WhythePostsecularMatters:TheRiseoftheNovelandLiteraryStudies

Inthesummerof2016,theauthorsofthisessayco-directedafour-weekNEH

SummerSeminarforfaculty,titled“PostsecularStudiesandtheRiseoftheEnglishNovel,

1719-1897.”Thegermofourseminarwassimple.Wearescholarswhoworkon

eighteenth-andnineteenth-centuryBritishliterature,andweeditmonographseriesin

religion,literature,andpostsecularstudies.Inourexperience,scholarsinourfieldshave

yettotakeuptheinsightsofpostsecularscholarshipinmeaningfulways.Byandlarge,

theirstoriesstillcastthenovelasthehandmaidofsecularization,reworkingthewell-worn

plotofreligion’sdeclineratherthanofitscomplextransformationandshape-shifting

natureinmodernity.Wewantedtoleadaseminarthatgavefacultyachancetoread

postsecularscholarshipfrommanydisciplinesalongsidecanonicalandlesser-well-known

novelsfromRobinsonCrusoetoDracula,tuningourearstohearotherpossibilitiesabout

themigrationsofreligionandsecularisminthesenarratives.

Theterm“postsecular”continuestobeusedinavarietyofwaysthatareimportant

todistinguish.InPost-SecularPhilosophy(1998)PhilipBlondusedittodescribea“Radical

Orthodox”theologicalorientation.ForJürgenHabermasthepostsecularisapolitical

designationforaEuropeansocietynolongerhomogenouslysecularandgrapplingto

integratereligiouscitizensinthepublicsphere.Forscholarsinourdiscipline,itisoftena

literary-historicaltermborrowedfromJohnMcClure’sPartialFaiths:PostsecularFictionin

theAgeofPynchonandMorrison(2007),identifyingselectpost-WWIIliteraturemore

occupiedwithfaithandspiritualitythanthemodernistfictionthatprecededit.Inframing

ourseminar,weusedtheterm“postsecular”primarilyinafourthsense,asshorthandfor

2

multiformscholarshipgrowingoutoftwodecadesofthe“religiousturn”inthehumanities

ingeneral:whatweliketothinkofasthereligiousturn’scomingofage.

Welocatepostsecularstudies’centerofgravityinacriticalperspectivetowards

secularismandthesecularizationthesis.Sincethemid-twentiethcentury,sociology’s

secularizationthesishasbeenthedominantparadigmforunderstandingreligionin

modernity,assertingthatreligion’ssocialsignificancedeclinesasitsrolesdiminishdueto

modernsocialdifferentiation(institutions),societalization(thedeclineinlocal

orientation),andrationalization.Postsecularstudies,inourview,marksthecoming-of-age

ofthehumanities’“religiousturn”inthe1990sandearly2000s;itproceedsfromthe

wealthofrecenthistoricalscholarshipthatchallengesthepredictiveandexplanatoryforce

ofthesecularizationthesis,aswellasfromnewcriticalinterdisciplinaryworkinsociology,

anthropology,philosophy,andhistorythatshowsthedivisionbetweenthereligiousand

theseculartobepermeableandconstructed,partofwhatTalalAsadcallsanideologyof

secularisminmodernity.The“post”inpostseculardoesnotmeanthatthesecularis

somehowfinishedorthatapremodernreligiositylurksinthewings,butthatour

humanisticandsocialscienceinquireshavepassedthroughanunreflectiveassumptionof

secularizationtoacriticalawarenessofitsdependencyonaspecificproductionofthe

categoriesofthereligiousandthesecularinmodernity.Inthis“post”liesthegreatpromise

ofpostsecularstudies:ithasneweyestoseemodernmanifestationsoffaithand

secularismthatpreviousparadigmshadrenderedinvisible,anditisdevelopingnew

vocabulariesandframeworksforraisingpreviouslyunaskedquestionsaboutthecomplex

connectionsbetweenreligionandsecularisminmodernity.

3

Forbothofus,thepostsecularisatermatonceimperfectanduseful.Imperfect,

becauseofthedifferentmeaningsweattachtothewordandalsothescholarlyirritation

thatfrequentlyaccompaniestheoverused“post.”Thetermwasflaggedbysomeofthe

supportivereviewersandNEHstaffwhofundedourseminar:enthusiasticaboutits

content,theyworriedthatreferencetothepostsecularmightalienatecertainconstituents.

Intheend,wewereallowedtokeepthetitleonourwebsite,whiletheNEHpublicizedthe

programas“Religion,Secularism,andtheRiseoftheEnglishNovel,1719-1897.”Although

thecompromiseseemedreasonable,wehadsoughttoretainthetermpostsecularbecause

wefeltitcoulddousefulworkforourdisciplineandthehumanitiesasawhole,namely,

mainstreamingthemajorinsightsofthereligiousturndescribedintheprevious

paragraph,overcomingtheghettoizationofreligiously-relatedscholarship,andcatalyzing

aseachangeinthedisciplinenotunliketheoneworkedbyfeminismandtheNew

Historicisminpreviousdecades.Putanotherway,wethought,andstillthink,that

foregroundingthetermpostsecularenablesacriticalperspectiveonsecularismandan

awarenessofthepersistenceandtransformationofreligioninmodernity.Thiscanhelp

scholarsworkingonreligionmovebeyondtheseeminglyendlessneedforbasicrefutations

ofthesecularizationthesisandonwardtoconversationsthatcanhelphumanistsofmany

stripesbetterunderstandandspeaktocomplexiterationsofreligion,spirituality,and

secularismatworkintheliteraturesandcultureswestudy.

Inthediscussionthatfollows,weexplainwhywethinkthepostsecularmatters,for

literarystudiesingeneralandforourstoriesofthenovelinparticular.Aswedoso,we

drawheavilyonourexperienceoftheseminar:ourpreparationsforit,theastuteand

generouscontributionsoftheparticipants,thegraciouswisdomofourfourguestspeakers,

4

thepointsemergingfromthelargebodyoftransformationalmaterialweread,andthe

intellectuallifeofourgroupoverfourweeksinIowa.Thelastoftheseisprobablythemost

difficultexperiencetoconveyhere,buttheimportanceofcommunalactivityfor

postsecularstudiesissomethingthatwewanttoinsistonandwillreturntolaterinthis

essay.

Onereasonweseethepostsecularassopotentiallygenerativeforliterarystudiesis

itscapacitytopromptashift,change,expansion,andre-arrangementofwhatweread.The

beliefthattheriseofthenovelinEnglandmarksthearrivalofthesecularissocommon,so

pervasive,andsowidespread,thatitisdifficulttoimagineotherwaysofconceivingthe

form.Therehave,ofcourse,beenmultipleattemptstonarratetheriseofthenovel

differentlythanIanWattdidinhis1957book,butinnearlyeveryinstance,thesubsequent

accountshavefoundnomoreroomforreligion.1Ourinterestinthepostsecularisnot,tobe

clear,anattempttoreplaceonemonolithicidea(thesecular)withanother(thereligious),

butrathertoacknowledgeandopenupthecreativespaceforthinkingthatemergeswhen

difficultideasanddisciplinarymodesofthoughtareallowedtocross-pollinate.

Postsecularism’sproclivityforinterdisciplinaryreadingisnotonlygenerative,then,but

necessary,too.Oncewerecognizethattherelationbetweenthesecularandthereligious—

mostoftenaclearlyseparatedhierarchy—helpsconfigurethehabitsandpracticesof

literarycriticismasadiscipline,wecanseewhyweneedtoreadacrossestablished

frameworksofknowledge.Theinterdisciplinarygroundsofthesecularizationthesisandof

thethinkerswhochallengeandreviseitmeanwereadsociology,anthropology,

philosophy,andhistory,tounderstandtheircritiquesandgrasphowtheymighttranslate

into,resonatewith,orinspirerelatedreconsiderationsinourfield.

5

Enthusiasmforinterdisciplinaryreadingisnotnew,andweacknowledgethe

myriadofothercontextsandargumentsputforwardovertheyearsinfavorofreading

acrossandbetweendisciplines.Andweacknowledgetoothat,asothershavepointedout,

interdisciplinaryreadingbringswithitsubstantialpracticaldifficulties.Beingperpetually

confrontedbydifferentassumptionsandframesofreferencecanbediscomforting,andwe

sympathizewiththosemomentsinwhichparticipantsintheseminarvoicedalevelof

disquietwithaparticularpieceofreading.Whydoesthehistorianneedsomanyexamples?

Whydoesthetheologianseemsoconcernedwithanapparentlyminorpointofdoctrine?

Whydoesthesociologistrushtoquantifyandchartcategoriesofthought?Whydoes

analyticphilosophyseemsoresistanttotheambiguityoftheliterarytext?Weappreciate

thedangerofsimplificationthatthesecharacterizationsconnote,andacceptthatthebest

scholarship,inmultipledisciplines,haslongshownatleastsomeawarenessofreading

outsideone’simmediatesphereofknowledge.Butpostsecularthinkingseemsto

encourageagreaterlevelofinterdisciplinaritythaniscommontomanyareasofliterary

studies,atleastwhenitcomestotheriseofthenovel.Thishasbeenourimpressionaswe

listenedtoparticipants(andothercolleagueswholookedatourreadinglist)commenton

howdifferentsomuchofoursyllabuswasfromthesortofreadingtypicallydoneinthe

discipline.Theirremarksonthisscoreledtointernalreflection,frombothofus,abouthow

andwhyourthinkingontherelationbetweenthereligiousandsecularhasdrawnso

heavilyonmaterialfromoutsideliterarystudies.

CharlesTaylor’sASecularAgewasanimportanttextforusduringtheseminar,and

webenefitedfromthehelpofoneofourguestspeakers,ColinJager,inhelpingusattendto

therhetoricalformsinTaylor’swork.Thematicallyandformally,ASecularAgeepitomizes

6

theinterdisciplinarypromiscuityweassociatewiththepostsecular.Perhapsthisis

unsurprisinggivenTaylor’sfocusonnarrative—whichheinsists“isnotanoptional

extra”—andhisdesiretorelaymanyofitsdifferentstrands:“Thestoryofwhathappened

inthesecularizationofWesternChristendomissobroad,andsomulti-faceted,thatone

couldwriteseveralbooksthislengthandstillnotdojusticetoit.”2ForsomeofTaylor’s

detractors,theinterdisciplinarybreadthofhisworkisaproblem,anditisnotuncommon

toheareventhosewhoaresympathetictoTaylor’sprojectjoiningthechorusofcomplaints

aboutalackofdisciplinaryorhistoricalnuance.Thereisarelatedconcern,articulated

morethanonceduringourseminardiscussions,thathiscommitmenttonarrativemight

provebothlimitingandtotalizing.Butwhilewerecognizetheneedforincredulitytowards

anymeta-narrativewithanomniscientambition,narrativedoesnothavetobeunderstood

inthismanner.Onourreading,theformnarrativetakesinthenovel—certainlyinthe

westerntraditionbutalsoelsewhere,acrosstime,place,andsubgenre—canandfrequently

doesmodelamoreopen-endedmodeofconversation,withmultiplecharacters,plot

threads,andreaderscreatingspacefordifferentinterpretations.Wewishtoadvancea

similarclaimforTaylor’swork.ForallthegapsandweaknessesandbiasesofASecular

Age,thestoryittellsabouttherelationshipbetweenreligionandthesecularisonethathas

promptedandaccommodatedscholarlyresponsesfromahugearrayofdisciplines.

Taylorisnotaloneinwantingtotellamorecomplexstoryaboutreligionandthe

secular.Anotherformativetextforourseminar,asforourpostsecularsensibilitymore

broadly,wasJacquesDerrida’sessay,“FaithandKnowledge:TheTwoSourcesof‘Religion’

attheLimitsofReasonAlone.”AlthoughDerrida’smethodologicalstartingpointis

significantlydifferentthanTaylor’s,thetwoscholarsshareadesiretotracetheinvolved

7

historicalandtextualthreadsbetweenfaithandknowledgeandtoquerytheextentoftheir

separation.Inponderingthisrelation,Derridadistinguishesbetweentwokindsoffaithin

modernity.ThefirstisaKantian,rationalizingone,whichisalwaystemptedtocashout

faithintermsofknowledgeandwhich,byvirtueofthisinternalcontradiction,is“bound”to

reason“bythebandoftheiropposition.”3Thesecondsortoffaith,Derridawrites,is

alignedwithprayerandsacrificeratherthanphilosophy.Itresiststhecomfortsof

abstraction,mastery,andthemechanismsofthelaw,passingthroughthemwithout

stoppingatmiragesofcertainty,ontowardswhathecallsthe“desertinthedesert,”where

theaporiasoflawandknowledgeappear,andwherebeliefandtheexperienceofthe

sacrednessoftheothermighttakeplace.4Inotherwords,theuncertaintyofthedesertin

thedesertallowsforthepossibilityoffaiththatremainsfaithandisnotsubsumedinto

knowledge.Alterity,freedom,andresponsibilityaremadepossiblebyfaith’suncertainties

andare,forDerrida,sincehisearliestworks,rootedinthenatureoflanguage.Buildingon

Saussure’snotionofthedifferentialnatureofthesign,Derrida’s1968essay“Différance”

showsthatthoughtandourperceptionofrealityaregovernedbythesamestructure:the

workofdifférancethatproducespresenceasaneffectoftemporalandspatialdisplacement

whichleavesaperpetualtraceofalterityoneachideaandconcept.Thisdoesnotmeanthat

thereisnoknowledgeormeaning,butthatthereisnoknowledgeormeaninginisolation.

Knowledge,likelanguage,isrelational,basedinconstructive,interpretiveactsofbelief.

Re-reading“Différance”today,wecanseewhy,thirtyyearslater,Derridawasstillwriting

in“FaithandKnowledge”about“theactoffaithintheappealtofaiththatinhabitseveryact

oflanguageandeveryaddresstotheother.”5Faith,likerelationality,isforDerridainherent

inthelinguisticcondition.

8

Overturningbinariesisnotthesameasclaimingthatallperspectivesarethesame,

however,andwejoinDerridaandTaylorinwrestlingwiththedifficultyofwritingand

talkinginawaythataccommodatesperspectivesorienteddifferentlytowardsfaithand

knowledge.Oneofourparticipantspromptedustothinkabouttheimportanceoftable

hospitalityinDerrida’sexplorations,andtheintuitionprovedfruitfulforourseminar.The

JewishandChristiancontextsofthisconceit—asharedinsistencethatofferinghospitality

toastranger,likeAbrahamwiththeangels,istheparadigmaticmomentofopennesstothe

other,bothhumananddivine—leadustounderstandingwhythepostsecular,more

adeptlythannarrower,secularconstructions,encouragestheinterdisciplinaryreadingthat

wefindsohelpfulforourthinkingaboutthenovel.Acrossouracademiccareerswehave

experiencedsomesecularscholarlyconversationstobeasinhospitabletoreligious

interlocutorsasreligiousconversationscanbetosecularandskepticalvoices,andsoitis

noaccidentthatweimagineandexperiencethepostsecularasuniquelyconcernedwith

hostinglong,investedconversationsamongspeakersthathaveyettoregularlysharea

tabletogether.JudaismandChristianitymaynotbeuniqueinhelpingustosetthistable:

AmandaAndersonarguesforthecosmopolitanambitionofsecularmodernity,and

HabermasdrawsonarelatedcommitmenttoEnlightenmentvalueswhenspeakingof

postsecularEuropeasacontextinwhichsecularcitizenscometorecognizetheresources

andintuitionsreligiouscitizenscanoffertodealwithsociety’smostcontentiousdivisions.

Nevertheless,thelong-standingcommitmentofthethreeAbrahamicreligionstohosting

theotherisakeyreasonwhythepostsecularenablesmorediverseconversationsin

literarystudy,providingdeep,fertilesoilinwhicharicher,morebiodiverse

interdisciplinaritycanflourish.

9

Itseemstousthatinthesecularcontextsinwhichwework,postsecularstudies

specificallyopensupthereadingofreligiousandtheologicaltexts,aswellasreligiousways

ofreading,bywhichwemeanreadingmarkedbyoneormoreaspectsofafaithtradition—

e.g.itslanguage,rituals,orpriorities.Evenifweconsiderliterarystudiesasecularizedsort

ofreligiousreading,asmanyhavedone,theseexplicitlyreligiousreadingpracticesand

sensibilitiesare,asMichaelWarnerpointsoutin“UncriticalReading,”oftenneglectedin

literarystudies.Yettheyoverlapagreatdealwiththeconcernsofliteraryscholars.In

seekingtoresurrectthereadingofreligion—thatis,readingwithagreateropennessto

theologicalvocabularyandgrammar—weareawarethatnoteveryonewillshareour

enthusiasm.Someofourpeersremainreluctanttotalkaboutreligioninliterarystudies,

seeminglyshyofdoinganythingtoencourageadogmatheyconsidertobeintellectually

unyieldingandclosedtonewideas.Thereishistoricalevidence,ofcourse,tosupportthis

nervousness,andweacknowledgethosedisturbinginstanceswherethelanguageofclosed

thinkingaboutfaithhasgivenrisetoviolence.Butthesamechargecanbebroughtagainst

anyotherdiscourseorbodyofthought,notleastpoliticalsecularisminthetwentieth

century.Thesignaturemovementofsecularistthinkingsincetheearlymodernwarsof

religionhasbeentoequateviolencewithreligiousviolence,andthustorendersecularist

violenceunmarkedandinvisible,andthereforeunchecked.Moreover,wecanthinkof

numerouscounter-examples,wherebelieversfromacrossthereligiousspectrumhave

privilegedfreedomandfoundintheirbeliefsasourceforpositivesocialtransformation

andactsofradicalhospitality.

Partofthereasonwhytheinterpretativeworkundertakenbythosewhoidentifyas

believerscanresultinsuchdifferentoutcomesisthatthelifeoffaith,individuallyand

10

communally,isinevitablyentangledwiththepoliticsofpowerandthevariousformsof

injusticeandwrongdoingthatmarallofourattemptstoliveintheworld.This

entanglement,whichcanbethoughtaboutassinbutisperhapsbetterunderstoodasthe

“fortunate”falldescribedinParadiseLost,afallintobrokennessthatnonethelesssetsout

forhealinginhope,isnotspecifictoreligiousbelievers:itispartofwhatitmeanstobe

humanandareasonwhytheologicallanguage,likeallotherhumanknowledge,needsto

comefromapositionofepistemologicalhumility.Contrarytowhatmanypeoplethink,the

workofreligion,atleastoftheChristiantraditionwithwhichwearemostfamiliar,isto

explorefaithinallitsworldlyentanglementsratherthanalwaysseekingtoextricateitself

fromthoseentanglements.Whatwevalueaboutthepostsecular,then,isitsinsistenceon

thinkingaboutreligionalongsideandwithinthesecular:ratherthanseekingorexcludinga

reifiedandnarrowaccountoftranscendence,thepostsecularadmitsthereadingof

religiousandtheologicaltextsaspartoftheworldthatthemodernacademyseeksto

understand.Thisopensdoors,previouslylocked,towholenewintellectualworlds.

Byresistingtheconfinedspacethatsecularthoughtsooftenleavesforreligion,

postsecularstudiesinvitesustoexaminetheologicaltextsandminetheirtheoretical

possibilities.Oneoftheexampleswespenttimeconsideringduringourseminarwasthe

conceptofprovidence,atheologicaldoctrinethatisfrequentlyimpoverishedbythose

literaryhistorieswhichpresumethattheemergenceofthenovelinauguratesanemphasis

onagencyand/orthematerialworldatoddswitholdernotionsofGod’sactioninthe

world.Manyofthemostbrilliantandbestknowntheoristsofthenovel—GeorgLukács,Ian

Watt,FrederickJameson—workwithaconstrictedunderstandingofprovidence,and

GeorgeLevineishardlyalonewhenheseestheVictoriannovel’semphasisoncapital

11

putting“pressureontheprovidencenarrativesbequeathedtoitbyChristianity.”6The

problemwithsuchreadingsisthatprovidenceismoresubtleandwide-rangingthanthe

harshCalvinisticdeterminismthatCharlesDickensembodiesinLittleDorritthroughthe

characterofMrsClennam.Dickens’snovelwasoneofthetextsforourseminar,andour

livelydiscussionofitincludedaconsiderationofprovidencethatwentmuchfurtherthan

MrsClennam’sinterestinthedeterminationoftheelectandthedamned.Christian

theologyseesprovidencemorecomprehensively,fromtalkofhowGodmakesspacefor

othersincreationtotheroleoftheHolySpiritandthetransformationalworkofGodand

God’speopleinsociety.Equippedwiththisextensivegrammarofthought,weseehowthe

concernsofanarrayofnovelsintheeighteenthandnineteenthcenturies—concernswith

thequotidian,withpurpose,andwiththematerialworld,totakejustafewexamples—are

compatiblewithratherthanantagonistictoreadingsthattakeseriouslytheongoing

vitalityofreligiousthought.

Recognisingthisopensuptheconsiderabletheologicalcomplexityandambiguityin

theendingtoLittleDorrit,whichdescribesAmyandArthur“[going]quietlydownintothe

roaringstreets,inseparableandblessed;andastheypassedalonginsunshineandinshade,

thenoisyandtheeager,andthearrogantandthefrowardandthevain,fretted,andchafed,

andmadetheirusualuproar.”7FivetimesinthefinaltwoparagraphsDickensinsiststhat

thecouple“wentdown,”andinonereadingthisgoingdownisjustasimpleandsomber

descentfromthesacramentalspaceandtimeoftheirweddinginthechurch,underthe

stained-glassimageofChrist.Butbeforetheydescend,Dickenshasthepairpausefora

momentonthestepsoftheportico,“lookingatthefreshperspectiveofthestreetinthe

autumnmorningsun’sbrightrays.”8Wemightthinkofthispauseaspregnantand

12

postsecular,creatinga“freshperspective”thatcanacknowledgeevenslantedautumn

sunshineasbright,thatunderstandsgoingdownintothedailylaborsofmotherhoodand

neighborlycareasradicallyparticipatinginChrist’skenosisandenfleshing,intheHoly

Spirit’songoingworkinformingandgivinglifetothecreation.Thinkinginthiswaygives

usthemeansofovercomingapresumedoppositionbetweendivineandhumanagency,as

wellasgivingustractioninpushingbackagainstLevine’sinsistencethatthequotidian

detailofthenovel,howeverreligiousitscontents,stacksitsdeckinfavorofthesecular.To

denythepossibilityofthismorepositivereadingistonarrowtheChristianvalencesofthe

noveltoonegativelyforourtastes.

ProvidenceisalsoacentralthemeinthewritingofGeorgeMacDonald,anotherof

ournovelistsduringtheseminar.Throughouthisfiction,thecommitmenttoGod’s

mysteriousactivityinandthroughcreationendowsalleventswithadivinepurposethat

eschewseasyanswers,registersthecontributionofallcreatures,andremainsopento

differentinterpretations.WhilethewritingsofanexplicitlyChristianauthorsuchas

MacDonaldmayseemanall-too-convenientsiteforthinkingaboutpostsecularstudiesin

thenovel,wethinkthepostsecularopensupmultipleinterpretativepossibilitiesacrossthe

rangeofnovelsweworkwith.ThisincludesPhantastes,whichishardlyastraightforward

religioustext:someofMacDonald’sinitialreaderswereunsurewhattomakeofthe

theologicalimplicationsofhiswork,andmanyofourparticipantshadasimilarreaction,

delightinginthefreshnessofhiswritingstylebutfindingithardtomakesenseofthe

novel’simaginativeexplorationsthroughfamiliarcriticallenses.Bringingtheconceptual

frameworkofthepostseculartobearonMacDonald’sfantasticfictiondoesnotoffereasy

answersbutitdoesprovebeneficial,notleastinensuringthatwedonotframeonly

13

questionsthatisolatethefantasticfromtheaffairsofthisworld.HowdoesMacDonalduse

fantasyinthenoveltoreconfiguretherelationshipbetweenthereligiousandthesecularas

itwasconceivedinhisday?Intheheydayoffictionalrealism,whydoeshefindfantasy

suchanappealingvenueforexpressingsomethingcrucialabouttherealityofreligious

experience?

AsNovalisobservesinaquotationthatMacDonaldusesasanepigraphfor

Phantastes,a“fairy-storyislikeavisionwithoutcoherence.Anensembleofwonderful

thingsandevents.”Ratherthanseekingescapefromtheworldthatweknow,these

“wonderfulthingsandevents”reorientourcustomaryperceptionsoftheworldweinhabit

andhelpusglimpsecreation’seschatologicalgoal.InMacDonald’shands,thefairy-taleand

thefantasticcommunicateacrucialdimensionofreligiousexperience,perhapsonethat

MacDonaldisespeciallyconcernedtoreconfigure:anexperienceofopennesstoa

sometimesinscrutablealterity(“avisionwithoutcoherence”)andofwonder,thatis,the

capacitytoexperiencereal“thingsandevents”aswonders.Religion,orperhapsspiritual

experience,inMacDonald’shands,isajourney,asensibilityconnectingchildhood,

maturity,andoldage,aprocessoflearningandgrowth,amodeofengagementwithothers

andtheworldthatseemsnecessarilytoentailmomentsofbothauthenticityandofself-

deception.AswesawinourseminardiscussionofPhantastes,MacDonald’stheology

evokesavarietyofresponses:fascinationwithhisperspectiveonsuffering,confusionand

disagreementabouthisunderstandingofagency,interestinhisviewoftheimagination,

andquestionsaboutthegenderpoliticsofhistext.Butthemorebasicpointwewishto

emphasisehereisthathisuseofthefantastic—andthereligiousasreconfiguredthrough

thefantastic—mapsontothisworldratherthanseekingescapefromit.Recognisingthisis

14

thekeytointegratingthefantasygenreintoourbroaderaccountsofthenovel,dislodging

thedominancesofrequentlyaccordedtorealismandhelpingusseeagreaterpluralityof

waysinwhichnovelistsimaginetheworld.

Thepostsecularhelpsustoheartherumblingsofreligion,secularityandmodernity

inmorefamiliarspheres,too,spheresthatarenolessprovidentialfortheirfamiliarityand

whichcontinuetomediateacomplexunderstandingoftheinteractionbetweendivineand

humanagency.RobinsonCrusoewasthefirstnovelweturnedtoduringourseminar,and

oureffortstodrawoutitstheologicalnuancesandindebtednesstotheBiblewenthandin

handwithattentiontothelasthalfcenturyofeconomicandpostcolonialthinkingonthe

novel.WhereasIanWattsoughttopositionthenovel’smanifestspiritualandtheological

contentasalosingcontestantinthebattlewithsecularity,weseeinitamorecomplexand

fluidrelationamongreligion,secularity,andmodernity,onethatdoesnotalwayspit

religionandsecularityagainstoneanother.Thisisnottosaythatpersonalreligiousbelief

isleftuncontestedinDefoe’snovel.Thekeysceneforusonthisheadistheoneinwhich

FridayposesaseriesoftheologicalquestionstoRobinsonconcerningtheproblemofevil

andGod’sprovidentialcare:“ifGodmuchstrong,muchmightastheDevil,whyGodnokill

theDevil,somakehimnomoredowicked?”9ThisquestionbringsRobinsonupshort,

becausethroughouthisadventuresheassumespreciselythatGodispunishinghimforhis

wickedness,andintherun-uptothisdiscussionwithFriday,moreover,thatGodwould

havehimkillthecannibalstomakethem“nomoredowicked.”Robinsonthusliterally

cannotfathomwhyhisall-powerfulChristianGodallowstheDeviltoexist.Butinthe

courseoftheirdialogue,miraculously,and“mightyaffectionately,”Fridaycan:“soyou,I,

Devil,allwicked,allpreserve,repent,Godpardonall.”10Quitespecifically,Fridayusesthe

15

deeplogicofthisChristianGod’sredemptivelovetoimaginetheapokatastasispanton,the

salvationofthewickedandevenofthedevil.Inwhatmightmorefrequentlybeinterpreted

asaflattermomentofreligiousindoctrinationandcolonization,Fridaypowerfullyif

unwittinglyexposes,intheveryheartofthenovel,thegapingchasmbetweenRobinson’s

unexaminedassumptionsaboutGodandtheChristianGod’sapparentpatiencewithevil,

betweenGod’sactionsintheworldandtheviolenceRobinsonwouldcommitinGod’s

name.

Althoughtheproblemofevilhasalonghistoryofreflectionwithinfaith

communities,inthiscaseitfallstoanoutsider—Friday—toputhisfingeronthedifficult

question.Thecontributionofthereligiousoutlierisnotasignofsecularization,however,

andinapostsecularspiritwemightreadthescenemoregenerouslyasoneofmutual

hospitalityanditsoutcomes.Friday’squestionsformthebasisofthreehappyyearsof

companionshipandconversation,inwhichtheSavageissaidtobecomea“good

Christian.”11Thislatterdevelopmentraisesthequestionofwhetherthesamecanbesaidof

RobinsonandwhetherheshouldbeFriday’sspiritualjudge,andthequestiondoesnotgo

awayasthetwoofthemcontinuetotalkabouttheWordofGod.Furthermore,thefactthat

FridayisanativeratherthanaEuropeanmodernandthatRobinson’s(andDefoe’s)

religiousbeliefsaboutprovidencearethemselvesinflectedbymodernitymakeitclearthat

secularismisnottheonlysourceforthinkingcriticallyaboutbelief.Norisitthecasethat

Fridayrevealshowtheoutsidercanalwaysseemoreclearlywhatthebelievercannot.

Instead,Friday’scontributionsuggeststhatthebestsortoftheologicalthoughtalways

proceedsindialogue.ThereisaparallelherewithMikhailBakhtin’saccountinTheDialogic

Imaginationoftheminglingofvoicesthatmarkstheemergenceofthenovelforminthe

16

modernworld.Itisnoaccident,wethink,thatBakhtinturnedtoDostoevsky,anavowedly

Christiannovelist,toillustratehisaccountofthenovel,andwesharetheperspectiveof

thosecontributorstothecollectionBakhtinandReligion:AFeelingforFaith,who,

accordingtotheeditors,seeBakhtin“asdeeplyimmersedwithinthetraditionofChristian

thought.”12ReadingBakhtininthiswayrevealshowthedialogicemphasishesawinthe

emergenceoftheeighteenth-andnineteenth-centurynovelisrootedinthemulti-voiced

narrativesoftheJudaeo-Christianscripturesasmuchasitisinthepluralityofmodernity,

andcanneverbefullydivorcedfromareligioussenseofsacredorliturgicaldialoguewith

theotherasanactoffaith.ForallBakhtin’sinterestinthemodernconditionsthat

influencetheformofthenovel,thereisinhisworkacorrespondingrecognitionofthe

continuitywithanearlierimpulsethatemanatesfromareligiousviewoflanguage:“The

developmentofthenovelisafunctionofthedeepeningofdialogicessence.”13This

amountstoaverydifferenthistoryofthenovelthantheonegiventousbyFrederic

Jameson,whoseesinthe“alreadysecular‘spiritualautobiography’ofDefoe”aformin

which“religiousinfluenceisitselfamereexternalandenablingcondition.”14

WeareanxiousnottorepeatRobinson’scolonialmindsetbyexploringtheformal

qualitiesofthenovelanddeclaringthetreasureswefindtheretobethepropertyof

Christianity.ThoughweseeatheologicalhistoryintheconceptofdialogismthatBakhtin

findsinthenovel,itdoesnotfollowthatthelanguageofthedialogicbelongsonlytothose

whoseethemselvesaspartofacommunityoffaith.Thedilemmaofknowinghowtotalk

aboutreligiousinfluenceswithoutclosingdowndiscussionormarginalizingother

contributionsisonethatrecursregularlyinourreflectionsonthepostsecular:howdowe

describenewdiscoveriesinourthinkingaboutthereligiousand/orsecularwhilstavoiding

17

triumphalismandtheexploitationthatremainssuchaproblemforDefoe?Thisisa

questionwithimplicationsthatextendbeyondourthinkingaboutthenovel,andthe

broaderhermeneuticalconcernisonethatBrunoLatourtouchesonin“WhyHasCritique

RunoutofSteam?”whenheconsidersthedominantmodeofreadinginthehumanitiesand

querieswhetherweshouldadd“freshruinstofieldsofruins”throughourattachmentto

critique.15Latourdescribescritiqueasamodeofintepretationthatseekstogetbehindor

beneathappearancesanddemystifytheideologyoftexts.Theriskwithreadinginthisway

isthatwepresumeweare,inLatour’swords,“alwaysright!Whennaïvebelieversare

clingingforcefullytotheirobjects…youcanturnallofthoseattachmentsintosomany

fetishesandhumiliateallthebelieversbyshowingthatitisnothingbuttheirown

projection,thatyou,yesyoualonecansee.”16

Latour’sinterrogationofhisownreadingpracticeispartofahermeneuticalturn

sometimesreferredtoasthepostcritical.Whilealternativestothedominanthermeneutic

practicedinliterarystudieshaverecentlybeendesignatedinallsortsofways(including

the“surfacereading”proposedbyStephenBestandSharonMarcus),thetermpostcritical

insiststhatweexploretheseoptionswithongoingreferencetothepracticeofcritique.17

ThekeythinkerforushereisRitaFelski,whosebookTheLimitsofCritique(2015)makesit

clearthatitisourexcessiverelianceoncritique,ratherthancritiqueperse,thatisthe

problem:“Thatcritiquehasmadecertainthingspossibleisnotindoubt.Whatisalso

increasinglyevident,however,isthatithassidelinedotherintellectual,aesthetic,and

politicalpossibilites—onesthatarejustasvitaltotheflourishingofnewfieldsof

knowledgeasolderones.”18Whilethepracticeofcritiquehasoftencentredonmattersof

economics,race,andgender,thosewhoareinterestedinreligioncaneasilyfind

18

themselvesperformingthesamesortofreading,“asthecriticscanspageorscreenfor

signsoffailedrepressionanddemonstratesthatatextisnotincommandofitsown

rhetoric.”19Forapostsecularscholarofthenovel,thepostcriticalissuesacalltoread

differentlywithouteitherleavingcritiquebehindaltogetherorfallingintothetrapof

critiquingcritiqueandreinstatingtheverymodeofreadingwehavejustbeencomplaining

about.

Fromourvantagepoints,thepostsecularisoneparticular,potentversionofthe

postcritical,andthepostcriticalandpostseculararepotentiallygreatallies,especiallyifwe

worktoarticulatetheircommongroundanddifferences.Thepostcriticaloftenborrowsthe

languageofenchantment,immersion,andsuspensionofdisbelief.Whilethismightseem

promisingforapostsecularcritic,suchlanguagesometimesservesmerelytoquarantine

andevenneutralizetheexperienceofbeliefinasafelysecular,literary,evenvirtual

environment.Sucharecognitioncanpromptustoreflectontheimportantdifferences

betweenthetwomodesofenchantment,andtoconsiderthesignificanceoftheextra-

virtualopennessofreligiousandspiritualexperience,ofwhatitmeanstosuspendone’s

disbeliefinwaysthatarenotonlytemporaryorprovisional.

Withoutsuchaconversationwiththepostsecular,thepostcriticalrunstheriskof

reinscribingthesecular/religiousbinarythatwe’vebeentroublingfortwentyyearsnow.

WhilewegreatlyadmireTheLimitsofCritique,sharingmanyofitsconvictionsandfinding

initspagesaconsiderableamountofspaceforreligiousreflection,wearestruckbythose

momentsinwhichthereligiouslanguageofFelski’sbookisfilteredthroughasecularlens.

Insuchpassages,therhetoriccondemnsthehermeneuticsofsuspicionasanascetical,

cultishpractice,completewithitsowncreeds,rituals,andmodesofbelief,andproclaims

19

itsowngoodnews:thatofamorerational,secularliteraryfaith.Thispatternofparadigm-

shiftingasakindofritualofre-secularizationhasbeeninevidencesincetheearliestdays

oftheprofessionalstudyofEnglish,whentheamateur’sloveofliteraturewascastinterms

ofhazyenthusiasmandabandonedinfavorofmorerigorous,secular,serious,objective

formsofknowledge,andsubsequentshiftstendtopaintthepreviousparadigmas

excessivelynaïveandinsufficientlyconcreteorcritical.20Lookingbackonprevious

paradigmshiftsinourprofession,wecanpredictwhatboththepostcriticalandthe

postsecularwillturninto,iftheyamountonlytomoreritualsofourre-secularization:the

nextcritical“-ism,”eventuallyoverthrowninthenameofamorecertainsecular

knowledge.Whatwedon’tknowyetiswhatitwouldlookliketoremainwithour

uncertainty,torefusetoreinscribethesecular/religiousdivide,andtosaytoourselvesthat

thisconditionofbelievinginthemidstofimperfectknowledgeisthehuman,linguistic

conditionofbeingintheworld,theconditionofmaking-meaningandofwhatmightbe

sharedinadeepandgenuinepluralism.This,byourlights,isamorepromising,rightly

postsecularversionofthepostcritical.Fromwithinsuchapostsecularconversation,we

mightbegintoglimpseascholarlycultureinwhichspiritual,religiousexperiencesofhope,

belief,love,andlongingarenotroutinelydismissedorsecularized.

Thereareoccasionswhenthepostcriticalsharessuchavantage,aswhenFelski

questionsthenarrativeofmodernityasaone-wayslideintodisenchantment:

Itisnotjustthatcritiquehasfailedtoeradicatethedesireforthesacredand

torootoutmagical,mystical,andmythologicalthinking,whichflourishin

botholdandnewguises.Wemightalsoconsiderthatcriticalthinking

20

conjuresupitsownformsofenchantment;thefaithincritiqueisno

different,incertainrespects,fromotherformsoffaith.…

Thatcritiquehasitssacredtexts,ritesofpassage,andarticlesoffaith

isnotadeplorablelackorshamefulfailing—somethingtobecorrectedbyan

industrial-strengthdoseofyetmorecritique.Itisatimelyreminder,

however,oftheblurredlinesbetweenthesecularandthesacred,themodern

andthepremodern,andthusofthelimitsofanyvisionofcritiqueas

disruptivenegativity.21

Keyhereisthepotentiallypostsecularrecognitionofthereligiousness,or,asFelskimight

say,theenchantednatureofcritiqueasofallformsofmeaning-making:thecapitulationof

critique’sclaimtoamonopolyonrationalityandacknowledgmentofitsimbricationina

worldofsign-andmeaning-makingthatisinevitablyaplaceofinterpretingandbelieving,

ofgivingandreceivingcredit,ofsacralizingaspectsofhumanexperience.Andyetthe

postcriticalandpostseculardonotalwayscollapseintooneanotherorfullytranslateinto

eachother’sterms.Ifpostcriticalthinkingseeks,inFelski’sterms,“tostrengthenrather

thandiminishitsobject—lessinaspiritofreverencethaninoneofgenerosityand

unabashedcuriosity,”aspostsecularinterlocutorswewouldinvestigatethevarious

valencesof“generosity”and“curiosity”overandagainst“reverence”andexplorewhy

reverenceissomehowlesserthantheothertwoorincompatiblewiththem.22While

generosity,curiosity,andreverenceallseemtospeaktooursenseofreligiousselvesand

personhood,perhapsreverenceismorebasicallyincompatiblewiththeliberal,

autonomousindividualimplicitinthepostcritical,anindividualwho,bytheendofThe

21

LimitsofCritique,seemsunabletooccupyapositionofreverenceorenjoyimmersive

experiencebeyondtheconfinesofanovelormovie.

Awareofthelimitsoftheliberalsubjectandimpressedbythecapacityofnovelsto

encouragedialogueacrossthestoriesthattheytell,wesoughtmodelsofexchangeinour

seminarthatmightworktosimilarends.Theseminarformatwascentraltothiswork,and

weweregratefultoourparticipantsformodellinganopennesstootherperspectives

duringseminardiscussionandinothercontextstoo.Andwewerethankfulfortheinput

providedbyourfourguestspeakers—ColinJager,MistyAnderson,DeidreLynchand

ReginaSchwartz—whichhelpedtopreventourdiscussionsfromgrowingtoosettled.But

inanattempttostructureourseminarinawaythatwouldfurtherextendourcommitment

tothedialogic,wealsoexperimentedwithadifferentwayofhearingaboutparticipants’

individualprojects.Inthesessionssetasideforseminarmemberstolearnabouteach

other’sindividualresearchprojects,participantswerepairedtogetherandaskedtogivea

ten-minuteintroductiontotheotherperson’sworkthatwasbothsummativeand

evaluative.Pre-writtenpapersprovidedthebasisforseminarmemberstopreparethese

introductions,andparticipantssupplementedthiswrittenworkwithone-on-onemeetings

beforethegroupsessions;theassignedpairsreadeachother’sprojectdescriptions,met

togetherface-to-facetotalk,askquestions,andcometoadeeperunderstandingofeach

other’sworkandmotivations,andonlythencraftedtheirpresentationsofeachother’s

projects,followedbyfurtherqueriesandsuggestions.Duringthegroupsessions,seminar

membersdidnottalkabouttheirowntheirworkuntiltheQ&Aperiod,whichmeantthat

theonlyintroductionthatparticipantshadtoanindividual’sworkwasthroughsomeone

else’swords.Shortenedversionsofthepre-writtenpapersweremadeavailable

22

beforehand,buttherewasnoexpectationthatparticipantswouldreadtheseaheadofthe

session.Inusingthismodel,ourhopewasthatitwouldencouragediscussion.Butthe

realitywasmoreprofound,andourshareddialoguewastakentohigherlevelsbyeveryone

beingthrownintoasharedinterpretativeconversation,inwhichone’sownideasbeganin

dialogue,andinasettingwhereideasandpersonswereintermingled.

Participantsconsistentlysingledoutthisformatasuniqueintheiracademic

experiences,and,byturns,extremelychallengingandenlightening.Bytheendofthe

seminar,manyparticipantsfoundthemselvescommentingnotonlyontheimplicationsof

thismodeofexchangebutalsouponotherwaysinwhichthepostsecularapproachofthe

seminarwasleaveningthewholetextureofourconversations.Thepostsecularseemedto

authorizeustospeakinmeaningfulwaysaboutthe“bigquestions”ofloveandanger,

injusticeandretribution,communionandisolation;and,simultaneously,itseemedtolend

atransfiguringandgenerousspirittoourconversations,whichinvolvedawiderangeof

people,fromthosewhoidentifedasreligioustothosewhodidnot.Participantsreflectedso

repeatedlyontheliberatinggoodwilloftheconversationsanditspossiblerelationtothe

seminar’smethodologyandsubjectmatterthatwe’dberemissnottothinkaboutitfurther.

Ourwageristhatparticipants,ourselvesincluded,fromarealrangeofreligiousand

secularidentitiesandverydifferenteducationalbackgroundsandinstitutions,foundthe

postsecularframeworkoftheseminarliberatingbecauseitencouragedustoseeeach

otheraspersonswithgenuinebeliefsandcommitments,andtoextendcompassionforthe

epistemologicalandhumanevulnerabilityofourcondition.Whileitmightbetemptingto

labelthisviewasreligious,wecouldalsodescribeitasabettersortofsecularity—aphrase

generatedbytheparticipantsandechoedacrossthefourweeksasaprimarygoalof

23

postsecularstudies,thegenerationofamoregenuinelypluralsecularitythatassumes

ratherthandownplaysthemultiplereligiouspositionalitesofitsparticipants.Whetherwe

looktowardsabetterformofsecularityorofreligiousbelieforboth,thegoalisto

acknowledge,preserve,andcherishthehumanconditionofseeking,reasoningand

believinginthefaceofuncertainty,overandagainstanyformofcoercion,religiousor

secular.Personhood,communion,community,andconversationremainforusthe

watchwordsofpostsecularthinking—headyidealswithpracticalpedagogicalandscholarly

implications,evenwhen(andpreciselybecause)theyareneverfullyachieved.

Articulatingthegoalofpostsecularityinthiswayrisksadeparturefromthetypical

emphasisofthenovel,which,inthenineteenthcenturyatleast,wasmarkedbya

commitmenttoparticularityratherthanabstractthought.Toguardagainstthisdeparture

andremindourselvesonceagainwhyweteachnovelsratherthanworksofprofessional

philosophy,wewanttoconcludebyforegroundingthoseimportantmomentsinthe

seminarwheredifferentperspectivesrubbedagainstoneanother.Thesemomentswere

notasnotablefortheirconflictastheywerefortheircapacitytosurprise.Thedifferences

inherentinanygenuineconversation,whetherinpersonorviathereadingoftexts,ledto

momentsofinterruption:unexpected,unsettling,revealing,transformative,andsometimes

amusing.OneofthemostmemorableexamplesforusoccurredduringourreadingofJohn

Zizioulas,anOrthodoxChristiantheologian.ForZizioulas,theinterdependentlifeofthe

triuneGodmodelsawayofunderstandinghumanpersonhoodthatisverydifferentfrom

thosemodelsofpersonhoodinWesternthoughtwhichthinkprimarilyintermsof

individualontology.WritinginCommunionandOtherness(2006),Zizioulasexplains:“Both

inthecaseofGodandinthatofhumanbeingstheidentityofapersonisrecognizedand

24

positedclearlyandunequivocally,butthisissoonlyinandthrougharelationship,andnot

throughanobjectiveontologyinwhichthisidentitywouldbeisolated,pointedatand

describedinitself.”23Zizioulas’sunderstandingofpersonhoodisrootedstronglyinthe

detailsofOrthodoxtheology,andwhilesomeofuswerehappytorehearseandporeover

long-standingpointsofdoctrinalelaboration,otherswerebemusedabouttheneedfor

suchextendedtheologicalwork,evenastheyweremovedbythebeautyofZizioulas’s

thought.Commontoallwasanawarenessthatalthoughtheologicalideasdonotalways

translateeasilyintothethinkingofthosewhoremainunsureaboutsuchChristianbeliefs,

theycannonethelessresultininsightsasinvigoratingastheyarestrange.Asoneofour

participantsputit,“Idon’tknowwhetherIshouldbeassigningthistoallmystudentsor

gettingthehellawayfromit.”Hisquestionisanimportantone,referencingrealfears,

longings,andrisks,andwespentsometimetalkingaboutittogether.Butevenmore

importantforusisthewaythatthecommentexemplifiesthecapacityofthepostsecularto

makeforsurprisedandsurprisingbedfellows,sustainingthestrangesortofconversations

thatweareusedtoreadingaboutinnovelsbutlessusedtoexperiencinginthecourseof

ourliteraryscholarship.

________

Thehappycodasthatwefrequentlyfindinthenineteenth-centurynovelcansometimesbe

readasunnecessaryafterthoughts.Whiletheremaybesometruthtothatjudgment,what

followscouldnotbemoredifferent,aswefinishbyacknowledingthescholarswehadthe

honorandjoyofconversingwithoverthecourseofourseminar.Thisarticleandour

ongoingthinkingaboutthepostsecularwouldbeimpossiblewithoutthem,andweendby

recordingourconsiderablegratitudeto:ChristineColón(WheatonCollege,IL),Dwight

25

Codr(UniversityofConnecticut),SeanDempsey(UniversityofArkansas),JeffreyGalbraith

(WheatonCollege,IL),StephanieHershinow(BaruchCollege),CheriLarsenHoeckley

(WestmontCollege),JoanneJanssen(BakerUniversity),JessicaLing(UCBerkeley),Lauren

Matz(St.BonaventureUniversity),HaeinPark(BiolaUniversity),IoanaPatuleanu(Mercer

CountyCommunityCollege),ArianaReilly(UtahValleyUniversity),KevinSeidel(Eastern

MennoniteUniversity),WinterJadeWerner(WheatonCollege,MA),JohnWiehl(Case

WesternReserveUniversity),AndrewWilliams(ourseminarcoordinator,Universityof

Iowa),andMimiWinick(RutgersUniversity).Forbriefvideopresentationsoftheir

projectsandmaterialsrelatedtotheseminar,seehttps://uiowa.edu/postsecular-novel/.

26

Notes

1MargaretAnneDoody’sTheTrueStoryoftheNovelmightbeseenasthemostobvious

exception,withitsinterestinthefemininespiritualityofancientnovels.ButDoody’swork

sustainsalevelofsuspiciontowardsaspectsoftheChristiantradition,fromthedeclaration

that“itwouldbeaverybadthing,anddisastrousfortheappreciationoftheNovelasa

form,ifthisunderstandingofitsreligiousoriginsandnatureleftusstarringblanklyataset

oftracts”(170)tothemoreimplicitideasinformingherassurancethat“[t]he‘religion’of

thenovelsisrelatednottoasetofrulesbuttotheunderstandingofalifelived

hermeneutically,thatisassomethingwithmeaningforindividuals”(171).Weshare

Doody’sreservationsaboutarules-basedreadingofreligionbutwedonotthinkthatthis

hastoexcludethetheologyandpracticeofChristianbelievers.

2Taylor,ASecularAge,29.

3Derrida,“FaithandKnowledge,”2.

4Ibid.,21,33.

5Ibid.,18.

6Levine,Realism,EthicsandSecularism,213.

7Dickens,LittleDorrit,859-60.

8Ibid.,859.

9Defoe,RobinsonCrusoe,184.

10Ibid.,184.

11Ibid.,186.

12Felch&Contino,BakhtinandReligion,16.

13Bakhtin,TheDialogicImagination,300.

27

14Jameson,“TheExperimentsofTime,”102.

15Latour,“WhyHasCritiqueRunoutofSteam?,”225.

16Ibid.,239.

17OtheralternativesincludethereparativereadingofEveKosofskySedgwick,the

hermeneuticsoflovefavouredbyAlanJacobs,thedistantreadingofFrancoMorretti,the

uncriticalreadingcalledforbyMichaelWarner,andthedescriptivereadingproposedby

HeatherLove.

18Felski,TheLimitsofCritique,190.

19Ibid.,65.

20SeeLoriBranch,“TheRitualsofOurRe-Secularization:LiteratureBetweenFaithand

Knowledge.”

21Felski,TheLimitsofCritique,134.

22Ibid.,182.

23Zizioulas,CommunionandOtherness,112.

28

Bibliography

Anderson,Amanda.ThePowersofDistance:CosmopolitanismandtheCultivationof

Detachment.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,2001.

Asad,Talal.FormationsoftheSecular:Christianity,Islam,Modernity.Stanford,CA:Stanford

UniversityPress,2003.

Bakhtin,Mikhail.TheDialogicImagination:FourEssays.Trans.CarylEmersonandMichael

Holquist.Austin,TX:UniversityofTexasPress,1981.

Best,StephenandSharonMarcus.“SurfaceReading:AnIntroduction.”Representations

108.1(2009):1-21.

Blond,Philip,ed.Post-SecularPhilosophy:BetweenPhilosophyandTheology.London:

Routledge,1998.

Branch,Lori.“TheRitualsofOurResecularization:LiteratureBetweenFaithand

Knowledge.”ReligionandLiterature46.2-3(2014):9-33.

Defoe,Daniel.RobinsonCrusoe.Ed.ThomasKeymer.Oxford:OxfordWorld’sClassics,2007.

Derrida,Jacques.“Différance.”InSpeechandPhenomenaandOtherEssaysonHusserl’s

TheoryofSigns.Trans.DavidB.AllisonandNewtonGarver.Evanston,IL:

NorthwesternUniversityPress,1973.129–60.

-----.“FaithandKnowledge:TwoSourcesofReligionattheLimitsofReasonAlone.”In

Religion,eds.JacquesDerridaandGianniVattimo.Stanford:StanfordUniversity

Press,1998.1–78.(ReprintedInActsofReligion.Ed.GilAnidjar.NewYork:

Routledge,2002.)

Dickens,Charles.LittleDorrit.Ed.StephenWallandHelenSmall.NewYork:Penguin

Classics,2003.

29

Doody,MargaretAnne.TheTrueStoryoftheNovel.Brunswick,NJ:RutgersUniversity

Press,1996.

Felch,SusanM.&PaulJ.Contino,eds.BakhtinandReligion:AFeelingforFaith.Evanston,Il:

NorthwesternUniversityPress,2001.

Felski,Rita.TheLimitsofCritique.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,2015.

Habermas,Jürgen.“NotesonaPost-SecularSociety.”NewPerspectivesQuarterly25(2008):

17-29.

Jacobs,Alan.ATheologyofReading:TheHermeneuticsofLove.Cambridge,MA:Westview

Press,2001.

Jameson,Frederic.“TheExperimentsofTime:ProvidenceandRealism.”InFrancoMorretti,

TheNovelVol.2.NewJersey:PrincetonUniversityPress,2006.95-127.

Latour,Bruno.“WhyHasCritiqueRunoutofSteam?FromMattersofFacttoMattersof

Concern.”CriticalInquiry30.2(2004):225-48.

Levine,George.Realism,EthicsandSecularism:EssaysonVictorianLiteratureandScience.

Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2008.

Love,Heather.“ClosebutnotDeep:LiteraryEthicsandtheDescriptiveTurn.”NewLiterary

History41.2(2010):371-91

MacDonald,George.Phantastes.EdNickPage.MiltonKeynes:Paternoster,2008.

McClure,John.PartialFaiths:PostsecularFictionintheAgeofPynchonandMorrison.

Athens,GA:UniversityofGeorgiaPress,2007.

Moretti,Franco.DistantReading.London:Verso,2013.

Sedgwick,EveKosofsky.NovelGazing:QueerReadingsinFiction.Durham,NC:Duke

UniversityPress,1997.

30

Taylor,Charles.ASecularAge.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,2007.

Warner,Michael.“UncriticalReading.”InJaneGallop,ed.Polemic:CriticalorUncritical.New

York:Routledge,2004.13-38.

Watt,Ian,TheRiseoftheNovel:StudiesinDefoe,Richardson,andFielding.Berkeley:

UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1957.

Zizioulas,John.CommunionandOtherness:FurtherStudiesinPersonhoodandtheChurch.

London:T&TClark,2006.