The Secularization of the European Mind in the Nineteenth Century

by Owen Chadwick

The declining hold of the Church and its doctrines on European society represents a major shift in Western life and thought. Owen Chadwick's acclaimed lectures on the secularisation of the European mind trace this movement in the nineteenth century, identifying and exploring both the social and the intellectual aspects of this momentous change. The rise of technology, the growth of big cities and a cheap press take their place alongside evolutionary science and Marxism in this fascinating analysis of the erosion of the Church's power. Woven into its brilliant discussion are brief but very illuminating studies of familiar major thinkers, including Marx, Darwin, Mill and Comte.

Genres: History, Religion, Philosophy, Nonfiction, European History, Science, Sociology

296 pages, Paperback

First published February 27, 1976

About the author

William Owen Chadwick, OM, KBE, FBA, FRSE, was a British Anglican clergyman, academic, writer and prominent historian of Christianity. He was also a rugby union player. He was Master of Selwyn College, Cambridge, from 1956 to 1983, Dixie Professor of Ecclesiastical History from 1958 to 1968, and Regius Professor of History from 1968 to 1983.

Reviews

[Xander · Rating 2 out of 5]

In The Secularization of the European Mind in the Nineteenth Century (1975, 2002), Owen Chadwick tries to tell the story of how the European world secularized in the nineteenth century. According to Chadwick, the process of secularization was founded on two developments. On the one side were the huge social changes that were created by developments in technology, science, economics and culture. There was a huge trek to cities, leaving the towns and countryside empty; technology created the nature and settings of work; capitalism led to growing inequality; and the Romantic movement brought back emotion, after the Englightenment ushered in the dictate of reason. On the other side, according to Chadwick, there were the intellectual developments. Religion was gradually attacked more frequently and more vehemently, and the intellectual side of this debate was important as a starting point for mass 'propaganda' for the secular agenda.

The book starts of really interesting, but as Chadwick moves from the 'social side' to the 'intellectual side' of secularization, the book starts to become more and more an apology of devout Christian. After finishing the book, I looked up Chadwick's credentials and saw that he served as a priest and theologian. Clearly, the man couldn't seperate his religion from his academic attempts to explain the secularization in the nineteenth century. I will briefly summarize the book, since it's an interesting perspective one usually doesn't encounter:

The first part of the book deals exclusively with the social factors involved in the secularization. The nineteenth century was - at least for Western Europe - a time of rapid and enormous changes. Whole societies seemed to be adrift and had to look for new ways to live together. Technology, science, culture and economics changed the lives of masses of people. In this climate liberalism and socialism arose. Chadwick offers a very insightful portrait of liberalism - and its paradoxes. He does this by detailed analysis of John Stuart Mill's work On Liberalism. According to Chadwick, liberalism was an elitist, bourgeouis, philosophy that was out of touch with the everyday lives of workers. Liberalism strives to create a utopia, in which every individual learns everything about every topic so as to make perfect decisions; it is based on a fallacy - human beings are not (only) individuals but social animals.

This brings Chadwick to a long treatment of Marx. According to Chadwick, most socialists were radical atheists, looking to overthrow religion. Not Marx. Marx saw (as one of the few) that religion is the opium of the people - better the living conditions of people and they won't need their opium anymore. Religion will disappear in a socialist utopia. But this was all intellectual posing. The masses of workers never read Marx, let alone the more obscure socialist philosophers. The man in the streets wasn't religious simply because he associated religion with the bourgeousie. Secularism theism as conformism, now this is a really interesting analysis by Chadwick. (One that I haven't read much).

The conformism of secularity is closely linked to the anticlericalism in many European states, especially France. The battle against the (Catholic) church was viewed - by liberals as well as socialists - as a battle against the state and its authority. Chadwick convinces us that the secularizing tendencies in Europe were hence more a social and political development than a purely intellectual battle. This is the strength of the book: it truly offers refreshing insights into the secularization questions (why in the nineteenth century? why in Europe? why in exactly this way? etc.)

Next comes part 2 of the book, in which Chadwick zooms in on the intellectual side of the secularization of European society. He starts with explaining how Voltaire and Rousseau were in their own lifetimes controversial figures, but later on became symbols in political and intellectual battles. This is best illustrated by two events. (1) The building of St. Geneviève, ordered by the Church, but never finished because of financial troubles. When it finally was finished, it was finished as the Pantheon, in which France's heroes were to honored - the former church as a symbol of French nationalism. In it were buried the bodies of important figures, including Voltaire. Napoleon recast the Pantheon as a church; the Restoration transformed it back into a Pantheon; the July Monarchy restored the Church; the Third Republic reverted it back to the Pantheon - leaving the cross on the roof standing. (2) The body of Voltaire, which was housed in the Pantheon and which was shrouded in a myth, which claimed that his body was removed by Napoleonic authorities and buried anonymously somewhere. These two events show the importance of political climate on secularization - it could change much, and rapidly.

Now Chadwick has made his point: secularization was much more a social and political movement than an intellectual movement. You might think he's done now, but - being a priest and theologian - he has to deconstruct the rampant intellectual secular claims as well. So he goes to great lengths to tell us how the 'war between science and religion' was non-existent and was merely a product of propagandists who used science (Darwinism especially) to promote their cause. Secular clergy, in a sense. People like Haeckel, Huxley and Büchner reached the masses and claimed that science had won the battle against religion. Once again, we witness here an interaction of intellectual with social factors. Workers were secular and anticlerical because they saw the bourgeousie - and its state authority - as enemies. Hence materialism and darwinism - and science more generally - became a tool in the hands of socialists: the socialist gospel. All the while, this remained an intellectual debate, in the upper echelons of socialist parties - the masses simply wanted to be entertained by amusing lecturers (like Haeckel) and couldn't care less about the status of the nature of man (was he an ape? or was he made in the image of God?)

Besides science, Chadwick wants to refute the claim that history has done away with religion and/ore secularized Europe. The nineteenth century saw the rise of biblical criticism: the application of scientific method (especially philology) to the study of the Bible. The result was radical skepticism: the Christian gospels contained many internal contradictions and contradicted each other. So the foundation of Christianity was crumbling due to science. But strangely, according to Chadwick, the development of historical research led to a study of the life of Jesus, which led itself to a huge change in the historical conscousness of the common man. Man is interested in religion; and many people read the books on the history of Jesus; the end of the nineteenth century saw an eruption of mysticism, miracles and Christ imitation. A resurgence of Christianiaty, all due to the changing historical consciousness of the European. And besides this particular example (the study of Jesus), historical research led to the insight that religion is part of human nature and hence of society.

This last strand culminates, in the ninth chapter, in the claim that morality needs religion. Man is full time egoist; part time altruist. Altruism is promoted by the family (the affection for kin) and the satisfaction of doing good to others. It is also promoted by the growth of knowledge, since progress in knowledge - knowing the world and all its parts and relationships better - gives us more insights into our deeds. According to Chadwick, this change in outlook is personified in Auguste Comte, the founding father of positivism. According to the positivist, truth is that which can be verified (i.e. observed). Hence, science is true; religion is false. But positivism also makes us doubt our morality: gone are the building blocks of God, free will, soul, etc. The positivist then has to offer a new morality, without God, and this leads to relativism. Since moral relativism is wrong - at least according to the likes of Chadwick - the positivist thus runs into problems. He has to postulate that morality can be observed (i.e. the truth criterion) by watching men and women act. Comte couldn't live with this and as he got older became more and more religious.

Chadwick claims, and he finds support in the likes of Comte, that religion is need for morality. What he claims is a unique point of view, though: religion is a prerequisity for morality not because of the meta-ethical implications (what is the ultimate foundation of good and bad?), but because from a social-utilitarian point of view religion is the only platform with which to reach the masses. The man on the street doesn't read philosophy, so when intellectuals claim that religion is falsified, this is taken by the man in the street as a sign that from now on 'anything goes'. We can't let that happen. Since the man on the street can be reached through religion, we need religion to prevent mass egoism. This is Voltaire's police-God ("if God did not exist, we should invent Him") applied to society.

In the final chapter, after reviewing all the relevant social and intellectual aspects of the secularization, Chadwick comes to a slightly suprising conclusion. The student of secularization should not underestimate how much continuity is behind all the apparent historical change. When Christians did away with the pagan gods, people still became sick and needed healing. So the temple of Ascelpios became the church of St. Nicholas. And Stalin's authoritarian grip, his secret police and his brutal oppression of the masses was just another Tsarist regime - never mind the revolution. Yet, Chadwick claims that historical change truly can be lasting. And the secularization of Europe can be viewed from this perspective. Europe changed, became less religious and modes of living and thinking permanently changed during the nineteenth century. The only (absolute) condition which Chadwick adds to this: secularization (as a term) should neither be used to long for ages past (the religious conservatists/radicals) nor as propaganda by secularists to steer history's course.

So what to think of this book? I think on the one hand Chadwick offers very interesting perspectives. This book made me look at liberalism, socialism and the process of secularization from fresh perspectives - I have a much more nuanced iamge of these concepts. On the other hand, throughout the book it is evident that Chadwick has an agenda of his own. This makes it - at times - more like an essay than an honest review of a historical period. It isn't clear to me which stance Chadwick takes on various subjects. He seems very nuanced when it comes to science and darwinism and Marx and socialism; he seems very prejudiced when it comes to religion as precondition for morality and liberalism. This makes Chadwick seem ambiguous at best, intellectually dishonest at worst.

When he (for example) claims that the 'warfare between science and religion' was just propaganda by secular priests like Haeckel, he is simply wrong. As soon as the Christian (or any religious believer) claims that he or she makes truth claims (for example: God exists, Jesus did exist, etc.) he describes a part of reality, a part of our universe. Describing and explaing reality is the domain of science. The only safe space for a believer is to claim that all religious propositions are metaphorical language - but this is not what a true believer claims. In other words: as soon as a believer claims God exists (or makes similar claims), he or she steps into the scientific arena. Claiming that there simply is no problem between science and religion, and it's just all one big misunderstanding, is intellectually dishonest. Either Genesis is true, or the theory of evolution, the standard model of the 'hot big bang', the theory of radioactivity are wrong. Either the Earth was created on the sixth day and the species are God's creation, or the universe is 13.7 billion years old, the Earth itself 4.55 million years old, and the different species originated due to natural selection of heritable variation.
There is no way out of this dilemma. And since these scientific theories work (they let us build nuclear power plants, new drugs to treat disease, etc.) and these theories are corroborated by mountains of evidence (observation, experiment, etc.), science simply came out as winner.

And once you end up with this conclusion, then morality goes out the window as well. If morality - according to the believer - is simply the commandment of God (the Ten Commandments, the gospel of Jesus Christ, etc.), and God, as defined by these religions, is disproven, then why keep following those commandments? Morality is a universal human instinct, which partly differs between cultures and people within cultures. Morality changes through time - this is called learning from your mistakes. I don't really see how an absolute morality is possible; I also don't see why this is such a problem.

(Seeing as this is an older book (first published in 1975), much of Chadwick's ideas about science, morality, etc. are outdated.)

Can I recommend this book? Well it truly depends. It does offer fresh insights, but it is written in a not really accessible style, and one has to cope with the prejudice of a priest/theologian in sketching a sensitive historical era. But then again, even though one disagress with Chadwick, at least he makes you think about your own convictions, and this is truly in the spirit of the Enlightenment and its daughter Secularization.

[Bennett Rogers · Rating 5 out of 5]

Owen Chadwick (and if you don't know him or his brother, Henry, you should) seeks to define and explain the secularization of the European mind in the 19th century. "Secularization" is not easy word to define. For the religious, it is a word of lamentation; for the irreligious, it is a mantra. Chadwick argues that it is neither.

It is a word that describes a process - a radical process - that changed the relationship between religion and modern society, which arose principally from two sources. The first, which is explored in part I of the book, was social in nature, due to "new machines, growth of big cities, and the massive transfer of populations." In short, industrialization and urbanization. The second, which is explored in part II, was intellectual - i.e. "the unsettlement of minds, rising out of a heap of new knowledge in science and history, and out of the consequent argument."

Chadwick argues that the majority Europeans didn't become irreligious or atheistic in the 19th century; they simply restated their religious convictions in light of new social and intellectual realities, which had the effect of fundamentally changing (weakening) their relationship to the Church. Chadwick masterfully chronicles this change without bemoaning it or championing. His scholarship is vast. His writing is delightful. This is a superb history written by a superb historian.

[Mir · Rating 4 out of 5]

[aside: I wonder what the author would make of the current de-secularization trends?]

This is a historical study, not of the truth of beliefs, but of how they arose, how/why people believed, and why those belief faded. Belief and secularization are both hard to define, as the author admits.

The 19th century is often presented in opposition to a non-existent earlier age of religiosity, perhaps inspired by Weber's assertion that "The Reformation made all secular life into a vocation." Atheism spreads via literacy and until the mid-19th century was rare in the lower classes, but Chadwick suggests a general reduction in this religious feeling (i.e. no longer regarding professions as glorifying God).

The decline in church-going coincides with the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species and increases after the dissemination of Marxist theory.


Related reading: The Crisis of the European Mind

[Sarah · Rating 3 out of 5]

Useful for understanding the view of religion during the Romantic era

[Jack Orlleans · Rating 4 out of 5]

After reading the book, you'll be able to guess his profession and credentials fairly well. That's not a bad thing, secularism affected all aspects of life, and he would be able to see the trend from a far more advantageous perch than most. Compared to most religious scholars or anthropologists dealing with secularization he actually deals with social norms and mass cognition rather than just a few poorly read, and even more poorly understood, philosophers. He makes some interesting and unique points about unconscious christianity and atheism. As any movement approaches mass support it will have to embrace bradlaugh's drums
Towards the end he dabbles into what feels like apologism, interestingly from religous and secular. His discussion of history and the tension between the eras of scholarship, the romantic democrats and the positivist mass trends helps one digest how integral that the earliest popularly read doctirnaires of socialism were atheists forged the ideals reputation in his discussion of marx.
There is nothing too novel in the book, but a worthwhile read. The landscape amnesia of piety and what is considered secular is a take I'll be searching around in my own life for.

[Bernard English · Rating 4 out of 5]

Clearly secularization has taken place. Though I'm not that old, even I can see the difference between religious views of my grandparents and my parents and then my generation in turn. Was it material development, scientific progress, physical and biological (i.e., Darwinism), intellectual revolutions--Chadwick looks at a variety of possible explanations. Most interesting are some individuals whose personal "secularization" were noted in their autobiography.

[Summer Bohannon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Chadwick is always excellent, if also dense. It's somewhat unusual for a historian to give a Gifford Lecture, and that results here in some really thought-provoking sections on history, natural theology, and Christian historiography.

[Edward]

[Scott] I think The Secularization of the European Mind in the 19th Century by Owen Chadwick...
[Rushdoony] Yes, a very important work.
[Scott] ... is a book published by Cambridge University Press, 1975. I am sure it is still available, is a very good book for Americans to read, because the English loss of face anticipated the American by probably a generation or more. They ... the diaries of the 1840s, 1830s, 40s and 50s of English people show all sorts of personal suffering and agony over their loss of faith. And, of course, the ground was so well prepared that when Darwin appeared his edition sold out in one day, the first edition.
[Rushdoony] Yes.
[Scott] They were so delighted to have an alternative view. But that didn't really hit the United States in any large sense, I don’t think, until probably the 80s and the 90s. By the turn of the century, the faith was hollow in this country. And without knowing what happened to the English, I don’t think the average American Christian can understand what happened here.

[Richard Williams]

Secularization of the European Mind in the 19th Century. by Owen Chadwick (2000)

[Simon · Rating 4 out of 5]

A classic study of the rise of secular ideals in Europe.