Secularism in a post-secular world

From the editor. "Russian Journal" publishes the texts of speeches at a round table about the future - "Utopia and the authors of the future", which was held on June 13 as part of the fourth Moscow International Open Book Festival. The round table was organized by Russian Journal, Liberty.ru and Pushkin magazine.

* * *

I can hardly say anything about utopias, but I can say a few words about the future and the problems that we, as authors of the future, will have to face. I would like to dwell on the problems of religion. The organizers formulated their questions about this as follows: “ Does society need the values ​​of secularism? ” and “ Will a new, post-secular world come? ”

So, in order. As for “secularism,” it is still an ideology, “ its proponents consciously condemn all forms of the supernatural and related institutions; they advocate non-religious or anti-religious principles as the basis not only of personal morality, but also of social organization .” Moreover, the ideology is quite aggressive, therefore, probably, we do not need secularism as a guiding principle for building policy towards religions... At the same time, of course, it can and should be preserved as one of the existing worldviews of a certain group of people. What we need is secularism as a principle that defends the fundamental autonomy of state institutions from influence from religions.

And here a key question immediately arises related to our immediate future: what type of secularism do we need ? In Russia in the early 90s, with all the religious enthusiasm that was then observed, a rigid separation model of state-religious relations was chosen at the level of law. In terms of legislation, Russia is one of the most secular countries, at least in Europe. However, the sphere of law and the sphere of real relations in Russia are very different. Religious organizations known to everyone, like all well-known institutions in the political sphere, play a role that is not provided for by the Constitution; another example arises of what Andrei Medushevsky, including in an interview with Russian Journal, called “parallel constitutionalism”, when there is a written constitution, but actual practices are determined by the unwritten constitution. And that's the problem. To avoid this, it is probably necessary to move to a different type of secularism , for example, cooperative (which has already been proposed several times). In general, there are no simple solutions here, but, in my opinion, the discussion of the future of Russia as a secular country should follow the path of developing a model of secularism that would, on the one hand, correspond to our wishes, and on the other, to the realities that have developed in Russia today.

However, the main problem of Russia - and this is the key to future problems - is that today, in my purely personal opinion, there is not a sufficient number of people capable of adequately discussing these issues. Conventionally, the participants in the discussion can be divided into “fiery clerics” and no less fiery “secularist-atheists.” Such polarization leaves no other alternatives other than rushing from a rigid separation model to a model of a symphony of authorities and other utopias. The state in such an arrangement turns out to be a fortress, which is stormed by different parties in turn. Today the fortress is in the hands of secularists, but the pressure of the clerics is already difficult to contain. Here, of course, our historical traditions are reflected, for example, the fact that secularization in Russia followed a revolutionary path, characterized by the presence of powerful anti-religious and anti-clerical forces seeking to sweep away the enemy and not leave him a single chance. The revolutionary option can be contrasted with the transformational option, when secularization occurs not in spite of, but through religious organizations that are increasingly adapting to secular values ​​from within. Accordingly, desecularization can take two of these paths. I personally prefer the second one...

The problem of rethinking the existing model of secularism becomes even more pressing in the light of the tectonic shifts that are taking place in Western (Christian or already post-Christian) culture, to which Russia can be included, with reservations. We are talking about the advent of a post-secular era . This concept does not have a clear and established definition, but let's outline three key points. The post-secular era can be characterized as, firstly , the realization that religions are not going anywhere, that all predictions about a decrease in their significance turned out to be false and that we will one way or another have to come to terms with their presence and active participation in public life; secondly , a new attitude on the part of society, the state, citizens, and intellectuals towards these religious traditions themselves and the meanings that they contain. In particular, secular ideologies are beginning to slip more and more and lose their persuasiveness. And here it is quite logical to turn to religious traditions as a source from which one can glean the necessary ideas, meanings and goals; thirdly , this seems to me the most interesting turn of the problem, secular thinking itself reveals a theological dimension : it turns out that it rests on substantial premises and attitudes that can well be analyzed in the language of theology. Here I refer to two authors: Talal Assad (anthropology of secularism) and John Milbank (deconstruction of secular reason), whose work should soon appear in Russian. Secularism itself, in its various interpretations, is the fruit of a certain theological vision of the world, and today it is necessary to prove why this particular theology (and which of its variations) is better - practically, ethically or metaphysically - than all the others.

In my opinion, the future of Russia in terms of the religious world will depend on the presence of people in it who are ready to raise the issue of secularism and discuss it in this way. Otherwise, the vicious spiral of confrontation between clerics and anticlericals will not give us peace for a long time. Of course, we will not achieve peace between the parties, but it is quite possible to move from war of destruction to adequate discussion.