Материал: The Routledge Companion to the Study of Religion by John Hinnells

The study of religions: the last 50 yearsâ 41â

bellicose Christianity. In 1965, the United States also changed its immigration laws, allowing limited numbers of Asians, previously barred, to enter the country, eventually creating a new religious demographic.

Expansion and internationalization2

These factors and others as well combined in the decades following the Second World War to create a general shift toward a more pluralistic conception of religious studies as well as the establishment of new academic units and positions. Until the 1960s many state universities in the United States had largely avoided the study of religions. In the 1960s state universities began to found academic units for it. The most significant of these was the department of religious studies at the University of California–Santa Barbara, established in 1964. Although Friedrich Max Müller (1867) had announced the birth of the science of religion while working at Oxford, the United Kingdom had lacked academic units devoted to its study. That changed, too, as Great Britain began to institute such programmes, especially in its new universities. The way was led by Ninian Smart, who founded the first British department of religious studies in Lancaster University in 1967. Earlier, in 1960, the fifth section (Sciences religieuses) of the École Pratique des Hautes Études in Paris expanded to include 29 chairs. It has since grown to roughly twice that size and is the largest single unit devoted to the study of religions in Europe. In orientation its work has tended to be more exactingly historical and philological than is often the case in religious studies departments in other countries.

At the other end of the Eurasian land mass, the People’s Republic of China founded the Institute for World Religions in Beijing in 1964, although the Cultural Revolution (1966– 1976) severely disrupted its work. In Korea and Japan the study of religions was promoted through academic appointments and the establishment of new academic units, such as the chair of religious studies at the University of Tsukuba, founded in 1973. In New Zealand (Aotearoa), the University of Otago established a chair in the phenomenology of religion in 1966; Victoria University, Wellington, established a chair in religious studies in 1971. The Universities of Queensland and Sydney, Australia, established Departments of Studies in Religion in 1974 and 1977, respectively. Meanwhile, in Africa, especially those parts of Africa formerly under British rule, programmes in religious studies were founded as newly independent African nations established national universities. Nigeria was and remains particularly active in the study of religions, beginning with the founding of the department of religious studies at the University of Ibadan in 1949. In addition to local African professors, African programmes in religious studies have benefited from the services of many leading scholars of European and, less frequently, North American origin, such as Geoffrey Parrinder, J. G. Platvoet, James Cox, Rosalind Hackett, and David Chidester.

Scholarship involves more than academic units in universities. It also involves professional associations and other structures that facilitate scholarly communication and research. These structures, too, map the growth of religious studies during the last fifty years. Among the new professional associations founded after the Second World War were the International Association for the History of Religion (established 1950), followed (or in some cases preceded) by the founding of national associations in many European countries, the American Academy of Religion (the new name given to the National Association of Bible Instructors in 1963), the Korea Association for Studies of Religion (1970), later revived as the Korean Association for the History of Religions; the Society for the Sociology of Religion (a Japanese association founded in 1975; the Japanese Association for Religious Studies has

42â The study of religions: the last 50 years

been founded in 1930); the Australian Association for the Study of Religion (1975); the New Zealand Association for the Study of Religion (1978); the [mainland] Chinese Association of Religious Studies (1979), and the African Association for the Study of Religion (1992). Similarly, a host of new journals came into being, including, to name only a few: Numen (journal of the IAHR, 1954), Przeglad Religioznawczy (Poland, 1957), History of Religions (US, 1961), Temenos (Finland, 1965), Journal of Religion in Africa, Religion en Afrique (Africa, 1967), Religion (UK and North America, 1971), Japanese Journal of Religious Studies (Japan, 1974), Shijie Zongjiao Yanjiu (China, 1979), Jongkyo Yeongu (Korea, 1986), Journal for the Study of Religion (Southern Africa, 1988), Method and Theory in the Study of Religion (North America, 1989), Zeitschrift für Religionswissenschaft (Germany, 1993), Religio. Revue pro Religionistiku

(Czech Republic, 1993), Archaevs: Studies in the History of Religions (Romania, 1997), and Bandue (Spain, 2007). Space does not permit mentioning the many book series and text books, reference works, and anthologies that appeared, but one might note the publication of two editions of two major encyclopaedias in this period: Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart (1957–1965, 1998–2005) and The Encyclopedia of Religion (1987, 2005).

It would be misleading to suggest that after the Second World War religious studies emerged equally in every part of the world. In the Soviet sphere of influence, the study of religions was under severe political pressure, and some scholars, such as Kurt Rudolph, an expert in Gnosticism and Mandaeism at the University of Leipzig, left for the West. Since the fall of European Communism, vigorous programmes in religious studies have arisen in places such as the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria, with recent promising beginnings in Russia itself. Aside from Israel, universities in the Middle East still tend to teach ‘theology’, or rather, Islamic law, although a non-theological study of religions has begun to emerge in some countries, such as Turkey. In South America, other academic units, such as history, anthropology, sociology, and psychology, generally study local religions. In South Asia there are very few programmes in religious studies, but sociology, introduced into Indian universities in the 1960s, has produced very fine scholarly work on religions, such as the work of T. N. Madan (1976, 2004, 2006).

Theoretical beginnings

Despite the wide geographical expanse of the study of religion, theoretical work in the field has tended to be done in Europe or countries associated with the European diaspora. That hardly means, however, that only people of western European ancestry have been theoretically influential. A dominant influence in the first part of the period under review was the ‘Chicago school’, associated above all with the names of three professors at the University of Chicago, none of whom was western European in the common usage of the term: Joseph M. Kitagawa, Charles H. Long, and Mircea Eliade.

In many ways the Romanian-born scholar, Mircea Eliade (1907–1986), defined the study of religions throughout much of the period under consideration. That is true both for his admirers and for his many critics, who reacted by deliberately contrasting their work with his. Although Eliade is closely associated with the name ‘history of religions’, the designation was in some sense a relic of Romanian and French terminology as well as of earlier terminology at the University of Chicago. Rather than history, Eliade’s thinking represented perhaps the last grand flourishing of the phenomenology of religion. Rejecting approaches that sought to explain religion in terms of something that was not religious, such as society or the human psyche, he attempted to develop what he called a morphology of the sacred. That is, he

The study of religions: the last 50 yearsâ 43â

wanted to identify the basic forms through which the sacred manifested itself in human consciousness. He was particularly interested in cosmogonies (myths of origin) and their ritual re-enactment, which he interpreted as an attempt to return to the time or origins and live in close proximity to the sacred. He developed these ideas in full form in Patterns in Comparative Religion (1949b; Eng. trans. 1958) and The Myth of the Eternal Return (1949a; Eng. trans. 1954), then repeated them tirelessly in a series of more popular books. He was also particularly known for his studies of yoga (1954; Eng. trans. 1958) and shamanism (1951; Eng. trans. 1964).

Ninian Smart (1927–2001) had a different background and a different approach to the study of religions. He also occupied a different sphere of influence. A Scotsman, he read philosophy and classics at Oxford. As noted above, he founded the department of religious studies at Lancaster University in 1967. Eventually he also took a position in the United States at the University of California–Santa Barbara. While Eliade’s notion that the sacred manifests itself as a structure of human consciousness can be read in a religiously committed sense, Smart (1973) insisted that scholars of religions needed to adopt a methodological agnosticism: as scholars they should be non-committal in the matter of religious truth. Instead of developing a grand theory of religious content, as Eliade did, Smart identified six, later seven, dimensions constitutive of religion: doctrinal, mythological, ethical, ritual, experiential, institutional, and material. He also famously noted the similarity between Marxism, for example, and more traditional religions and suggested that the study of religions is properly the study of worldviews (Smart 1983). Like Eliade, he, too, was a popularizer, but in a broader range of media. A notable example was his series ‘The Long Search’ on BBC television (Smart 1977).

One final figure anticipated much work in the study of religions that was to follow, the Canadian Wilfred Cantwell Smith (1916–2001), a professor at Harvard, among other universities. An Islamicist who taught in Lahore prior to Pakistani independence, Smith (1963) critically interrogated the central category on which religious studies is based, ‘religion’ itself. The term, he contended, was a modern invention that did not correspond to what was found empirically throughout most of human history. He recommended replacing it with the terms ‘faith’ and ‘cumulative tradition’. In addition, he objected to an objectivizing, ‘us’ and ‘them’ mentality, which he saw underlying religious studies. He envisioned a time when the peoples of the world would come together to talk with each other about themselves (Smith 1959: 34). If Smart advocated a methodological agnosticism and Eliade provided a grand statement of the content allegedly underlying all religions, Smith took a different approach and eventually moved Towards a World Theology (1981).

These three thinkers were not the only leading figures in the study of religions at the beginning of the period under consideration. There were many other important scholars as well. Arguably those who did careful historical and philological work contributed just as much if not more substance to the study of religion than these three figures did. Among such scholars one might name, to include only a few, Hideo Kishimoto (1903–1964) and Ichiro Hori (1910–1974) in Japan, P. V. Kane (1880–1972) in India, Raffaele Pettazzoni (1883–1959) in Italy, Annemarie Schimmel (1922–2003) in Germany, Henri-Charles Puech (1902–1986) and Marcel Simon (1907–1986) in France, S. G. F. Brandon (1907–1971) in the United Kingdom, and Okot p’Bitek (1931–1982) in Uganda, generally known for his contributions to literature but also important for his contributions to the study of African traditional religions. Nevertheless, the prominence of the institutions with which Eliade (Paris, Chicago), Smart (Lancaster, Santa Barbara), and Smith (Harvard, Dalhousie) were

44â The study of religions: the last 50 years

associated gave them unparalleled importance for scholars of religions who aspired to be more than philologists or historians in the strictest sense of the words. They served to define three major sub-communities within the study of religions.

Second thoughts

Figures like Eliade, Smart, and Smith provided starting points for the study of religions during the last fifty years. It is striking, however, how little of the work that has been done has directly developed their ideas. Most theoretical directions in the study of religion have been set from the outside as scholars reacted to the writings of Eliade, Smart, and Smith, especially Eliade. Although some have wanted to see the study of religion as a discipline, defined by a particular method, in practice it has been an undisciplined, polymethodic field largely planted with seeds from elsewhere. Many heirloom cultivars – ideas of earlier scholars such as Émile Durkheim, Sigmund Freud, and Max Weber – have continued to produce rich crops. Among the most important sources of new seeds have been anthropology, literary studies, cultural studies, and in recent days, the social sciences.

An anthropological turn

A central claim in Eliade’s theory of religion was that ‘archaic’ peoples were the prime representatives of homo religiosus, religious humanity. It should not come entirely as a surprise, then, that in the last fifty years scholars of religions have turned to the field that once took such ‘archaic’ peoples as its object of study, anthropology. Initially they used anthropology as a means to assess and critique Eliade’s claims. Then they returned to it repeatedly as a well from which to draw the freshest methodological waters. This is not the place to recite the history of anthropology over the last fifty years, but some names are unavoidable.

While Eliade had sought to identify the content of religious thought, the French anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss took a different approach, articulated in several books from the mid-1950s to the early 1960s (1955, 1958, 1962a, 1962b; Eng. trans. beginning 1961). Under the inspiration of structural linguistics, he tried to describe the logical patterns according to which the mind worked, along with their implications. The resulting structuralism, which made heavy use of binary oppositions to identify the language underlying religious ‘utterances’ rather than the meaning of the utterances themselves, became a major movement within the study of religions. Lévi-Strauss himself applied the method at length to the elucidation of myth. Wendy Doniger, who studies Hindu mythology, applied it to good effect in her early work on the god Śiva (1973). Hans Penner (1989, 1998) has continued to be a vigorous spokesperson for the possibilities of structuralism.

Other anthropologists also exercised profound influence on the study of religions beginning in the 1960s. The American, Clifford Geertz (1926–2006) sought to effect a paradigm shift in anthropology away from a structural-functionalist anthropology that sought causal explanations toward a hermeneutical anthropology that sought to understand the meaning of symbols. Among his most influential contributions to the study of religions are his programmes of ‘thick description’, identifying local knowledge, and ‘reading’ culture as a text, as well as his account of ‘religion as a cultural system’ (Geertz 1973, 1983). Another important anthropologist from the same period, Victor W. Turner (1920–1983), adapted Arnold van Gennep’s analysis of rites of passage to many other cultural areas, exploring the anti-structural phase of ‘liminality’ in activities such as pilgrimage (Turner 1967, 1969,

The study of religions: the last 50 yearsâ 45â

1974). Mary Douglas (1921–2007) rose to prominence because of her book Purity and Danger (1966), which, inspired by structuralism, argued that dirt and pollution were not the result of natural experiences but rather reflected an inability to fit certain items into established categories. Each of these anthropologists was extremely influential on work in the study of religions. For example, Victor Turner is in some ways a founding figure for the later field of ritual studies.

The names Geertz, Turner, and Douglas hardly exhaust the anthropologists from the 1960s who had an impact on the study of religion. Among his many writings, the structuralist Edmund Leach (1966) published a harsh critique of Eliade. One might also mention Melford Spiro (1970) and Stanley Tambiah (1970, 1981), who worked on Burmese and Thai Buddhism, respectively. Spiro has been particularly important for a definition of religion that he published at the same time that Geertz published ‘religion as a cultural system’: religion is ‘an institution consisting of culturally patterned interaction with culturally postulated superhuman beings’ (Spiro 1966: 96).

Eventually this new generation of anthropologists came in for harsh criticism. Their successors found them vulnerable on a number of grounds, including an overly systematic view of culture, an inattention to the political dimensions of cultural activity, and a propensity to over-interpret the data. For scholars of religions, however, they had the effect of calling important paradigms into question, especially those associated with Eliade. Specifically, a grand synthesis of religious content such as Eliade and the other phenomenologists had attempted to provide seemed untenable and irresponsible to the complexities of cultural data.

Within the study of religions itself this kind of critique is probably best represented and furthered by a younger colleague of Eliade’s at Chicago, Jonathan Z. Smith (1978, 1982, 2004). A specialist in Greco-Roman religions who has been more a writer of essays than of monographs, Smith has been particularly interested in issues of definition, classification (taxonomy), difference, and relation. A careful reader and relentless critic, Smith anticipated much future criticism by seeing Eliade’s views as reflecting an overly conservative political orientation, emphasizing locative, normative aspects of religion while ignoring utopian, radical dimensions. Among Smith’s other distinctive ideas is the claim that definitions should not be rooted in essential features, as in Spiro’s definition mentioned above, but ‘polythetic’, loose bundles of features any one of which might not be present in a specific instance of religion. He has also insisted that the study of religion consists in translating the unknown into the known and of redescribing the original in terms of other categories. His favourite example of such translation is Émile Durkheim’s Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, which translates the religious into the social.

Inspired in part by Smith as well as the anthropological turn, scholars of religion have largely abandoned the older phenomenological enterprise and turned instead to detailed studies informed by theoretical issues but carefully delimited in terms of geographical, temporal, cultural, and linguistic extent. They have also felt less comfortable than a scholar such as Eliade did about discussing religions of communities whose languages, history, and culture they do not themselves have a good working knowledge of. Such reluctance led Eliade and others with similar sentiments to lament the loss of the grande oeuvre and the fragmentation of the field into a great variety of subspecialties. From the other side, such limitations seemed a prerequisite for responsible scholarship.