A prolegomena to the study of religion
The study and practice of any discipline requires at least in part a prolegomena. A prolegomenon is a statement about the definition of the field, the various disciplines that have approached the way the field; the various methods which have been utilized to understand the field. In addition, it includes a brief history of the subject itself in addition to a brief history of the field. Of course, it is the task of this present a prolegomenon to define the field of religion in relation to the various disciplines and methods that surround the study of it.
First, let us address the problem of defining religion. What is a definition of religion? How is it determined? How does it function? What purpose does it serve? A definition of religion is simply a declaration concerning the knowledge of its essential nature. It can include qualifications regarding its limits, functions, and purposes. In some sense it also includes a judgment concerning religion itself. For is no such thing as an absolutely neutral definition of religion. All definitions are created by private individuals or committees or possibly by religions or governments. The definition of religion as determined by the focus and function of the discipline that seeks to study religion as such. In addition, the definition is further defined by the goal(s) of the one who practices the study from the standpoint of both his field and where he stands in relation to the specific religion or religions he/he has chosen to study. So any given practitioner of the study of the field should ask the following questions before defining religion as such. First, what is my subject? Second, what is my field of discipline? Am I operating with private concerns or public concerns? If my concerns are private, then why are they significant? If my concerns are public, then how are they going to serve my public? Third, where do I stand in relation to my subject matter? Am I an outsider to the religion or am I with in the religion itself? If I am an outsider, what is my attitude towards that religion [friendly, hostile, seeker?]? If I am an insider, what is my attitude towards the religion [friendly, hostile, critically concerned (either for inner integrity or external relationships towards other individuals or communities)]? Fourth, what are my purposes or goals for studying said subject? Is it simply to gain information or perhaps understanding? If understanding is the goal, then how do I want to understand it? In other words how am I contributing to my field? Lastly, what does this mean for my field?
Next, let us leave open the question regarding subject matter (i.e. the specific religious phenomenon) and look at the various fields that have approached religion. Religion can and has been studied by six fields of discipline: sociology, anthropology, psychology, philosophy, theology, history, and phenomenology. Mariasusai Dhavamony states, “sociology of religion is defined broadly as the study of ‘the interrelation of religion and society and the forms of interaction which take place between them.’”[1] In other words, it broadly poses to questions: first, how does religion as an enclosed society structure itself and function; second, how does this religion relate to the broader society (i.e. governing entities and the other social structures)? Anthropology is “a branch of sociological studies, that branch which devotes itself to primitive societies.’ Hence social anthropology of religion has to do with those rites, beliefs, actions, behavior patterns in preliterate societies that refer to what is regarded as being the sacred and the supernatural.”[2] In other words, anthropology of religion focuses on religion as it is produced within a culture. It limits itself in the sense that it only aims at providing “a mere description of a narrow segment” of society. In other words, religion is viewed as a product of society, which in some small way merely predicates the society itself. The next discipline is psychology of religion, which “is the study of the psychological aspect of religion; that is to say, the study of the religious function of the mind, partly dealing with the problem of the function of the individual mind in religious contexts (the individual psychological aspect) and partly with the problem of the impact of the social religious life on participants (socio-psychological aspect).”[3] In other words, what is the religious experience of the individual, or religious community, or a cultural participant that participates in a religion that may or may not represent the predominant cultural trend? Dhavamony says, “the basic assumption of the psychology of religion is that psychological motivations and responses are common to all known forms a religion.”[4] The next discipline which studies religion is philosophy of religion, which broadly is “philosophical reflection on religion by a flying systematically the philosophical method. Examine critically the truth value of the immense material of myths, symbols, and rights that come from the history of religion.”[5] In other words, philosophy of religion broadly asked the question: is it true and if so in what sense is it true? Of the next field is theology of world religion. This field of study not only assumes a non-neutral starting point but declares this starting point. The method is an eclectic in the sense that it can be historical, comparative, philological, philosophical, and even psychological. The purpose is primarily for understanding the limits of one's own theological categories as well as the differences and similarities of other religions. Broadly it is a dialogue with other religions, however the final judgment and significance is usually for the theological community that initiates the study. The next field of study is the history of religion. Mariasusai Dhavamony states, “the historians of religion consider the religious phenomena of as religious specifically, and concrete on the religious signification of the phenomena presented by the sciences.”[6] In other words, the historian focuses on the religion or religions as they change, progress, developed within a given period of time and date specified landscape. Phenomenology of religion “is the systematic treatment of the history of religion whose task is to classify and group the numerous and widely divergent data in such a way that an overall view can be obtained of their religious contents and the religious meaning that they contain.”[7] In other words, it makes use of historical analysis in order to help fully understand the experience of religion, which additionally helps the phenomenologist of religion to derive and portray an overall picture of that religion with regard to its meaning. In other words, not only does the phenomenologist allow history to inform the subject but it also allows the religion to speak for itself on the basis that there are overlapping patterns of religious experience. So there's attention to both historical development as well as sociological and psychological structure. The purpose of historical phenomenology of religion is not to provide a comparative analysis, but it is to provide an analysis of typology, structure, and form. Mariasusai Dhavamony defines the typology as the process of taking “from their historical setting similar facts and phenomena which are found in various religions and brings them together in groups.... it classifies and groups the numerous and widely differing data in such a way that an overall view can be obtained of the religious content and the religious values they contain.... a type is a pattern of traits of an individual, group, or culture that distinguishes it from another... types are used on the assumption that they provide means of classification... an ideal type is a mental construct composed of the configuration of characteristic elements of the class of phenomena is an analysis.”[8] Mariasusai Dhavamony defines structure as “the underlying and relatively stable relationship among elements, parts, or patterns in a unified, organized whole…. structure is reality significantly organized; but the significance of the lungs both to the reality and is subject who attempts to understand it.”[9] Morphology is basically the wholeness. It answers the question: how does the type of religion integrated the structure of it? Structure seeks to ask the question: how does the religion internally fits together? Morphology seeks to answer the question: what makes a total work complete? The purpose of typology is to provide a clear criteria for abstractly describing a religion without reference to a direct comparison to other religions. In addition, it helps limit the frame of reference in which an analysis takes place.[10]
Now let us turn to the question of method. There are basically three methods of studying religion, which can be practiced in any number of varieties in accordance with the discipline. The three methods are: historical, comparative, phenomenological. The historical method gives attention to a specified time and place. The comparative method gives attention to one kind of religion in relation to another. The phenomenological method gives attention to the experience of religion. Each method has its own set of limitations. The comparative method tends to disregard at least one religion in terms of its inner meaning and self provided definitions. The historical method tends to view religion only in terms of as it has existed in relation to change/progress/development. The phenomenological method has its limitations in the sense that it intends to disregard the history of religion and focuses its attention on the experience of religion as such.
[1] Phenomenology of Religion, (Rome: Gregorian University Press, 1973), 3
[2] Mariasusai Dhavamony, Phenomenology of Religion, 4
[3] Mariasusai Dhavamony, Phenomenology of Religion, 5
[4] Mariasusai Dhavamony, Phenomenology of Religion, 5
[5] Mariasusai Dhavamony, Phenomenology of Religion, 5-6
[6] Mariasusai Dhavamony, Phenomenology of Religion, 7-8
[7] Mariasusai Dhavamony, Phenomenology of Religion, 8
[8] Phenomenology of Religion, 12
[9] Phenomenology of Religion, 12-13
[10] Mariasusai Dhavamony, Phenomenology of Religion, 13
No comments:
Post a Comment