Connections, Confusions, Colonialism and the Construction of Religion: Making Sense of Fitzgerald's Discourse on Civility and Barbarity

Abstract

Timothy Fitzgerald's recent Discourse on Civility and Barbarity, represents an important development in his work. In this book he attempts to introduce a new argument into his overall project, illustrating a connection between the invention of "religion" that he has described elsewhere and a particular (English) colonial discourse. Th is essay argues that while Fitzgerald's argument shows promise, he has not yet fully succeeded in making this connection explicit. Confusion over his accounts of Locke's colonial interests, as well as the supposed universality of the discourse of civility and barbarity, indicate that Fitzgerald has more work to do. other prominent fi gures in the academic study of religion have made well-known the argument that "religion" and its attendant categories are invented and constructed rather than natural and self-evident. Th ese scholars have made strong arguments that binaries associated with the category of religion, such as religious/secular, religion/state and private/public, have become part of popular discourse as a result of such constructions, and have off ered varying analyses of the consequences of the widespread acceptance of these categories. Timothy Fitzgerald continues this project in his latest book, Discourse on Civility and Barbarity: A Critical History of Religion and Related Categories (2007).

‘Religion,’ ‘the Secular’ and the Critical Study of Religion

“…At points, the two are equated, at others distinguished: “the discourses on civility and barbarity overlap with those on Religion (understood as Christian Truth) and superstition, and rationality and irrationality” (2007a: 120, 13, see 53). The scope of the civility/barbarity distinction reflects a similar ambiguity between a general category (fitting the critical project) and a context-specific one (fitting the genealogical project): DCB characterizes “the dichotomy as European, with its origins in Greece”; yet, at the same time, “the general distinction between ‘our civility’ and ‘their barbarity’ may be a near universal”; it “is about who is and who is not properly human” (2007a: 113, 120, 110–111; see Kellison, 2009: 370–371). DCB ’s critical project requires that ‘civility’ be understood as operating at a higher level of analysis than ‘religion,’ giving it interpretive purchase; however, its relevance is argued for on the basis of the genealogical project, which frames ‘civility’ in terms of its relation to the “older” meaning of ‘religion,’ i.e., a relation at the same logical level.…”

“…The former is not present in any developed sense in DCB . The latter bears scant fruit, because, in the end, the book does little with the civility/barbarity distinction featured in its title and even less with the sacred/profane distinction (see Kellison, 2009: 374). The civility/barbarity distinction is said to have played an important role in colonialism, with its relevance likely ceasing in the nineteenth century (2007a: 11, 54).…”

“…It is clear that Fitzgerald wants to do something new in this book, illuminating the connection between these two historical processes. Unfortunately, in this work, he has yet to convincingly describe the nature of this relationship” (Kellison, 2009: 370, 362, 377).…”