Abstract
In the first chapter, we saw that there has been an inattention, in the ACR literature, to its political dimensions. After introducing the concept of the politics of the sacred or the politics of defining something according to its relation to that which is sacred for a political community, we began to investigate the ACR, from this perspective. In order to help us do this, Chap. 2 presented a semiotic and social psychological model for the study of civil religious signs. In short, this model argued that meaning formation is a product of the individual structure of one’s Weltanschauung and the way that signifiers are contextualized and perceived in the Lebenswelt. Idiosyncratic variation in individual Weltanschauungen produces the condition that the way things are defined and made sense of is an idiosyncratic matter. However, it was also argued that while no two Weltanschauungen are exactly the same, the perception of similar signifiers in similar contexts that occurs within a social setting produces structural similarity between the Weltanschauungen of individuals. This structural similarity allows for some level of intersubjective validity in communication which in turn makes it possible for one to frame (i.e. contextualize) one’s speech in such a way as to impact the way the perceiver ultimately makes sense of what is said.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
- 1.
This is also to be expect because to resolve the politics of the sacred would also mean to resolve contentious political issues. Sometimes this would mean resolving even extremely polemical issues like abortion or the proper role of the federal government. The fact that issues have real-life consequences, individual and group interests which are attached to them and the fact that the political losers will have to accept something they otherwise would not like to accept also presents an obstacle to the resolution of the politics of the sacred. However, of course this obstacle would be present regardless of whether or not the politics is contested as the politics of the sacred or along some other grounds.
- 2.
Although, all three of these figures were victims of violent acts (which are also a type of discursive act). These acts may have helped steer the discourse toward their inclusion as referent objects in the ACR.
- 3.
These also have a religious dimension in the Durkheimian sense of religions being that which maintains group collectivity.
- 4.
This may work by producing a stronger more positive evaluation of the candidate which would, in turn, make the potential voter more enthusiastic and thus more likely to vote. Although Chapp (2012) has not fully articulated the causal chain between American civil religious discourse, candidate evaluation and turnout, this is one possibility which is consistent with his findings.
- 5.
Semonche (1998) offers a well-researched and detailed view of the path the Supreme Court took in achieving its status as the ultimate authority in Constitutional interpretation, arguing that in Marbury and Madison the Court donned “the mantle of the high priest charged with interpreting the holy writ of the American civil religion” (p. 58) and in Ableman and Booth (1859) “In repulsing Wisconsin’s challenge to federal authority, [Chief Justice Roger B.] Taney had claimed ultimate authority for the Court in interpreting the Constitution ” (p. 98).
- 6.
Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859).
- 7.
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015). Note for the Obergefell case the underscore is part of how these cases are cited.
- 8.
It should be noted that there are, at times, those willing to question whether the Supreme Court should have this power and those who are openly hostile to it. A recent example can be found in the reaction of some conservatives to the decision handed down in Obergefell and Hodges (2015) which ended the practice of discrimination against homosexual couples in the area of marriage and effectively legalized gay marriage throughout the entire United States. For example, the former Republican Governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee decried what he referred to as, the “notion of judicial supremacy” and argued that states could ignore the Supreme Court decision (Bobic, 2015). Nevertheless, the principle of what Huckabee refers to as ‘judicial supremacy’ is the standard operating procedure of American politics and is firmly established as such. This fact explains, at least in part, the widespread attention his statement received and the widespread rejection of it even among other conservatives who were equally disappointed with the Court’s decision. Ending ‘judicial supremacy’ would mean fundamentally altering the American political system and changing the taken-for-granted, everyday, commonsense way of thinking about American politics.
- 9.
Brown and The Board of Education of Topeka Kansas (1954) is perhaps the most famous example of this. In this case the Court overruled a previous Supreme Court decision handed down in Plessy and Ferguson (1896). In the Plessy case the Court ruled that the provision of “separate but equal” facilities for those of different races was constitutionally permissible, effectively upholding the principle of racial segregation. In the Brown decision, the Court ruled that segregation in public schools violated the Constitution , specifically the equal protection provision of the 14th Amendment , arguing that “separate but equal” facilities were inherently unequal.
- 10.
Though of course options outside institutional politics (e.g. discursive options, violence, civil disobedience, etc.) remain open.
- 11.
Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).
Bibliography of Data
Debates
2000 Bush-Gore. (2000, October 3). Debate Transcript: http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=october-3-2000-transcript (2000, October 11). Debate Transcript: http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=october-11-2000-debate-transcript (2000, October 17). Debate Transcript: http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=october-17-2000-debate-transcript
Bibliography
Barthes, R. (1972). Critical essays. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Barthes, R., & Lavers, A. (1972). Mythologies. New York: Hill and Wang.
Bellah, R. N. (1967). Civil religion in America. Daedalus, 96(1), 1–21.
Berelson, B., Gaudet, H., & Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1944). The people’s choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a Presidential campaign. New York: Duell, Sloan & Pearce.
Berelson, B., Lazarsfeld, P. F., & McPhee, W. N. (1966). Voting: A study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bobic, I. (2015). Mike Huckabee: States can ignore Supreme Court on gay marriage. Huffington Post. http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6512042
Campbell, A., Converse, P., Miller, W., & Stokes, D. (1960). The American voter. New York: Wiley.
Casey, G. (1974). The Supreme Court and myth: An empirical investigation. Law and Society Review, 8(3), 385–420.
Chapp, C. B. (2012). Religious rhetoric and American politics: The endurance of civil religion in electoral campaigns. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Gramsci, A., Hoare, Q., & Nowell-Smith, G. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. New York: International Publishers.
Green, D. P., & Palmquist, B. (1994). How stable is party identification? Political Behavior, 16(4), 437–466.
Green, D. P., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Holbrook, T. M. (1994). Campaigns, National conditions, and U.S. Presidential Elections. American Journal of Political Science, 38(4), 973–998.
Holbrook, T. M. (1996). Do campaigns matter? London: Sage.
Lerner, M. (1937). Constitution and court as symbols. Yale Law Review, 46(8), 1290–1319.
Levinson, S. (1979). The Constitution in American civil religion. The Supreme Court Review, 1979, 123–151.
Petrick, M. J. (1968). The Supreme Court and authority acceptance. The Western Political Quarterly, 21(1), 5–19.
Semonche, J. E. (1998). Keeping the faith: A cultural history of the U.S. Supreme Court. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Squiers, A. (2014). An introduction to the social and political philosophy of Bertolt Brecht: Revolution and aesthetics. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Toolin, C. (1983). American civil religion from 1789 to 1981: A content analysis of Presidential inaugural addresses. Review of Religious Research, 25(1), 39–48.
Vining, J. (1986). The authoritative and the authoritarian. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Squiers, A. (2018). Contesting the Politics of the Sacred. In: The Politics of the Sacred in America. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68870-1_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68870-1_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-68869-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-68870-1
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)