The idea
Open secularization, in this context, does not mean expelling religion from public life or stripping society of spiritual value. What is meant is organizing the public sphere in a way that allows plurality and freedom, while leaving the spiritual meaning present as part of the human experience. Secularization here therefore appears as a means of openness, not a tool of erasure or rupture.
Concise formulation
Open secularization: keeping the spiritual dimension present
Its place in the book’s argument
This claim lies at the heart of the argument that distinguishes secularization as an arrangement of the relationship between the public sphere and religion from secularization as hostility toward religion. The author urges the reader to understand political and intellectual reform not as a process of spiritual emptying, but as a rebalancing that allows freedom to expand without abolishing religious values.
Why it matters
The importance of this statement lies in the fact that it removes the common confusion between secularization and exclusion. It also helps read Arkoun as a thinker seeking a formula for coexistence between modernity and the religious dimension, not as a party to a simple conflict between faith and reason. In this sense, the claim illuminates the place of religion within his broader project.
Reading questions
- How does the text distinguish open secularization from secularization that strips away spiritual meaning?
- Does this conception make secularization broader than mere political reform?
Degree of documentation
High: the claim appears in a clear place in the book’s material.