Religion in liberal and authoritarian states

Two aspects of the modern liberal state can be considered basic conditions that influence the place of religion in modern society. The first is the problem of national identity in the face of cultural diversity. Most modern states are culturally, ethnically and religiously diverse. For most states, this diversity is a consequence of massive migration, either historically or more recently. With the globalization of the labor market, host societies have become more complex and diverse, and in addition they have become more difficult to govern. Singapore is an important Asian case where migration, before and after its independence, created a multicultural society; however, today it must deal with even more diversity. Like many other Asian societies, Singapore has a declining fertility rate despite all government attempts to correct that downward trend. As a result, the state must constantly seek to import labor, especially talented labor. With its current population at just over four million and with little opportunity to recover more usable land, the state has decided to increase its population to just over six million. Unless there are very direct controls on the ethnic composition of migrants, economic openness inevitably results in greater ethnic diversity. At the same time, the state has an interest in protecting its own territorial sovereignty and in order to assert its sovereignty over society, it must create the political myth of a morally coherent and integrated society (Kamaludeen, Pereira and Turner, 2009). Benedict Anderson (1983) has famously written about how nation-states create “imagined communities” through the spread of print media, and this mythical creation essentially involves the construction of a nationalist ideology. Like other states, Singapore must find ways of projecting a common purpose around the state and the image of a unified national community. In particular, it must foster a vivid and meaningful sense of what it is to be a “Singaporean,” rather than, for example, a Chinese person living on the island of Singapore whose familial memories are more likely to be connected with mainland China. It must achieve a delicate balancing act between nationalism, internal harmony and openness to foreign talent by avoiding any impression that it favors one community over another. Therefore, the first paradox is that economic forces create multinational societies, but political forces must create national communities. Sociologists occasionally refer to this nation-building activity of the state in terms of building the cultural fabric – the great arch – of the society as the real foundation of political power (Corrigan and Sayer, 1985). This paradox holds true for small countries such as Singapore, but it is also central to the recent migration and population dilemmas of relatively large European societies such as Italy and the United Kingdom. In both societies, there is a rightwing opposition to migration, whereas with a declining and aging population these societies need to accept migrants to avoid a shrinking workforce. The second paradox is that while secular societies like Singapore strive to separate religion (as a private matter of the individual) from the public domain (of politics and economics), governments must attempt to manage religions. Owing to the first paradox, the government cannot ignore the fact that religious diversity without management will in all probability result in communal tensions, if not in open social conflict. Other things being equal, the practice of religious piety will create a certain social distance between social groups and eventually these social divisions can harden into separate enclaves. These issues have dominated much of American history and are probably more salient now than in the past. Following the work of Robert Putnam (2000), we can argue that religious communities tend to build social bonding rather than social bridging. Other things being equal, piety movements will tend to reinforce exclusive tendencies and reinforce separate identities. The role of the state is to manage such social processes in the interest of creating social unity.