Abstract
Marian Burchardt’s book, Regulating Difference, draws on the somewhatoriginal idea of comparing the way diversity, in particular religious diversity, has become central to government in Quebec and Catalonia. In the footsteps of Michel Foucault, he analyses government in terms of governmentality and, as such, takes both a top-down and, more importantly, a bottom-up perspective, paying attention to power relations and positions of authority. In the two regions chosen – comprising linguistic minorities within strong nation-states – Catholicism has traditionally had a particular link to nationalist discourses, histories and legacies. Both ‘stateless nations’ (p. 8) have witnessed an impressive acceleration in secularisation but also in religious diversification in the last century. Burchardt’s starting point is original because, despite not being a classic comparison of two nation-states, his contribution still fits in alongside studies of the religion–nation nexus. Burchardt’s main interest is to understand the configuration of social forces that cause one government to be more tolerant than the other with regard to religious minorities or religion and religious diversity tout court. It is through this angle that he enters the debates on nationalism and regionalism as well as, of course, the debate on secularisation, with particular regard to its European versus American variants. He clearly anchors his approach within the paradigm of ‘multiple secularities’, a concept arising from his collaboration with Monika Wohlrab-Sahr, and focuses on secularity as a ‘modality of placing religion in society’ (p. 91) rather than on secularism as an explicit ideology. Burchardt explores the intriguing centrality of religious diversity in ‘nationalist projects’ (p. 3) by offering a historical and cultural contextualisation that renders the notions of majority and minority ambiguous. He details the high degree to which Catholicism was historically an identity factor in the early days of nation building in the two contexts, be it in a positive or negative manner – accounting for the violent anti-clericalism in Catalonia and the Quiet Revolution in Quebec. Burchardt relates how such processes of inclusion, exclusion and, more generally, boundary making in the realm of religion occur in cultural terms as well as institutionally. With the increased religious diversity of the population towards the end of the 20th century, national governance has developed new ways of relating to religion. Religious diversity itself has become a valuable element allowing for distinction, and therefore for identity, vis-à-vis the larger nation-state context. Burchardt even uses the term ‘transmogrification’ to connote an uneven, variable change at multiple scales and successfully shows how the socially constructed significance of religion circulates. He chooses to offer readers insights into this transmogrification through five steps, or chapters. Beginning with a more theoretical first chapter he then pays attention to institutions (legal, communitarian), then to spaces (urban planning, administrations, infrastructures) and finally to debates and controversies over religious symbols in public space, wheter they are carried by individuals, buildings or institutions such as museums. This last observation site allows Burchardt to elevate the reflection from the nuts and bolts of politics to a representational level of culture, and to discuss issues of heritagisation. This loop through culture, after passing through law, community, politics and media, makes Burchardt’s contribution enduringly valid beyond the social scientific study of religion. Throughout the book he offers up persuasive ethnographic accounts, quotes and pictures, in addition to convincing theoretical discussions and frames of which I highlighted only a few particularly convincing ones. The pertinence of the choice of the two case studies is precisely to offer a view of secularist models that value religious diversity, although in partly opposite ways. While, against the backdrop of their respective national histories, in the political public realm of Quebec the idea has dominated that ‘performances or representations of religious diversity imperiled the nation’ (p. 54), the contrary is true for Catalonia where religious diversity is considered an asset and a complement to secularity. From his observations, Burchardt concludes that nationalistic views do not necessarily homogenise populations but can also diversify them. However, the shortcomings which such a diversification entails are not elaboratedon. In any case, Burchardt demonstrates that diversity is not only pivotal at a discursive level but at a practical and infrastructural level too. He deftly lays out how this unfolds through a variety of illustrations throughout the book and, in a particularly accurate way, when discussing the public controversies over religion related to ‘moral entrepreneurs’, a notion borrowed from Howard Becker and studies of social movements (the telling example of the popular independence-supporting Benedictine nun, Teresa Forcades, is unfortunately missing). The discourse analysis of public political narratives and storylines from different perspectives are a pure pleasure to read for those interested in sociological, nuanced thinking. The analysis convincingly explains the way in which socially constructed boundaries are drawn between legitimate and illegitimate religion, as well as the limits of tolerance towards religious diversity. A further noticeable finding is that whether secularised citizens frame religion as a factor of identity or as heritage impacts on citizenship rights versus religious rights. Finally, the urban context receives more attention in the book as it seems to be the arena of most religious conflicts and resolutions.
Two small critical considerations serve to conclude this invitation to read the book. First, Burchardt could have provided further detail about the economic background of the various actors to better illuminate the issues of power on which he aims to shed light. Furthermore, the title of the book is far too modest considering the rich set of insights, in both empirical and theoretical terms, that follow. Indeed, regulation only enters the picture from chapter three onwards while, as the author contends from the beginning, government and governmentality are at the core of his argument. Difference, moreover, is not the same as diversity, and using this term reduces the complexity the book actually addresses. Considered in the context of the quality of the overall contribution, however, these latter considerations are merely worth a footnote.
