Ulrich Beck,Cosmopolitanism and the Individualization of Religion

Secularization, Individualization and Religion: From One to Many Gods?

In A God of One’s Own Beck posits that the second modernity is characterized by the coexistence of two types of faith: a closed hierarchical system based on intractable principles and an open model driven by individualization and personal choice. In order to investigate the emancipatory potential of the latter, the noun ‘religion’ – which generates ‘either/or’ categories – is rejected in favour of the adjective ‘religious’, thus enabling a ‘both/and’ logic inclusive of plural identities (Beck, 2010: 49). In eschewing the rigidity of monotheistic religions, individuals are considered by Beck to currently be engaged in the assembly of multiple belief structures:

what a ‘God of one’s own’ means here is a God who has not been assigned to us at birth. Nor is He the collective God whom all members of a major religion are forced to venerate. He is a God one can choose, a personal God who has a firm place and a clear voice in the intimate heart of one’s own life. (Beck, 2010: 139)

Beck contends that the cultivation of exclusionary criteria within monotheistic faiths – typified by the labelling of ‘believers’ and ‘non-believers’ – is socially divisive. For him, the separation between those ‘with’ and ‘without’ faith precedes a secondary filter point at which people are classified according to denomination. In effect, the absolute ‘truths’ promulgated by discrete faiths – coupled to unbending religious narratives – distinguishes insiders from outsiders. Despite ideationally purporting to strive for peace, by emphasizing difference monotheistic religions find themselves ‘suspended between tolerance and violence’ (Beck, 2010: 51). Challenging the foundations of religious boundary-making, in the early chapters of the book the commonalities between world religions are documented. Avowing that historical divisions between monotheistic religions are mutable and culturally constructed, Beck reasons that the Enlightenment promise of freedom from the shackles of religion has taken a curious twist. The unexpected ‘return of the Gods’ (Beck, 2010: 20) signals a turn away from science and back toward faith as a guiding principle and a source of existential meaning.

The title of the book is inspired by the published diaries of Etty Hillesum, who recorded her experiences of living in Holland during the Nazi occupation. Reflecting on the brutality of the regime, Hillesum fails to reconcile the violent atrocities with the existence of a compassionate God. In Beck’s (2010: 3) view, the uncertainty and conditionality expressed by Hillesum is tantamount to a new relationship between God and the individual: ‘finding herself and finding God, inventing herself and inventing God’. By placing him (sic) beyond the greater religious or planetary good, Hillesum (1981: 159–61) seeks salvation for the individual, but also for God. The faith contract she proposes is thus not absolute but contingent and elective, inferring a shift from religion conceived as a pre-determined structure to the creation of a God of one’s own. The ensuing dilemma that Beck wrestles with is whether it is possible to contemporaneously align religion with the ‘I’ in a way that promotes peace and tolerance. ²

Endorsing inter-religious exchange through ‘the humane principle of a subjective polytheism’, Beck (2010: 62) believes that the individualization of religion can promote social harmony. Describing the monotheistic principles of the Abrahamic religions as antithetical to peace, he asserts that religious exclusivity is being undermined by a combination of macro and micro transitions. At a macro level, ‘pure religion’ that rejects the ‘truths’ of other faiths is becoming redundant as globalization erodes cultural boundaries and exposes people to diverse faiths. Although doyens have attempted to preserve the sanctity of mono-religions, the inclination toward reflexivity and ambiguity has rendered singular faiths vulnerable to scepticism and critique.

In the second modernity, contests over expert truth claims and challenges to political and scientific assumptions indicate that religions which attempt to close themselves off from the surges and flows of reflexive modernization will suffer a slow demise. Beck avers that the strictures of monotheistic faiths clash with the principles of freedom and diversity in a globalizing world of cultural exchange: ‘you have only the choice of believing or not believing them, and, as a member of a faith community, you cannot belong to another such community at the same time’ (Beck, 2010: 49). As myopic monotheistic leaders persist in endorsing isolationism, faith practices are being redefined from the bottom up as individuals search for religious solutions that align with personal spiritual compasses. Instead of meekly adhering to inherited familial religions, modern individuals are instead cast as creators of bespoke alternatives that meld biographical experiences and religious principles.

In the second modernity, reflexive modernization is effectively reconstituting the relationship between individualization, secularization and faith while simultaneously enhancing the diffusion of cosmopolitan values. Having rippled through the labour market and the family, the advance of personal decision-making and reflexivity opens up the possibility of tailored belief systems: ‘the age of individualization is also the age of do-it-yourself religions’ (Beck, 2010: 49). The social dispersal of individualization can thus be seen as impacting on faith choices in an idiosyncratic way. While Weber and Marx predicted – albeit in contrasting ways – the decline of religion, Beck’s analysis disputes the secularization thesis and presents a messier, chopped-up version of modern reality: monotheistic religions decline, new age movements prosper and people amalgamate aspects of different faiths as the truths of lived experiences are considered alongside divine teachings. Instead of simply waning, religion is manifesting itself in complex forms and being more snugly aligned with self-identities.

Although Beck’s thesis may sail against the prevailing wind so far as traditional currents in the sociology of religion are concerned, his argument borrows from established critiques of secularization. Tracking Peter Berger – himself drawing on the Japanese philospher Nakamura ³ – Beck dismisses linear Occidental worldviews:

the West is responsible for two fundamental errors. One is monotheism – there’s only one God – and the other is Aristotle’s principle of contradiction – something is either A or not-A. In Asia every intelligent person will tell you that there are many Gods and that things can be both A and non-A. (Berger and Matthews, 2006: 154, cited in Beck, 2010: 63)

In absorbing elements of assorted religions, at an agential level people are able to embrace cultural diversity, while at a structural level monotheistic religions become vestiges of the first modernity. Insofar as decreases in markers of religious commitment – such as attendance at places of worship – have oft been taken as evidence of secularization, Beck interprets reduced membership of religious organizations and dwindling patterns of collective worship as a sign that people are choosing to engage with religion on their own terms rather than following pre-determined formula. In his view, individualization is enabling the assembly of mixed sets of religious and non-religious beliefs that cannot be captured by extant quantitative measures. ⁴ Recalling Luckmann’s (1967) ‘invisible’ spiritual religions practised in private rather than public, Beck observes that new religious movements are but one manifestation of the search for a personal God. Not only are the demands of monotheistic religions out of step with the contemporary world, they are undermined by the rise of accommodative non-monotheistic beliefs: ‘people in Japan have no difficulty at all in visiting a Shinto shrine at specific times of the year, marrying in accordance with Christian rites and being buried by a Buddhist monk’ (Beck, 2010: 63).

Following a sustained critique of the inability of conventional religions to encourage global unity, in the concluding chapters the emphasis shifts toward exploring the potentialities of new faith mixes. Examining whether ‘the monotheistic either/or, with its potential for violence, be neutralized, subverted or blunted by a syncretistic tolerance of both/and’ (Beck, 2010: 62), various models through which global religious conflicts might be ‘civilized’ are scrutinized. Despite urging the disentanglement of nation, religion and violence, Beck concedes that re-encampment may take place in the second modernity as conflicts emerge between those that preach commitment to one religion and those who wish to compose their own gods: ‘the door that opens here swings in two opposing directions: a fundamentalist anti-modernity on the one hand, postmodern religious diversity on the other’ (Beck, 2010: 133). ⁵ It is a route between absolute relativism and the privatization of religion that Beck wishes to advocate.

Theoretical Orientation and Conceptual Tools: A Familiar Framework?

In line with his secular beliefs and open-facing sociological vista, Beck offers a distinctive view on religion that draws across many traditions and disciplines. In what might be described as a ‘pot-au-feu’ approach, the perspectives of classical sociologists are intermingled with those of Oriental philosophers, ecclesiastical scholars and fictional writers. In addition to the characteristic eclecticism, the familiar Beckian twists, Brechtian questions to the reader and bouts of self-doubt are present. Before interrogating some of the principal claims made, it is worth considering the epistemological standpoint adopted by the author.

As one would expect, Beck’s life narrative and academic background influence his understanding of key facets of religion, such as truth, belief and knowledge. Having been raised in an evangelical Christian family, Beck began to question core religious values in his adolescent years. After enrolling as a philosophy undergraduate, he developed a keen interest in rationality and idealism and went on to major in sociology before taking up his first post as a lecturer at the University of Münster (see Mythen, 2006). While faith believers may opine that this combination of sociological rationalism and religious scepticism make him unsuitably qualified to comment on the nature and meaning of religion, Beck is reflexive in his approach, aware of the relativity of his position and sensitive to the limitations of sociological theorizing.

While A God of One’s Own represents a step into new territories, a number of signature themes are revisited, including institutional intransigence, the liberatory potential of ‘coalitions of opposites’ and the inability of the academic canon to identify underlying structural transformations. Alongside these familiar silhouettes, the shadows cast by individualization and reflexive modernization are long. Deployed as an ‘heuristic approach’ (Beck, 2010: 51), reflexive modernization leads to unintentional ‘side-effects’ of economic and scientific development recursively undermining the institutional foundations of society (see Beck, 2005: 343). As the systemic production of risks and uncertainties intensifies, social institutions are rocked by media critique and public questioning. In this way, individualization strips bare a contradiction between the intractable absolutes of world religions and the infinite and open-ended possibilities of individual faith. Unshackled from the tyranny of ‘pure religion’, individuals are able to draw from across the religious spectrum and develop personalized beliefs. In contrast to the doctrinal views espoused by monotheistic figureheads, religious cosmopolitanism acknowledges ‘non-believers’ who resist dogma and embrace the construction of multiple gods. Reframing religion in this way allows Beck to ask controversial and progressive questions that circumvent sterile debates about the divinity of religious ‘truths’.

By situating his analysis within the theoretical casing of reflexive modernization, Beck (2010: 64) aspires to ‘bring together the basic features of a diagnosis of the age from the standpoint of the sociology of religion’. Within this framework, the dynamics of individualization, globalization and cosmopolitanization ⁶ disrupt traditional patterns of sociality and embed new configurations. The decisions and choices propelled by individualization are reinforced by the mobility of people, information and ideas which, in turn, fosters cosmopolitanization as individuals are forced to confront preconceptions of others and develop global sensibilities. Atavistic attempts to repair the crumbling religious boundaries between ‘us’ and ‘them’ are futile in a world of mass migration and cultural mixity in which global mediascapes and communication networks transcend borders, disembedding both nation-states and place-based religions. As the purchase of ‘methodological nationalism’ wanes, ad hoc political ‘coalitions of opposites’ are re-situated: ‘people who regard themselves as belonging to different religions often have more in common with one another than with their fellow brothers and sisters in faith’ (Beck, 2010: 48).

The theoretical flight of the book is clearly directed by established Beckian concepts and contrasts can be drawn with the contributions of classical scholars. Although faint chimes of the ‘founding fathers’ resound, Beck proposes a revamped understanding of the relationship between modernization and religion. Where Marx predicted that the revolt of the masses would reveal religion as an illusory element of false consciousness, for Beck it is not so much the crisis but the pyrrhic victory of capitalism that is shaping the fate of religion. Rather than the shock of political revolution, freedom of choice signals the death knell for monotheistic religions. In effect, reflexive modernization stimulates transformations that happen by stealth not force, through the de-traditionalization of classes, the nuclear family and religion.

Beck remains adamant that the individualization of religion should not be confused with the marketization or privatization of religion. Subjective polytheism is not a frivolous consumer choice that feeds a self-centred cycle of egoism and introspection. Rather, individuals are free to establish links between non-faith based morals and religious ethics, encouraging a cosmopolitan imagination that opposes violence and xenophobia. The development of ‘cosmopolitan realism’ serves a culturally progressive function as believers become receptive to the religious views and cultures of others, learning, adapting and sharing. Whereas Marx saw faith as a foil for ideological incorporation, Beck is receptive to the emancipatory potential of religion, adapting Weberian and Durkheimian approaches. While the claim that Durkheim ‘anticipates the union of individualization and cosmopolitanism’ (Beck, 2010: 96) may be stretching the limits of interpretation, there are tangible parallels to be drawn.

Modernizing Durkheim’s (1912) work, Beck emphasizes the solidaristic functions of religious rituals and the ways in which the sacredness of religion can be transferred to the sacredness of the individual. Nevertheless, the biggest chunk of bread is broken with Weber (1974). For Beck the ‘unintended consequence’ unleashed in the second modernity is not a union between the spirit of capitalism and Calvinist Protestantism but a coalescence of interests between elements of individualization and the cosmopolitanization of religion. This modern-day elective affinity opens up the possibility of multi-faceted faith commitments. Yet there are departures too. For Weber, the decline of religion is integral to the ‘disenchantment of the world’ and the secularizing currents of rationalization and bureaucratization. Beck disputes the secularization thesis and focuses on what we might dub ‘religious re-enchantment’ through secular polytheism and the fusing of faith beliefs.

In terms of theories of modernization, what Beck envisages is a prolonged struggle between established religious structures and the individual choices of agents. Despite the obduracy of Abrahamic faiths, Beck predicts that the free will of individuals will chip away at the exterior of monotheistic religions and shape their future facade. Expressing his approbation of Weber’s capacity to anticipate the plurality of religions, Beck (2010: 180) advances an anti-positivist approach grounded in the social actions of individuals. Although it is not emphasized, a Weberian commitment to Verstehen also surfaces in an empathic approach that embraces religious diversity and is respectful of competing worldviews. These principles of mutual understanding are also evidenced in the furtherance of a Gandhian model of observance ‘that makes it possible to see the world of one’s own religion through the eyes of others’ (Beck, 2010: 160).

Critical Questions: Identity, Power and Difference

While it is understandable that Beck’s epistemological convictions will inform his view of religion, the theoretical line of flight invites critical questions about the nature of identity construction, cultural difference and the operation of power. In this section, I wish to draw attention to these questions as a means of elucidating stumbling blocks and identifying ways in which the individualization of religion might be further investigated.

Beginning with the problem of power, the degree of active resistance to the reformation of religion, both in the present and the future, is arguably underplayed. In prioritizing the influence of institutionalized individualization in transforming attitudes toward faith, Beck rather skirts around the measures that defenders of monotheistic religions may take to discredit ‘secular religiosity’. Putting aside the messiness involved in receiving ‘mixed believers’, religious figureheads may seek to defend the integrity of specific faith narratives in order to maintain privileges and protect traditions. Given that Beck’s pathway to peace runs directly against the universalist aspirations of Islam or Christianity, resistance can be expected to be pervasive and robust. The individualization of religion might well be a bottom-up process, but it requires endorsement from the top down, through concessions of power by religious leaders, the state and ruling monarchs. This is not simply a matter of ideational accommodation, but infers the disruption of a vortex of cultural, political and economic interests. Breaking up coalitions of interest that are rooted in economic and political power as well as religious belief may prove to be a thorny task. ⁷

Globalization has undoubtedly engendered hybridity and mobile cultural flows, but – at the risk of slipping into ‘methodological nationalism’ – the local organization of power relations remains consequential in grasping how religions are constituted and politically invoked. For instance, the French constitution is formally based on the separation between religion and the state, while in the United States religious affiliation is a focal political campaign issue. The relationship between religion and governance in America extends beyond the promotion of particular faiths and has been integral to notions of citizenship and the formation of domestic, foreign and military policy. George W. Bush’s description of the ‘war on terror’ as a ‘crusade’ stands as a case in point. ⁸ Such abject mobilizations of belief illustrate that faith declarations can be used to exacerbate difference and drum up public support for geopolitical exploits.

Betwixt the cup of religion and the lip of the state, hegemonic power relations are soldered. Even within the confines of a western milieu, these examples hint at the limitations of macro-theoretical approaches in capturing the vicissitudes of place, culture and difference. As reflexive modernization is ‘very much a theory of “Western” modernity itself’ (Beck and Grande, 2010: 416), cracks begin to appear when its conceptual architecture is stretched across the globe. This weakens the purchase of Beck’s thesis and suggests that it may tell us much more about religious beliefs in the West than in other continents subject to different forces and traditions. Although he recognizes that different modernities will produce ‘multiple secularizations’ (Beck, 2010: 39), Beck’s focus is indubitably trained on the West. Tangible methodological prickles arise when the twin dynamics of individualization and cosmopolitanization are utilized to decipher religious trends in other areas of the globe. This point is not lost on Beck: ‘when I speak of religion in this book, what is meant for the most part is Christianity. It is not possible here to include all the (world) religions in a study of the cosmopolitan vision’ (Beck, 2010: 65).

This is an important caveat, indicating that an expansive programme of cross-cultural research is required before judgements can be made about the wider applicability of the thesis. Suffice it to say that contrary trends can be evidenced in the growth of monotheistic religions such as Islam and its resurgence among young Muslims in the West (see Mythen, 2012; Ruthven, 2005). ⁹ In tracts of Africa, the Middle East and Latin America, singular faiths are assumed at birth and reinforced throughout life. Although Beck cites various worldly examples, his thesis remains general rather than place-specific, meaning that the unevenness of the individualization of religion and its limits in different contexts are glossed over. Since the grip and shape of individualization differs according to cultural and national contexts (see Suzuki et al., 2010; Yan, 2010), so too will the extent to which religious practices are susceptible to change. Thus, there is in the argument a fair degree of broad-brush theorizing, most notably in the contrast between monotheistic faiths and the individualization of religion. The histories of Abrahamic religions are marked by examples of hybridity and syncretism (see Libin, 2006) and, while the intertwining of faiths is acknowledged, the imperative to contrast modern monotheism with secular religiosity means that diversities become somewhat lost.

Besides the reduced account of power relations and the specificities of place, the process of religious identification is conceptualized by Beck in a particular way. Just as intimate relationships, the family and employment histories are subject to personal choices and decisions, religion also becomes a facet of the ‘do-it-yourself’ identity (Beck, 2010: 49). Yet religion is a unique value form in which maintenance of tradition is privileged. Within monotheistic religions, faith is rooted in explanations of creation, sacred texts and protocols for worship. While variance emerges between and within faith groups, belief rests steadfastly on entrenched ancient narratives. As such, the de-traditionalization of religion might well be a more complicated process than the unbinding of other institutional structures. To uphold Beck’s argument, we would need to discern more about the extent of belief in singular religions and, moreover, the monotheistic commitment of believers. These are doubtless questions of belief, but they are also questions of identity. Identities are formed out of relations of similarity and difference, meaning that construction of the self involves forging allegiances with those we see as similar and distancing those considered different. Ergo, the relinquishing of established binaries – in effect, discarding the ‘us’ and ‘them’ and embracing the ‘otherness of others’ – is crucial.

Although Beck (2010: 158) is convinced that a ‘universal world ethos’ is in train, the uncomfortable counsel of history indicates that religious outsiders have acted as chastised folk devils, reinforcing the identity of the ‘us’ and pushing ‘them’ to the margins (see Blue, 2010: 73). Notwithstanding debates about the reach of societal transformations, what is assumed is the desirability of the individualization of religion for citizens themselves. The opportunity to cobble together a religious tapestry of many hues may appeal to some, but others may be comforted by distinct boundaries of ‘either/or’ and inclined to rally against the ambiguities of the ‘and’. There are, of course, rival ways of thinking about people’s identity needs with regard to religion. Some individuals will continue to live their lives as atheists or removed agnostics, while monotheists will remain reluctant to mix and match religious beliefs. In surrendering to the omnipotence and omniscience of one God, the individual is temporarily relieved of the otherwise unremitting pressure to choose. Perhaps part of the appeal of monotheistic religions is their absolution from individual choice, with the very act of offering the self without condition serving to crystallize belief. ¹⁰ For some, religion may be an anomalous aspect of identity construction in which the ‘do-it-yourself’ maxim is replaced by the godly mantra ‘do-it-for-me’. Returning the gaze of sociological secularists, monotheistic faiths may function for some as a solid meditative sanctuary in an otherwise chaotic and liquid modernity.

The comparative attractiveness of do-it-yourself religious identities remains a matter of speculation, but various forms of resistance to secular religiosity are muted in the book (see Hillenkamp, 2008). Of course, the kind of macro theory-building initiated by Beck cannot get mired in micro-level specificities and imagines something of a homogeneous citizen (see Walklate and Mythen, 2010). In reality, complementary forms of stratification, such as class, race, gender and sexuality inform religious affiliations and choices. Insofar as those with no strong religious attachment may dip into and out of faiths, this trend may be less pronounced among those socialized into a particular religion through family, ethnicity and schooling. The capacity and desire to engage with multiple faiths will vary across nation and region, and is contingent on intra-faith accommodation. ¹¹ Religions that most closely resemble ethical codes or ‘philosophies of life’ (Dawkins, 2006: 59), such as Buddhism and Confucianism, may be amenable to fusion, but it would be surprising to find individuals melding together elements of Judaism with Islam.

In line with Beck’s cosmopolitan vision, the progressive possibilities of the individualization of religion are centred around the development of reciprocity, respect and compassion. While few would disagree with the furtherance of these principles, it is equally probable that religious secularism may actually engender further factionalism, leading to what Rabbi Lionel Blue (2010: 72) describes as ‘the secular and the holy in unholy muddle’. While Beck depicts religious eclecticism as a progressive process, there is no guarantee that polytheism will lead to the evisceration of the ‘bad’ bits associated with religion, such as bigotry, violence and xenophobia. ¹² Although a conceptual pathway toward cosmopolitan realism is revealed by Beck, blind spots are present regarding the obstacles to this progression and the conditions in which such a state might be achieved. The continuation of historical disputes between Hindus and Sikhs, Catholics and Protestants, and Muslims and Jews run directly contra the currents envisaged by Beck. What is more, these clashes are not solely religious in nature and are rooted in territory, power, economic exclusion, culture and caste.

Conclusion

This article has engaged with Ulrich Beck’s vision of fluctuating patterns of religious commitment and the advance of mixed belief structures in the contemporary world. The individualization of religion thesis has been situated within the theoretical framework of reflexive modernization and cosmopolitanism, and contrasts with classical social theory have been illumined. Viewed positively, A God of One’s One marks an important departure in the sociology of religion that invites further qualitative investigation and philosophical exchange. Homing in on issues of identity, difference and power, I have teased out just some of the avenues of debate that may be pursued. Having offered critical observations and identified areas that require further empirical examination, it seems fitting to conclude by emphasizing the value of this offering.

For a thinker who has been described as a ‘professional Cassandra’ (Jeffries, 2006: 1), A God of One’s Own is an optimistic book which continues a custom of seeking positive solutions to systemic social problems. Given Beck’s knack of sensing the contours of the future, it would be wise to take this argument seriously. Having foreseen the rising social and environmental salience of risk and spearheaded debates about the political potential of cosmopolitanism, Beck has been instrumental in defining the patina of the age. It is probable that the individualization of religion is an emergent social phenomenon, but its prevalence and geographical range are open to debate.

Moreover, even assuming widespread diffusion, it remains to be seen whether fusions of faith will have the transformatory potential imagined by Beck. Religion is a pivotal factor in enduring global conflicts, indicating that renewed theoretical and empirical engagement is needed to excavate the functions, place and possibilities of faith in contemporary society. How specific religions will respond to the forces of individualization and cosmopolitanization remains to be seen. As Beck muses: ‘the answer must be reserved for another book-length poking around in the fog’. While this particular foray may well benefit from conceptual refinement and empirical grist, the author’s objective is not to construct a flawless thesis but to discern nascent shifts and to stimulate academic dialogue.

In epistemological terms, Beck’s unabashed modernist inclinations shine through in his appeal for religious enlightenment and the frequent calls for tolerance and mutual understanding. Indeed, in many respects the book focuses on the broader project of civilizing modernity rather than the narrow field of religion. This wide view is embodied in discussions around social justice and the plea for peace rather than truth to become the ambition of the second modernity. As always, the author is conscious of the limits of his work, describing his incursion as ‘no more than the outline of an argument’ and ‘a failure if it is measured by the standard it has set itself’ (Beck, 2010: 65). Despite such qualifications, Beck remains at the sociological vanguard, having again managed to seize a nascent phenomenon and formulated it in a way that disrupts the status quo and throws down the gauntlet to faith leaders and theoreticians of religion. A God of One’s Own also serves as a further nudge to the sociological canon, advancing the re-invention of sociology through putting forward new critical theories with ‘cosmopolitan intent’ (Beck, 2005: 342). Beck concedes that he is only telling part of the story here, and the strength of the book lies in its ability to provoke debate about the extent to which religious reformation can foster progressive social change. While the future role of religion in society is yet to be determined, the questions posed by Beck demand attention.