Religious Authenticity, Hegemony, and Agency

After reflecting briefly on how Hollinger’s framework compares to those of other scholars who have tried to conceptualize the relationship between secularization and pluralization, I will examine a few instances from my own work and that of other scholars where discourses of secularism and pluralism intersect in compelling ways. Hollinger’s essay reminds us that the history of religion is intensely perspectival—that one person’s secularism can literally be another’s true religion and vice versa. This becomes apparent when we look closely at pluralism and secularism as contextualized discourses; rarely does any historical actor or contemporary interpreter invoke these terms in a truly neutral manner. It’s no wonder that pluralism and secularism, freighted as they are with lingering associations of “bad” and “good,” bedevil scholars and confound their best attempts to describe what’s actually happening on the ground. Although I have no illusion of being able to pinpoint the precise nature of the relationship between secularism and pluralism, my own work strongly suggests that these discourses are inseparable and almost always linked to politically charged struggles over the boundaries of religious authenticity. How a society defines religiosity and secularity speaks volumes about its self-conception and values, and the twentieth century has certainly witnessed massive changes in the way Americans define these terms. Finally, I’ll discuss whether and on what grounds we could justify making a terminological shift from “secularization” to “de-Christianization” in a country as intensely Protestant as America. I’ll close by weighing in on the issues of Protestant hegemony and agency.