Resonance: The Final Dissolution of Religions or the Last Stage of Secularization

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors discuss Hartmut Rosa’s theory of resonance as a third stage of secularization. As the authors argue, Rosa’s resonance could not only be used as a theory of present-day secularization, but it could (and should) also be used to advance secularization in our times as resonance needs no religion and therefore makes the latter redundant. I disagree with both Rosa and the authors, but that’s not the point of my review. The argument is logically sound and makes an interesting contribution to secularization debates albeit this contribution should be spelled out in more detail and depth than currently provided.

The text needs medium revisions mainly in regard to the structure of the text and the scope of the argument, the language also needs some editing.

Main points for the revisions:

-        Introduce Rosa’s concept of resonance in more detail and discuss its place in Rosa’s work. Rosa is a sociologist who became famous for his study of modern times and modernity as acceleration and his corresponding critique of the modern malaise. Rosa proposed resonance as a remedy to the modern malaise that he identified in his earlier work as estrangement from the world due to the constant acceleration of modern times. It would also be interesting to learn more about the underpinnings of resonance in Rosa’s work (German romanticism is an important source for him). Is resonance a theory or a (romantic) attempt to salvage the modern subject?

-        Restructure the article. The text needs a proper introduction and conclusion and more signposting throughout to help the reader think along. Instead of beginning with the reception of Rosa’s work on resonance, you should begin with introducing the concept itself and telling the reader what you will do with it in the text. Also discuss the authors you will draw on in your discussion – as is, Theissen, Mills, Tylor, and Sloterdijk appear out of the blue and hit the reader unprepared. (I'd delete the discussion of Sloterdijk and devote more space to Rosa and his work. As is, the discussion of Sloterdijk does not add much to the main argument of the text.)

-        Rosa is not widely read or discussed in religious studies, and the authors should spend more time to convince the (religious studies) reader why this should change. Rosa himself has hardly worked on religion and devotes only a few (and rather ill-informed) pages to religion in his book on resonance. What added value does 'resonance' bring to the field of religious and secular studies? This needs to be spelled out in more detail.

-        Concomitantly, the authors should discuss the relation between religion and resonance in more detail (I found the rock and roll example unconvincing). How is religion about resonance and resonance a basically religious experience? This needs more unpacking than provided especially as I see an unresolved contradiction here and in relation to the authors' argument. If resonance is religious, then it could as well be used to argue for instead of against religion.

Further points for the revision:

-        Does secularization go through three stages? Would the authors referred to agree with the three stages model proposed in this article? This sounds like a teleological and universalizing history to me.

-        The article is universal(izing) in scope and blind to its Euro- and Christo-centric underpinnings. Christianity and Western secular states are the only empirical references mentioned in the discussion. What about other ‘religions’ and social formations?

-        The authors repeatedly move from analytic discussions to practical instructions. They understand ‘resonance’ not only as an analytical tool but as a device for education and social engineering to make religion redundant and achieve secularization in the full (and immanent) sense of the term. One does not follow from the other and while their theoretical discussions are well-informed and interesting, their calls for secularization through resonance remain ideological and uncompelling.

The language requires some editing but is fine overall.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article attempts to incursion into the perspective of Rosa's Resonance theory. It is a contribution to theoretical thought without any reference to empirical issues.
It deduces conclusions from the theoretical postulates of the authors of reference without taking into account, at any moment, the data of reality in relation to the religious phenomenon as it manifests itself, remaining in a theoretical duty to be without any reference to empirical data.

Its main strength is the analysis of Rosa's positions, contracted with other authors.

Its main weakness is the absence of empirical references, which casts doubt on the above.

Author Response

We thank the insights of the reviewer.

As the reviewer has noticed, ours is a theoretical study, and therefore, we feel that the empirical approach should be taken in a following, different study.