Abstract
This article draws upon recent historiography to critique the concept of “civil religion”, and argues that it should be replaced by nationalism. Its central point is that there is indeed a dominant language of American nationalism and one that has largely reflected the culture of the Anglo-Protestant majority, but that it has always been contested and that it has changed over time. Civil religion, by contrast, is a far more slippery concept that elides questions of power, identity, and belonging that nationalism places at the center of inquiry.
Highlights
This article draws upon recent historiography to critique the concept of “civil religion”, and argues that it should be replaced by nationalism
When Ray Haberski asked me to contribute to this discussion of civil religion, I first demurred
My central point is that there is a dominant language of American nationalism and one that has largely reflected the culture of the Anglo-Protestant majority, who have argued vigorously over its meaning and implications for the national project, but it was far from universal and often rested upon the exclusion and repression of alternative and oppositional identities and solidarities
Summary
This article draws upon recent historiography to critique the concept of “civil religion”, and argues that it should be replaced by nationalism.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
