THE EMERGENCE OF A SECULAR AGE

Taylor (2007: 25) frames his social theory as a response to the question, “Why was it virtually impossible not to believe in God in, say, 1500 in our Western society, while in 2000 many of us find this not only easy, but even inescapable?” This provides a clear starting point and a clear end point for his inquiry, which he calls Christendom and the Age of Authenticity, respectively. Western society’s journey across this span of time was neither direct nor linear, but it occurred through over the course of general phases moving from Christendom to Exclusive Humanism to the Age of Mobilization and finally the Age of Authenticity. Over this development, Taylor observes the ways in which values change and what contributes to these changes. He is particularly attentive to humanity’s shifting relationship with transcendence and theorizes that there is a difference between ordinary human flourishing, which concerns only an immanent notion of the good (limited to experiences within human life), and beyond human flourishing, which concerns both an immanent and a transcendent notion of the good (inclusive of that which is outside of human life) (Taylor 2007: 16-21).

The following sections will explain the transition from Christendom to Exclusive Humanism, as well as how Taylor’s idea of the Immanent Frame reconsiders the emergence of a secular age. Note: Taylor’s theory traces the development of Western society to the present day, but this assignment focuses on developments that were concurrent with Weber’s social theory. Hence, later phases of the development are shaded in grey and will not be outlined in detail.

FROM CHRISTENDOM TO EXCLUSIVE HUMANISM

Taylor sees the secularization story beginning in pre-modern Christendom, a time in which the natural world held a place in the cosmos that testified to divine purpose and action (Taylor 2007: 25). In this enchanted world, all objects and agents were imbued with meaning (Taylor 2007: 33) and the human person was a porous self, open and vulnerable to the influence of spiritual forces (Taylor 2007: 38). Taylor posits that the move away from this enchanted world occurred as a result of people attempting to navigate the tension between a call to self-transcendence (something beyond ordinary human flourishing) and cultural institutions and practices oriented towards flourishing in ordinary human life (Taylor 2007: 44). Taylor highlights three movements that were active in shifting ideas and practices towards a new system of values: Mendicancy, Calvinism, and Neo-Stoicism.

Christendom saw “movements of lay people in the late twelfth century crying out for a new mode of apostolic existence within the world, and indeed for the world” (Taylor 2007: 93). From this development emerged new mendicant orders of Franciscans and Dominicans who pursued evangelization of God’s people in everyday life. Through this new encounter with humanity, these preachers began to concentrate more on Christ’s humanity, in particular his suffering. In bringing “ordinary people into focus,” Christians became newly aware of the personhood of Christ, which in hindsight is viewed as “an important step toward that primacy of the individual which defines our culture” (Taylor 2007: 94). This understanding of Christ among ordinary peoples allowed for his believers to witness him in all facets of society – not only within the monasteries but also in all callings.

Increased awareness of the personhood of Christ had an individuating effect on Christians (Taylor 2007: 67) which created a primer for doctrinal components of Calvinism. While Christendom operated according to a division of labor that assumed and enabled hierarchical complementarity (differentiated roles between clergy and lay people), the Protestant Reformation affirmed all aspects of ordinary life, including work and marriage (Taylor 2007: 79). Calvinists saw a corresponding leveling and ordering of society as an essential goal not only on an individual level but also a societal level (Taylor 2007: 82). Lastly, the Protestant Reformation also led to a radical simplification of the Christian faith by rejecting sacramental rituals and thereby the idea of an enchanted world (Taylor 2007: 80).

Taylor also saw the rise of Neo-Stoicism as contributing to this transition and the rise of a disciplinary society. Neo-Stoics stood “in favour of the compassion of active intervention, but on the basis of a full inner detachment” and prized constancy, steadfastness, and control by reason (Taylor 2007: 115). While stoics like Justus Lipsius still professed a Christian faith, their philosophy showed how rational control was beginning to eclipse divine grace.

These movements laid the groundwork for social, political, and economic campaigns by secular authorities to civilize the poor during a time when war and poverty threatened civility and order, and these “attempts to discipline a population, and reduce it to order, almost always had a religious component” (Taylor 2007: 102-103). In this joint project, secular authorities had the opportunity to gain political advantages in increasing the state’s economic and military power, and religious authorities had the opportunity to regain control over the beliefs and practices of Christians. While authorities placed new emphasis on an ethic of self-control, this discipline was not self-imposed. Rather, the dissemination of disciplinary programs still took place in institutional settings, administered by the authority of the military or the clergy (Taylor 2007: 112). With its continued emphasis on authority and control, the establishment of a disciplinary society echoed the regimen of Christendom’s monastic predecessors in once again creating order for stable economic activity, and this hopeful view on the potential for societal and individual improvement took hold in habits and institutions that last to the present day.

As the result of these spiritual movements, exclusive humanism began to emerge as an alternative to Christianity. Under this new value system, society existed within a world no longer enchanted with meaning and the human person was no longer a porous but a buffered self, capable of distance and disengagement from everything outside the mind (Taylor 2007: 38). According to Taylor, this new framework resulted from micro-shifts in several spiritual movements and their societal influences.

THE IMMANENT FRAME

The Immanent Frame is one of the crowning constructs of Taylor’s social theory. It gives a spiritual shape to a world that has grown distant from transcendent reality and offers an explanation for how individuals and society operate in a secular age. The Immanent Frame is characterized by several phenomena that emerged over the course of Western society’s development after Christendom, including the buffered self and early conceptions of a society of individuals that began to emerge in the individuating effects of Christian doctrinal developments previously discussed. The components of an instrumental stance and an impersonal order matured later with the rise of the Enlightenment and Romanticism (Taylor 2007: 541) and the development of the Modern Moral Order (Taylor 2007: 165-166).

The most important feature of the Immanent Frame is that it encompasses a world that stands apart from transcendence. However, the Immanent Frame is depicted above using a dashed border because while there is a boundary between immanence and transcendence, Taylor believes this boundary is permeable, with those living within the frame having the option to live in a way that is either open or closed to the transcendence outside it (Taylor 2007: 544). It is by living with an openness to the transcendent that one has access to both ordinary human flourishing and beyond human flourishing. Living as if the frame is closed, however, means to live under the impression that ordinary human flourishing is all there is.

TAYLOR AND WEBER

At large, Charles Taylor might position Max Weber’s theory of the Iron Cage within the broader concept of the Immanent Frame. The main reason for this is because while Taylor finds Weber’s theory for the rise of modern rational capitalism compelling, he finds it incomplete. The Protestant Ethic, while persuasive, tells only part of the story behind the emergence of the modern era and the dominance of capitalism; Taylor’s theory factors in Weber’s story but speaks more broadly about the way beliefs and value systems have shifted since the Middle Ages.

Taylor would agree with Weber’s observation that Western society’s transition into the modern period is the result of not only a materialist explanation but also the outcome of political and spiritual changes, such as the rise of the Protestant Ethic (Taylor 2007: 178-179). Specifically, he takes notice of how Protestant Christianity claimed a new dignity for ordinary life, emphasizing the important role of lay people in the church (Taylor 2007: 179). He also remarks on Calvinism’s role in urging individuals and societal structures toward discipline and control (Taylor 2007: 82-84). He would also follow Weber’s logic of how these shifts contributed to promoting economic and activity and placing the economy at the center of social life (Taylor 2007: 181).

However, Taylor would only consider Weber’s theory as depicting part of the story behind the modern social imaginary because Weber is only concerned with one general direction for this development: its roots in the Protestant Ethic. Weber’s explanation excludes mentalities informed by non-Protestant religious schemas that were also present during the time at which he was writing. Taylor’s explanation, which considers the individuating effects of broader religious developments as well as the systemic imposition of a disciplinary society, offers a more comprehensive explanation for the development of a new era.

Concerning the Iron Cage itself, Taylor might suggest that his notion of the buffered self and a society of individuals (as elements of the Immanent Frame) relate to Weber’s conception of the Spirit of Capitalism. Within the Immanent Frame, individual persons have the right to live by their own values and define meaning for themselves. As such, like Weber’s capitalist, they can choose to acquire for the sake of acquisition and/or labor for the sake of labor; their ends need not be rational (so long as they are authentic). Taylor’s concept of an instrumental stance relates to Weber’s emphasis on rational techniques and rational law because it rests on the assumption that individual agents have control in a Modern Moral Order that resembles a market economy (Taylor 2007: 165-166). Finally, the last component of Taylor’s Immanent Frame is the notion of an impersonal order, which relates to the mechanical nature of Weber’s modern rational capitalism. For Taylor, the slide towards an impersonal order coincides with a tendency towards disengagement and objectification (Taylor 2007: 283). Taylor would agree that rational capitalism is the embodiment of mechanization and objectification in the economic sphere and would recognize this part of Weber’s theory as related to modernity’s preference for an impersonal order.

Ultimately, like the idea of being trapped in an Iron Cage, Taylor would agree that there is no escape from the Immanent Frame – it is the spiritual reality of modern society. Taylor would, however, insist that the boundaries of the Immanent Frame are permeable, not just in the sense that religion has escaped from it (as with Weber’s Iron Cage), but that transcendence can still penetrate the lives of those living within the Immanent Frame so long as they are open to it. For those who live in the Iron Cage and Immanent Frame but who are closed to transcendence, ordinary human flourishing achieved through of modern rational capitalism is the highest possible good. For those open to what lies outside the frame, however, it is possible for them to realize goods that go beyond human life and ordinary human flourishing.

CONCLUSION

Charles Taylor offers a comprehensive theory for the development of the modern secular age which incorporates the ideas and contributions of countless thinkers before him. While this project makes only a modest attempt at outlining his social theory (and explicitly omits components for the sake of length), it attempts to make the case that his theory offers an enhanced explanation for how history has developed and where we currently are in that narrative.

While Taylor has delivered numerous lectures and written several shorter works, A Secular Age (2007) details the complete synthesis of his social thought, outlining Western society’s progression over more than 500 years of history. While his work focuses on the Western world, he also studied Eastern traditions, and where applicable, notes commonalities. He also contemplates the positions of many earlier and contemporary theorists as he shapes and explains his own position.

While the sheer coverage and depth of his argument is the greatest strength of his work, Charles Taylor is also a beneficial read for sociologists because he confronts and incorporates the theories all of the so-called “canonical” classical sociologists – Marx, Weber, and Durkheim. While I chose to put him in conversation with Weber for purposes of this project, he has meaningful responses to the theories of the other two social theorists as well. Unfortunately, Taylor’s theory does not directly confront issues of gender or race, which may make him a target for criticism among those loyal to theorists such as Du Bois, Beauvoir, or Cooper. Furthermore, his undeniable identity as a practicing Catholic also marginalizes him within the academy, as scholars may be inclined to treat him as a philosopher or a theologian rather than a social theorist. Far from providing a rationale for his exclusion, the fact of Taylor’s religious background should call for greater reflection on the role of religion in social theory, particularly spiritual traditions built on systematic philosophy and applied reason.

REFERENCES

Taylor, Charles. 2007. A Secular Age. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Weber, Max. 1905. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Dover Publications.