The last ten years has seen the rise of populist forces across the globe from both the right and the left. While often read in the context of the perceived rise of, and reactions to populist and... Show moreThe last ten years has seen the rise of populist forces across the globe from both the right and the left. While often read in the context of the perceived rise of, and reactions to populist and potentially violent Islam, this analysis is excessively focused on observations of the right, and ignores similarities between the populist right and the populist left. By way of an alternative, this article draws together political theology, original ethnography and observations of contemporary politics in the United Kingdom (and to a lesser extent the United States and Canada) to offer a broader lens involving: the rise of liberalism, the consequent construction of politics as technocratic management, and the neglect and resultant disillusionment of ordinary people. In particular, the paper draws on my recent research on the role of myths of solidarity in developing civic engagement. It argues that myths of solidarity have been undermined by the rise of liberalism, and that restoring such myths to the center of contemporary politics is vital to challenging the myths of division that fuel populist politics. Finally, it explores possibilities for restoring myths to the center of contemporary politics, suggesting that while avenues for such reform are emerging, politics as technocratic management remains the dominant paradigm. Show less
Imagining solidarity in the 21st century is particularly difficult in light of three factors: religious diversity, a religion/secular binary, and uncertainty as to the political future. This... Show moreImagining solidarity in the 21st century is particularly difficult in light of three factors: religious diversity, a religion/secular binary, and uncertainty as to the political future. This article employs myth as a lens for exploring and developing responses to these difficulties coalescing around the term postsecular. It suggests that these difficulties are reproduced rather than overcome in Jürgen Habermas’ work. It then distinguishes between the postsecular, postsecularity and postsecularism to demonstrate how recent work offers new possibilities. Finally, it draws on original ethnography to develop this work. It claims that myth is central to how both religious and nonreligious people imagine solidarity. It suggests that myth is primarily performed rather than rationally argued, and calls for myths to be judged on the basis of the performances they produce. Finally, it suggests that the content of myths is less important than how and by whom they are constructed. Together, these insights constitute performative postsecularism. Show less
