Political representation of tradition exceeds identity recognition to require institutions

Evidence

But my comments also reflect an unresolved tension: how can respect for individuals be ensured and conditions be fostered that nurture collective “ways of life”? This concern is not merely a matter of “recognition”—of the demand that one should be able to name oneself as a group and be confirmed by others as the bearer of that name, and thereby have one’s anxieties allayed. It is also a matter of embodied memories and practices that are articulated by traditions, and of political institutions through which these traditions can be fully represented. (The constituency represented does not have to be geographically continuous or univocal.) Our attention needs to be directed not so much at how identities are negotiated and recognized (for example through exploratory and constructive dialogue, as Charles Taylor has advocated). Rather, the focus should be on what it takes to live particular ways of life continuously, co-operatively, and unselfconsciously. — Talal Asad, Formations of the Secular, 868

Categorization

• XREF: This contrasts the recognition-based multiculturalism Taylor urges with a working-institutions account of religious/tradition life — directly relevant to the Cooper thread on how secular states materially shape religious practice.
• DEFINE: Asad redefines minority representation as institutional/tradition-sustaining, not identity-bound — a key conceptual move in the secularism critique.