Western and Non-Western insights important in responding to a Plural Public Space
According to the secularisation theory, there will be a uniform and universal decline of religion. However, in our current times, the captivating hold of the secularisation theory has lost steam in so far as religion continues to be present in the public sphere. Philosopher Jeff Shawn Jose, who defends his dissertation of 23 February, refutes that theory and highlights the need for incorporating Western and non-Western perspectives in responding to the concerns of religious believers in a plural public space. He develops a response focusing on three objections (integrity, fairness and divisiveness) of religious believers against restricting their views on public space, thereby critically discussing the ideas of Mahatma Gandhi and the American liberal philosopher John Rawls.
Immigration, globalisation, and liberal context are accelerating the process of pluralisation of the public spaces. For instance, Statistics Netherlands (CBS) report that from 2012 to 2017, immigration from India to the Netherlands more than doubled to over 8,600 immigrants annually. They are mostly knowledge immigrants who bring with them not only their skills but also their religious normativity. The reality of increasing immigration from different countries and globalisation necessitates an approach that considers both a Western and a non-Western perspective.
Hence, Jose investigates the possible role of religion in the public sphere by confronting the perspectives of John Rawls and Mahatma Gandhi. Both Rawls and Gandhi conceive a role for religion in the public sphere that differs substantially from the role assigned to religion in the secularisation theory.
Burden on believers
Jose makes use of a framework to confront the view of Rawls and Gandhi. It consists of three objections against the restraint imposed by Rawls’s public reason from the perspective of religious believers: the integrity objection, the fairness objection, and the divisiveness objection. The integrity objection concerns the burden placed by public reason on religious believers by asking them to bracket their fundamentally held religious convictions while engaging in public political deliberations. The fairness objection regards the unequal distribution of burdens on the religious believer compared to the secular citizen. And the divisiveness objection questions the necessity of restrictions imposed by public reason on religion to ensure stability in society. Integrity, fairness and stability are concerns shared by both Rawls and Gandhi.
Consequently, the three objections provide a common perspective and, more importantly, a framework to engage with both Rawls and Gandhi to critically analyse and evaluate their divergent approaches on the role of religion in the public sphere.
Jose defends his doctorate on February 23 at 16:30 p.m. in the auditorium. The ceremony can be followed via livestream. Title of the dissertation: 'Religion and Radical Pluralism: A Critical Analysis of Rawls's Public Reason and Gandhi's Stance'. For more information, please contact persvoorlichters@tilburguniversity.edu or tel. 013 4664000.