Fraternity versus Parochialism: On Religion and Populism

Wolfgang Palaver

doi:10.3390/rel11070319

Abstract

The relationship between populism and religion is complex because populists hijack religion but are often more interested in belonging than believing. This is one reason why there is a growing distance between populists and many leaders of mainline churches. To understand this complex field, we have to take social crises seriously and see how a static religion is, according to Henri Bergson, the first response to the precariousness of human life. This type of religion has led to closed societies leaning toward pseudospeciation and parochial altruism. Bergson, however, did not only describe static religion but also recognized dynamic religion leading to an open society. Jesus Christ’s Sermon on the Mount, with its call to love one’s enemy, is his key example. By going beyond Bergson, we can recognize dynamic religion as the mystic core of all world religions. Dynamic religion enables a universal fraternity, which is an essential element of every democracy in overcoming its populist temptations by respecting, internally, the rights of minorities and, externally, the universal human rights. Three examples from different religious backgrounds show how dynamic religion supports democracy through fraternity: the fraternal tradition in modern Catholicism, the Muslim philosopher S.B. Diagne and the Hindu M.K. Gandhi.

Highlights

Populism adds to the vertical critic of elites a horizontal “us” versus “them”
After underlining the necessity to take crisis in our theoretical reflections seriously, I will follow Henri Bergson’s important distinction between static and dynamic religion to respond to the question of in what way religious patterns make a populist hijacking of religion more likely and in what way religion can become an antidote to populism
Close to Bergson’s distinction between static and dynamic religion, Gandhi distinguished between institutionalized religions and a type of religion expressed by terms like religiosity, spirituality, or piousness: Let me explain what I mean by religion

Summary

Introduction

Populism adds to the vertical critic of elites a horizontal “us” versus “them”. An imagined homogenous people distinguishes itself from all foreign others, often claiming its own superiority. Religion plays a role in this self-understanding of people who feel threatened by religious or cultural others Such alliances between populist movements and religion contribute to the new visibility of religion that characterizes our world of today. The political scientist Olivier Roy observes in his summary of several case studies on populism and religion that these movements understand religion primarily as an identity marker and not so much as faith (Roy 2016b) He justly claims that there are “Europeans for whom. They “defend churches against mosques, as long as they remain empty, or at least quiet” I will follow Henri Bergson’s important distinction between static and dynamic religion to respond to the question of in what way religious patterns make a populist hijacking of religion more likely and in what way religion can become an antidote to populism

An Anthropological Emphasis to Take Crisis Seriously

Static Religion Supporting Pseudospeciation and Parochial Altruism

Dynamic Religion as a Way toward Fraternity and Democracy

Three Examples for Religious Support of Fraternity

Findings

Conclusions