Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-mnl9s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-28T05:42:08.697Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Reciprocal Translation Proviso: An AlternativeApproach to Public Reason

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 May 2018

George Tyler
George Tyler*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Michigan
*
Address correspondence and reprint requests to:George Tyler, Department of PoliticalScience, University ofMichigan, 5700 Haven Hall,505 South State Street, AnnArbor, MI 48109-1045,USA. E-mail: tylerge@umich.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The role of religion in politics is problematic for liberallegitimacy. Religion is often restrained by a public reasonrequirement, but this creates cognitive burdens that asymmetricallyimpact religious citizens creating unequal barriers to accessing thepolitical system, which is itself problematic for liberallegitimacy. Habermas’ institutional translation proviso balances thecompeting concerns of liberal legitimacy, which aims to offset theasymmetry disadvantaging religious citizens. This paper analyzes theproblem and Habermas’ solution. It concludes that Habermas does notalleviate the asymmetry created by the public reason requirement tothe greatest extent possible and so does not equalize the barriersto accessing the political system as much as he might. Thereciprocal translation proviso provides an alternative that balancesthe competing components of liberal legitimacy more fully andalleviates the asymmetry and inequality of barriers to politicalaccess to the greatest extent possible while preserving the publicreason requirement.

Information

Type
Article
Information
Politics and Religion , Volume 11 , Issue 4 , December 2018 , pp. 717 - 744
Copyright
Copyright © Religion and Politics Section of the American Political Science Association 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2017Midwest Political Science Association Conference, the author isgrateful for the comments received from the public and the panelthere. The author would also like to thank the editors andanonymous reviewers who provided invaluable feedback on earlierdrafts of this article.

References

REFERENCES

Aguirre, Javier. 2013. “Habermas’ Account of the Role of Religion in the Public Sphere: A Response to Cristina Lafont's Critiques Through an Illustrative Political Debate About Same-Sex Marriage.” Philosophy and Social Criticism 39(7):637–673.Google Scholar
An-Na'im, Abduhllahi Ahmed. 2008. Islam and the Secular State: Negotiating the Future of Shari'a. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Areshidze, Giorgi. 2017. “Taking Religion Seriously? Habermas on Religious Translation and Cooperative Learning in Post-Secular Society.” American Political Science Review 111(4): 724–737.Google Scholar
Arfi, Bedredine. 2015. “Habermas and the Aporia of Translating Religion in Democracy.” European Journal of Social Theory 18(4):489–506.Google Scholar
Bardon, Aurelia. 2016. “Religious Arguments and Public Justification.” In Religion, Secularism, and Constitutional Democracy, eds. Cohen, Jean L., and Laborde, Cecile. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 273–292.Google Scholar
Baumeister, Andrea. 2011. “The Use of ‘Public Reason’ by Religious and Secular Citizens: Limitations of Habermas’ Conception of the Role of Religion in the Public Realm.” Constellations 18(2):222–243.Google Scholar
Bergdahl, Lovisa. 2009. “Lost in Translation: On the Untranslatable and Its Ethical Implications for Religious Pluralism.” Journal of Philosophy of Education 43(1):31–44.Google Scholar
Bernstein, J. M. 2013. “Forgetting Isaac: Faith and the Philosophical Impossibility of a Postsecular Society.” In Habermas and Religion, eds. Calhoun, Craig, Mendieta, Eduardo, and VanAntwerpen, Jonathan. Malden, MA: Polity, 154–178.Google Scholar
Boettcher, James W. 2009. “Habermas, Religion and the Ethics of Citizenship.” Philosophy and Social Criticism 35(1–2):215–238.Google Scholar
Butler, Judith, Habermas, Jürgen, Taylor, Charles, and West, Cornel. 2011. “Concluding Discussion: Butler, Habermas, Taylor, West.” In The Power of Religion in the Public Sphere, eds. Mendieta, Eduardo, and VanAntwerpen, Jonathan. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 109–117.Google Scholar
Casanova, José. 2009. “Immigration and the New Religious Pluralism: A European Union—United States Comparison.” In Secularism, Religion and Multicultural Citizenship, eds. Levey, Geoffrey Brahm, and Modood, Tariq. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 139–163.Google Scholar
Chambers, Simone. 2007. “How Religion Speaks to the Agnostic: Habermas on the Persistent Value of Religion.” Constellations 14(2):210–223.Google Scholar
Chambers, Simone. 2010. “Secularism Minus Exclusion: Developing a Religious-Friendly Idea of Public Reason.” The Good Society 19(2):16–21.Google Scholar
Cooke, Maeve. 2006. “Salvaging and Secularizing the Semantic Contents of Religion: The Limitations of Habermas’ Postmetaphysical Proposal.” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 60(1–3):187–207.Google Scholar
Cooke, Maeve. 2007. “A Secular State for a Postsecular Society? Postmetaphysical Political Theory and the Place of Religion.” Constellations 14(2):224–238.Google Scholar
Cooke, Maeve. 2011. “Translating Truth.” Philosophy and Social Criticism 31(4):479–491.Google Scholar
Cooke, Maeve. 2013. “Violating Neutrality? Religious Validity Claims and Democratic Legitimacy.” In Habermas and Religion, eds. Calhoun, Craig, Van Antwerpen, Jonathan, and Mendieta, Eduardo. Malden, MA: Polity Press, 249–276.Google Scholar
Dallmayr, Fred. 2012. “Post-Secularity and (Global) Politics: A Need for Radical Redefinition.” Review of International Studies 38(5):963–973.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald. 1995. Life's Dominion: An Argument about Abortion and Euthanasia. London, UK: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald. 2013. Religion without God. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Eberle, Christopher. 2002. Religious Conviction in Liberal Politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fadel, Mohammad. 2008. “The True, the Good and the Reasonable: The Theological and Ethical Roots of Public Reason in Islamic Law.” Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 21(1):5–69.Google Scholar
Ferrara, Alessandro. 2009. “The Separation of Religion and Politics in a Post-Secular Society.” Philosophy and Social Criticism 35(1–2):77–91.Google Scholar
Freeman, Samuel. 2007. Rawls (The Routledge Philosophers). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Friedo, Ricken. 2010. “Postmetaphysical Reason and Religion.” In An Awareness of What Is Missing: Faith and Reason in a Post-Secular Age, translated by Ciaran Cronin. Malden, MA: Polity Press, 51–58.Google Scholar
Gordon, Peter E. 2013. “Between Christian Democracy and Critical Theory: Habermas, Böckenförde, and the Dialectics of Secularization in Postwar Germany.” Social Research: An International Quarterly 80(1):173–202.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1996. Between Facts and Norms. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 2002a. “A Conversation About God and the World: Interview with Eduardo Mendieta.” In Religion and Rationality: Essays on Reason, God and Modernity, eds. Mendieta, Eduardo. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 147–167.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 2002b. Religion and Rationality: Essays on Reason, God, and Modernity. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 2003. The Future of Human Nature. Malden, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 2005. “Faith and Knowledge.” In The Frankfurt School on Religion: Key Writings by Major Thinkers, eds. Mendieta, Eduardo. New York, NY: Routledge, 327–338.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 2006. “Religion in the Public Sphere.” European Journal of Philosophy 14(1):1–25.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 2008. Between Naturalism and Religion: Philosophical Essays. Malden, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 2010a. An Awareness of What is Missing: Faith and Reason in a Post-Secular Age. Malden, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 2010b. “The ‘Good Life’—A ‘Detestable Phrase’: The Significance of Young Rawls's Religious Ethics for His Political Theory.” European Journal of Philosophy 18(3):443–454.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 2011. “‘The Political’: The Rational Meaning of a Questionable Inheritance of Political Theology”. In The Power of Religion in the Public Sphere, eds. Mendieta, Eduardo, and VanAntwerpen, Jonathan. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 15–33.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 2013. “Reply to my Critics.” In Habermas and Religion, eds. Calhoun, Craig, Mendieta, Eduardo, and VanAntwerpen, Jonathan. Malden, MA: Polity Press, 347–390.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen, and Ratzinger, Joseph. 2006. The Dialectics of Secularization: On Reason and Religion. Translated by Brian McNeil. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen, and Taylor, Charles. 2011. “Dialogue: Jürgen Habermas and Charles Taylor.” In The Power of Religion in the Public Sphere, eds. Mendieta, Eduardo, and VanAntwerpen, Jonathan. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 60–69.Google Scholar
Harrington, Austin. 2007. “Habermas and the ‘Post-Secular Society’.” European Journal of Social Theory 10(4):543–560.Google Scholar
Invernizzi-Accetti, Carlo. 2010. “Can Democracy Emancipate Itself from Political Theology? Habermas and Lefort Ont Eh Permanence of the Theologico-Political.” Constellations 17(2):254–270.Google Scholar
Lafont, Cristina. 2007. “Religion in the Public Sphere: Remarks on Habermas's Conception of Public Deliberation in Post-Secular Societies.” Constellations 14(2):236–256.Google Scholar
Lafont, Cristina. 2009. “Religion and the Public Sphere What Are the Deliberative Obligations of Democratic Citizenship?” Philosophy and Social Criticism 35(1–2):127–150.Google Scholar
Lafont, Cristina. 2013. “Religion in the Public Sphere: What are the Deliberative Obligations of Democratic Citizenship.” In Habermas and Religion, eds. Calhoun, Craig, Mendieta, Eduardo, and VanAntwerpen, Jonathan. Malden, MA: Polity Press, 230–248.Google Scholar
Lima, Maria Herrera. 2013. “Is the Postsecular a Return to Political Theology.” In Habermas and Religion, eds. Calhoun, Craig, Mendieta, Eduardo, and Van Antwerpen, Jonathan. Cambridge, MA: Polity, 49–71.Google Scholar
Maclure, Jocelyn, and Taylor, Charles. 2011. Secularism and Freedom of Conscience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
March, Andrew F. 2011a. Islam and Liberal Citizenship: The Search for an Overlapping Consensus. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
March, Andrew F. 2011b. “Theocrats Living Under Secular Law: An External Engagement with Islamic Legal Theory.” The Journal of Political Philosophy 19(1):28–51.Google Scholar
March, Andrew F. 2017. “Liberal Citizenship and the Search for Overlapping Consensus: The Case of Muslim Minorities.” In The Ethics of Citizenship in the 21st Century, ed. Thunder, David. New York, NY: Springer, 145–178.Google Scholar
Mernissi, Fatima. 2002. Islam and Democracy: Fear of the Modern World. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Pensky, Max. 2013. “Solidarity with the Past and the Work of Translation: Reflections on Memory Politics and the Postsecular.” In Habermas and Religion, eds. Calhoun, Craig, Mendieta, Eduardo, and VanAntwerpen, Jonathan. Malden, MA: Polity Press, 301–321.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1987. “The Idea of an Overlapping Consensus.” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 7(1):1–25.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1993. Political Liberalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1997. “The Idea of Public Reason Revisited.” University of Chicago Law Review 64(3):765–807.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1999. Collected Papers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sikka, Sonia. 2016. “On Translating Religious Reasons: Rawls Habermas, and the Quest for a Neutral Public Sphere.” The Review of Politics 78(1):91–116.Google Scholar
Stout, Jeffrey. 2004. “Democracy and Tradition.” Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, Charles. 2011. “Why We Need a Radical Redefinition of Secularism.” In The Power of Religion in the Public Sphere, eds. Mendieta, Eduardo, and Van Antwerpen, Jonathan. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 34–59.Google Scholar
Ungureanu, Camil. 2008. “The Contested Relation Between Democracy and Religion—Towards a Dialogical Perspective?” European Journal of Political Theory 7(4):405–429.Google Scholar
Waldron, Jeremy. 1993. “Religious Contributions in Public Deliberations.” San Diego Law Review 30:837–848.Google Scholar
Waldron, Jeremy. 2012. “Two-Way Translation: The Ethics of Engaging with Religious Contributions in Public Deliberation.” Mercer Law Review 63(3):845–868.Google Scholar
Walhof, Darren R. 2013. “Habermas, Same-Sex Marriage and the Problem of Religion in Public Life.” Philosophy and Social Criticism 39(3):225–242.Google Scholar
Weithman, Paul J. 2002. Religion and the Obligations of Citizenship. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wolterstorff, Nicholas. 2013. “An Engagement with Jürgen Habermas on Postmetaphysical Philosophy, Religion, and Political Dialogue.” In Habermas and Religion, eds. Calhoun, Craig, Mendieta, Eduardo, and VanAntwerpen, Jonathan. Malden, MA: Polity Press, 92–114.Google Scholar
Wolterstorff, Nicholas, and Audi, Robert. 1997. Religion in the Public Square: The Place of Religious Convictions in Public Debate. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Yates, Melissa. 2007. “Rawls and Habermas on Religion in the Public Sphere.” Philosophy and Social Criticism 33(7):880–891.Google Scholar