What do you think?
Rate this book
The Paradox of Liberation: Secular Revolutions and Religious Counterrevolutions
A thought-provoking reflection on why secular national liberation movements are so often challenged by militant religious revivals
Many of the successful campaigns for national liberation in the years following World War II were initially based on democratic and secular ideals. Once established, however, the newly independent nations had to deal with entirely unexpected religious fierceness. Michael Walzer, one of America’s foremost political thinkers, examines this perplexing trend by studying India, Israel, and Algeria, three nations whose founding principles and institutions have been sharply attacked by three completely different groups of religious revivalists: Hindu militants, ultra-Orthodox Jews and messianic Zionists, and Islamic radicals. In his provocative, well-reasoned discussion, Walzer asks, Why have these secular democratic movements been unable to reproduce their political culture beyond one or two generations? In a postscript, he compares the difficulties of contemporary secularism to the successful establishment of secular politics in the early American republic—thereby making an argument for American exceptionalism but gravely noting that we may be less exceptional today.
Many of the successful campaigns for national liberation in the years following World War II were initially based on democratic and secular ideals. Once established, however, the newly independent nations had to deal with entirely unexpected religious fierceness. Michael Walzer, one of America’s foremost political thinkers, examines this perplexing trend by studying India, Israel, and Algeria, three nations whose founding principles and institutions have been sharply attacked by three completely different groups of religious revivalists: Hindu militants, ultra-Orthodox Jews and messianic Zionists, and Islamic radicals. In his provocative, well-reasoned discussion, Walzer asks, Why have these secular democratic movements been unable to reproduce their political culture beyond one or two generations? In a postscript, he compares the difficulties of contemporary secularism to the successful establishment of secular politics in the early American republic—thereby making an argument for American exceptionalism but gravely noting that we may be less exceptional today.
192 pages, Hardcover
First published March 1, 2015
About the author
Michael Walzer
116 books160 followersMichael Walzer is a Jewish American political philosopher and public intellectual. A professor emeritus at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, he is editor of the political-intellectual quarterly Dissent. He has written books and essays on a wide range of topics, including just and unjust wars, nationalism, ethnicity, economic justice, social criticism, radicalism, tolerance, and political obligation and is a contributing editor to The New Republic. To date, he has written 27 books and published over 300 articles, essays, and book reviews in Dissent, The New Republic, The New York Review of Books, The New Yorker, The New York Times, and many scholarly journals
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
December 1, 2015
I decided to read this book after seeing it cited in a the-american-interest.com article. In this book three independence movements are discussed: Algeria, India and Israel. While the three movements are distinctly different, they have some common features:
1. The movers and shakers of the independence movements were motivated by secular values learned either in or from the European nation controlling the territory and/or population affected by the independence movement.
2. The secular leadership of the independence movements tend to see the traditional and religious values of the general population as backwards and had varying levels of tolerance for these values. For example, the secularists in India opposed the caste system and supported women's rights.
3. Some aspects of the traditional and religious values of the general population fostered their submission to a colonial yoke (in the case of Algeria and India) or acceptance of an exile status (in the case of the Jews). In the case of the Jews, the instructions from Jeremiah to the exiles in Babylon in Jer. 29 tended to foster an attitude of submission to host nations.
4. The secular leadership had to overcome the submissive nature of the general population.
5. Once independence was achieved, the secular leadership tried to limit the scope of religion to belief and worship. All other aspects of life were under secular purview. Sound familiar?
6. Although the religious traditionalists were themselves changed by the independence movement, the broad scope of secular control tended to arouse a ground-swell of opposition within one or two generations, entrenching certain values. In other words, the secularists achieved independence but failed to convert the national value system to their secularism.
The book provides an interesting overview and perspective of the history of the three nations under consideration. At the end of the book, the author proceeds to make comparisons to the American Revolution. He notes that the American Revolution did not constitute a liberation movement; rather, migration from Europe to the American colonies was essentially the liberation movement. Furthermore, he notes that the American Revolution was a political revolution and not a social revolution, essentially a change in leadership rather than a change in culture. I agree with these conclusions. However, he characterized the American populace in a manner with which I don't quite agree. He cited popular support for the operation of post offices seven days a week as an example of opposition to establishment of religion in the early days of the republic. I get the impression that he is contrasting this with the religious opposition noted in Algeria, India and Israel and don't consider this to be an apt comparison. Even if the law required the post offices to be open on Sunday, it did not compel anyone to go to the post office on Sunday. Nor did the law compel anyone to open his shop or work his fields on Sunday. The local blue laws he mentioned that mandated business closure on Sunday provided exceptions for Jews and Seventh Day Adventists. So, is the contrast between the attitude of the population or the attitude of the leadership? Personally, I think the contrast is between the social activism of the secular elites of Algeria, India and Israel and the attitude of restraint by the American elite in the early days of the republic.
Regardless of my disagreement with some of the author's conclusions, I found the book easy to follow and many of his observations insightful.
1. The movers and shakers of the independence movements were motivated by secular values learned either in or from the European nation controlling the territory and/or population affected by the independence movement.
2. The secular leadership of the independence movements tend to see the traditional and religious values of the general population as backwards and had varying levels of tolerance for these values. For example, the secularists in India opposed the caste system and supported women's rights.
3. Some aspects of the traditional and religious values of the general population fostered their submission to a colonial yoke (in the case of Algeria and India) or acceptance of an exile status (in the case of the Jews). In the case of the Jews, the instructions from Jeremiah to the exiles in Babylon in Jer. 29 tended to foster an attitude of submission to host nations.
4. The secular leadership had to overcome the submissive nature of the general population.
5. Once independence was achieved, the secular leadership tried to limit the scope of religion to belief and worship. All other aspects of life were under secular purview. Sound familiar?
6. Although the religious traditionalists were themselves changed by the independence movement, the broad scope of secular control tended to arouse a ground-swell of opposition within one or two generations, entrenching certain values. In other words, the secularists achieved independence but failed to convert the national value system to their secularism.
The book provides an interesting overview and perspective of the history of the three nations under consideration. At the end of the book, the author proceeds to make comparisons to the American Revolution. He notes that the American Revolution did not constitute a liberation movement; rather, migration from Europe to the American colonies was essentially the liberation movement. Furthermore, he notes that the American Revolution was a political revolution and not a social revolution, essentially a change in leadership rather than a change in culture. I agree with these conclusions. However, he characterized the American populace in a manner with which I don't quite agree. He cited popular support for the operation of post offices seven days a week as an example of opposition to establishment of religion in the early days of the republic. I get the impression that he is contrasting this with the religious opposition noted in Algeria, India and Israel and don't consider this to be an apt comparison. Even if the law required the post offices to be open on Sunday, it did not compel anyone to go to the post office on Sunday. Nor did the law compel anyone to open his shop or work his fields on Sunday. The local blue laws he mentioned that mandated business closure on Sunday provided exceptions for Jews and Seventh Day Adventists. So, is the contrast between the attitude of the population or the attitude of the leadership? Personally, I think the contrast is between the social activism of the secular elites of Algeria, India and Israel and the attitude of restraint by the American elite in the early days of the republic.
Regardless of my disagreement with some of the author's conclusions, I found the book easy to follow and many of his observations insightful.
December 16, 2019
Habermas coined the term post-secularism in response to the global rise of religious fundamentalism. Pluralism, equality and liberty have increasingly become the target of zealotry religious politics. Walzer's Paradox of Liberation makes a great addition on the literature revolving nationalism, liberation and its relation to religion. Through a profound casestudy Walzer analyses three national liberation revolutions (FLN in Algeria, Labour Zionism in Israel & the Indian National Congress in India) and observes that the liberators approach renders a religious counterrevolution.
The liberators (Fanon, Herzl and Nehru) had a chance to emancipate a nation or people by liberating them from colonial oppression. While doing this they failed to embrace the cultural and religious heritage of the people, but used it merely as a means of instrumentalization to remain a unity during the process of liberalization. Walzer argues that if the liberationist would indeed have embraced rather than subdued the traditions, the accomplishments attained by the liberators might have not been reversed.
In my opinion Walzer should not have overdrawn the comparison and should have sticked to the analysis of the individual cases. The diagnosis is very articulate and clear, but the further consequences and solutions proposed are rather parsimonious. Later in the book he proposes a strategy of negotiation that is a dialectical cocktail of religious bottom-down traditions and bottom-up liberalising reforms. A “Gramscian equilibrium” must be reached. This can be attained by still remaining critical of religion, while taking into account the religious tradition. This is a rather vague solution to a very articulate description of a problem.
Despite the critique I can wholeheartedly recommend reading this book. Its not long and the insights are well worth reading.
The liberators (Fanon, Herzl and Nehru) had a chance to emancipate a nation or people by liberating them from colonial oppression. While doing this they failed to embrace the cultural and religious heritage of the people, but used it merely as a means of instrumentalization to remain a unity during the process of liberalization. Walzer argues that if the liberationist would indeed have embraced rather than subdued the traditions, the accomplishments attained by the liberators might have not been reversed.
In my opinion Walzer should not have overdrawn the comparison and should have sticked to the analysis of the individual cases. The diagnosis is very articulate and clear, but the further consequences and solutions proposed are rather parsimonious. Later in the book he proposes a strategy of negotiation that is a dialectical cocktail of religious bottom-down traditions and bottom-up liberalising reforms. A “Gramscian equilibrium” must be reached. This can be attained by still remaining critical of religion, while taking into account the religious tradition. This is a rather vague solution to a very articulate description of a problem.
Despite the critique I can wholeheartedly recommend reading this book. Its not long and the insights are well worth reading.
February 18, 2019
Michael Walzer has been around for a while: as an undergraduate, I read a book of his when I was studying 17th Century English history, which I recall enjoying. I've read a couple of media pieces since, so coming across this book in what are the usual circumstances these days, i.e. new and for not much when on my travels, made it an instant purchase, to say nothing of the title.
Walzer examines what he identifies as 3 secular revolutions: in Algeria, Israel and India and comments in each case on what might be called a backlash by relevant religious groups. In each case, the groups leading the creation of an independent nation, are described as a minority, not religiously inclined and somewhat dismissive of those who are.
The presumptions among the leaders of these groups is what might be described as a Western Enlightenment view of inevitable progress, that a non-religious approach is essential for the developme3nt of a modern nation and that the benefits of the kind of equality aimed at by these new states, are obvious and that everyone will eventually go along with them. A key example is the rights of women, and also equality before the law.
Walzer explains how this didn't come about and provides a number of reasons for each country, a key one being the lack of consultation with the various religious groups as well as dismissing their beliefs anyway as ideas that will disappear over time. He presents a specific time period, around 30 years, for all of these nation states, as the gap between secular revolution (as defined) and religious counterrevolution.
The book is taken from a series of Lectures given by Walzer and are clearly written. His propositions are put forward and the agreements and disagreements of others are put without rancour. So it isn't a polemic or similar text: he presents his view and invites you to consider it.
In a postscript, he deals with what were queries from students presenting the United States as a similar case, given the Second Great Awakening, and expertly shows why his framework doesn't apply, giving historical and relgious reasons and quoting from contemporaries.
I found this book informative on a number of levels, including a general experience of a revival of religious sentiment, for want of a better term, over the past few decades, notably in the United States, as well as, in the general sense, a decline in listening to people of expertise. There are a number of factors as well, but recent times have seen a rejection of what might be called liberal democratic ideas of earlier decades,.
To be honest this term isn't one I like, but it seems to have current recognition and a key component is a challenge to the idea of democracy, which in a practical sense is fairly recent and a label all to liberally applied. Anti-democratic actions and beliefs appear to be coming from everywhere, particularly the corporate world, which in a way isn't surprising, from my knowledge and experience anyway.
While none of this is discussed in Walzer's book, these thought came to mind, and so his propositions are woth examining and adapting, particularly for those who, consciously or not, have a view of the world they consider superior to other people's and so act both in a patronising way and don't listen to relevant concerns.
Walzer examines what he identifies as 3 secular revolutions: in Algeria, Israel and India and comments in each case on what might be called a backlash by relevant religious groups. In each case, the groups leading the creation of an independent nation, are described as a minority, not religiously inclined and somewhat dismissive of those who are.
The presumptions among the leaders of these groups is what might be described as a Western Enlightenment view of inevitable progress, that a non-religious approach is essential for the developme3nt of a modern nation and that the benefits of the kind of equality aimed at by these new states, are obvious and that everyone will eventually go along with them. A key example is the rights of women, and also equality before the law.
Walzer explains how this didn't come about and provides a number of reasons for each country, a key one being the lack of consultation with the various religious groups as well as dismissing their beliefs anyway as ideas that will disappear over time. He presents a specific time period, around 30 years, for all of these nation states, as the gap between secular revolution (as defined) and religious counterrevolution.
The book is taken from a series of Lectures given by Walzer and are clearly written. His propositions are put forward and the agreements and disagreements of others are put without rancour. So it isn't a polemic or similar text: he presents his view and invites you to consider it.
In a postscript, he deals with what were queries from students presenting the United States as a similar case, given the Second Great Awakening, and expertly shows why his framework doesn't apply, giving historical and relgious reasons and quoting from contemporaries.
I found this book informative on a number of levels, including a general experience of a revival of religious sentiment, for want of a better term, over the past few decades, notably in the United States, as well as, in the general sense, a decline in listening to people of expertise. There are a number of factors as well, but recent times have seen a rejection of what might be called liberal democratic ideas of earlier decades,.
To be honest this term isn't one I like, but it seems to have current recognition and a key component is a challenge to the idea of democracy, which in a practical sense is fairly recent and a label all to liberally applied. Anti-democratic actions and beliefs appear to be coming from everywhere, particularly the corporate world, which in a way isn't surprising, from my knowledge and experience anyway.
While none of this is discussed in Walzer's book, these thought came to mind, and so his propositions are woth examining and adapting, particularly for those who, consciously or not, have a view of the world they consider superior to other people's and so act both in a patronising way and don't listen to relevant concerns.
August 17, 2021
És un bon llibre "La paradoxa de l'alliberament. Revolucions seculars i contrarevolucions religioses", del filòsof polític estatunidenc Michael Walzer (edició en valencià, Institució Alfons el Magnànim, 2020). A partir dels casos d'Israel, l'Índia i Algèria, mostra com revolucions anticolonialistes secularistes han acabat, dècades després, amb moviments fonamentalistes religiosos molt forts, en el poder o contestant de manera important el poder establert. Al capdavall, s'ha produït "una guerra cultural entre els llibertadors i els que podríem anomenar tradicionalistes", ja que "tant el fonamentalisme com la ultraortodòxia són reaccions modernistes a les temptatives de transformació modernista".
És interessant el que descriu Walzer: "La cultura de l'alliberament sembla que era massa prima per a fornir una base sòlida a aquest tipus de gent i permetre'ls una reproducció escaient. El rebuig radical del passat va deixar, per dir-ho així, massa poc material per a la construcció cultural." De fet, afig que "Marx potser tenia raó quant a la importància dels interessos de classe, però no hi ha dubte que s'equivocava pel que fa a la capacitat d'atracció relativa de la política basada en la classe i la basada en la nació"
Walzer proposa l'alliberament com un procés permanent: "Qui estiga a favor d'aquest tipus d'alliberament —de pobles, nacions o grupos religiosos— haurà de ser favorable a la seua replicació. Seria moralment incoherent, a més de bastant demencial, imaginar que el procés s'atura amb mi, o amb tu i a mi, o amb nosaltres".
Potser el punt més polèmic és quan afirma que "la tradició ha de ser reconeguda i les seues diferents parts incorporades, com reclamava el poeta Bialik: recollida, traduïda, incorporada a la cultura de nou". Però, en tot cas, haurà de ser traduïda de tal manera que no impedisca els drets de les dones ni de qualsevol minoria, no, senyor Walzer?
"La paradoxa de l'alliberament" és una proposta suggeridora per a pensar les societats actuals i què fer davant de la resposta a la secularització, una amenaça en molts casos a les llibertats públiques i als drets humans.
El llibre pertany a la col·lecció "Pensament i Societat", que dirigeix Gustau Muñoz. Gràcies per acostar-nos aquest assaig escrit originàriament en anglés i gràcies també als companys del Magnànim per la producció, l'administració i la difusió del llibre.
Més informació a https://www.alfonselmagnanim.net/libr...
#elsmeusllibres #llibresenvalencià #llibresencatalà
És interessant el que descriu Walzer: "La cultura de l'alliberament sembla que era massa prima per a fornir una base sòlida a aquest tipus de gent i permetre'ls una reproducció escaient. El rebuig radical del passat va deixar, per dir-ho així, massa poc material per a la construcció cultural." De fet, afig que "Marx potser tenia raó quant a la importància dels interessos de classe, però no hi ha dubte que s'equivocava pel que fa a la capacitat d'atracció relativa de la política basada en la classe i la basada en la nació"
Walzer proposa l'alliberament com un procés permanent: "Qui estiga a favor d'aquest tipus d'alliberament —de pobles, nacions o grupos religiosos— haurà de ser favorable a la seua replicació. Seria moralment incoherent, a més de bastant demencial, imaginar que el procés s'atura amb mi, o amb tu i a mi, o amb nosaltres".
Potser el punt més polèmic és quan afirma que "la tradició ha de ser reconeguda i les seues diferents parts incorporades, com reclamava el poeta Bialik: recollida, traduïda, incorporada a la cultura de nou". Però, en tot cas, haurà de ser traduïda de tal manera que no impedisca els drets de les dones ni de qualsevol minoria, no, senyor Walzer?
"La paradoxa de l'alliberament" és una proposta suggeridora per a pensar les societats actuals i què fer davant de la resposta a la secularització, una amenaça en molts casos a les llibertats públiques i als drets humans.
El llibre pertany a la col·lecció "Pensament i Societat", que dirigeix Gustau Muñoz. Gràcies per acostar-nos aquest assaig escrit originàriament en anglés i gràcies també als companys del Magnànim per la producció, l'administració i la difusió del llibre.
Més informació a https://www.alfonselmagnanim.net/libr...
#elsmeusllibres #llibresenvalencià #llibresencatalà
July 14, 2023
Clar, interessant i ben escrit, com és habitual. En algun moment es perd massa en detalls dels casos que presenta (Algèria, Israel i Índia). L'argument és clar, senzill i se'n surt prou bé amb les crítiques (és la tesi general de Walzer aplicada a l'alliberament nacional). Molt interessant fer paral·lelismes amb Catalunya i tota la pesca... Al final té un post scriptum sobre els EEUU on resumeix molt bé les particularitats (religioses) de la revolució però on li pot una mica massa el patriotisme yanki.
October 25, 2018
This book looks at secular national liberation movements, that were followed by conservative religious countermovements, focusing on Israel, India, and Algeria. The author's main argument is that national leaders need to take into account the concerns of the conservative masses and not assume that history will continue being progressive. It is a decent argument, but he doesn't include much material on each of his cases; the book is more philosophical in nature, which I think hurts his argument.
October 13, 2021
Insightful booklet.
Here are 2 quotes:
"Giving up negation doesn’t mean acceptance; it means, again, intellectual and political engagement."
"The best moral and political arguments are ones that derive from or connect with the inherited culture of the people who need to be convinced."
Intrigued me to read more on 19th century America from the religious perspective!
Here are 2 quotes:
"Giving up negation doesn’t mean acceptance; it means, again, intellectual and political engagement."
"The best moral and political arguments are ones that derive from or connect with the inherited culture of the people who need to be convinced."
Intrigued me to read more on 19th century America from the religious perspective!
August 3, 2019
Basically, Walzer speaks from the standpoint that the secular and militant revolutionaries are the pioneers of their time, who is also morally superior than their countrymen who are religious and massive in numbers.
June 18, 2021
Meh. It's more just a short historical survey of a few instances of instances of national liberation movements than it is anything substantive.
April 25, 2015
Readable, informative, short, and humble. I really like this. I would have benefitted from a slightly more comprehensive historical overview of the three examples of national and secular liberation around which the book is built—I happen to be quite familiar with the history of the creation of Israel, but some of the considerations regarding India and Algeria required extra reading. (It must be said that Algeria plays a marginal role at best in this book anyway.) A chapter lays out the Marxist perspective, another the post-colonial perspective, and the closing remarks briefly consider the American independency movement.
Read
April 6, 2016Review by Bob Goldfarb for the Jewish Book Council.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews