Secularization revisited – teaching of religion and the state of denmark

Boundaries of Religious Freedom:
Regulating Religion in Diverse Societies 5

Niels Reeh

Secularization
Revisited - Teaching
of Religion and the
State of Denmark
1721-2006


Boundaries of Religious Freedom:
Regulating Religion in Diverse Societies
Volume 5

Series Editors
Lori G. Beaman, University of Ottawa, ON, Canada
Anna Halafoff, Deakin University, Vic, Australia
Lene Kühle, Aarhus Universitet, Denmark


Processes of globalization have resulted in increasingly culturally and religiously
diverse societies. In addition, religion is occupying a more prominent place in the
public sphere at the turn of the 21st Century, despite predictions of religious decline.
The rise in religious diversity, and in the salience of religious identity, is posing both
challenges and opportunities pertaining to issues of governance. Indeed, a series of
tensions have arisen between state and religious actors regarding a variety of matters
including burial rites, religious education and gender equality. Many of these
debates have focused on the need for, and limits of, religious freedom especially in
situations where certain religious practices risk impinging upon the freedom of

others. Moreover, different responses to religious pluralism are often informed by
the relationship between religion and state in each society. Due to the changing
nature of societies, most have needed to define, or redefine, the boundaries of
religious freedom reflected in laws, policies and the design and use of public spaces.
These boundaries, however, continue to be contested, debated and reviewed, at
local, national and global levels of governance.
All books published in this Series have been fully peer-reviewed before final
acceptance.

More information about this series at />

Niels Reeh

Secularization Revisited –
Teaching of Religion and
the State of Denmark
1721–2006


Niels Reeh
Department of History
University of Southern Denmark
Odense, Denmark

ISSN 2214-5281
ISSN 2214-529X (electronic)
Boundaries of Religious Freedom: Regulating Religion in Diverse Societies
ISBN 978-3-319-39606-4
ISBN 978-3-319-39608-8 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-39608-8

Library of Congress Control Number: 2016947714
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors
or omissions that may have been made.
Printed on acid-free paper
This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature
The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG Switzerland


Contents

1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.1
The State, External Relations and Internal Organization . . . . . . .
1.2
Disclaimers and Remarks on the Limitations
of the Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Part I
2

3

1
6
10
11

Theory

The Blind Spots of the Dominant Secularization Theories . . . . . . . . .
2.1
From Secularizatio to Secularization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2
Comte’s Framing of Sociology and Break
with the Natural Law Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3
Consequences of Emile Durkheim’s Foundation
of the Discipline of Sociology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4
The German Approach to Sociology and Talcott Parson’s
Transformation of Max Weber’s Sociology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.5
Consequences of the Concept of Differentiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.6
The Implicit Notion of Religion in the Concept
of Differentiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.7
On the Absence of War in Sociology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.8
Blind Spots of Classic Secularization Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17
18

A New Theoretical Approach to Religion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2
Towards a New Theory of Religion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3
Preliminary Remarks to a Relational Notion of Religion . . . . . . .
3.4
Norbert Elias’ ‘Survival Unit’ and ‘the Extended
“I-and-We” Consciousness’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.5
Towards a Sociology of the Social ‘We’
as a Relational Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

33
33
34
35

19
21

22
25
26
27
28
30

37
38

v


vi

Contents

3.6
3.7

On the Relations Between Religions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mimicking, Imitation, and Copying in Social Life:
A Modification of the Conflict Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.8
On the Historical Development of the Split
Between the Survival Unit and Religious Entities. . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.9
The Field of the Religious Survival Units as a Point
of Departure in Defining Religion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.10 Counter-Religions in the Present Field of Religions . . . . . . . . . . .

3.11 Myth and Ritual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.12 A Short Note on the Distinction Between Religion
and Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.13 Three Kinds of Survival Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.14 The Call of the State: Civil Religion or Nationalism
as the ‘Religion’ of the Danish Survival Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.15 Contested Myths and Life Histories
of the US and Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.16 The Myth and Life History of the Danish Church
in Its Liturgical Year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.17 On the State, Group, and Individual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.18 Concluding Theoretical Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4

Further Implications of the Relational Approach
to the Study of Religion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1
Historical Differentiation of Religious
and Sovereign Survival Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2
Miracles as a Discursive Weapon in the Religious Struggle . . . . .
4.3
State Agency Elsewhere Than Denmark:
The Glorious Revolution in England and Beyond . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Part II
5

39
41
42
46
48
52
53
54
56
56
60
61
62
63
67
67
69
71
76

The Danish Road through Modernity – Transformations
of the Sacred Canopy in Danish Schools from 1721–2006

Despotic Absolutism: 1721–1784 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.1
The Teaching and Politics of Religion
from 1721 to 1784 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2
State Mythology—A Christian State
Under a Christian King . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5.3
Historical Background—The Wars Against
Sweden 1657–1660 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.4
The Absolutist State After 1660 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.5
The Military and Compulsory Schooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.6
The Re-Established Country Militia of 1701. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.7
The Establishment of the Equestrian Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

81
82
83
83
84
85
85
86


Contents

5.8
5.9
5.10
5.11
5.12
5.13

5.14
5.15
5.16

Education, State, and Individual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Law of Adscription of 1733 and What Followed . . . . . . . . . .
The 1736 Statute Regarding Confirmation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Use of Religion Under Early Absolutism in Denmark . . . . . .
Arguments Concerning the Law of 1739 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The School Law of 1739 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Instructions for the Schoolmaster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The School Law of 1740 and the Retreat of the State . . . . . . . . . .
The Sacred Canopy Under Despotic
Absolutism, 1721–1784 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6

7

Enlightened Absolutism: 1784 to 1849 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.1
Towards the Elementary School Reforms
of 1806 and 1814 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2
The Military and Economic Situation
of the Danish Crown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.3
Peasantry and Power Relations Within the Danish State . . . . . . . .
6.4
The Small and the Great Land Commissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6.5
The Great Agrarian Reforms and the School
Reforms of 1814 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.6
The School Act of 1814 – Education, the State,
and the Individual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.7
School Discipline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.8
The Curriculum and the Supervisory System
of the Law of 1814 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.9
The Schoolmaster – Betwixt and Between . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.10 The Sacred Canopy Under Enlightened Absolutism,
1784 to 1814 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Constitutional Monarchy: 1849–1901 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.1
Towards 1849 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.2
A New State-Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.3
Schooling and the Act Concerning Marriage 1851 . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.4
The Organization of the Church and Education
Departments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.5
The Act Concerning Local Administration of 1855 . . . . . . . . . . .
7.6
The Free Schools Act (Friskoler) of May 2, 1855 . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7.7
An Overview of the Period from 1849 to 1864 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.8
From 1864 to 1901. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.9
The Circular of H.V. Sthyr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.10 Transformation of the Sacred Canopy Under
Constitutional Monarchy, 1849–1901 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vii

88
89
90
92
92
94
94
95
96
97
99
99
99
101
102
103
104
104

105
106
108
110
111
111
112
114
115
117
118
119
120
121
122
123


viii

8

9

10

Contents

Parliamentary Democracy: 1901–1945 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.1

The Push for Democratization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.2
Society as Defence of the State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.3
The Act of 1904 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.4
The Battle Over Christianity in Schools in 1930s . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.5
The Act of 1933 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.6
The Positions of the Four Political Parties in 1933 . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.7
Important Aspects of the Act of 1933 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.8
Denmark for the People—The Turnaround
of the Social Democrats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.9
The Act of 1937 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.10 World War II—An Exception? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.11 The Sacred Canopy Under Parliamentary Democracy
and the Nazi Occupation, 1901–1945 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

125
125
126
129
129
130
131

134

The Welfare State: 1945 to 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.1
Beneath the ‘Nuclear Umbrella’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.2
The Act of 1949 and the Positions in the Debate. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.3
The Blue Consideration 1960 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.4
Towards the Schools Act of 1975 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.5
The Debate on Political Indoctrination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.6
The Act of 1975 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.7
The Right of Exemption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.8
Intellectual Liberty as Ideological Defence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.9
The External Environment from 1975
to the End of the Cold War . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.10 The Internal Situation from 1975 to the End
of the Cold War . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.11 Globalisation and Guidelines for the Teaching
of Christianity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.11.1 The Sacred Canopy Under the Welfare State,
1945 to 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

143
143
144
145
145
147
148
149
149

The Public Management State: 1989 to 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10.1 The External Situation of Denmark in 1989 Until 2001 . . . . . . . .
10.2 Legislation Pertaining to the Teaching of Christianity
from 1993 Until 2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10.3 On the Importance of Culture (Including Christianity)
in a Shrinking World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10.4 The New Public Management State, the War on Terror,
and the Cartoon Crisis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10.4.1 Externally: Towards September 11, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . .
10.4.2 Internally: Towards the So-Called Change
of Systems in 2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

157
157

134
136
137
138
140

150
151
152
154
155

160
162
163
163
164


Contents

ix

10.4.3
10.4.4
10.4.5

The Governments of Anders Fogh Rasmussen . . . . . . . .
Common Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Teaching of Christianity According
to Common Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10.4.6 Farewell to the Welfare State? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10.4.7 The Cartoon Crisis, the Teaching of Democracy,
and Leviathan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10.5 The Sacred Canopy Under the Public Management State,

1989 to 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11

169
170
172
174
176

Overview of the State Religious Politics in the Danish
Elementary Schools from 1721 to 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
11.1 Conclusion to the Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187

Part III
12

167
168

Conclusion

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201


Chapter 1

Introduction

As has often been said, the theories of secularization constituted a paradigm and
reigning dogma of the sociology of the 1960s and 1970s (Tschannen 1991; Swatos
and Christiano 1999). Many sociologists subscribed to Anthony Wallace’s statement, ‘The future of religion is extinction.’ Since the end of the Cold War and especially in the period after September 11, 2001, the roles have been reversed; now one
might say that religion is here to stay while the future of secularization theory may
be extinction, failure, or, at least, reformulation (Berger 1999; Stark 1999; Reeh
2009b). Religion has mounted the stage again and to a degree that would have been
unfathomable, for instance, in the 1980s.
Instead of proceeding by attempting to establish new theories of postsecularization or similar concepts and rapidly abandoning thought about secularization, this failure should be examined in depth by historical-sociological study (Finke
and Stark 1992; Gorski and Altinordu 2008). Therefore, this book is an attempt to
answer the questions of how, why, and where did the once dominant theories of
secularization go wrong? These questions are not directed to any individual sociologist but rather to the conceptual framework of sociology. The assumption of the
book is that answers to this set of questions can be obtained through a conceptual
analysis of the dominant secularization paradigm (Tschannen 1991) as it was constructed by the leading sociological fathers and the reception hereof. Hopefully, a
thorough examination of the failure of secularization theories can lead to significant
discussions in the field of sociology.
Broadly speaking, the conceptual analysis points out that the establishment of
sociology, especially in Auguste Comte and Emile Durkheim’s case, was created
through a complete empiricist break with the natural law tradition. Through empiricism, earlier writers such as Thomas Hobbes, who had paid great attention to the
state, were dismissed completely. Sociology as well as international relations thus
emerged as independent disciplines with little relation with each other. In the case
of sociology, empiricism contributed to establishing sociology as an independent
and self-sufficient discipline concerned with society and, rarely, with the state. In
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016
N. Reeh, Secularization Revisited – Teaching of Religion and the State of
Denmark, Boundaries of Religious Freedom: Regulating Religion in Diverse
Societies 5, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-39608-8_1

1


2

1

Introduction

addition, the dominant master concept of sociology, namely the society, was built on
an organic metaphor and, as a consequence, the dominant sociological thinking,
including secularization theories, established an analytical framework in which religion in the singular was studied as a substantial entity. In other words, in this analysis, there only seems to be religion within a society of which there could be more or
less. The consequence hereof was that the secularization paradigm did not include
two or more religions that could relate to each other. This is not to say that sociologists have not paid attention to religious diversity (Beaman et al. 2008; Beckford
2010), but the argument here is that the secularization theories have not reckoned
with the interreligious dynamic, as pointed to by, for instance, Roger Finke and
Rodney Stark (Finke 1990; Finke and Stark 1992).
The conceptual analysis suggests that the study of secularization might benefit if
much more attention were paid to the fundamental conceptual framework, especially the agency of the state, and interreligious agency. In some ways, the present
work can be viewed as parallel to the work of especially Roger Finke (Finke 1990;
Finke and Stark 1992) in particular as well as the more recent work of Daphne
Halikiopoulou (2011).
Although the case study might have been carried out without questioning the
academic notion of religion, the conceptual analysis suggests that theories of secularization or historical religious change could benefit from including an analysis of
interreligious dynamics. The conceptual analysis is therefore followed by an attempt
to establish an outline of a new relational theory of religion that may overcome
some of these shortcomings. The motivation behind this attempt is that the existing
definitions of religion do not provide a satisfactory answer to the question of why
the Danish state has kept such a close watch on the religion of its subjects/citizens.
A central point of departure in the proposed relational theory of religion is two

theories of state agency, namely, Norbert Elias and Thomas Højrup (Elias 1980;
Højrup 2003). In Elias, the state is regarded as a ‘survival unit’; in Højrup, the state
is conceptualized as a ‘state subject’. Because Norbert Elias is better known to an
international audience, his notion of the survival unit is generally preferred over
Thomas Højrup’s state subject. Following Elias, I suggest that religions can be fruitfully conceptualized as a specific historical type of survival unit, which I refer to as a
religious survival unit. I thus propose to analyse religions as religious survival units
that are embedded in a field of other religions in which a struggle for existence is
played out. The established relational concept of religion suggests the existence of a
field of religions that are the result of collective intentionality can be observed in
speech acts as described by the American philosopher John Searle (1995). This collective intentionality and its consequential collective consciousness is here regarded
as a specific historic type of collective consciousness that results in social constructions, which are constituted through distinctions between ‘us’ and ‘them’. The existence of a relational field of religions as collective constructions further suggests that
secularization theories have not covered the entire field of religions because Atheism
and Humanism are new participants in the struggle in the field of religions. To make
this argument, a small case study of the recent rise of organized Atheism and
Humanism in Denmark since 2001 is included. From the outcome of the analysis, it


1

Introduction

3

is argued that the new organized Atheism and Humanism (1) relate to religions in the
same way as other religions and (2) through the establishment of rituals for namegiving, confirmation, weddings, and funerals, have mirrored significant religious others, namely the Danish National Church. On this basis, it is suggested that Atheism
and Humanism should be studied as counter-religions and are indeed part of the field
of religions; they should accordingly be reckoned with by studies of secularization
that might benefit by being reframed as studies of historical religious change. The
existing definitions of religion have thus been overly dependent on everyday notions
of religion, having been shaped by the major religious traditions in Europe that have

used Atheism as an ‘other’ category in order to limit the field of religions in a particular way according to their own interests.
The conceptual analysis is followed by a historical case study of secularization
of a specific European case, which some scholars now regard as an exception that
has to be explained instead of the normal path through modernization (Berger et al.
2008). In the scholarly literature on secularization, the difference between the US
and Europe has often been noted but not sufficiently thoroughly analysed. This
lacuna is a problem because it conceals the fact that some European states have used
the teaching of religion in an active construction of a Sacred Canopy that has not
been constitutionally possible in the US. The perspective in the case study sets itself
apart from the overwhelming majority of sociological works but can be viewed as
related to the recent study of Daphne Halikiopoulou, the historical studies of Roger
Finke and Rodney Stark, and to the various attempts to bring the state (back) in
(Finke 1990; Finke and Stark 1992; Halikiopoulou 2011; Giddens 1985; Skocpol
1985; Tilly 1990; Kaspersen 2004). Although these exceptions as well as others do
exist, state agency has not been a significant part of mainstream sociological tradition, especially the dominant secularization theories or the secularization paradigm,
as Olivier Tschannen termed it (Berger 1969; Luckmann 1974; Wilson 1976;
Tschannen 1991; Casanova 1994, 2007; Davie 1994; Bruce 2002; Dobbelaere
2002). It should, however, be stressed that, for instance, Karel Dobbelaere’s
Secularization: An Analysis at Three Levels and David Martin’s A General Theory
of Secularization can be read as historical descriptions that to some extent are
dependent on or reflections of the actions of the state. However, this does not affect
the main point, namely, that these studies do not view the actions of the state as
dependent on its external environment (Martin 1978; Dobbelaere 2002).
The same disregard of state agency also applies to more specialized studies of
Danish school and educational history, which have tended to pay less attention to
the defence aspects of their subject than this book. It may, of course, be argued that
this is not a new perspective since the discipline of history has perhaps always been
focussed on the state as a driving force of events. However, within the human sciences (including history), the tendency towards disciplinary specialization has also
resulted in specialization, or narrowing of the horizon, of the questions asked in the
interpretation of material, including decisions as to what is relevant and what is not.

For instance, school and church historians have overlooked the fact that the military
and defence considerations of the Danish state played a decisive role in the


4

1

Introduction

establishment of Danish schools in the eighteenth century, including the introduction of the mandatory confirmation in 1736.
A key finding in the present book is that the Danish state used its religious policies and thus the construction of the state-sanctioned Sacred Canopy as a disciplinary and defensive means. It should be stressed that this link between state religious
policies and the central concerns of the state is not limited to the case of Denmark.
Instead, in varying forms and different circumstances, one could say that from the
establishment of Christianity as the mandatory religion in the Roman Empire to the
establishment of democracy in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, that the population in Europe was generally forced to recognize the officially sanctioned and
Christian Sacred Canopy on the collective and individual levels. The enforcement of
mandatory religious confession took different forms across Europe. In Catholic
areas, both princes and the Roman Catholic Church worried about the spread of
Protestantism in their territories and, consequently, schools and religious teaching
became important (Strakosch-Grassmann 1905; Wienecke 1913; Melton 1988;
Furet and Ozouf 1982; Loserth 1916). The same tendency is visible in Protestant
domains. An example hereof is the link between confirmation and military recruitment in Prussia where it can be observed that peasants were drafted through the
so-called canton system established in 1733. The situation in Prussia is more complicated than in Denmark because the ruling house of the Hohenzollerns converted
to Calvinism in 1613 and continued to rule over Lutheran as well as Catholic areas.
However, this does not mean that religion and its teaching was unimportant to the
Prussian state. In 1717, the Prussian state initiated a school project for the peasants
of the royal domains, which seems to have influenced the Danish king in his establishment of equestrian schools in 1721. Teaching religion and confirmation also
seem to have been important to the Prussian state since confirmation was used
administratively in the establishment of mandatory conscription (the canton system); from 1730, Prussian peasants were enrolled by priests after their religious

confirmation. The importance of confirmation in Denmark as well as Prussia was
because specific religious teachings were a prerequisite for swearing a binding oath
to the king. Confirmation was an administrative and a disciplinary measure connected to the struggle for survival of the Prussian state, which was described by
contemporaries not as a state with an army but as an army with a state as approximately 70 % of the state’s income was spent on the military. In Prussia, the Council
of War and Domain was to supervise the regulation of Catholic and Lutheran schools
(Cubberley 1920, 473). In Northern Europe then, it should be noted that the
Protestant princes were struggling with each other as well as with their Orthodox
(Russia) and Catholic (Austria and France) counterparts and that they constantly
strove to optimize the strength of their armies.1 In the Danish case, this optimization
included mandatory schooling (teaching of religion) that was established only in the
areas from which peasants were drafted to the army. Schooling in Denmark ended

1

For an analysis of the rise of educational systems in Europe that includes competition but not the
military struggle between states, see Ramirez and Boli 1987 2–17.


1

Introduction

5

in mandatory confirmation that included an oath to bind the peasant to absolute
obedience to the Danish King in peace as well as war.
A main argument of the book is that theories of secularization have overlooked
the way the Sacred Canopy of European states was linked to the struggle for survival in the European state system. Instead of taking this struggle into account, theories of secularization assume that the Sacred Canopy was simply already in existence
before modernity. The present book asks the questions: What were the preconditions for the mandatory Sacred Canopy in Denmark? Was it the change in these
preconditions that led to a decisive historical change in the way the Danish state

used religion?
Consequently, the narrative of secularization should be revisited on the macrolevel by historical studies because the Danish case suggests that European states
may have had a far stronger hand in the construction and regulation of the religion
of their inhabitants prior to the introduction of democracy. A second significant
finding is that this case study demonstrates the Danish state became less interested
in the teaching of religion during the Enlightenment. It thus began to rely more on
patriotism (and later nationalism) as a means of making peasants fight for the Danish
state; patriotism and a mild enlightened absolutism were perceived as a more efficient social contract than the religiously based coercion of despotic absolutism
(Reventlow 1787, 37).
A third key finding of the study is that the Danish state retained the possibility of
pursuing an active state religious policy through the teaching of religion after the
establishment of democracy in 1849 and that it revived this possibility during two
periods, namely, during World War II and after the events of September 11 in 2001.
Under Nazi occupation during World War II, the case study reveals that the teaching
of religion was formulated as antithetical to Nazism and that it seems to have been
used as an attempt to prevent the Nazification of Danish youth. Further, after 2001,
the case study shows that the teaching of religion was used as a means to combat
religious fundamentalism (radical Islam) and terrorism. The Danish state has thus
retained the possibility of influencing the religion of its inhabitants in contemporary
contexts. This should be recalled in discussions of secularization because this constitutional particularity sets Denmark apart from, for instance, the US, which is
constitutionally barred from this option. It is noteworthy that while the Danish state
has retained the possibility of pursuing a state religious policy in public schools, this
does not necessarily mean that teaching religion necessarily affects the religion of
citizens. However, the existence of state teaching of religion has the possibility of
becoming the object of political discussion, which may add a different component
to the political religious discourse compared with countries (e.g., the US) were this
option does not exist.


6

1

1.1

Introduction

The State, External Relations and Internal Organization

In the perspective on the state that has gradually emerged, the internal life of the
Danish state has been vitally dependent on its external relations. Therefore, it has
been analytically fruitful to regard the interstate relationship as competitive or, more
precisely, as a struggle for mutual recognition. For this viewpoint, I am indebted to
Thomas Højrup at the University of Copenhagen and his Circle of Structural
Dialectics (Højrup 2002, 2003). Following this approach, the interstate relationship
has been understood theoretically through Carl von Clausewitz’ concept of war and
G.W.F. Hegel’s concept of mutual recognition. The Danish state has been regarded
as a survival unit among other survival units. In this struggle for survival, the state
must seek to optimize its resources, including its inhabitants and their willingness
to answer the call of the state. From the perspective of this book, potential war and
competition between states are crucial and have deep implications for cultural and
social history.
In its purest and most abstract form the state must be understood as the recognition by other
states [that one is] a complete member of a system of states, a recognition that is always
precarious and temporary. … Recognition is, also in Hegelian thought, recognition of the
capability of the state to defend itself, to compel respect (Boserup 1986, 924)

The essential feature of this approach is, then, that the state is forged through the
struggle for recognition against other states. In this case, the state is not regarded as
brought together by a fusion of its internal elements through the notion of solidarity

as it would be in a Durkheimian world; instead, it is the external pressure exerted by
its neighbours that conditions the state. This is the fission perspective on the state
and is called this because it stresses that the state generally harbours different interests, groups, and forces that would tend to separate if there were no external pressure. However, it is important to stress that once the state is constituted as a survival
unit, a power struggle over control of the state can be played out between different
and different groups with different interests, strategies, etc. These different groups
may seek to fashion the state differently within the limits laid out by the state’s
survival.
In this light, a state can be defined as a political organization capable of preventing other states from intervening in its domain. For this reason, it is recognized as a
state with a domain by other states (Kaspersen 2002, 2004). From this vantage
point, the state can be analysed as a relational actor in the state system—always
bearing in mind that any independent and sovereign organization that can prevent
other organizations from intervening in its domain will qualify as being defined as
a state.
The state here is not defined in terms of its monopoly of violence within its territory (Weber 1965). Rather, the state is a defensive unit, seeing its own survival as
its primary goal. It comprises the people who participate in the formation of political will, which is recognized by other states. In Denmark after 1660, the state was
absolutist. The king was a prince of God’s mercy and had absolute power; he (and
his council) was the state. From the last part of the eighteenth century, the absolutist


1.1

The State, External Relations and Internal Organization

7

Danish state changed into what has been called opinion-driven absolutism. The king
came to increasingly depend on the professional and administrative elites. He was
portrayed as a loving father, who listened to his subjects and then made the decision
that was supposed to be best for all. The state can at this point in history be understood as the king and the administrative elite. In 1849, the state changed again; the
monarchy was restricted and voting was introduced. The king, the government, and

the electorate were now the state. A consequence of the democratic constitution was
an initial wave of democratization, which is evident from the political debates of the
period. In 1866, the constitution was modified in the wake of the defeat of 1864.
This changed the electorate and thus the state. Large landowners were now afforded
much greater political weight. In 1901, parliamentarianism was introduced and the
king thereafter appointed only governments without an opposing a majority in the
Lower Chamber.
1901 saw a second tide of democratization begin to rise in Denmark. The electorate was gradually expanded, and women obtained suffrage in 1915. In 1953, the
Upper Chamber was abolished. At that point, the Danish state comprised the government and all Danish citizens over 18 years of age. The share that all citizens have
in the state explains the fact that individual Danes, like citizens in other democratic
countries, readily adopt a state perspective. The adoption of a state perspective can
be observed, for instance, in daily political discourse in which there is an abundant
use of the personal pronoun ‘we’. We have to do this or that in order to keep our
competitiveness vis-à-vis the Germans, the Chinese, etc. Such use of language
shows that people in the situation understand themselves to be part of this ‘we’
(Reeh 2009a). Norbert Elias’s notion of the survival unit further explains why people are emotionally attached to ‘their’ state (Elias 1978). Clearly, in addition to its
external relations, the state has a relationship with its own society, or the inhabitants
of the country, through its state-form. In the present study, the state-form is understood not only as the organization of the state but also as the history of the state, or
the state mythology (Assmann 1997; Reeh 2009a). The state-form is often expressed
in the official conceptualization of the state although it is almost always contested.
It is certainly not a given and has often changed through time.
This perspective on the state has numerous consequences. The state and its external relations become a primary focus. The struggle between states cannot be overlooked since the state tends to use whatever means at hand to protract its struggle for
existence. The state organizes itself in such a way that, at the least, sufficient defence
is obtained. Here, defence policies become a broad category. The internal organization of a state is itself a means of securing the state and its survival since the state
must organize itself to maintain its significance in regard to other states. In this light,
society is no longer an entity that can be studied independently of the state. On the
contrary, the organization of society is highly dependent on the state and its struggle
for survival. The invisible and visible conflict between states becomes an indispensable point of departure for the study of any society related to a state. This view is
adopted here. One of the measures to which the Danish state has from time to time
resorted is religion. Threatened from outside its borders, the state turns to its

resources within. The less people will or can comply with the measures proposed—


8

1

Introduction

higher taxes, fixed grain prices, conscription—in short, the will of the state, the less
effectively the state can function. A state thus has to call on its subjects if it is to
retain its sovereignty and legitimacy, internally as well as externally. A state has,
one might say, a voice that speaks through legislation among other things. This call
plays a central role since the politics of school and religion can be regarded as such
a call upon the inhabitants of the state.
However, since it is concerned with the agency of the state in the particular area
of teaching of religion, individual subjects are not at the centre of the present analysis. Here I accordingly analyse one of the channels, namely, the elementary school
system, through which the state officially attempts to define the status and position
of its subjects in relation to itself. It must be stressed that the attempt of the state is
only an attempt and that it may have no or unintentional consequences. If, however,
self-organization and the call of the state are to work, the state must pay attention to
the culture, the religion, and the history of itself and its subjects; otherwise, the call
falls on deaf ears or can be opposed. According to the Danish confirmation ritual of
1736, each individual was defined and recognized as a member of the king’s church
militant whereas in 1975, each pupil in a school was recognized as a future citizen
free to choose his or her own confession. Throughout history, the state-form and the
state’s use of religion have been contested and have changed dramatically. The state
thus resembles a bricoleur that uses whatever is at hand. The things at hand are a
very broad category, ranging from the state-form itself, military weapons, and economic resources to ideas, concepts, and beliefs. Such ideas and beliefs may derive
from the subjects of the state, from history, or from elsewhere. In this way, the cultural and religious life of Danes has been used not only as a resource but also as a

reserve that the state has sought to husband. In the analysis, state policy on religion
in elementary schools is viewed from this perspective. Nevertheless, it should be
stressed that even though states struggle and compete against each other, they may
also attempt to copy, imitate, and learn from each other as well as achieve goals that
do not spring from the interstate relation as suggested in the section on mimicking,
imitation, and copying in social life in Chap. 2. In this study, the finding is that state
policies on religion in Danish schools have been crucially dependent and influenced
by the dynamic springing from the relation to other states.
In the case study, the analysis is viewed strictly from the perspective of the
Danish state. In the field of the academic study of religion, it has proven difficult to
reach a consensus concerning the definition of religion. However, religion and
Christianity have been a weighty problem for the Danish state to handle, regardless
of the academic problems in defining religion (Hervieu-Léger 2000). This study
does, however, have the potential to shed some light on what religion has meant for
the Danish state and why it has been important to ‘handle’ it. The study accordingly
provides an opportunity for analysis of the potential forces behind the construction
of the modern concept of religion, namely, the modern state.
In addition to the sociological secularization paradigm, certain stuthe vital interests of
the state. As in the case of differentiation, the content of the teaching of religion and
thus the state's construction of its Sacred Canopy can be seen as functions of the
vital interests of the state. With regard to this point, David Martin and Steve Bruce
are correct in stressing that cultural defence can slow the process of secularization
(Martin 1978; Bruce 2002, 2011; Halikiopoulou 2011). I do, however, think it is
more precise to say that historical religious changes are deeply conditioned by the
state and its external relations because this opens the possibility for a reversal of the
decline in significance of religion and not just a temporary slowdown of the process.
The reason for this is that society is not an endogenous entity that develops in a
vacuum according to its own immanent laws. Instead, the state and its society should
be seen as embedded in multiple complex relations with other states and their societies. Therefore, a given state and its society are deeply influenced by these other
states and societies. When the state has used religion, it has done so to serve its vital

interests. This has increased the significance of religion. In the eighteenth century,
the Sacred Canopy of the Danish state was erected with the use of a Pietistic version
of Christianity; today, the state can be said to have constructed a Sacred Canopy in
which democracy plays a key role in the underpinning of the Danish state. The present theoretical perspective, which has the state as the survival unit in a field of other
survival units, can thus provide a theoretical explanation of what David Martin,
Steve Bruce, and Daphne Halikoupoulou have analysed as cultural defence (Martin
1978; Bruce 2002, 2011; Halikiopoulou 2011). It should be stressed that the Sacred
Canopy is not determined as such by the state. Rather, the state has used the means
at hand in its struggle for survival, including the existing religion of its inhabitants,
which it has tried to influence and reconstruct in ways that served its interest. In this
process, the state stayed within the limits of what its inhabitants could accept,
whether in the eighteenth century or today.
In connection with the religions of individual inhabitants of the Danish state, it
should be stressed that the present book is not without its own limitations and blind
spots. One of the most important limitations is that the book does not deal with


References

187

religious discourse and practice of individuals such as in, for instance, Callum
Brown’s important work The Death of Christian Britain (Brown 2001). Here, the
argument is that secularization on the individual level in Britain has taken place
primarily since the 1960s. This secularization, or historical religious change, is on a
different level than the present book, namely, that of the individual. On one hand,
these two levels can be seen as interlinked. Although it must be remembered that the
majority, or 80.4 %, of Danes were members of the National Danish Church in
2001, it is not unlikely that Brown’s findings with regards to individual religiosity
could be replicated in Denmark (Lüchau 2012). Historical development in Denmark,

especially from World War II to the end of the Cold War, shows signs of a similar
process, particularly the fact that many Danes did not consider the teaching of religion in schools to be important towards the end of this period (Bugge 1994). On the
other hand, the state’s religious policies turned out to be highly dependent on George
W. Bush’s War on Terror and the immigration of Muslims. Therefore, one cannot
say that a change in the state’s religious policies is a direct consequence of the values and attitudes of individual Danes. Unfortunately, a choice had to be made
between including this level in the present analysis and taking a long historical
perspective so the question of how these two levels are interlinked remains. Brown’s
findings in Britain should be tested in Denmark in future studies. Brown’s arguments in regard to the case of Britain may also explain the religious zeal of
nineteenth-century Denmark. Throughout history, Danes have not been as religiously active as often assumed. One indicator of this is that King Christian VI saw
it necessary in 1735 to issue a law that made it mandatory to attend church. The
existence of this law indicates that Danes were not attending church as much as the
king saw fit. The question of changes in the religion of individual Danes throughout
history thus remains an intriguing question that will be left to further studies.
Returning to the present analysis, I hope it will contribute to a continued discussion of secularization or, perhaps better, historical religious change. Before I continue this endeavour, I will turn to the question as to why secularization theories
have been so ill prepared to address the re-emergence of religion on the political
agenda in the years that followed the end of the Cold War in 1989.

References
Berger, P. L. (1969). The sacred canopy: Elements of a sociological theory of religion. New York:
Doubleday.
Brown, C. G. (2001). The death of Christian Britain: Understanding secularisation, 1800–2000.
London: Routledge.
Bruce, S. (2002). God is dead: Secularization in the west. Malden: Blackwell.
Bruce, S. (2011). Secularization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bugge, K. E. (1994). Vi har stadig rel’gion. Frederiksberg: Materialecentralen.
Casanova, J. (1994). Public religions in the modern world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Casanova, J. (2007). Rethinking secularization: A global comparative perspective. In L. G. Beaman
& P. Beyer (Eds.), Religion, globalization and culture (International studies in religion and
society). Leiden: Brill.

188

11

Overview of the State Religious Politics in the Danish Elementary Schools…

Collins, R., & Sanderson, S. K. (2009). Conflict sociology: A sociological classic updated.
Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.
Dobbelaere, K. (2002). Secularization: An analysis at three levels. Bruxelles: P.I.E.-Peter Lang.
Giddens, A. (1985). The nation-state and violence, volume 2 of a contemporary critique of historical materialism. London: Polity.
Gorski, P. S., & Altinordu, A. (2008). After secularization? Annual Review of Sociology, 34, 55–85.
Halikiopoulou, D. (2011). Patterns of secularization: church, state and nation in Greece and the
Republic of Ireland. Farnham/Burlington: Ashgate.
Højrup, T. (2002). Dannelsens dialektik: etnologiske udfordringer til det glemte folk. Copenhagen:
Museum Tusculanum Press.
Højrup, T. (2003). State, culture, and life-modes the foundations of life-mode analysis. Burlington:
Ashgate.
Joas, H. (2003). War and modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Lüchau, P. (2012). Seks teser om danskernes medlemsskab af folkekirken. In L. Christoffersen
et al. (Eds.), Fremtidens danske religionsmodel. Copenhagen: Anis.
Martin, D. (1978). A general theory of secularization. Oxford: Blackwell.
Reeh, N. (2006). Religion and the state of Denmark – state religious politics in the elementary
school system from 1721 to 1975, an alternative approach to secularization. Copenhagen:
University of Copenhagen.
Reeh, N. (2009). Towards a new approach to secularization: Religion, education and the state in
Denmark, 1721–1900. Social Compass, 56(2), 179–188.
Reeh, N. (2013). Danish state policy on the teaching of religion from 1900 to 2007. Social
Compass, 60(2), 236–250.
Tschannen, O. (1991). The secularization paradigm: A systematization. Journal for the Scientific

Study of Religion, 304, 395–415.


Part III

Conclusion


Chapter 12

Conclusion

In the 1960s and 1970s, secularization theory was an invincible paradigm, and perhaps even a reigning dogma, within the sociology of religion (Swatos and Christiano
1999). However, at least since the end of the Cold War, secularization theories have
come under increasing fire (Hadden 1987; Gill 2001). The secularization paradigm
is not as convincing as it once was, and religion seems to play a salient role in the
present day (Berger 1999). In this book, the classic secularization theories have
been revisited (confer Reeh 2006, 2009a, b, c, 2011, 2013a, b). A conceptual history, a new theory of religion and, finally, a case study are presented.
The case study was conducted in the area that has been under the complete control of the Danish state. This control has been more or less complete since the
Reformation in 1536, when Danish King Christian III broke with the Roman
Catholic Church and established a Lutheran state with a claim of control of the
religion of the his subjects. One can observe that the arm of the state grew gradually
longer; the study reveals that the Sacred Canopy was not just in existence but was
carefully managed and controlled by the authorities. This is not to say that the
Danish state could have constructed the Sacred Canopy in any way that it saw fit.
Instead, the Sacred Canopy should be viewed as having been assembled in a process
that the state, like a bricoleur, used in attempts at a given point in time to transform
(as necessary) the religion of its people with a keen eye to what served its own vital
interests. These vital interests have, of course, changed throughout the course of
history. However, whether it was obliging the peasantry to fight in the first half of

the eighteenth century, combating Nazism during the German occupation in 1940–
1945, or countering Islamic terrorism from 2001 onwards, they have been fundamental in the historical process. It is important to stress that the Danish government
has not only paid attention to its external affairs but that is has also had to take into
account the religion of its citizens. If the state failed to do this, it would have risked
losing control of its affairs. A clear example of the Danish government yielding to
this can be seen in the modification in 1740 of the School Law of 1739 after protests
from estate owners. Another example is the overall Danish state religious politics
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016
N. Reeh, Secularization Revisited – Teaching of Religion and the State of
Denmark, Boundaries of Religious Freedom: Regulating Religion in Diverse
Societies 5, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-39608-8_12

191


192

12

Conclusion

from 1934 onwards. In 1934, the government was led by Social Democrat Thorvald
Stauning. By that point, the Social Democrats had realized that a large part of their
constituency was Christians who were not going to toe the anti-religion line the
party had so far indulged. In order not to alienate this part of their constituency, the
party de-politicized religious policy, which led to the formulation of the School Law
of 1937 that simply stated that schooling should be in accordance with the precepts
of the Evangelical-Lutheran Church. Thereby, the Social Democrats and the government turned their religious policies around and awaited the eventual popular
acceptance of the individualization of religion. This occurred in 1975 when the
teaching of religion ceased to be confessional. In the framework of the present

study, the government’s perception of the position of the Danish people has been
included in the analysis.
As a response to the findings in the empirical analysis, this book attempts to
answer the question of how the classic theories of secularization could be so wrong,
or at least unprepared, for the years immediately before and especially after 2001.
One answer to this question is that the theories disregard what actuates states to take
an interest in the religion of their populace. Consequently, I briefly point here to the
main problems in the secularization paradigm and the fundamental sociological
conceptual apparatus as a whole, namely, that (1) society is regarded as an entity in
itself or a thing of itself and not as interrelated to other societies or states, so that the
state is consequently not regarded as an actor or agent with its own raison d’état;
and (2) the sociological secularization paradigm has no concepts for the interreligious dynamic between different religious groups (Tschannen 1991). I thus suggest
that secularization, or better, historical religious change, should be analysed as a
vastly more complicated historical process that takes place on both (i) the interstate
and (ii) the intra-state level.
(i) On the interstate level, the traditional secularization narrative has overlooked
the importance of the fact that the external situation of Denmark has changed
dramatically with regard to the importance of religion. In a very brief period,
Denmark went from being a vassal state on the fringe of Emperor Otto I’s Holy
Roman Empire to a Lutheran sovereign state and regional power in 1537, to a
sovereign, democratic but minor state after 1849, back to a vassal state in the
democratic American empire or grossraum (from 1945), to a management state
in a globalised and uncertain world from the end of the Cold War.
(ii) On the intra-state level, a result of the 1849 constitution was that a free civil
society was allowed to develop, including the free organization of religious
groups on the precondition that they respect the ethics of society and penal law.
Although the vast majority of Danes stayed within the Danish National Church
(even today, some 80 % of the Danish population are members), this liberalisation opened up the possibility of individual choice of religion, which entails
that religions as well as individuals react to the presence of a religious other. As
a brief example, the Danish National Church and Danes have reacted to the

presence of religious others, whether it was Mormon missionary activity in the
nineteenth century, the new religious movements that followed in the wake of


12

Conclusion

193

the 1960s, the recent presence of Muslims in Denmark, or the rise of new organized Atheism. In addition to the dialectic between religions (including such
counter-religions as Atheism and Humanism) and religious factions, the various
systems of belief have reacted to the transformation of the Danish life-world,
including its dominant knowledge regime.
When reading the extensive sociological literature on classical secularization,
societal processes such as differentiation, rationalization, privatization, and so on
are commonly represented as key factors underlying the process of secularization.
Most often, however, there is no state agency. In a recent study, Daphne Halikiopoulou
compared and tested the secularization thesis in Greece and the Republic of Ireland
(Halikiopoulou 2011). In this work, she drew on David Martin’s analysis and correctly claimed that secularization was not an inevitable development but ‘a specific
outcome, possible only under certain conditions’ (Halikiopoulou 2011, 190). More
specifically, she used Martin’s so-called cultural defence paradigm, which claims
that secularization is ‘unlikely to occur in cases where religion historically has
served as a carrier of nationalism’ (Martin 1978; Halikiopoulou 2011, 1). The notion
of cultural defence is also outlined by Steve Bruce, who seems to regard it as a factor that may retard the process of secularization but eventually will not be able to
inhibit it (Bruce 2002). This notion of cultural defence has many similarities with
the approach of this book but with the crucial difference that it excludes any notion
of state agency from the theoretical frame. This book can then be seen as precisely
that, namely, a theory that, among other things, can include and explain what David
Martin called cultural defence at the theoretical level.

A fundamental difference between the state-centred perspective taken in this
book and the greater part of sociology can be found in the preconditions of a society.
Durkheim explained the emergence of social order with the concept of solidarity,
implying that man has an immanent tendency to integrate himself with others. One
problem in this regard is that the emergence of solidarity is taken for granted and not
explained theoretically (Højrup 2002, 2003; Kaspersen 2002). In the present
approach, the state, or the survival unit, is seen as a precondition for the existence of
a society. Further, the state is forged in opposition to other states or survival units.
Durkheimian sociology, as well as the overwhelming bulk of sociology, can thus be
described as approaches that regard societies as the result of fusion, by which I
mean that they perceive societies as having a natural tendency to ‘hang together,’ as
Steve Bruce has paraphrased it (Bruce 2011, 27). In contrast, I suggest that society
has a fissionary tendency, but that successful states are able to manage and keep
society together despite intra-societal tensions and conflicts. Let us pose the rhetorical question: would the US, for instance, allow the Republican-dominated states to
secede from the union if they sought secession and, if not, why? One motivation for
declining any such proposal is that fragmentation would most likely diminish
American supremacy in the world. The fact is that societies are not simply there,
and they do not simply cohere by themselves. They are managed and kept together
because the state has its own interests in a world of other states.


194

12

Conclusion

A similar point can be put forward against Niklas Luhmann’s theoretical system
approach, in which systems have an immanent tendency towards efficient communication. As in the criticism of the Durkheimian approach above, the problem in the
Luhmannian approach is that it also takes the existence of the social system for

granted. His book Social Systems opens with the following statement:
The following considerations assume that there are systems. … Our thesis, namely, that
there are systems, can now be narrowed down to: there are self-referential systems. This
means first of all, in an entirely general sense: there are systems that have the ability to
establish relations with themselves and to differentiate these relations from relations with
their environment (Luhmann 1995, 12–13).

Assuming the existence of social systems, including their ability to establish relations, Luhmann went on to assume that communicative systems, including the
social system, seek to obtain the most efficient communication (Luhmann 1995).
Furthermore, Luhmann, and, for instance, Peter Beyer seem to take for granted
social systems’ drive towards the most efficient communication and the proposition
that this explains the fact that Western societies have seen an increase in functional
differentiation because it is the most efficient way of organizing a system. A consequence of Luhmann’s theory is that no systems control the others (Beyer 2006).
I disagree strongly with this last point. The vital interests of the state can overrule
other ‘systems’. The consequence of this is that if the state or the survival unit is
functioning well, the struggle for survival tends to influence, if not dictate, developments in other systems. This position is vindicated by the historical analysis of
Danish educational policy making with regard to the teaching of religion. Broadly
speaking, the defensive concerns of the Danish state played no small role behind the
scenes in the conditioning of the teaching of religion in Danish elementary schools
throughout the period analysed.
In contrast to such Durkheimian and Luhmannian approaches, I have found it
useful to adopt a perspective inspired by Norbert Elias’ state concept and Thomas
Højrup’s State and Life-Mode Theory (Elias 1978, 2008; Højrup 2003 ). In this
approach, the point of departure is not the existence of a social system or society but
rather the relations between social units at the most general level (i.e., the state system). In this perspective, states can be investigated as entities that struggle to survive in an environment of other states. If they do not attempt to keep abreast of other
states, the danger is that they will be subsumed into one of them, as has occurred
many times throughout history. States thus have to organize themselves with a view
to increasing their chances of survival and independence. In this perspective, states
are constituted by encounter with other state(s). In this work, this perspective is supported. The Danish state has, throughout the period studied, reacted to the presence
of significant external threats, mostly from other states. In the long eighteenth century it was Sweden, in the long 19th it was Prussia, the German Union, and the

Third Reich, and from 1945 to 1989 it was the USSR. Since 2001, it has been the
terrorist threat from fundamentalist Muslims and the new globalised world order.
These external pressures have played a key role as a driving force behind the organization of the Danish state, including its educational system. From a historical