Abstract
Tomoko Masuzawa’s book The Invention of World Religions describes how a discursive entity called “religion” emerged in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. According to Masuzawa, world religions emerged “as a category and as a conceptual framework initially developed in the European academy, which quickly became a means of differentiating, variegating, consolidating, and totalizing a large portion of the social, cultural, and political practices observable among the inhabitants of regions elsewhere in the world.”1 Where previously the world was divided into Christians, Jews, Muslims, and then the rest, with Christianity standing as the one true religion among them, in the early decades of the nineteenth century the discursive regime of pluralism rendered “the rest” visible. Buddhism, Hinduism, Shinto, Confucianism, and many others were suddenly understood as distinct entities, clearly demarcated sets of beliefs and practices that marked them off from other competing beliefs, practices, and cultures. On Masuzawa’s telling, these traditions were constructed by European scholars for the purposes of comparative study, as well as for the purposes of cultural classification and domination.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Tomoko Masuzawa, The Invention of World Religions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005), p. 20.
David Harvey, The Condition of Postmodernity (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1990), p. 252.
Masuzawa, pp. ix—33.
Friedrich Schleiermacher, On Religion: Speeches to Its Cultured Despisers (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), p. 123.
Friedrich Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith (London: T & T Clark, 1999), p. 137. Hereafter CF.
Ibid., p. 173.
Ibid., p. 532.
Immanuel Kant, Critique of Judgment, ed. Werner Pluhar (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing, 1987), p. 253. My reading of Kant here has been helped by a discussion found in Mark C. Taylor, The Moment of Complexity (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001), pp. 84—88.
Ibid., pp. 249–250.
CF, p. 139.
I have borrowed the apt and felicitous term “life-system” from Henry Sussman, for it bypasses the ways the very category “religion” was formed within the crucible of colonial encounters within the ninteenth century.
CF, p. 31.
A brief word on the relationship between Schleiermacher and Hegel is in order, for much of my analysis of Schleiermacher in the following pages seems to resemble moments within Hegel. Their personal animus toward one another is well-known, and yet I believe their projects are not as different as one might initially suspect. In a helpful chapter on Hegel and Schleiermacher, Richard Crouter argues that the two men were united by a number of common concerns, among them their commitment to the university as an institution for the shaping of modern culture, their sense that traditional Christianity and modern thought needed to be reconciled, including especially Christianity and the natural sciences, and in their shared belief that Kant’s pure reason was incomplete, a belief that led both of them toward new efforts at system building. Furthermore, both Hegel and Schleiermacher place great value on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit as central to the understanding of their respective systems, and to an understanding of history as such. Though their commitment to different academic languages (theology and philosophy) hindered their efforts at communication, and though Schleiermacher’s systematic formulations may have been open to greater adaptability and flexibility (Schleiermacher’s system does not unfold deductively through a progression of logic, for example), Crouter suggests their mutual disregard was as much a sibling rivalry between two enormously generative thinkers as it was a substantive difference. See Richard Crouter, “Hegel and Schleiermacher at Berlin,” in Friedrich Schleiermacher: Between Enlightenment and Romanticism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp. 70—97.
G. W. F. Hegel, The Philosophy of History, trans. J. Sibree (New York: Dover Press, 1956), p. 99. As quoted in Masuzawa, p. 42.
CF, p. 31.
Masuzawa, p. 17.
CF, p. 32.
Ibid., p. 31.
Ibid., pp. 18–19.
Ibid., p. 22.
Ibid., p. 31.
See Masuzawa, p. 18.
CF, p. 33.
Ibid.
Ibid., p. 34.
Ibid.
Ibid. Schleiermacher uses the German term “System” in this passage, rather than one of the associated words or concepts that I mentioned earlier.
Ibid., pp. 35–36.
Ibid., p. 36.
Ibid., p. 37.
Speeches, p. 114.
Ibid., p. 115.
CF, p. 443.
Ibid., p. 37.
Ibid., p. 37.
Ibid., p. 40.
Ibid., p. 43.
Ibid.
Ibid., p. 43–44.
Speeches, p. 32.
CF, p. 52.
Ibid., p. 57.
Ibid., p. 56.
Ibid., p. 63.
Ibid., pp. 63—64.
Ibid., p. 58.
Ibid., p. 404–405.
Ibid., p. 405.
Ibid., p. 405.
Ibid., p. 562.
Ibid., p. 575, italics mine.
Ibid., p. 63.
Ibid., p. 201.
Ibid., p. 202.
Ibid., p. 206.
Ibid., p. 207.
Ibid., p. 207.
Ibid., p. 207–208.
See KGA 1/3, p. 271.
CF, p. 208.
Ibid., p. 209.
Ibid.
Ibid., p. 210.
Ibid., p. 211.
Ibid., p. 212.
Ibid., p. 215.
Ibid., p. 212.
See the first speech in the Speeches, in which Schleiermacher confesses to laboring among the ruins of religion. Speeches, p. 4.
David Friedlander, Friedrich Schleiermacher, and Wilhelm Abraham Teller, A Debate on Jewish Emancipation and Christian Theology in Old Berlin, eds. Richard Crouter and Julie Klassen (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, 2004), p. 57.
Ibid.
Ibid., p. 61.
Ibid., p. 86. Joerg Rieger also treats these materials for their colonial implications in Christ and Empire. See especially pages 208–209.
Ibid., p. 93.
Ibid., p. 98.
Ibid., p. 97.
Speeches, p. 118.
Ibid., 103
Jonathan M. Hess, Germans, Jews, and the Claims of Modernity (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002), p. 186.
CF, p. 173.
Jacques Derrida, Dissemination (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981), p. 3–59.
Mark C. Taylor, The Moment of Complexity (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001), p. 97.
J. Hillis Miller, “The Critic as Host,” Deconstruction and Criticism (New York: Seabury Press, 1979), p. 219, as quoted in Taylor, p. 98.
Ibid., p. 98.
Schneider, Laurel, Beyond Monotheism (London and New York: Routledge, 2008), p. 10.
CF, p. 35.
Copyright information
© 2012 Steven R. Jungkeit
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Jungkeit, S.R. (2012). Spatial Taxonomies of Religion. In: Spaces of Modern Theology. New Approaches to Religion and Power. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137269027_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137269027_3
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-44373-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-26902-7
eBook Packages: Palgrave Religion & Philosophy CollectionPhilosophy and Religion (R0)