Secularization

Secularization presents itself as a technical term, almost innocuous. Yet in Italian, it does not merely describe a historical or legal process: it enacts a semantic shift in which the sacred is both denied and preserved. Born in the wake of struggles for secularization, the word becomes an instrument of linguistic power, masking under an appearance of neutrality what it claims to unveil. In Una pietra sopra, Calvino exposes it as the symptom of a language lying to itself.

The meaning beneath the word

The term laicizzazione draws its root from laicus, a Latin word borrowed from the Greek laïkós (λαϊκός), meaning “of the people,” as opposed to klērikós (κληρικός), “of the clergy.” Originally, it designates the act of rendering something lay—that is, removing a domain (education, institutions, language) from the direct influence of the Church. But in modern Italian, the word transcends this technical meaning: it embodies a strategy of diversion, where secularism becomes a screen to avoid naming what offends.

The genealogy of the shift

The mechanism is subtle: laicizzazione does not merely describe a transfer of power from the religious to the civil. It euphemizes that transfer, making it acceptable by naturalizing it. In L’antilingua, Calvino pinpoints this linguistic sleight of hand:

There is an attitude we might call one of «secularization»

The quote lays bare the trick: the word does not speak of desecration, but of secularization, as if the sacred could be diluted into administrative neutrality. The masked object is twofold: first, the taboo of naming the religious as a force still at work; second, the sacred itself, reduced to an obsolete category to be evacuated through language. The diversion is political: it allows the post-unification Italian state to construct its legitimacy by erasing traces of its clerical heritage, all while maintaining an implicit deference to it.

The same veil, from one language to another

This gesture is not unique to Italian. Other languages attest to the same intersection: an evasive euphemism that naturalizes a sacred taboo under the guise of neutrality. The table below maps it, sourced in each linguistic sphere.

Langue	Forme du mot	Attestation
French	laïcisation	○
English	secularization	○
German	Säkularisierung	○
Spanish	secularización	○
Italian	laicizzazione	●
Russian	секуляризация sekulyarizatsiya	○
Turkish	laikleşme	○
Chinese	世俗化 shìsúhuà	○

In French, the term laïcisation follows a similar trajectory, though with a nuance: it is often used to denote separation (the 1905 laws) rather than the neutralization of the sacred. Yet, as the provided citation shows, the word also serves to mask the persistence of the religious in public space, relegating it to a private sphere one pretends to ignore. The euphemism here is more institutional than linguistic: it allows the Republic to present itself as above religious conflicts, when in fact it is a historical actor in them.

In Spanish, laicización enacts a comparable shift, but in a context where Catholicism remains a hegemonic cultural force. The word is less a tool of secularization than a compromise: it enables negotiation over the Church’s place in society without openly breaking with it. The Spanish citation reveals this ambiguity: laicización is often used to describe reforms that limit clerical influence without eradicating it, as if the sacred could be metered rather than contested.

In German, Säkularisierung (or Verweltlichung) appears more radical: derived from the Latin saeculum (“century,” “profane world”), the term implies an exit from the religious. Yet the German citation shows that the word is also used to relocate the sacred rather than eliminate it. In the Protestant context, Säkularisierung can refer to the transformation of ecclesiastical property into state property—a transfer that preserves, in another form, the sacrality of authority. The euphemism here is economic: it allows one to speak of management rather than expropriation.

In Russian, секуляризация (sekulyarizatsiya) inherits this ambiguity, but with an added dimension: the word is often associated with revolutionary violence (the reforms of Peter the Great, then the Bolsheviks). Yet, as the source notes, it is also used to depoliticize the religious, presenting it as an outdated historical phenomenon. The masked object is then power: by speaking of secularization, one avoids naming the struggle between the state and the Orthodox Church, as if the latter were merely a relic of the past.

The word that silences

Laicizzazione is not merely a concept: it is an organized silence. By pretending to neutralize the sacred, it perpetuates it in a more insidious form, one less visible because less acknowledged. The cross-linguistic map reveals that this gesture is not an Italian exception but a transnational strategy: everywhere, political and religious language converge in this same diversion, where euphemism serves to mask what one does not wish—or cannot—name. In the end, the word does not speak of secularism: it speaks of the fear of naming it.