Schuurman's Garden Model
By Prof. Dr. Bunyamin Duran
Saturday, 05 June 2010 15:44
Schuurman’s Garden Model at the Crossroads of the Secular- Post Secular Society
(With Contribution of Said Nursi’s Perspective)
Abstract
There is a close connection between current technology and secularization process. According to some scholars current technology is a result of instrumental rationality of bourgeoisie class who insturmentalized all human and natural sources to attain power and money. To open up a new social and cognitive change to alternative ideas, especially religion oriented ideas Jürgen Habermas came up with a new social-political framework in which religion oriented ideas also present themselves. Meantime philosopher Schuurman developed ‘Garden Model’ to offer a new alternative to current technology which detached from ethics. Nursi shares many idea of Schuurman as a Muslim theologian.
Introduction
In this article I will try to analyze the Schuurman’s Garden Model (SGM) regarding its historical background, namely critical theory, beginning from Wax Weber and Habermas. Meantime I want to reconcile between Christian and Muslim approach against ‘technological world picture’ by referring to Muslim thinker, Said Nursi.
My starting point is the relationship between secularization process and technology, and its positive and negative consequences on human being and nature. Regarding the negative side effects of technological development resulted from secularization and instrumental rationalization process, I will try to establish a connection between Habermasian post secular model and Schuurman’s garden model, to enter to the democratic and cognitive deliberation from the side of religious community together Christians and Muslims. I would like to say here that this project transcends what Habermas asks from religious community in post secular society; this is not a dialogue activity, but it is an intellectual and theological cooperation.
To establish a framework for SGM we have to look very briefly at the secularization process and its dimensions.
Secularization
Actually the term “secular” has different dimensions, some of them directly concerned with the industrialization, rationalization and urbanization-processes, while others are concerned with minimizing the church’s influence on the culture of society at large and in the public sphere. (Turner 1991, 134-135) Some scholars characterize secularity:
1. Plurality of world views,
2. Autonomous rationality,
3. Religion part of culture and
4. Religion as a privatized phenomenon. (Ziebertz and Riegel 2008, 29-30; Duran 2008, 61-62)
According to Habermas the word "secularisation" is nearly synonym with rationalization. (Habermas 2001)
Beside very negative and destructive outcomes secularization process has also very positive outcomes; such as economic development, urbanization, democratization, political freedom and so forth. (Habermas 1984, p. 165-166) However, we are interesting here the destructive side of secularization, more than positive one.
One of the negative sides of secularization is a new polytheism. According to Weber this cognitive-instrumental rationalization, namely insturmantalization of all social and natural sources by capitalist strata to attain money and power, leads us to a new polytheism:
Many old gods arise from their graves, disenchanted and in the form of impersonal forces; they strive to gain power over our lives and resume again their eternal struggle with one another. (Weber 1992, 180)
This issue is a result of differentiation of value spheres which each sphere function according to their inner logic independent from a higher designer; religious-metaphysical world views. In this case there is no inner binding connection between value spheres; instead there is antagonisms among each other:
As Hellenic man at times sacrificed to the gods of his city, so do we still nowadays, only in a way that is disenchanted and denuded to the mystical but inwardly genuine plastic of that earlier behavior.
This cosmos today determines, with irresistible force, the lifestyles of all the individuals who are born into this mechanism, not only of those directly concerned with economic acquisition. Perhaps it will so determine them until the last ton of fossilized fuel is burnt. …The people who adopt himself to this atmosphere are: ‘Specialist without spirit, sensualist without heard. (Weber 1992, 182)
Actually the modern bourgeois world is dominated by orders of life, in which the two complexes of instrumental rationality, the economic and political subsystems, come into dominance. The specialist and hedonist are best adapted to the icy cold atmosphere of the economic and political subsystems of late capitalistic society.
Is the icy cold secular atmosphere an eternal fate of human being? Or is there an alternative social system of action? What promises the post secular society in this context to us?
Post secular
The term post-secular society was first employed by Habermas while defining the new relationship between religion and other sectors. In this new case, unlike in a secular society, religion in a post-secular society is granted the same status as other sectors. But, at the same time religion does not have the right of superiority over other sectors; as was the case in the middle ages.
We know that Habermas is not a religious philosopher, but a secular one. The essential question here how can a secular thinker develop a theory which promises positive expectation for religion oriented community?
It is true that Habermas is a secular thinker, but he is at the same time a philosopher who tries to open up a new social chance for religious oriented views in secular democratic process. In this context his theory of post secular society is very important.
In addition to this, his gigantic project, communicative praxis is quite sensitive for religious worldviews and systems of interpretation and orientation. (Siebert 1985, 8)
Indeed, there is a claim which asserts that the new paradigm of communicative praxis is remembrance of the Jewish-Christian messianic, eschatological-apocalyptic brotherly-sisterly communication community (Siebert 1985, 13)
Thus, Habermas, even though is not a religious man, but his function is very decisive in this field to make possible the appearance of religion oriented views in the secular public sphere.
We know that in post secular theory the core theme is the social cohesion rather than religious epistemic and eschatological salvation. Habermas is interested in religion and religious community only to attain social cohesion in society.
Habermas is fully aware of the destructive outcomes of the sharp polarization between secular and religious community. In order to minimize this gab, he tries to develop a theoretical framework in which all citizens have equal political rights, based on a principle of liberal ethics of citizenship. This political and cultural framework is so-called post secular in which not only secular community but at the same time religious community functions freely. According to Habermas this is the core of civic solidarity. (Habermas 1996, 329f; Habermas 2001)
In addition, Habermas is fully aware of the importance of religious values in advanced capitalist civil society. According to him, religions can play a substantial role in global capitalism. It prevents the denizens of the modern post-secular societies from being overwhelmed by all-encompassing demands of vocational life and worldly success. Religious convictions encourage people to treat each other as ends in themselves rather than as mere means. (Richard, 1993)
Habermas tries to reconcile among secular and religious community. Because secular community sees religious views and argumentations as archaic relics of pre-modern societies that continue to exist in the present, they will understand freedom of religion as the natural preservation of an endangered species. From their viewpoint, religion no longer has any intrinsic justifications to exist.
For Habermas general approach of secular society to religious tradition and conviction is no longer right.
The force of religious traditions to articulate moral institutions with regard to communal forms of a dignified human life makes religious presentations on relevant political issues a serious candidate for possible truth contents that can then be translated from the vocabulary of a specific religious community into a generally accessible language. (Habermas, 2009)
Therefore, Habermas invites secular society to open their minds to the possible truth content of those presentations and even enter into dialogues from which religious reasons then might well emerge in the transformed guise of generally accessible arguments. (Habermas, 2009)
In short, Habermas, however not a religious philosopher, but he has social prestige and capacity to play very crucial role to legitimate religious argumentation in public sphere.
Marcuse-Habermas conflict on technology
In order to ground Schuurman’s approach toward technology we have to cite Marcuse-Habermas discussion on technology.
Habermas develops his own idea concerning technology when he handled Marcuse’s view on technology and science. Marcuse argued that modern science and technology is a project of bourgeoisie class which developed to control men and nature. According to Marcuse what called an instrumental-rationality was nothing than a kind of a political power which was hidden behind the rationality. (Habermas 1968, 34f)
Marcuse has been seeking a new model, model of technology based on Jewish-Christian mysticism, according to Habermas, by which communication with men and nature is possible without exploitation and control. (Habermas 2007, 37f)
Habermas rejects Marcuse argument claiming that technology is a generic project, "a 'project' of human species as a whole", not of some particular historical epoch like class society or of a particular class like the bourgeoisie (Feenberg, 1996)
As seen from the forgoing passage Habermas sees technology as a project of human species. The crucial question here the place of Schuurman’s Garden Model in this respect?
Schuurman’s Garden Model
It seems that Schuurman has effected deeply from Marcuse’ view of technology as well as Habermas. But it doesn’t mean that Schuurman repeats what Marcuse says. First of all Marcuse belongs to a secular camp, while Schuurman to a religious one. Marcuse is a Marxist thinker, while Schuurman’s thought bases largely on protestant conviction.
There is no doubt in the thought of Schuurman that all modern problems are the outcomes of secularization process, which is hidden behind the facade of modern technology and the mask of autonomous individual freedom. Not only worldly affairs but at the same time, according to Schuurman, the Christian convictions were secularized and Enlightenment trends were uncritically adopted. Thus resistance to the absolutization of science has gradually disappeared. Given that spiritual climate, positivism and pragmatism easily undid any resistance to the unhindered scientific-technological control of reality.
Schuurman claims in foregoing passage that current technology is not “a 'project' of the human species as a whole" as Habermas argues, but is a class ideology which bases on secular world views. (Schuurman 2008)
In my opinion the main distinction between Marcuse’s and Schuurman’s views of technology is that the technology is seen by Marcuse as an ideology of predominant class, instead, Schuurman sees technology as a neutral phenomenon. To stress this future of technology Schuurman comes to distinguish it as a neutral technology and the Technological World Picture (TWP). He treats later as a destructive power to the extent that it fully has controlled and enslaved Western culture.
According to Schuurman the norms of the TWP are effectiveness, standardization, efficiency, success, safety, reliability, and maximum profit, with little or no attention given to the cost to humanity, society, the environment, and nature. This kind of technology is characterized by the lack of cosmological and ethical deficiency. (Schuurman 2008)
Furthermore, he argues that TWP has not only shaped the relationship to nature and the environment, it has also shaped the relationship in human society as well. By using technology, it strives to dominate or control both nature and society. Technological-economic powers, in particular, are the driving forces behind this picture of the world, and yet we all breathe its air.
One can trace its philosophical and sociological roots in the notions of Weber’s ‘new polytheism’, Horkheimer’s ‘instrumental reason’, Adorno’s ‘fully administered society’ and finally Marcuse’s ‘ideology of technique’.
This doesn’t mean that Schuurman is an intellectual who makes only abstract speculations, rather he suggests a model to solve the problem of current technology. His model is so-called, Garden Model, very similar what Marcuse developed in 1950’s within which human being and nature coexist in harmony. GM above all bases on the notion of “enlightenment of the Enlightenment.
The central point of the enlightenment of the Enlightenment is that we acknowledge that there is more than materiality alone , that there is a spiritual dimension, we live in a created reality, in the context of which a breach occurred between God and humankind; we acknowledge as well, in the perspective of the Kingdom of love and peace, that restoration has been made possible in Christ. His is a Kingdom in which nature and culture will be filled with the glory of God. This religious recognition cannot but throw new light on the ethics of technology. (Schuurman 2008)
Shortly, Schuurman offers a liberated technology which liberated from both human absolutizations and human fears. This technology will offer greater opportunities for living: it will reduce physical toil, push back natural disasters, conquer diseases, expand social security, widen communication, multiply information, argument responsibility, vastly increase material welfare in harmony with spiritual well-being, and abolish alienation from self, nature and culture. All this is given in the disclosure of technology-as part of the unfolding of the whole of creation, whose ultimate destiny, hence final rest, is found in the Kingdom of God, the re-created universe. (Schuurman 1972, 425)
Very peculiar characteristic of Schuurman is that he invites Muslims to come up with an intellectual contract together rethinking and resolving our common problems. This project already has begun by his invitation and my positive reaction to his invitation.
Said Nursi’s perspective on technology
Said Nursi (1878-1960) treats technology with different perspectives. First of all he sees technology as a means by which human being improve his life. Technology serves to attain justice and security, also to eliminate ignorance, poverty and hungry. For that reason he sees technological and scientific development as a significant task for human being. He goes further by interpreting the wonder of prophets as guidance to technology. For Nursi the Upholding the Word of God (İ’la-i Kalimatullah, namely jihad) can be fulfilled only with material and technological development in present time. According to Nursi the rejecting of the material development is nearly synonym with the rejecting of the fulfilling the task of jihad. He says: “We shall wage jihad with the weapons of science and industry against the most danger enemies of Upholding the Word of God, which are ignorance, poverty, and polarization,” (Nursi 1960, 64; Nursi 1991, 26; Duran 1997)
Based on foregoing reasons Nursi sees technological development as a culmination of human species.
There is no clear distinction between technology and TPW in the teaching of Nursi. But he distinguishes between technologies itself and its uses. He treats modern civilization with this perspective.
Critique of modern civilizations
Nursi can be seen as a Muslim intellectual who belongs to critical tradition. He treats western civilization not as a homogenous phenomena but a very complex one. According to Nursi it is a civilization which is not all evil and has brought many benefits to humanity. Nursi very interestingly divides Europe into two categories: a “good” Europe and a “bad” Europe:
“Europe is two. One follows the sciences which serve justice and right and activities beneficial for the life of society through the inspiration it has received from true Christianity. This first Europe I am not addressing. Rather, I am addressing the second, corrupt Europe which, through the darkness of the philosophy of naturalism that considered the evils of civilization to be its virtues, has driven humankind to vice and misguidance.’ (Nursi, 2000, 159-160)
Said Nursi held that European societies replaced divinely guided Christian ideals with the philosophical principles of the Enlightenment, focusing on the freedom of the individual, dismissing the formative role and rights of society, and reducing religious faith to a private, personal commitment with no voice in the autonomous spheres of politics, economics, and social relations.
Actually Nursi shares many ideas with Schuurman related to secularization of Western culture and its consequences. He is fully aware of the fact that without positive cooperation between Muslims and Christians, it’s very difficult to solve the problems which emerged from radical secularization. Therefore he calls for cooperation between these communities. As many scholars pointed out that Said Nursi is one of the pioneer thinkers in our century to recognize that the task of formulating a critical approach to the values of modernity should be carried out together by Muslims and Christians. (Michel 1999, 13; Vahide 2002, 344; Valkenberg 2006)
His critic is increasingly addressed to the main grounds of western civilization, namely bourgeoisie system of action which based on non- religious instrumental rationality. For Nursi western civilization is established on five negative principles:
1. Its point of support is power, the mark of which is aggression.
2. Its aim and goal is benefit, the mark of which is jostling and tussling.
3. Its principle in life is conflict, the mark of which is strife.
4. The bond between the masses is racialism and negative nationalism, which is nourished through devouring others; its mark is collision.
5. Its enticing service is inciting lust and passion and gratifying the desires. But lust transforms man into a beast.
The civilization which the Qur’an desires comprises what follow:
1. Its point of support is truth instead of power, the mark of which is justice and harmony.
2. Its goal is virtue in place of benefit, the mark of which is love and attraction.
3. Its means of unity are the ties of religion, country, and class, in place of racialism and nationalism, and the mark of these is sincere brotherhood, peace, and only defence against external aggression.
4. In life is the principle of mutual assistance instead of the principle of conflict, the mark of which is accord and solidarity. And finally
5. It offers guidance instead of lust, the mark of which is human progress and spiritual advancement. (Nursi 2001, 548)
As is seen, Nursi treats technological development itself as a positive issue, but its use in the sake of control of men and nature as a negative one.
Actually there is close relationship between content of Nursi’s conceptions and that of critical theory’s such as Weberian ‘iron cage’, ‘loss of freedom and meaning’ (Weber 1992, 55f ); Marxian ‘commodity fetishism’ (Habermas 1981, 357); Lukacsian ‘reification’ (Habermas 1981, 355f); and Schuurmanian ‘ethical deficiency’ (Schuurman 2008) and so forth.
Shortly Nursi shares very assessments concerning technology and its consequences with Schuurman. But it needs farther detailed studies.
Conclusion
This article can be summarized as follows: we are living in secular society in which religious and mystical powers lost largely their effect on society. As a result Western culture is shaped in the direction of instrumental rationality, ideology of bourgeoisie class. This has lead society to a new polytheism and reification. We are witnessing now in the broader sense a heartless world. SGM can be seen as a noise which comes from heart to give materialistic culture a new content, universal solidarity and brotherhood and also lovely relation with nature. This noise invites people to return again Kingdom of God by reorganizing the policy of technology by ethics of responsibility.
Schuurman as a protestant thinker is not alone in this field; he has strong intellectual and theological roots which belong both West and East. Weber, Marcuse, Horkeimer, Adorno in the West side, Nursi in the East side are seen as supporter of Schuurman.
This project is very new attempt which based on positive cooperation of Christian and Muslim scholars to enter public sphere of Habermas. I hope that the other projects will follow this positive initiative to show people that there are resolution of modern antagonism by referring to religious world views.
References
Duran, Bünyamin (2005), 'Cooperation in interreligious learning and teaching, based on common Abrahamic principles'. In Interreligious Learning, edited by D. Polefeyt , Uitgeverij Peeters- leuven Un press
Duran, Bünyamin (2008), ‘Islam and Muslim in post secular society’, in Europe: Secular or post-secular? Edited by Ziebertz H.Georg and Riegel Ulrich, Lit Ferlag Berlin
Duran, Bünyamin (1997), Bediuzzaman, The Awf Work Ethic, and Apholding the Word of God. In Thirth International Symposium, edited by ükran Vahide, Sozler, Istanbul
Habermas, Jürgen (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action, v. I, tr. Thomas McCarthy, Beacon Press Boston
Habermas, Jürgen (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action, v. II, tr. Thomas McCarthy, Beacon Press Boston
Habermas Jürgen, (1996), Fact and Norms, translated by W. Rehg, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Habermas, Jürgen (2001), ' Faith and knowledge' , in www. socialpolitically.ucc.ie
Habermas, Jürgen, (2009), ‘Religion in public sphere’, in www.sandiego.edu/pdf/pdf_library/habermaslecture031105_c939cceb2ab087bdfc6df291ec0fc3fa.pdf
Habermas Jürgen (2007), ‘İdeoloji’ olarak teknik ve bilim, translated by Mustafa Tüzel, YKY, İstanbul
Michel, Thomas (1999) ‘Muslim-Christian Dialogue and Cooperation in the Thought of Bediuzzaman Said Nursi’ In Bediuzzaman Said Nursi in the view of Western Writers, edited by Şükran Vahide, Sözler, Istanbul
Nursi B. Said (2001), Letters, 1928-1932, translated by Şükran Vahide, Sözler, Istanbul
Nursi B. Said (2000), The Flashes collection, translated by Sukran Vahide, Sözler, Istanbul
Nursi, B. Said (1995), Munazarat, Yeni Asya, Istanbul
Nursi B. Said (1960), Divan-i Harb-i Örfî, Yeni Asya, Istanbul
Nursi, B. Said (1991), Muhâkemat, Istanbul, Sözler Yayinevi, İstanbul
Richard, W. (1993), Jurgen Habermas and Post-Secular Society, in
www.habermasians.blogspot.com
Schuurman Egbert (2008), ‘The Ethics of Responsibility as a Comprehensive Approach: An Application to the Ethics of Technology’, Metanexus Institute
Schuurman Egbert (1972), Techniek en Toekomst. Confrontatie met wijsgerige beschouwingen" (dissertatie)
Siebert Rudolf J.(1985), The critical theory of religion, the Frankfurt School, Berlin
Turner, B. (1991), Religion and Social Theory, Sage Pup., London
Vahide, Sükran (1992), Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, Sözler Neşriyat, Istanbul
Valkenberg, P. (2006), Sharing Lights On the Way to God, Amsterdam-New York
Weber, Max (1992), The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, translated by. Talcot Parsons, London
Wolin Richard (2009),‘Jurgen Habermas and Post-Secular Society’, in www.habermasians.blogspot.com, date of consultation
Last Updated on Saturday, 13 August 2011 21:36
http://www.bduran.nl/bduran/artikelen/2-articles-in-english/106-schuurmans-garden-model.html