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

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a very fine article laying out the thought of Christopher Dawson on the relationship of religion and culture, with particular emphasis on Dawson's reading of the modern world in the context of what has come to be known as globalization. The author accurately depicts Dawson's views concerning the centrality of cult (religion) to culture, showing how it is that rites as well as participants in a culture contribute to a coherent outlook. Further, the author shows the particular pitfalls identified by Dawson, e.g., the tendency of a culture absolutely focused on the absolute transcendence of the spiritual order to, ironically, end up worshiping nature itself. Further, Dawson was clear that most societies struggle to find a correct integration of the spiritual and the material elements of life.

The author correctly shows how Dawson's beliefs about religion as a kind of general phenomenon apply supremely to Christianity, which, for Dawson is true and a source of new spiritual life that is invigorating to a dying society but also unpredictable in its effects. Like other religions, but even more so, Christianity is capable of being incarnated in drastically different environments. What about the modern global society, however? 

The author rightly shows that Dawson thought modern global society operated much more on the basis of a super-cultural ideology than a religion. Because of this lack of attention or shunting away of the deeper spiritual impulses for humans, our globalized ideological scientific culture lacks a true spiritual content and is destined for decay. It might have been a nice touch to connect this insight of Dawson's with the ongoing birth dearth in much of the world, which demographers say will lead to a drastic depopulation over the next forty years or so. It would be a very visible token of the very failures of scientific society to give life. But this is only a suggestion. The paper does not suffer without it. 

The author does, however, depict Dawson's concerns with those practicing religious people in the modern world, however, who struggle to integrate their faith with a true culture. The loss of connections with culture makes religious faith, including Christian faith, a weakened vessel. 

In the final sections before the conclusions (sections 7 and 8), the author demonstrates Dawson's hope of a rebuilding of culture off of the foundation of more ancient ways of living in conjunction with our scientific and cultural advancement--noting, however, that Dawson believed things would get worse before they would get better.  What must happen, as section 8, shows in detail, is that individuals themselves must use their freedom and their capacity for God to respond to those divine impulses and rebuild societies on a new foundation. The author is clearly showing that there are no technocratic or governmental hacks to the rebirth of a civilization in decay. If our technological global society is to end in a rebirth of vibrant life, it will have to have "a principle of spiritual coordination and unity, which only religion can provide" (p. 10, line 507).  The author's closing with some lines of Joseph Ratzinger about the need for a proper correlation of reason and faith, reason and religion, are very apropos Dawson's intellectual project. 

While I'm not certain there is anything absolutely new in this article, it is an eloquent articulation of Dawson's understanding of culture, particularly with regard to a modernity that Dawson (d. 1970) had seen starting to fray even as technological developments flourished. The author's careful reading of Dawson's points, with reference to good secondary sources, makes this a good article for those who have heard of Dawson's views and would like an entree into them with regard to the present. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The author's English prose is good. It is very readable and free of jargon. There are only a few typos, here and there, and the use of "less" where it should be "fewer" (p. 10, l. 508).  

Author Response

Thank you for the positive comments on the text.
Based on the suggestions I have made the following improvements:
I have tried to better articulate Dawson's thinking clarifying his position and making it less descriptive. In particular by putting it in dialogue with the functional differentiation thesis, with Berger's thinking on the fallacies of secularisation, and somewhat with Christian Smith's time on the Secular Revolution in American academia.
I have improved the introduction for clarity. I have changed the conclusions to make Dawson's difference from other approaches to the relations between Religion and Culture more evident.
The changes, except for typos, have been highlighted in yellow.
Kind regards

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper highlights the role of religion in culture according to Ch. Dawson. The analysis is based on many books, not only by Dawson. It tries to discuss Dawson's ideas and refer to contemporary social and cultural situations. However, the analysis is very superficial and includes only generalized statements in presenting Dawson’s ideas. This seems more like a dictionary description of Dawson’s thoughts. There is no creative or problematic discussion in the text. Some ideas from other scholars (e.g., Edara 2017) are not contextualized within Dawson’s narratives.

In the introduction, the narrative is very messy and chaotic. It contains a summary of Dawson’s vision along with the author’s statements and the objective of the paper. Furthermore, the paper does not include a literature review by Dawson or an explanation of why certain bibliographic sources were chosen over others.

Regarding style, some paragraphs include only one phrase. Hjarvard is not a representative scholar in the philosophy of history. Some of Dawson’s books are not cited in their original form (e.g., Dawson 2007). 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I have also found some typos, such as: “History monstrates that collaboration between religion and culture has been the normal condition of society” (line 192).

Author Response

Firstly, I would like to acknowledge the reviewer's comments, which I have tried to address in the following way:

1. I have clarified the introduction and the conclusions and brought Dawson's thoughts in touch with other currents of thought or other ways of understanding the relationship between religion and culture. I think this makes it easier to understand what makes him different and why it is relevant to revive his position.
2. I have added further bibliographies of some of Dawson's commentators. If these authors were not included before, it is because, in my opinion, they did not address so directly the issue under study in the article: for example, Birzer.
3. I have tried to improve the narrative style, correcting typos, quoting (Dawson 2007) in its original (Dawson 1932), putting longer quotations in separate paragraphs, removing the Hjarvard reference, and better contextualizing the Edara reference. 

The changes, except for typos, have been highlighted in yellow.
Kind regards

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

- There are two sections 5.

- Long quotes such as in line 239 should be separated from the text.

- It would be interesting to look at contemporary expressions of secularization (cultural/religious diversity; the impact of the internet and social networks and the phenomena of the individualization of belief) for a more up-to-date look at Dawson. In addition, a clearer articulation with these theories could make the work less descriptive. 

- The thesis of functional differentiation or cultures of secularity may also be of interest in section 7.

- A look at Peter L. Berger's final work on the fallacies of secularization would be welcome.

- Section 8 would benefit from articulation with Christian Smith's work on the Secular Revolution.

In the 'conclusions' I would not 'summarize'. Rather, I would conclude with the X main messages of this paper and what doors of investigation it opens within, for example, studies on secularization and the place of religion in modern societies. Given that the work is mainly descriptive, I would suggest a more analytical approach in this section, and I would suggest not going back to authors who, moreover, have not been dealt with throughout the article.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. I sincerely believe that they help to improve the text.
Based on the suggestions I have made the following improvements:
1. I have corrected the section numbering and separated long quotations.
2. I have tried to better articulate Dawson's thinking, clarifying his position and making it less descriptive. In particular by putting it in dialogue with the functional differentiation thesis, with Berger's thinking on the fallacies of secularisation, and somewhat with Christian Smith's time on the Secular Revolution in American academia.
3. I have completely changed the conclusions to make Dawson's difference from other approaches to the relations between Religion and Culture more evident.
4. I have improved the introduction for clarity.
The changes, except for typos, have been highlighted.
Kind regards.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In my opinion, the research problem in the paper is still unclear. The author(s) present Dawson's thought in an encyclopedic manner. Certain issues, such as the sociological discussion on secularization, complicate the narrative, as Dawson's theories operate at an ontological, philosophical, and anthropological level. I strongly suggest refining the research problem to focus on the socio-ontological question of the extent to which secularization can be understood as a stage in the development of culture, rather than as a one-directional process. 

Author Response

I have taken into account the reviewer's comment, which again seems to me to be correct even if I did not initially emphasize it strongly enough. To this end, I have added Flatt's perspective, which along with Berger's also aligns with Dawson's. In addition to including it in a body paragraph, I have given this idea more prominence in the conclusions.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Good job. It now seems much better. Dawson's vision of history deserves greater recognition in the study of culture and religion.