Religion after Religion, History after History: Postmodern Historiography and the Study of Religions

Abstract

The following essay reviews Steven Wasserstrom's Religion after Religion— a partial history of the History of Religions—and three theoretical works on historiography: Hayden White's Metahistory, Peter Novick's That Noble Dream, and Robert F. Berkhofer Jr.'s Beyond the Great Story. As well as introducing readers to the argument of these works, the essay uses Wasserstrom's book as an example of a "monovocal" style of the narration of the phenomenal past in opposition to the polyvocal style called for by the historiographers. The purpose of the essay is to indicate the degree to which monovocal representations can apparently justify singular viewpoints by concealing various agendas and lending authority to dubious conclusions. The essay challenges the elevation of a single authorial voice over the plurality of voices representing the plurality of phenomenal pasts and calls for a greater engagement with the pluralism and polyvocality of postmodern historiography.

The History (and Philosophy) of Religions

“…The history and philosophy of religions—plural—requiring the integration of both a wide knowledge of global traditions and a sensitivity to contemporary philosophy would be required to be polyvocal, heterolingual, poly-theo-lingual, as I suggested in an article of 2003. 6 This follows not only the aforementioned critique from Derrida via Mandair of mono-theo-lingualism, but also the direction pointed out by significant American historians such as Hayden White, Peter Novick, and Robert F. Berkhofer, Jr (Rennie, 2003). 7 The history (and philosophy) of religions must represent all the voices that it represents (following critiques from Vine Deloria to Armin Geertz, who insist that Western anthropologists must not simply appropriate the voices of the native Americans they seek to study but must fairly and accurately represent those voices—Geertz, 1997; Deloria, 1969, see also Biolsi, 1997): thus requiring the scholar to speak from an insider position.…”

“… 6. ‘The essay challenges the elevation of a single authorial voice over the plurality of voices representing the plurality of phenomenal pasts and calls for a greater engagement with the pluralism and polyvocality of postmodern historiography’ (Rennie, 2003: 68). …”

The Trouble with Transcendence: Carl Schmitt’s “Exception” as a Challenge for Religious Studies

“…9 Whereas the connections between Eliade's concept of the "Sacred" and his right-wing politics are largely circumstantial, this is clearly not the case with Schmitt, who advanced the "exception" in support of authoritarianism in Weimar-and Nazi-era Germany. Therefore, the arguments that have been made to rebut charges of Eliade's fascism (e.g., Rennie 2003;Fisher 2010) do not rescue Schmitt's theory from suspicion.…”