There is more here than an Anthropology of the Secular and mostly because a full appreciation of the concept can never arise from a direct response to the question "what is the secular?". And so Asad continues throughout to offer examples and elements of alterations in human thought which may have opened up a new space, creating suitable conditions and allowing 'the secular' to mark its territory and flourish. Asad makes clear that he does not equate or associate individual intentions (in the writings analyzed) with wider structural developments, the method preferred in standard historical accounts. In his chapter on the secular transformation of Egypt for example, it is made clear how reformers unwittingly muddle two sets of grammars (classical Islamic and modern secular) and thereby construct an ambiguous third set of concepts with significantly 'secular' significations.

That is ultimately the essence of this study. An attempt to trace transformations in the grammar of our language (the genealogy of concepts) And as such there is hardly one single discovery that this book can impress upon us. As readers, we can not be passive receivers but rather engage with Asad's suggestions and appreciate that this multi-faceted concept known to us as the 'secular' takes on different forms in different places as it homogenizes distinct temporalities into one singular history. Our desire for a simple linear solution, a direct "anthropology of the 'secular'" in the vein of so many "anthropologies of 'religion'" is itself an entailment of a secular mindset.

Although 'Human Rights', 'agency' and 'pain' may seem like distractions for someone focusing on secularism, they are evidence of the presence of 'modernity' and the 'secular' in our world. They are tools which the secular uses to maintain its neutral stance, and finally they are the site of conflict and contradiction which the insightful scholar can expose.

Finally, I must mention that there are sections of this work which do seem a little meandered and complex but these are few and often mulling over these areas or even inquiring into quoted texts should clarify. Some of the negative comments made in other reviews only further highlight misunderstandings or expectations of a traditional anthropological approach. In a sense, Asad's indirect, and for some, vague and incoherent method is ironically the evidence of what he is up against!

There is more here than an Anthropology of the Secular and mostly because a full appreciation of the concept can never arise from a direct response to the question "what is the secular?". And so Asad continues throughout to offer examples and elements of alterations in human thought which may have opened up a new space, creating suitable conditions and allowing 'the secular' to mark its territory and flourish. Asad makes clear that he does not equate or associate individual intentions (in the writings analyzed) with wider structural developments, the method preferred in standard historical accounts. In his chapter on the secular transformation of Egypt for example, it is made clear how reformers unwittingly muddle two sets of grammars (classical Islamic and modern secular) and thereby construct an ambiguous third set of concepts with significantly 'secular' significations.

That is ultimately the essence of this study. An attempt to trace transformations in the grammar of our language (the genealogy of concepts) And as such there is hardly one single discovery that this book can impress upon us. As readers, we can not be passive receivers but rather engage with Asad's suggestions and appreciate that this multi-faceted concept known to us as the 'secular' takes on different forms in different places as it homogenizes distinct temporalities into one singular history. Our desire for a simple linear solution, a direct "anthropology of the 'secular'" in the vein of so many "anthropologies of 'religion'" is itself an entailment of a secular mindset.

Although 'Human Rights', 'agency' and 'pain' may seem like distractions for someone focusing on secularism, they are evidence of the presence of 'modernity' and the 'secular' in our world. They are tools which the secular uses to maintain its neutral stance, and finally they are the site of conflict and contradiction which the insightful scholar can expose.

Finally, I must mention that there are sections of this work which do seem a little meandered and complex but these are few and often mulling over these areas or even inquiring into quoted texts should clarify. Some of the negative comments made in other reviews only further highlight misunderstandings or expectations of a traditional anthropological approach. In a sense, Asad's indirect, and for some, vague and incoherent method is ironically the evidence of what he is up against!

There is more here than an Anthropology of the Secular and mostly because a full appreciation of the concept can never arise from a direct response to the question "what is the secular?". And so Asad continues throughout to offer examples and elements of alterations in human thought which may have opened up a new space, creating suitable conditions and allowing 'the secular' to mark its territory and flourish. Asad makes clear that he does not equate or associate individual intentions (in the writings analyzed) with wider structural developments, the method preferred in standard historical accounts. In his chapter on the secular transformation of Egypt for example, it is made clear how reformers unwittingly muddle two sets of grammars (classical Islamic and modern secular) and thereby construct an ambiguous third set of concepts with significantly 'secular' significations.

That is ultimately the essence of this study. An attempt to trace transformations in the grammar of our language (the genealogy of concepts) And as such there is hardly one single discovery that this book can impress upon us. As readers, we can not be passive receivers but rather engage with Asad's suggestions and appreciate that this multi-faceted concept known to us as the 'secular' takes on different forms in different places as it homogenizes distinct temporalities into one singular history. Our desire for a simple linear solution, a direct "anthropology of the 'secular'" in the vein of so many "anthropologies of 'religion'" is itself an entailment of a secular mindset.

Although 'Human Rights', 'agency' and 'pain' may seem like distractions for someone focusing on secularism, they are evidence of the presence of 'modernity' and the 'secular' in our world. They are tools which the secular uses to maintain its neutral stance, and finally they are the site of conflict and contradiction which the insightful scholar can expose.

Finally, I must mention that there are sections of this work which do seem a little meandered and complex but these are few and often mulling over these areas or even inquiring into quoted texts should clarify. Some of the negative comments made in other reviews only further highlight misunderstandings or expectations of a traditional anthropological approach. In a sense, Asad's indirect, and for some, vague and incoherent method is ironically the evidence of what he is up against!