Abstract
This short but thought-provoking essay was initially published in German in 2022; it is a revised version of a lecture given to the Catholic diocese of Würzburg in Northern Bavaria. The author is Hartmut Rosa, a distinguished Professor of Sociology at the University of Jena and Director of the Max Weber Centre at the University of Erfurt. A foreword by Charles Taylor is indicative of the essay’s wider resonance. An English translation is a welcome addition to the growing literature relating to the place of religion in a rapidly changing Europe.
The essay divides into three parts: a short introduction; an analysis of the ills of late modern societies; and a section on the role of religion as a possible remedy. To find a social theorist who sees religion as part of the solution rather than part of the problem is refreshing to say the least.
The introduction sets the scene: an address to a Catholic diocese that has chosen as its theme for the year a verse from 1 Kings 3: an earnest prayer for a listening heart. How can we – the diocese, the general reader, the democratic citizen – learn to listen more effectively to those around us, not all of whom will share our point of view? Music lovers will respond readily not only to Rosa’s musical sensitivities as such, but to his reminder that music very often evokes attentive listening.
The second section expands Rosa’s well-known analyses of late modern societies, which he defines as follows: ‘A society is modern … when it systematically and structurally depends on permanent growth in order to reproduce itself and preserve the institutional status quo’ (p. 12). The crucial point is the obligation to keep on growing whatever the costs in order to continue in existence. The costs, moreover, are multiple: in insisting on perpetual growth, it is clear that we are doing ourselves, our societies and our planet not only no good, but considerable harm.
What is to be done? How, in other words, can we escape from the regime of ‘dynamic stabilization’ and what can religion offer? Rosa’s response is twofold: first, ‘religious traditions and institutions such as churches have at their disposal the narratives, cognitive reservoirs, rites, practices, and spaces in which a listening heart might be cultivated and experienced’ (p. 42); and second, the capacity to listen attentively is as central to a functioning democracy as the freedom to speak.
Rosa is well aware that religion(s) do not always do this; they are capable of considerable harm as well as good. We all know this, but all too often we concentrate too much on the failings of this or that religious organization and fail to see a wider potential for positivity. Likewise, there are other dimensions of society that offer space for ‘resonance’ – meaning by this the listening, receptive and responsive heart. These should be fully acknowledged but they do not detract from the importance of religion.
How do I respond to such suggestions? Like Hartmut Rosa, I am fearful about the future and wonder what kind of society my grandchildren will inhabit. But what grandparent has not felt similarly? And as for the place of religion as a possible or partial solution, I am vividly reminded of a challenge that I was set some ten years ago, having accepted an invitation to co-edit a chapter on religion in the International Panel on Social Progress (see <https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/religionglobalsociety/2019/01/a-lived-situated-and-constantly-changing-reality-why-religion-is-relevant-to-the-pursuit-of-social-progress/>).
How I wish that Democracy Needs Religion had been to hand as we battled to persuade our fellow social scientists that religion – carefully defined and properly understood – could indeed contribute to social progress. Our conclusion, that ‘researchers and policy-makers pursuing social progress will benefit from careful attention to the power of religious ideas to motivate, of religious practices to shape ways of life, of religious communities to mobilize and extend the reach of social changes, and of religious leaders and symbols to legitimate calls to action’, reflects many of the arguments found in Rosa’s essay. I commend it very warmly.