The Metaphysics of Diversity and Authenticity

Abstract

The human self and society in general have always been in transition and transformation. Our senses of ourselves and of our society are in dialectical relation with our sense of whether or to what degree we feel part of important dimensions such as religion and politics, which are both an expression of our identity and factors that may sometimes change our identity. In modern western society it seems that identity has shifted from what Charles Taylor calls "embeddedness" in religion to a mode of life where religion is, to a great extent, expected to be a personal matter and even a personal choice. This is not impossible to understand, and historical work shows us that there are important continuities between the modern reason that rejects religion and the religion that it rejects. In this complicated process there is no mistaking the emergence of a democratic politics that rests to a significant degree on the rational project of modernity. We might even say that the success of that politics is one of the most important signs of the success of modern reason. In any case, we see in the west the development of a political system that has made society increasingly secular and religion increasingly private. This is not the case everywhere in the world. In may other places outside the "west" religion and its expressions are more public and individuals consider religion as a significant factor in defining their self-identity. In these places, many people are found expressing and promoting an identity that they consider meaningful in a world that is not fundamentally defined--or only defined--by the sort of secular political system that restricts religious beliefs and practices to the private domain. In these places, there is somewhat less difficulty with the sort of dilemma that we find in many liberal secular parts of the modern west, where even public expressions of religious beliefs are protested or challenged even though the right to such expressions are constitutionally guaranteed for all citizens. The dialectics of religion and politics and their importance in defining human self-identity is the central domain for my research, though I need many detours into other cultural factors in order to substantiate my claims. Bouncing back and forth between western and eastern religious, philosophical, and political perspectives, I finally found some points of contacts in Charles Taylor and Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. They became my focus of this research. Still, I felt it necessary to offer a preliminary account of secularism, as our present context, in order to set the background of my exploration of the works and, in some important respects, the lives of Taylor and Gandhi. Hence, my first chapter is an overview of the sources of secularism in the West and in India. The second chapter deals with the Taylorian understanding of diversity, authenticity, and holistic identity. My third chapter is on Gandhi's understanding of diversity, authenticity, and holistic identity. My fourth and final chapter brings to light my own sense of our prospects for an integral understanding of religion, politics, and self-identity within the contexts of post-religious, post-secular, and post-metaphysical thinking. While claims for secular humanism and secular politics have always been somewhat convincing to me, I was not sure why religion should be necessarily so `problematic' for such a program. In fact, the pathologies of both reason and religion have become more explicit to us today. Secularism seems to repeat the exclusivism of the anti-secular stance of some religions by becoming anti-religious itself. Indeed, among secularists and even atheists there is a general trend to consider religions as intrinsically "anti-humanistic" in nature. It is true that secular humanism has sometimes helped religions to explore how deeply "humanistic" they are at heart, in their revelations and traditions. So perhaps, it is possible to have comprehensive frames and theories of humanism and secularism from within the boundaries of religions themselves without negating or diminishing either the spiritual or the secular. A dialogue between Taylor and Gandhi can be useful for us today especially as pointers toward such a humanistic approach to self, religion and politics. This dialogue between these western and the eastern thinkers can enlarge, enrich, and enlighten each other. What we then see, on the one hand, is the limit of a purely secular politics that is lacking a proper metaphysical foundation to guarantee the religious needs of humanity; and on the other hand, we also see the hesitation and struggle of religions to accommodate the demands of secularism. In both cases, we have reason to hope for a new `metaphysics of diversity and authenticity' which in turn might validate a role for religion, and perhaps also the ethical principles that it yields. Still, this is an incomplete and inconclusive dialectic and in that sense only a contribution to ongoing debate. I thank for your attention to my narrative and my proposals. Let me conclude now, so that I can listen to your stories, because you too help me to define myself.