"Ordo temporis" : "secularization" as a historiographic category

The issue of secularization became a "Bermuda triangle" of debates concerning the origin and development of modernity. In some theories, the concept which originated within the sphere of canon law, has grown to the rank of the main historiosophic category which establishes the order of the times. In its semantic, though not phonic translatio, it has undergone a transformation from its Roman original, through the narrow semantic scope in the 16th c., denoting "transition" from the clerical to the lay state, through the 17th c. broadening of the meaning to denote the transfer of church property to the state, up to the 19th c. "description" of the historical transition between the Middle Ages and the Modern era. The present article tries to introduce order and present the various meanings of the concept and at the same time, answer the question: whether the category of "secularization" is a descriptive concept which reveals the process of modern "disenchantment of the world" or quite the opposite: whether it constitutes the process of "enchanting" modernity? Thanks to G.W.F. Hegel, who used among others the metaphor of "enworlding" (Verweltlichung), the topic of secularization became one of the main „defining” categories of modernity. Within a system recounting the advance of the "spirit" throughout history, the author juxtaposes the mediaeval world to the modern one by means of the category of secularization, understood as a historical necessity. In the post-Hegelian philosophy, the theme of secularization became very popular in the materialistic, or else spiritualistic visions of history; it was treated either as an expression of historical progress, or else as a description of "crisis", or "dissent". Another author who exerted an influence on the rank and importance of this category was M. Weber. His conception of historical evolution assumed a transition within European culture from Judaism to the modern social forms best expressed in capitalism. One of the main descriptive categories in this process is the category of secularization, which is used interchangeably with the metaphor of the "disenchantment of the world" (Entzauberung der Welt). At times, Weber used the metaphor in the narrow sense to denote disenchanting, or else in the broad sense, to denote the main concept of shaping modernity. Following Hegel and Weber, in the 20th century, the above category became a sort of theoretical rut, which is used in a variety of senses and theories which often contradict or oppose each other. The first philosopher who not so much noticed the problems associated with this term, but who undermined the very foundations of the concept of secularization, was H. Blumenberg. In his book entitled: The Legitimacy of the Modern Age (Die Legitimität der Neuzeit) of 1966, he pointed out to a few fundamental difficulties associated with using this category. First of all, the acceptance of the assumption that: modernity is a derivative of the Middle Ages in the sense of secularizing its main categories, and endowing this concept with substantive content is theological and not historical in character. Secondly, he drew attention to the fact that the created ordo temporis lead to recognizing the modern age as an era that is not truly valid. Yet, the most important consequence of using this term, according to Blumenberg, is refusing the modern man the right to self-assertion. Taking into consideration both good and bad, the above theory assumes that the modern man has committed a historical hybris by undertaking the effort of "self-assertion" (Selbestbehauptung). The article consists of three parts: the first one presents the history of the concept, the second looks at the ways of constructing historical orders and at the historical debate concerning their trucizna" (Pamięć, historia, zapomnienie, establishment, the third is devoted to the duel of the dwarfs (two metaphors of the dwarf in the history of philosophy of W. Benjamin and in the medieval philosophy of Bernard of Chartres); the article tries to capture the "unsinkable" character of the concept of "secularization". On the one hand, the author juxtaposes the climbing of the dwarfs on the shoulders of the giants, so as "to see further" within the critically justified knowledge, and on the other, he presents the concealed game of theology which manipulates the major theoretical categories. The "duel of the dwarfs" was triggered by an attempt to define the sense of history in the context of a confrontation with the limitations of our cognition.