Perspectives on the Religion–Culture Relationship in a Globalized Secular Culture According to Christopher Dawson

Abstract

This article explores the interplay between religion and culture in Christopher Dawson’s philosophy of history and underlines the relevance of his analysis in today’s globalized culture, which often shows little interest in religion. The discussion begins by examining observable manifestations of religion within any culture, including religious institutions and the intrinsic transcendent aspects of religion. It then highlights religion’s significant impact on cultural evolution, initially as a stabilizing and developmental force and subsequently as a catalyst for cultural renewal. Following this historical analysis, the article addresses the phenomenon of cultural globalization and the diminishing role of religion as a cultural reference point. The conclusion underscores Dawson’s perspective that this historically unusual situation will be resolved by individuals who embody the ideals of faith in their lives and effectively convey these values to society and the difference in the way he understands the role of religion in culture and society, not as something functional but as the soul that animates them. The aim of the article is to present concisely and comprehensively Dawson’s stance on a central theme in his essays, which has not been covered in other articles.

1. Introduction

Christopher Dawson remains a significant figure in contemporary scholarship (Olson 2008), with a lasting influence of Dawson’s ideas on later thinkers (Hitchcock 1979) and numerous articles published on his work in recent decades. These articles and books explore a variety of topics, including the idea of progress (Cervantes 1999; Stuart 2011), the concept of culture (Herce 2013, 2015), his vision of history (Antúnez 2014; Herce 2023; Quinn 1998), the methodological significance of his comparative approach to studying religions and cultures (Davison 2011), the intersection of theology and social sciences (Staudt 2013, 2009; Stuart 2022), and how Dawson’s faith informed his critique of modernity (Quinn 2006). However, the critical theme of the relationship between culture and religion, central to Dawson’s philosophy, has not been directly addressed.

This article presents Dawson’s thoughts on the culture–religion relationship in a structured and concise manner, addressing not only the role of religion in cultures in general but also, and more importantly, confronting it within the dynamic of a Western religious crisis that Dawson observed decades ago. Contrary to Spengler’s view that every culture goes through cycles of birth, growth, maturity, and death, Dawson believes in the internal dynamism of Western religion to revitalize Western culture. This work contrasts Dawson’s analysis with the current cultural landscape, although Dawson’s historical analysis appears to lack validity in today’s context.

The article begins by examining observable manifestations of religion within any culture, such as religious institutions and the inherent transcendent dimensions of authentic religion. It then shows how religion has significantly influenced cultural evolution, initially as a stabilizing and developmental force and later as a catalyst for cultural renewal. Following this historical analysis, the article addresses the phenomenon of cultural globalization and the, so far, diminishing role of religion as a cultural reference point. The conclusion highlights Dawson’s view that this historically anomalous situation will be resolved by individuals who embody the ideals of faith in their lives and effectively convey these values to society.

2. Prophets, Priests, and Kings

According to Dawson, religion is the cornerstone of cultures: the soul, the driving force, the shaper, and the element that informs cultures. This foundational role is manifested externally through liturgy (forms of worship), dogma (doctrine), law (legal systems), social ethics, cosmology, and sacred history. These manifestations stem from a deeper, internal dimension of the relationship between humans and God, which necessarily manifests both personally and socially, significantly impacting culture (Dawson 1929, p. 95).

A cultural manifestation of religion is the presence of religious roles or types within society. Studying how these roles are expressed in different cultures and how they relate to each other, to society, and to the divine allows for a deeper understanding of the organic and vital relationship between religions and civilizations.

Christopher Dawson (1948, chp. IV) identifies three social types present in all civilizations, already present in the Bible (Dt 17,14—18,22), which are mediators between the community and the divine: the priest, the king or legislator, and the prophet or seer. The priest represents specialized religious activity in society; the king or legislator embodies divine power; and the prophet or seer communicates divine will, interprets dreams and oracles, and reveals sacred mysteries.

The prophetic type is pervasive across religious experiences and spiritual phenomena. It is particularly significant because analyzing its traits and functions allows us to penetrate beneath the surface of tradition and social customs to the deepest layers of religious consciousness. However, false prophecy poses a risk of corruption, which is balanced by the priesthood. The priesthood acts as a regulating and authoritative principle in religion, providing an institutional link between religion and civilization. The prophet’s inspirations require sacred formulas and rituals, which the priest, through specialized training and experience, administers.

Among the social organs of religion, the priesthood has the most direct and lasting influence on civilization. It represents religion as a stable institution within the social structure, playing a crucial role in the formation of culture. The priest, as the head of the community, guardian of sacred traditions, and custodian of sacred actions, assumes collective responsibility for the religious life of the community. The primary function of the priest is offering sacrifice, which serves as the vital bond of communion between the people and their gods. Dawson draws on St. Augustine’s “De Civitate Dei” to explain the historical universality of sacrifice and its essential relation to the idea of God (Birzer 2015), though he does not specify the source. The priest shares in the power and prestige of the gods because he can open and close the channels through which divine blessings reach the community (Dawson 1984, pp. 88–9).

Finally, if the prophet is the organ of divine inspiration and the priest is the organ of sacred knowledge, then the king is the organ of sacred power. The king is considered sacred, a bearer of divine power, or even a god or the son of gods. He is the cornerstone that unites heaven and earth and ensures the harmony of the two worlds. The existence of the king or legislator implies the sacred presence of the law (Dawson 1948, p. 154).

3. Rites, Myths, and Blessings

Through the study of religious roles within society, Christopher Dawson identifies three interconnected religious elements: ritual, myth, and blessing. Rituals are typically corporate social acts, although not exclusively so (Penner 2024). Myths validate ceremonies by linking them with religious beliefs or traditions. Meanwhile, the supernatural power or blessing is the goal of the sacred action and the fruit of the entire process (Dawson 1984, p. 125).

These elements lead to three manifestations: sacred science, which deepens the understanding of myth; sacred law, which regulates the rite; and the path of perfection, guiding individuals toward the ultimate goal. These, in turn, reflect the triple relationship of the divine order with the order of nature, society, and spiritual life.

While these themes deserve extensive discussion, Dawson barely acknowledges their historical reality. Thus, we will focus on the purpose of the rite which is to facilitate contact with the divine realm through a path of spiritual perfection.

For Dawson, this purpose is evident in the classical conception of major world religions, where cultural order prepares individuals for contemplation and serves as a means of access to it. Culture, therefore, does not contain its ultimate meaning and purpose within itself but, through religion, bridges the personal relationship of each individual with God.

In some cultures, or eras, religion’s bridge between cultural order and a conscious relationship with the spiritual and transcendent Being is seen as an ascent toward God, often leading people to progressively abandon the world of culture.

Mentioning multiple historical examples, Dawson argues that both prayer and the inward search for an absolute transcendent reality are universal forms of religious experience. He also identifies three core truths of natural theology (Dawson 1984, p. 183):

• the elements of religious truth are common to humankind and accessible to all rational beings;
• the divine Being is the transcendent end toward which all forms of life converge;
• divine law is the universal norm coordinating diverse human behaviors.

This openness to the divine Being manifests in culture while also transcending it, suggesting a union analogous to the relationship between the human soul and the body. All religion points towards transcendence, and without transcendence, there is no true religion. Let us examine this more closely.

4. Transcendence

The universal nature of the religious phenomenon suggests that religion is deeply rooted in human nature. Throughout history, attempts have been made to simulate this religious phenomenon by replacing traditional religion with various substitutes. However, religions deifying humanity, the state, the proletariat, science, or the individual, or those eliminating the supernatural element, fail to satisfy the spiritual needs of people and cannot serve as vital elements of culture.

This assertion is most evident in advanced cultures and religions, where there is always a tension between culture and religion (Niebuhr 1951). Human nature is not satisfied with finite or material goods alone, leading to a dissatisfaction observable throughout history, from Platonism to ancient Eastern traditions and throughout Christianity (Dawson 1957, p. 172).

Some argue that religion is so conditioned by culture and economy that it ultimately becomes a product of culture (Geertz 1966) or that religion is just a subset of culture (Edara 2017). However, no matter how extensively we explore this cultural conditioning, we cannot ignore the reverse relationship, where culture is shaped and influenced by religion. A person’s way of life informs their understanding of reality and their gateway to religion. Yet, the essence of religion transcends human life and its forms (Dawson 1948, p. 58).

For Dawson, a culture becomes religious when it acknowledges its dependence on a higher order and seeks to harmonize the social order by aligning it with divine law. Thus, every system of social life can be a path to God, provided it recognizes its human limitations and does not attempt to replace universal divine truths with its particular historical values (Dawson 1948, p. 211).

5. Vital Function

The great religions are not mere cultural products but are the foundations upon which great civilizations rest. Therefore, a society that loses its religion will eventually lose its culture, while a society that maintains its religion retains the element that gives it life. This loss of cultural heritage following the disconnection from religion is a phenomenon highlighted in numerous contemporary essays, articles, and films.

Every culture–civilization entails an organic evolution that must be studied as a whole before it can be understood in parts (Dawson 1932, p. 44). To grasp this whole, one must turn to religion, the most vital element of culture. But how does this cultural vitality of religion manifest itself? According to Dawson, the vital function of religion is twofold: it serves as a principle of continuity and preservation and as a source of new spiritual life. Genuine religion possesses the essential quality of connecting humans to transcendent and eternal realities (Dawson 1950, chp. I).

Religion exerts a unifying force, creating a cultural synthesis and facilitating the transformative dynamism of society. However, if religion evolves merely into a religious sentiment, it ceases to be religion in the strict sense because it loses its transcendence and can become a revolutionary disintegrating force (Dawson 1948, p. 202).

Historically, religion has been the unifying force of civilization, the guardian of tradition and moral law, and the educator in wisdom. It also has a creative, stimulating, dynamic, energy-producing, and life-generating function. Religion is the key to history. The intimate structure of a society cannot be understood without understanding its religion (Dawson 1948, p. 50).

Culture as the ordinary way of life is inseparable from culture understood as the common tradition of language, thought, knowledge, and religious influence (Herce 2013). This relationship attempts to align human action with the transcendent divine power on which it depends. In some cases, material and spiritual factors become so intertwined that they form an inseparable unity of religion and life, with everything taking on religious significance (Dawson 1984, p. 171).

However, when a religion becomes identified with a particular cultural synthesis at a specific moment in history, the universal character of religious truth is compromised. For Dawson, this is akin to idolatry, as a historical achievement made by man is placed above the eternal transcendent reality.

“If this identification is taken to its ultimate conclusions, the union of religion and culture is equally fatal for both, since religion is so tied to the social order that it loses its spiritual character, and the free development of culture is limited by the chains of religious tradition until the social organism becomes a rigid and lifeless mummy” (Dawson 1948, p. 206).

In such cases, the centripetal unifying force of religion must be balanced by a centrifugal force. A living religion compensates for this with a nonconformist force that promotes social change, seeking to create a cultural synthesis (Antúnez 2006, p. 152). As these two forces operate quasi-simultaneously, a complex civilization is always a field of tension between opposing religious forces in continuous struggle (Dawson 1984, p. 175).

Let us now examine this dual function of religion, first as a principle of continuity and preservation, and then as a source of new spiritual life.

6. Principle of Continuity and Preservation

History shows that collaboration between religion and culture has been the normal condition of society. All religions, even those aiming to escape life by seeking refuge in the eternal rest of nirvana, have taken on cultural forms. Frequently, a religion that begins by affirming the absolute transcendence of the spiritual order ends up merging into the idolatrous worship of nature. This nature worship then becomes the effective foundation of culture, while the metaphysical discipline of salvation turns into a dead end where the dynamic force of religion is lost (Dawson 1948, p. 207).

Given these challenges, what conditions allow religion to continue fulfilling its function as a principle of continuity and preservation of cultures?

First, the validity of the spiritual, absolute, and transcendent demands of religion should be recognized without denying the temporary, limited, and historically conditioned cultural values. Simultaneously, the forms of a particular civilization should not be regarded as possessing universal religious validity, even when they are inspired or consecrated by a religious ideal (Dawson 1948, pp. 208–9).

In practice, it is very difficult to find an example of a religious culture that achieves this balance because there is a tendency to attribute universal moral or spiritual validity to one’s own way of life and social tradition. Consequently, these traditions or ways of life are often identified with the divine order or moral law. This leads to civilizational conflicts being seen as conflicts of diverse spiritual principles, often aligning with differences in religious doctrine (Dawson 1948, p. 207).

Religions that affirm the necessity of supernatural revelation consider this revelation as transcendent to human culture and universal for all people and nations. The great world religions have created a super-cultural spiritual unity that transcends cultural boundaries, bringing together peoples of diverse origins and ways of life in a common submission to a spiritual law and eternal truth (Dawson 1984, pp. 183–84).

This unifying tendency of major world religions faces two forms of opposition: internal conflicts between culture and social tradition and the exclusivist tendency of world religions to deny others their rights to spiritual universality and their authentic reference to transcendent reality. Thus, achieving cultural unity is a complex and contentious endeavor (Dawson 1948, p. 184).

Religion, in addition to giving cohesion to culture by uniting and informing more and more peoples, can also serve as its guiding spirit. Christianity, more than any other religion, is characterized by its doctrine of renewal and regeneration (Hitchcock 1995).

7. Source of New Spiritual Life

“A living religion always aspires to be the centre round which the whole culture revolves, and so that whatever is most vital in social institutions and activities is brought into relation with religion and receives a religious function. Consequently, in so far as sociological prevision is possible with regard to the organic development of society in general, it will be possible to foresee the social form that religion will tend to acquire in any given culture” (Dawson 1934, p. 44).

For Dawson, it is a historical fact that civilizations change, and they do it according to certain laws, so that the form a religion will take can be somewhat predicted. But on the other hand, this change is quite unpredictable. When questioning what drives this change, progress, and evolution, he emphasizes the primordial importance of the religious factor. This creative force of cultural assimilation finds its conscious expression in literary tradition, the depths of individual consciousness, and the growth of new social institutions (Dawson 1950, chp. I).

“The influence of Christianity in the formation of European unity is a striking example of how the course of historical events is altered and influenced by new spiritual forms. History cannot be explained as a closed order, where each state is the logical and inevitable result of its predecessors. There is always a mysterious and inexplicable element, not only due to the influences of luck or the genius initiative of an individual but also due to the creative power of spiritual forces” (Dawson 1932, p. 66).

Therefore, a culture, which is essentially an organized way of life, cannot be understood as an order purely created by man. The way of social life is based on a religious law of life, which in turn depends on superhuman powers towards which man looks with hope and fear. These powers can be partially known, but they remain essentially mysterious because they are superhuman and supernatural. From this arises a double relationship between religion and culture or civilization: the way of life influences religious manifestations, and religious behavior has repercussions on the way of life (Dawson 1975, p. 42).

It is evident that the way man lives reflects in the way he conceives reality and consequently in how he behaves in relation to religion. Even so, religion essentially transcends human life and the human way of living. Opposite the world of experience and social behavior is the world of divine power and mystery, conceived as the essentially creative and fundamental source of all power (Fazio 2002).

Thus, while the religion of a people is limited and conditioned by its culture in practice, from a theoretical point of view culture consists of a deliberate effort to relate human life to divine reality and subordinate it to divine power. Therefore, the evolution of a culture is open to changes in both directions. Any material change that modifies the external conditions of life will also change the cultural way of life and produce new religious behavior. Similarly, any spiritual change that transforms how people conceive reality will tend to change their way of life and produce a new type of culture.

In reality, it will not always be easy to assess the importance of the different factors. However, where the new religious influence is embodied in the personality of a great prophet or legislator, the creative influence of religion on cultural transformation becomes immediately evident (Dawson 1984, p. 63).

Against this religious influence capable of generating new cultural life, the concept of “progress” has emerged in recent centuries. Dawson observes that with the Enlightenment, religious sentiment was replaced.

As a result, some concepts were “stripped of their supernatural dimension and adapted to the utilitarian rational scheme of contemporary philosophy. Thus, the moral law is deprived of its ascetic and spiritual elements and equated to practical philanthropy, and the providential order is transformed into a mechanistic natural law. [Also, and] above all, this was the case with the idea of progress (…): the belief in moral perfectibility and the indefinite progress of the human race took the place of the Christian faith in the future life as the ultimate goal of human effort” (Dawson 1929, pp. 190–91).

However, a sign of the spiritual vitality of religion would be precisely that it can incarnate in multiple situations. For Dawson, there is no simple and linear process in the evolution of religion (Dawson 1975, pp. 28–9) but, as he said at the end of his Gifford Lectures: “The moments of vital fusion between a lived religion and an operative civilization constitute the creative events of history, against which all external achievements, both in the political and economic order, are transitory and insignificant” (Dawson 1950, p. 224).

8. The Challenge of Globalization

When Christopher Dawson delivered his Gifford Lectures in Edinburgh in 1948, the phenomenon that decades later would be known as globalization was already becoming visible (Antúnez 2006, p. 159). This phenomenon is observed in the development of science, technological transfer, and the global development of democratic forms of government, but especially in communication and the exchange of cultural models. By overcoming linguistic and geographical boundaries, super-cultures initially animated by religions have come into contact, but where religion counts less and less. In fact, it seems that a kind of unique culture is being created where religion would have little to say. What animates these more global cultures seems to be ideologies rather than religions.

According to Dawson, this movement originated in Western civilization and can be considered, with nuances, as its progressive expansion (Dawson 1950, p. 184). But today, the focus is not on the ideas that led to that expansion, but on the scientific techniques that provide the common framework for human existence and on which a new techno-scientific global civilization is being formed. If this was the context Dawson foresaw more than seventy years ago, what was the situation of the five world religions in this unified, organized, and scientifically controlled world? According to Dawson, all religions had lost their organic connection with society. They survived and influenced human life, but the syntheses of religion and culture that had occurred both in the West and in the East no longer existed (Dawson 1984, p. 185).

The scientific revolution, linked with the movement of social and political revolution, contributed to a broad, intense, and complete secularization of social life, generating a new type of conflict between religion and culture (Dawson 1984, pp. 185–86). For Dawson, scientific culture is an immense complex of techniques and specializations without a guiding spirit, without a basis of moral values, and without a unifying spiritual goal (Dawson 1951, p. 27). And because it lacks a positive spiritual content, “it is not a culture in the traditional sense, that is, it is not an order that unites all aspects of human life into a living spiritual community” (Dawson 1948, p. 215).

A secular culture is a decaying and dying cultural form (Wade 1935, p. 605), destined to disappear. The seeds of decay are sown in the lack of an organic and internal principle of unity (Dawson 1932, p. 256). But since society cannot exist without some form of culture (Dawson 1942, pp. 124–25), for Dawson, this worldwide movement of secularization may be followed by a movement in the opposite direction oriented towards religious belief and spiritual integration, as has happened on a smaller scale in other eras. The question we can ask ourselves is whether religion is still a living force in the contemporary world, even if it cannot be measured with statistics.

Komonchak (1996) emphasized how Dawson viewed the persistence of religious influence as a foundational cultural force even in ostensibly secular societies, and he used Dawson’s insights to criticize secularization theories, which posit that modernity leads to a decline in religious influence.

Similarly, and more recently, Peter Berger argued against the idea that secularization is a universal, inevitable, and linear process tied to modernization (Berger 2014). He emphasized the variability of religious experiences across different societies and the continuing importance of religion in the modern world, challenging the assumption that modernity leads to an inevitable decline in religious belief and practice. For Berger secularization does not occur uniformly across all societies. While some regions (e.g., Western Europe) have experienced significant secularization, others have not. Secularism is just one of many worldviews in a pluralistic society. Modernity tends to create a marketplace of beliefs, where various religious and secular perspectives compete, rather than secularism automatically becoming dominant.

Berger also argued that secularization is not necessarily irreversible. Societies can experience religious revivals, and secularized individuals or groups can return to religious belief and practice. He pointed to examples of religious resurgence in various parts of the world as evidence that secularization is not a final or unidirectional process. In his article “Secularization Falsified”, Berger provides a systematic and detailed overview of the situation of many religious revival movements around the world. Religion has not been declining. On the contrary, in much of the world there has been a veritable explosion of religious faith.

Dawson’s perspective that secularization can be viewed as a phase in the broader trajectory of cultural evolution rather than as a definitive endpoint aligns also with the views of Flatt, who argues that understanding secularization involves recognizing its historical relationship with differentiation and the cyclical nature of religious revivalism. Flatt notes that secularization does not eliminate religious expression but rather transforms it, allowing new forms of spirituality to emerge alongside secular ideologies (Flatt 2023).

9. Disintegration and Cultural Reintegration

As observed in history, social life (culture) was traditionally ordered and directed according to the highest laws of life (religion). The absence of religion from social life is a recent and abnormal phenomenon in historical terms (Dawson 1984, p. 55). Religion is a natural human impulse that, if not expressed in culture, will find a substitute in ideology.

According to Russello, who has extensively analyzed Dawson’s integration of religion and culture, the religious way of seeing the world continues to be a dominant criterion for many people, particularly those who are part of creative minorities. Nevertheless, a large segment of the intellectual class continues to ignore the formative value of religion and is unable to understand the religious motivations behind behaviors (Russello 2002).

Santos highlights that Dawson pointed out how the social uprooting of religion has stripped culture of its creative energies and placed ideology in the role of religion (Santos 1985, p. 35). Similarly, Fazio, following Dawson’s line of thought, emphasizes the substitutive nature of ideologies as secular religions, particularly in the case of Marxism, but also nationalism, liberalism, socialism (Fazio 2001, pp. 140, 155–56), and the recent woke culture.

Although religion has lost vital relationships with culture in some aspects, it survives and thrives. It continues to exist as a spirit without a body, while the scientific and secularized world civilization is a body without a soul (Dawson 1948, p. 216).

According to Dawson, we are facing a kind of social schizophrenia that divides the soul of society in two. On one side, there is an amoral will to power, served by inhuman techniques, and on the other, a religious faith united to moral idealism, which lacks the capacity to influence social life. There necessarily has to be a return to unity, a spiritual integration of culture if humanity is to survive.

The history of civilizations shows that humans possess a natural tendency to seek a religious basis for their lives and that when civilization loses its spiritual basis, it becomes unstable. Nothing indicates that this has changed. There is no compelling argument to think that a synthesis between a scientific world civilization and a transcendent universal religion is impossible. Rather, there is a natural affinity between the scientific ideal of organizing and rationalizing the material world, conceived by human intelligence, and the religious ideal of subordinating human life to a spiritual end through a higher law, which has its source in God (Dawson 1984, pp. 188–89).

The reestablishment of moral control and the return to spiritual order are urgent needs that can only be achieved through a profound change in the spirit of modern civilization. This does not mean a new religion or a new culture, but a movement of spiritual reintegration that reestablishes the vital relationship, which has always existed, between religion and culture.

Dawson believed that perhaps the beginning of this change was already underway, because culture draws inspiration from the spiritual premises of the past, and today’s spiritual outcome finds its social expression in the cultural achievements of the future. What is important moves beneath the surface of culture and takes time to come to light (Dawson 1960, chp. I). Following this logic, Dawson foresaw the birth of a new culture in a short period:

“The most astounding perfection of scientific technique is dedicated to purely ephemeral ends, without any regard for its ultimate justification. (…) It seems that a new society is emerging that will not recognize a hierarchy of values, intellectual authority, religious or social tradition, but will live in a chaos of sensations. (…) It is obvious that a civilization of this kind holds no promises for the future but the threat of social disintegration” (Dawson 1929, p. 228).

The relevance of that statement made in 1929 is striking. However, Dawson remained optimistic about the future of Western culture: “Sooner or later, there will be a revival of culture and a reorganization of spiritual life in Western society” (Dawson 1942, p. 125).

“If culture is not to be dynamized from below by the exploitation of the subrational animal forces in human nature, it must be activated from above by being once more brought into relation with the forces of Divine power and wisdom and love. The faith in the possibility of this divine action on the world is the foundation of Christian thought. We believe that to every fresh need there is an answer of divine grace, and that every historical crisis (which is a crisis of human destiny!) is met by a new outpouring of the Spirit” (Dawson 1942, pp. 128–29).

As he also acknowledged in 1960, regarding the West, initially, things will have to get worse because secularized culture will suffer the inevitable process of corruption to which it is exposed by its very nature. Then, the process of building the new culture (Christian or otherwise) will have to integrate technology, whether material, social, or psychological, and all the new cultural elements (Dawson 1984, pp. 204–5).

Dawson’s approach, as outlined so far, would fall within the paradigm of the whole and its parts, or more specifically, it would be influenced by the Aristotelian idea of matter and form. However, his study could also be approached from the paradigm of system and environment. In this sense, as Luhmann already pointed out, there would be a differentiation that is the reflexive form of the system’s construction. This allows for the analysis of different types of functional differentiations (educational, economic, religious) within a common conceptual framework in a social system (Luhmann 1977)

In functionally differentiated societies, different social institutions or subsystems take on specific roles or functions. Each of these subsystems operates autonomously according to its own logic and norms. For instance, the economic system might prioritize efficiency and profitability, while the legal system prioritizes justice and fairness. These subsystems become increasingly independent, with their own specialized languages, rules, and operations. But although each subsystem is specialized, they are also interdependent, and the society’s stability depends on the effective functioning and coordination of these subsystems.

In my opinion, this idea of functional differentiation could be integrated with Dawson’s view of religion, provided that two conditions are met. The first is that functional differentiation should be analogous to that of the lymphatic, respiratory, digestive systems, etc., within a body, rather than the functional differentiation of computer subprograms. The second is that religiosity would play the role of the soul or spirit in relation to the body, without being associated with any specific organ or system.

10. Reorientation of Cultures

To address cultural diversity, Christians need to examine their consciences to understand their own responsibility in the decline of Christian culture and how to face new challenges. For Dawson the separation between religion and culture did not stem from the loss of faith but from a lack of social interest in the world of faith. For this reason, Dawson criticizes those who view religion only through strong emotions and moral seriousness and who allow themselves to be led by complacent and uncritical behavior that neither seeks the improvement of society nor employs intelligence for it.

This approach contrasts and complements that of authors such as Christian Smith, who points out how such secularization took place on the assumption that religion has little to contribute to the development of professions that thrive best by embracing science, thus growing faith in science and giving rise for some to “scientism” as a new religion, at the same time highlighting, throughout their collective work (Smith 2003), that the secular revolution depended on issues of power, interests, and resources. For Smith the secularization of American institutions was not a “natural, inevitable, and abstract by-product of modernization; rather it was the outcome of a struggle between contending groups with conflicting interests seeking to control social knowledge and institutions” (Smith 2003, p. vii).

These differences in the analysis also mean differences in the way of addressing the solutions. For Dawson, Christian culture must expand horizontally by increasing the number of Christians in society and vertically by deepening life and bringing all human activity closer to its spiritual reference (Dawson 1984, pp. 199–201). This is a human need because modern humans realize and feel they need to change their current situation (Torralba et al. 2021). Though they live as if God did not exist, they seek a means of salvation (Dawson 1950, p. 202). This obscure, vague, and uncertain sense of the existence of a spiritual reality, awareness of evil, and the need to escape from one’s misery are manifestations of the anima naturaliter christiana (Dawson 1957, pp. 312–13).

Dawson’s anthropology, imbued with Augustinianism (Birzer 2015), perceives in humans their essential condition of capax Dei (Antúnez 2006, p. xxv) and the reality of being “created and loved by God, though wounded by sin” (Frontiero 2009, p. 272). He sees humans as midway between the animal and spiritual worlds. Their nature allows them to embody religion in their lives and act as a bridge between the external–bodily–material world and the internal–spiritual world (Dawson 1994a). And due to the internal conflict between their spiritual aspirations and the limitations of their material existence, humans can become the starting point for seeking solutions to cultural problems.

The human soul has contact with the sensible world through the body and is also capable of a perception that transcends the sensible world, reaching the spiritual world. Its objective is to integrate the sensible world into the spiritual world. However, in the gradation observed from the most spiritual human (the mystic) to the most coarsely imbued human in the sensible world, few manage to fully exercise this potential (Dawson 1984, pp. 75–6).

For Dawson, the spiritual vision common to mystics and saints is accessible to every person called to perfection and the contemplative life (Dawson 1984, p. 81), although only a few achieve it. This contemplative intuition of God is a valid knowledge found on a different plane of perception than discursive reason, yet always part of human nature without placing it on a supernatural or faith plane, separate from reason or natural knowledge (Dawson 1994b).

This is evident when Dawson speaks of the three psychological planes in human life. First, the subrational life of instincts and unconscious impulses, which play an important role in human life. Second, the plane of conscious voluntary effort and rational activity, which is the sphere of culture par excellence. Finally, the suprarational plane of spiritual experience, which encompasses both religion and the highest creative cultural forces—the intuition of the artist, the poet, and the philosopher—and certain forms of scientific intuition that seem to transcend the realm of calculation and rational investigation (Dawson 1984, p. 478).

For Dawson, the third psychological plane—the plane of spiritual experience, religious faith, and intuitive vision—is also the center of unity for both man and society. Here, a culture finds its crossroads and its common spiritual ends, accepted not only as rules imposed by society for its own welfare but as a sacred norm that finds its tribunal in the human heart and individual conscience (Dawson 1984, p. 479).

For the religious soul, the ultimate reality is the existence of God, and things are real to the extent that they are grounded in Him. Simultaneously, man is free because he “possesses a kind of knowledge that transcends the sensible without reaching the intuition of the divine, capable of separating himself both from God and from nature, of making himself his ultimate end, and of living a purely irreligious and egocentric existence” (Dawson 1957, p. 171).

Dawson’s anthropology is founded on the individual and social projection of free human will (Antúnez 2006, p. 93). It is people and their lives that make or change culture (Koterski 1995). There are always individuals who make small directional changes that, without causing clear cultural ruptures, lead to course deviations with far-reaching effects (Dawson 1963, p. 55). The people who ultimately matter are not the great figures who triumph but those who, indifferent to success or failure, despise quick results and protect their spiritual integrity at all costs (Dawson 1933, p. 16).

According to Dawson, the central element for judging a people, a culture, or a person is not that they act freely but where their love lies, because people decide the object of their love (Dawson 1957, p. 309). Thus, he or she cannot abdicate his or her cultural task by isolating himself or herself (Dawson 1984, p. 482) because the destiny of nations lies in the hearts of humans and in the hands of God (Dawson 1960, p. 18). Humans must face this task knowing that there always remains an irreducible element of mystery in their actions. An individual act of spiritual decision produces social fruits, but there is no limit to the efficacy of faith and the influence of these acts of spiritual decision, which, at their core, are the responses of individual persons to God’s call, manifested in specific historical and personal circumstances (Dawson 1984, p. 197).

Indeed, profound cultural changes and great historical revolutions are, for Dawson, the cumulative result of a certain number of spiritual decisions: the fruit of faith and interiority or the rejection and blindness of individuals. Even so, no one can pinpoint the decisive spiritual act that tips the balance and assumes a new form in the external order of society (Dawson 1984, p. 198).

11. Conclusions

In this paper we have focused on Christopher Dawson’s thinking about the relationship between religion and culture. The paper has a clear descriptive component to the ideas expressed in his work and is in dialogue with scholars who studied Dawson writings. Without going back to this more descriptive part, we can point to two ideas that underlie his thinking and contrast with the more common view of many scholars.

First, for Dawson, religion is not just functionally different from other aspects of society or culture, such as education, the economy or public safety. It does have people who play a role in society (in the image of the prophet, the lawgiver, or the priest), and it has forms of expression such as rites, blessings or myths. But religion is not merely integrated into a social function; it transcends it, just as the human spirit transcends biology or physicality.

This transcendence makes room for a real relationship with divine reality and performs a vital function analogous to that of the soul in the body. The ultimate reality of the soul, like that of religion, cannot be grasped because it is shrouded in a certain mystery that is difficult for us to unravel. Only a few epiphenomena of the human spirit can be measured indirectly, even if its influence is appreciated as a principle of continuity of life and of personal history and as a source or principle of novelty that is not merely continuity with what has happened before.

In this sense, a culture without religious expression would be like a decaying corpse, or like a person who is asleep or in a coma, waiting to wake up. Religion, therefore, is not at the service of the good of man or of society but enlivens humans and cultures. These are powerful claims that go beyond mere religious phenomenology and are normally absent from the sociological study of religion.

The second idea is that the secularization thesis does not hold, because secularization is not a mere consequence of modernity. It is not that the triumph of modernity has driven religion out of society, but rather that the novelty of modernity has temporarily diverted attention from religious reality. Dawson anticipated this by suggesting that the religious revival of society will take place because the promises of modernity do not satisfy the human heart but seek to replace the essential human bond with God with substitutes. This revival will come in the form of individuals who embody religious ideals in the authenticity of their lives and who will act as awakening agents for the rest of society. An idea deeply rooted in history, but which again contrasts with views where sociological changes can hardly be attributed to a few individuals.

Dawson’s insights into the relationship between culture and religion underscore the importance of viewing secularization as a multifaceted process that interacts with cultural development. By framing secularization as a stage in cultural evolution rather than a mere decline of religious influence, Dawson and contemporary scholars such as Berger and Flatt provide a richer understanding of the ongoing dialogue between religious traditions and cultural change. This perspective invites further exploration into how societies can accommodate diverse belief systems while fostering a cohesive cultural identity.