By Jessica Chia
Reporter
James Davison Hunter is a distinguished visiting professor in Baylor’s Department of Sociology. He is also an author, a Labrosse-Levinson distinguished professor of religion, culture and social theory at the University of Virginia and Executive Director of the Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture.
Baylor is a faith-based institution. As a scholar of religion, do you think faith and morality affect the political realm?
Yes. There’s a simple answer and a more complicated answer. The simple answer is that most Americans have some faith commitments or notion of spirituality and that can’t help but inform their understanding of how to rightly order public life. American religiosity will inevitably spill over into political commitments. The more complicated answer, but just as true, is that all of culture, even politics, is moral in nature. There is no neutral ground. Every law presupposes a cosmology. To be human is to be moral or ethical in your orientation. There’s nothing that isn’t moral. Because all knowledge at the end of the day is faith-based, how could faith ever be pulled apart from politics?
You mentioned culture. What aspects of culture influence politics?
Most of what people think about culture is what they can see and what they can articulate. The music they listen to, the art they see, the values they talk about or the beliefs they have. That’s really just the tip of the iceberg. You only see the top ten percent. Most of culture is in fact, below the surface—it is implicit, not explicit. It’s what is taken for granted—our sense of time, value, importance, right and wrong, good and bad, and so on. Those things are not rooted in nature, but they are, in effect, “second nature” to us. If culture at the implicit level is shaping how we should relate to other human beings, how we should think about work, wealth, learning, and on, it can’t help but inform our view of what is good policy and bad policy. People’s politics are a reflection of who they are and where they come from.
What role does today’s technology play in politics?
The technologies of communication also tend to polarize. The average sound bite has gone from 30 seconds down to 8 seconds over the last 30 years. These sound bites don’t represent any subtlety or nuance. They’re bold statements that tend to inflame rather than provide understanding. The Internet does that, as does texting, tweeting and direct mail. It’s all about generating emotion and, more often than not, fear. So you get these contrasts between good and evil that don’t represent reality; that don’t promote understanding.
Looking back, what do you think the 2012 election revealed about Americans and American politics?
The 2012 election reinforced what we’ve seen in previous elections- that we are a deeply divided nation. Among political consultants, the battle for the presidency was over a very narrow group of independents. Most of the population had already made up their mind about the candidates long before the election ever happened.
In your book Culture Wars, you address the liberal-conservative divide in politics. What strategies can the two sides use to work together on solutions for our country?
I think the question is “can they work together?” The current test right now is the so-called fiscal cliff. We’ll see. Washington is deeply polarized, and no one wants to compromise, because compromise is interpreted as being unfaithful to one’s core principles. This is true whether one is liberal or conservative. The political parties are not unlike warring tribes of aborigines; tribes that cannot talk to each other or work together. To work with the opposition is seen as a betrayal of one’s own tribe.
If the current level of partisanship persists, what will that mean for the Obama administration?
It means they will get little done. The House of Representatives is still controlled by Republicans, and they simply will not pass any of the Democratic initiatives. It’s a mess.
What will it mean for democracy?
Partisanship is very healthy for democracy and so you want people in a democracy to hold strong opinions. But the very nature of politics requires compromise. You see, democracy is fundamentally an agreement that we will not kill each other over our differences, but rather that we will talk our differences through. If you’re a politician and not willing to compromise, you shouldn’t be a politician. And neither you should ever get married!
So do you see any hope for the future of policy-making?
Well there’s always hope. It’s not just that people have bad motivations. I don’t think that’s the problem. I think part of the problem is the way in which money is used. There are all sorts of other factors as well, but big money influences this kind of ‘take no prisoners’ approach to politics. Big money reinforces intransigence and the unwillingness to compromise.
Q: Baylor is a faith-based institution. As a scholar of religion, do you think faith and morality affect the political realm?
A: Yes. There’s a simple answer and a more complicated answer. The simple answer is that most Americans have some faith commitments or notion of spirituality and that can’t help but inform their understanding of how to rightly order public life.
American religiosity will inevitably spill over into political commitments. The more complicated answer, but just as true, is that all of culture, even politics, is moral in nature. There is no neutral ground.
Every law presupposes a cosmology. To be human is to be moral or ethical in your orientation. There’s nothing that isn’t moral. Because all knowledge at the end of the day is faith-based, how could faith ever be pulled apart from politics?
Q: What role does today’s technology play in politics?
A: The technologies of communication also tend to polarize. The average sound bite has gone from 30 seconds down to 8 seconds over the last 30 years. These sound bites don’t represent any subtlety or nuance. They’re bold statements that tend to inflame rather than provide understanding. The Internet does that, as does texting, tweeting and direct mail. It’s all about generating emotion and, more often than not, fear. So you get these contrasts between good and evil that don’t represent reality; that don’t promote understanding.
Q: Looking back, what do you think the 2012 election revealed about Americans and American politics?
A: The 2012 election reinforced what we’ve seen in previous elections- that we are a deeply divided nation. Among political consultants, the battle for the presidency was over a very narrow group of independents. Most of the population had already made up their mind about the candidates long before the election ever happened.
Q: If the current level of partisanship persists, what will it mean for democracy?
A: Partisanship is very healthy for democracy and so you want people in a democracy to hold strong opinions. But the very nature of politics requires compromise. You see, democracy is fundamentally an agreement that we will not kill each other over our differences, but rather that we will talk our differences through. If you’re a politician and not willing to compromise, you shouldn’t be a politician. And neither you should ever get married!
Q: Do you see any hope for the future of policy-making?
A: Well there’s always hope. It’s not just that people have bad motivations. I don’t think that’s the problem. I think part of the problem is the way in which money is used. There are all sorts of other factors as well, but big money influences this kind of ‘take no prisoners’ approach to politics. Big money reinforces intransigence and the unwillingness to compromise.
This Q and A has been edited to run in the space allotted. A full version is available online.
