This book is the summation of many decades of work by Peter L. Berger. It outlines a new paradigm for understanding religion and pluralism in an age of multiple modernities. Along the way, Berger addresses a wide range of issues spanning individual faith, interreligious socieities, and the political order. The book also includes responses from three eminent scholars of Nancy Ammerman, Detlef Pollack, and Fenggang Yang
Peter L. Berger was an internationally renowned sociologist, and the founder of Boston University's Institute on Culture, Religion, and World Affairs. He was born in Vienna and came to the U.S. in his late teens. He had a master's degree and a doctorate from the New School for Social Research in New York. After two years in the United States Army, he taught at the University of Georgia and the University of North Carolina before going to the Hartford Seminary Foundation as an Assistant Professor in Social Ethics.
In 1992, Peter Berger was awarded the Manes Sperber Prize, presented by the Austrian government for significant contributions to culture. He was the author of many books, among them The Social Construction of Reality, The Homeless Mind, and Questions of Faith.
I always felt disappointed that Berger simply renounced his version of the secularisation thesis back in 1999, without actually reflecting on the theoretical implications of his recantation. In this new book, he takes a step towards doing just that. Basically, he is expanding on the brief note in the response to Woodhead et al.'s collection (2001) where he stated (I'm paraphrasing) that modernity changes the how but not the what of religion. Much of this hangs on the idea of multiple modernities and, despite Berger's always readable and confident tone, is somewhat of a hodgepodge of ideas. Like all good theories, it is open-ended, so that perhaps others will reshape it, but I can't see this being the paradigmatic change in thinking that the title implies.
Also, Berger's part of the book is about 90 pages, while the rest is comprised of responses by Nancy Ammerman, Detlef Pollack and Fenggang Yang. Of these, only Pollack responds to Berger's ideas directly. Even he misreads (I think) Berger at times, but nevertheless asks relevantly whether the new paradigm is actually old secularisation theory in a new disguise. If the public sphere (a term not used in the book) remains secular despite continues vitality of religion in a situation of multiple modernities, how can religion really survive? Interestingly, Yang calls for universal social science, but manages to be most provincial of the respondents by claiming that 'agency-driven secularisation' (e.g. in China) is what is hampering the emergence of truly free and blooming exercise of religion (e.g., surprise, surprise, in the USA). If there is one thing that secularisation theorists everywhere agree on, it is that secularisation has never been about atheism.
Interesting read for Berger enthusiasts but, as said, unlikely a beginning of a major paradigm shift.
His question is one of the interaction between religion and the pluralism found in modernity. He makes convincing arguments that we are not actually secularizing in the West, but rather are increasing in pluralism across not one modernity but multiple versions modernities that have been adopted in various forms across the West (I.e. Japan’s modernizing has taken on some commonalities of American/European modernity but still found creative ways to cling to their premodern traditions and beliefs that are not found in America/Europe).
Thus how can religion flourish in todays’s western pluralism? According to Berger, the state must remain neutral to religion, always allowing the freedom of the various forms of religion to occur and the freedom to allow people to ask the questions of “who am I?” etc. “This freedom sets a limit to the power of the state; it’s a fundamental right that procedures and outweighs democracy or any particular form of government.” There is a delicate balance across the state and religions to hold the peace between one other, and he says out an interesting vision on how we can do so today.
This short work is a culmination of decades of Berger’s work who has been rare in his intellectual honesty as he constantly reworks his work and research as time pushes on. This book will equip you to understand the exact nature of the current pluralism within modernity, and even how to speak the language of it to those around you. So very helpful, and so very glad I had the opportunity to read it.
Not nearly entertaining to read as his "The Sacred Canopy," which first outlined secularization theory, Peter Berger's "The Many Altars of Modernity" does make up in accuracy and fidelity to the truth what it is lacking in stimulation. The courage and intellectual boldness that Berger evidences in refuting his earlier theory is reflected in the clear sightedness of the cohesive analysis found in this gem of a book. For the author's discussion of 'plausibility structures' and differing modalities that people navigate everyday in our secular world, and how this pluralism does not undermine faith in the divine, gives a clear view as to why religion is thriving despite its death being proclaimed so many years ago. Particularly enlightening are the critical responses by other sociologists to Berger's book, where ideas are disclaimed, parsed, and critiqued, making for a truly dialogic experience for the reader. Essential reading for those interested in the sociology of religion, this book really delivers!
Interesting thesis: modernity does not lead to secularism, but pluralism. Christians should prepare to respectfully engage a society where many viable worldviews are both present and often in tension in the minds of Christians themselves. Helpful book.
Must read! Un libro da avere in libreria. Berger con la tesi dei due pluralismi ha decisamente fatto fare un grande passo avanti alla sociologia della religione. E poi scrive benissimo ed è anche simpatico.
This work drifts on. You mostly get what is going on after the first three chapters. That being said, it is an incredibly good argument. Really should be consulted.