A dialogue of 4 very diverse philosophers on a central question for our times. Cornel West would say all folk need to ensure they aren’t “religiously tone deaf and flat footed.” I’d take it further and say we should all “tango with the transcendental.”
January 31, 2023
DENSE but in a good way
March 15, 2025
Det var dømt til at gå galt, da jeg satte mig på en bestemt læseplads på AU Library for en måneds tid siden. Omgivet af støvede jura-bøger, som er lige så appellerende som havregryn uden mælk, fik jeg øje på en lille bog med titlen "The Power of Religion in the Public Sphere". Det er jo et vældigt interessant emne, men bogen blev først for alvor uimodståelig, da jeg så, at det var en debatbog med... Habermas, Charles Taylor, Judith Butler og Cornel West! Nok nogen af de allermest indflydelsesrige sociale teoretikere i vores tid samlet i en debatbog - wauw!
Grundlæggende har jeg ikke så meget at sige til diskussionen mellem Butler og West, som var læseværdig, men heller ikke så meget mere end det. Det særligt interessante var diskussionen mellem Habermas og Taylor. Habermas er i forlængelse af den rawlsianske politiske liberalisme, hvor religion ikke bør sammenblandes med politik, forstået ud fra idéen om den offentlige fornuft, som er principper og værdier, som alle rimelige borgere kan acceptere. Dette ekskluderer "omfattende doktriner" såsom religiøse grunde, hvorfor man, jf. Rawls, ikke bør begrunde sin politiske holdning ud fra sin religiøse holdning, da en sådan begrundelse kun kan accepteres af ligesindede. Habermas, og det er væsentligt, er ikke ligeså religionsforskrækket som Rawls, men er grundlæggende enig i den politiske liberalisme. Habermas mener med andre ord, at religiøse grunde skal oversættes til sekulære grunde i den offentlige debat, samt at det er særligt hos embedsmænd og i den lovgivende forsamling, at religion ikke bør spille nogen rolle.
Charles Taylor er, som kommunitarist, uenig. Kritikken går på, at det ikke er rimeligt, at antage at alle kan forstå sekulære grunde, mens religiøse bør oversætte deres grunde til netop sekulære. Sekulære grunde funderer jo også ud fra f.eks. kantianske eller utilitaristiske filosofier, og disse giver ikke mere plausible begrundelser for de demokratiske rettigheder end f.eks. den kristne: "at mennesker er skabt i Guds billede". Dermed er sekularismens forrang illusorisk. Taylor påpeger altså, at i et pluralistisk samfund vil borgerne begrunde de demokratiske rettigheder vidt forskelligt, så statens rolle er blot at opretholde rettighederne, men ikke at favorisere en bestemt begrundelse.
Den habermasianske forståelse (og såvel også den rawlsianske) har givetvist mest gennemslagskraft i vore samfund. Det er heller ikke så underligt, da manges opfattelse har været, at en stigende oplysning og fremgang vil skubbe religion langt væk fra den politiske scenes relevans. Men vi ser ikke desto mindre, at religion bliver ved med at spille en enorm rolle, f.eks. i Danmark kendetegnet ved Islams stigende indflydelse. Derfor er det særdeles relevant at genoptage disse fundamentale diskussioner og ikke blot tro (som man desværre gør på statskundskab på AU), at den politiske liberalisme er den teoretiske sejrsherre.
Grundlæggende har jeg ikke så meget at sige til diskussionen mellem Butler og West, som var læseværdig, men heller ikke så meget mere end det. Det særligt interessante var diskussionen mellem Habermas og Taylor. Habermas er i forlængelse af den rawlsianske politiske liberalisme, hvor religion ikke bør sammenblandes med politik, forstået ud fra idéen om den offentlige fornuft, som er principper og værdier, som alle rimelige borgere kan acceptere. Dette ekskluderer "omfattende doktriner" såsom religiøse grunde, hvorfor man, jf. Rawls, ikke bør begrunde sin politiske holdning ud fra sin religiøse holdning, da en sådan begrundelse kun kan accepteres af ligesindede. Habermas, og det er væsentligt, er ikke ligeså religionsforskrækket som Rawls, men er grundlæggende enig i den politiske liberalisme. Habermas mener med andre ord, at religiøse grunde skal oversættes til sekulære grunde i den offentlige debat, samt at det er særligt hos embedsmænd og i den lovgivende forsamling, at religion ikke bør spille nogen rolle.
Charles Taylor er, som kommunitarist, uenig. Kritikken går på, at det ikke er rimeligt, at antage at alle kan forstå sekulære grunde, mens religiøse bør oversætte deres grunde til netop sekulære. Sekulære grunde funderer jo også ud fra f.eks. kantianske eller utilitaristiske filosofier, og disse giver ikke mere plausible begrundelser for de demokratiske rettigheder end f.eks. den kristne: "at mennesker er skabt i Guds billede". Dermed er sekularismens forrang illusorisk. Taylor påpeger altså, at i et pluralistisk samfund vil borgerne begrunde de demokratiske rettigheder vidt forskelligt, så statens rolle er blot at opretholde rettighederne, men ikke at favorisere en bestemt begrundelse.
Den habermasianske forståelse (og såvel også den rawlsianske) har givetvist mest gennemslagskraft i vore samfund. Det er heller ikke så underligt, da manges opfattelse har været, at en stigende oplysning og fremgang vil skubbe religion langt væk fra den politiske scenes relevans. Men vi ser ikke desto mindre, at religion bliver ved med at spille en enorm rolle, f.eks. i Danmark kendetegnet ved Islams stigende indflydelse. Derfor er det særdeles relevant at genoptage disse fundamentale diskussioner og ikke blot tro (som man desværre gør på statskundskab på AU), at den politiske liberalisme er den teoretiske sejrsherre.
November 22, 2023
This is a transcription of a debate between four philosophers on the question of how do we, in an age where there are no shared absolute values, listen to secular and religious voices in the public sphere. For me, the most interesting dialogue happens between Judith Butler and Cornell West, especially West and how he incorporates the prophetic tradition because he is currently running for President of the USA.
Habermas: Religious voices must translate their beliefs into a neutral voice shared by the public grounded in reason.
Taylor: It's not that religion has to be translated, but that we should respect the basis of all belief systems and take everything in to find a neutral position.
Butler: Jewish traditions provide a voice for understanding how to co-habit with and defend the rights of people who we do not choose to co-habit with, and this provides a way to critique the violence of the state of Israel.
West: The Jewish prophetic tradition and how it is carried through Jesus offers a religiously musical approach of righteous indignation towards injustice and points to a superabundance that comes when we love our enemy. This provides a basis to critique the greed of the capitalist system and those who perpetuate it.
Habermas: Religious voices must translate their beliefs into a neutral voice shared by the public grounded in reason.
Taylor: It's not that religion has to be translated, but that we should respect the basis of all belief systems and take everything in to find a neutral position.
Butler: Jewish traditions provide a voice for understanding how to co-habit with and defend the rights of people who we do not choose to co-habit with, and this provides a way to critique the violence of the state of Israel.
West: The Jewish prophetic tradition and how it is carried through Jesus offers a religiously musical approach of righteous indignation towards injustice and points to a superabundance that comes when we love our enemy. This provides a basis to critique the greed of the capitalist system and those who perpetuate it.
(Judith Butler) ... everyone has the right of belonging... To cohabit the earth is prior to any possible community or nation or neighbourhood. We might not choose where to live, and who to live by, but we cannot choose with whom to cohabit the earth.
(Cornell West) But there is a prophetic way of being in the world [from the Jewish tradition], a call for help, grounded in the cries of an oppressed people that warrants attention, and, in fact, to be human is to love the orphan, the widow, the stranger, to treat that non-Jewish other with dignity, with loving kindness.
July 23, 2018
Excellent and short read. Each participant presents and then they dialogue with each other. The final discussion had the most at stake for me. The problem of the public sphere as a place where diverse voices - religious and secular - are respected and allowed to emphasize their unique claims is contested with regard to whether the claims are translated and become "neutral" as a shared, rational language. This is Habermas's position. Taylor values the same kind of dialogue in the public sphere that respects diversity, but believes that translating everything into a neutral language will necessarily lose something vital. This argument comes at the tail end of the book so it isn't resolved, but it really gets at a critical issue. West'a presentation is pure gold. He presents in a very unique way to share the importance of bearing witness as a prophet of justice.
September 11, 2018
I suspect this is a fairly important work, but MAN, it's difficult to read. All 4 authors are important, but opaque, philosophers and they reference other philosophers that are equally opaque to the regular human person. I'm well educated, and I felt really out of it even though I am passionately interested in the topic. The easiest paper to read is Cornel West's, and the easiest discussion to follow is the one between West and Judith Butler. The rest, I'm afraid, does not flow. I suspect this volume was published to fulfill some grant requirement, because it feels that way.
April 9, 2018
A valuable read for anyone who’s interested in secularization and the path of religion in our times. The whole Habermas-Taylor discussion is something people are gonna talk about (and already are talking about) all through this decade and probably longer. The gem of the book is, of course, Cornel West, whose charisma, style and manner of speaking makes this reading experience not only academically enlightening but also truly inspirational.
January 18, 2019
My fave words when Butler said we cant choose with whom we gonna live in this earth. Plurality is a given.
As theory its include every ideal state should be. Neutral state. Accomodating between religious and non religious need. The question should be asked later is how the implementation will be ? Because so far its really hard to be applied.
As theory its include every ideal state should be. Neutral state. Accomodating between religious and non religious need. The question should be asked later is how the implementation will be ? Because so far its really hard to be applied.
January 12, 2018
I love watching smart people go to town on one another and so to be able to read people like Judith Butler and Cornel West converse together is really awesome. Really cool to see the four different perspectives of the persons participating in the conference this work came from. Great anthology
June 10, 2022
Horrible, no lo lean por favor.
May 20, 2023
I especially liked Cornel West's contribution.
October 13, 2024
An interesting, if uneven and somewhat underwhelming volume. The Power of Religion in the Public Sphere is composed of four papers by Jürgen Habermas, Charles Taylor, Judith Butler, and Cornel West respectively. I expect that readers will primarily be interested in the contributions of Habermas and Taylor given their prominence in recent discussions about religion and its place in contemporary democratic societies.
Habermas' piece functions as a polemic against the recent renewal of interest in political theology and reaffirms the impossibility and undesirability of relying on a homogenous religious foundation for the state in contemporary societies marked by value-pluralism. Sadly, the paper adds little to Habermas' position as outlined in the German Peace Prize address "Faith and Knowledge" (2001) and elaborated in his groundbreaking work Between Naturalism and Religion (2005).
Taylor's paper, by very far the best of the bunch, claims that secularism or laïcité is not necessitated specifically by the existence of religion, but from the diversity of "comprehensive doctrines" in pluralistic societies. His thesis is provocative and constitutes an unmistakeable challenge to Habermas' position: Religion does not constitute a special case to be set apart from nonreligious value-systems; as such, a new definition of secularism is required that avoids disproportional fixation on religion and it purported incommunicability.
Butler's paper, "Is Judaism Zionism?" is somewhat out of place in this collection and will likely frustrate readers expecting the book to address questions relating to secularism, religious inclusion, multiculturalism, value-pluralism, etc. Although her paper touches on some of these indirectly, her thesis - that a Jewish ethics of cohabitation might serve as a framework for the criticism of Israeli state violence against Palestinians - is not obviously relevant to the questions discussed by the other contributors.
West's piece is a bit of an oddity, perhaps constituting more of a performance piece than an conceptual inquiry into religion and politics. West highlights the role of prophetic religion and the value of its interventions into the public sphere with a view to disrupting the status quo and making us more sensitive to the sting of social realities to which we have become habituated and desensitized. West's contribution is underdeveloped and takes up a mere nine pages, which is disappointing, since his position is exciting and innovative, and would have benefitted immensely from increased elaboration.
The discussions - especially the first (Habermas and Taylor) and the third (Habermas, Taylor, Butler, and West) - are often more interesting than the papers themselves and force the authors to elaborate and clarify their views. Calhoun's excellent afterword is also a high point and performs the unlikely function of tying all four papers together. Readers interested broadly in the role of religion in the public sphere would do well to concentrate on Taylor's piece and to read the two discussions in which he participates, as well as the afterword, which ends by summarizing all four contributions anyway. The rest can safely be skipped.
Habermas' piece functions as a polemic against the recent renewal of interest in political theology and reaffirms the impossibility and undesirability of relying on a homogenous religious foundation for the state in contemporary societies marked by value-pluralism. Sadly, the paper adds little to Habermas' position as outlined in the German Peace Prize address "Faith and Knowledge" (2001) and elaborated in his groundbreaking work Between Naturalism and Religion (2005).
Taylor's paper, by very far the best of the bunch, claims that secularism or laïcité is not necessitated specifically by the existence of religion, but from the diversity of "comprehensive doctrines" in pluralistic societies. His thesis is provocative and constitutes an unmistakeable challenge to Habermas' position: Religion does not constitute a special case to be set apart from nonreligious value-systems; as such, a new definition of secularism is required that avoids disproportional fixation on religion and it purported incommunicability.
Butler's paper, "Is Judaism Zionism?" is somewhat out of place in this collection and will likely frustrate readers expecting the book to address questions relating to secularism, religious inclusion, multiculturalism, value-pluralism, etc. Although her paper touches on some of these indirectly, her thesis - that a Jewish ethics of cohabitation might serve as a framework for the criticism of Israeli state violence against Palestinians - is not obviously relevant to the questions discussed by the other contributors.
West's piece is a bit of an oddity, perhaps constituting more of a performance piece than an conceptual inquiry into religion and politics. West highlights the role of prophetic religion and the value of its interventions into the public sphere with a view to disrupting the status quo and making us more sensitive to the sting of social realities to which we have become habituated and desensitized. West's contribution is underdeveloped and takes up a mere nine pages, which is disappointing, since his position is exciting and innovative, and would have benefitted immensely from increased elaboration.
The discussions - especially the first (Habermas and Taylor) and the third (Habermas, Taylor, Butler, and West) - are often more interesting than the papers themselves and force the authors to elaborate and clarify their views. Calhoun's excellent afterword is also a high point and performs the unlikely function of tying all four papers together. Readers interested broadly in the role of religion in the public sphere would do well to concentrate on Taylor's piece and to read the two discussions in which he participates, as well as the afterword, which ends by summarizing all four contributions anyway. The rest can safely be skipped.
Read
June 8, 2012A neat little collection that I read because it is relevant to one of my current courses. It includes contributions from two aging white liberal men who are superstar philosophers and who happen to be the source of some of the core theory in said course, as well as contributions from Judith Butler and Cornell West -- also superstar philosophers -- who are both activist scholars whom I have immense respect for. I think Butler's piece in particular has some ideas that I will be able to use in my writing for the course. Also, though I have some fundamental differences with him, there were a couple of ideas from Charles Taylor that I found quite useful. And, of course, West is always an inspiration.
August 27, 2015
Recommended by a friend, I found this to be a provocative and interesting read. Four political/social theorists wrestle with the question of the power of religion in the public sphere. It's a transcript of a conference, with presentations and conversations. Habermas, Taylor, Butler, and West -- theory and practice.
August 12, 2012
Basically a transcription of a daylong symposium in NYC with Juergen Habermas, Charles Taylor, Judith Butler, and Cornel West. Interesting exchange between Habermas and Taylor on place of religion in the public sphere of secular democracies. As usual, West is sort of intellectual tamale candy: sweet going down but burns afterwards.
December 28, 2013
A deep, short and to the point introduction to revisiting the problematic relationship between religion and secularity. Instead of the common outlook which finds them exclusive and in continuous conflict, the participants (all prominent philosophers) are trying to accommodate religion in a post secular world. It opens a wide and original field of relevant studies.
January 12, 2012
From a gathering at NYC's Town Hall. A great example of top social scientists dialoguing in fantastic fashion, thus an easy, enjoyable read. Butler, West, Taylor and Habermas. Short and interesting!
December 3, 2016
An academically relevant discourse on Religion and Secularism by the eminent philosophers who reasoned the birth of the concept of Postsecularism.
September 27, 2012
Any thoughts anyone???
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews