Abstract
This paper offers a critique of the special issue of Human Studies (vol. 40) on “Alfred Schutz and Religion”. Following a line similar to that of Dominique Janicaud I call into question the very phenomenological status of the “phenomenology of religion” developed across the various contributions. Appealing to the Husserlian principle of freedom from presuppositions my critique focuses on the way these phenomenologies of religion talk about “religion”. At their core, the failure contained within these contributions is the failure to properly consider a question which begins any undergraduate Religious Studies program—what is “religion”? I charge that because these contributions take it as “self-evident” what religion “is” they allow a metaphysical assertion into their phenomenology which breaches the “neutrality” demanded of the principle of freedom from presuppositions. Drawing on the work of the Critical Religion project in Religious Studies I further highlight how this metaphysical assertion predicates an unavoidable ideological assertion, one which serves colonial mechanics of exclusion.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Although, I have provided different interpretations elsewhere.
I have largely used this polemic distinction between “proper” and “improper” phenomenology of religion to highlight the differences in the phenomenologies of Husserl and the Movement and the “phenomenology of religion” more commonly found in Religious Studies through the likes of Gerardus van der Leeuw, Mircea, Eliade and Ninian Smart (see Tuckett 2018a: chap. 1).
Staudigl actually misrepresents Schutz’s understanding of the epoché which is not meant in the technical sense of Husserl. Barber (2017: 568f.) later provides a more accurate representation.
Much like Schutz, I was primarily using this point about “religion” to highlight a separate point about the idea of social science.
Whereas Barber suggests we should view working as just one province among others, I personally regard it as more accurate to say that the natural attitude is the totality of provinces of meaning which re-arrange themselves according to their utility aswork: ‘the world of working is structurized in various strata of reality’ (Schutz 1962: 223; see Tuckett 2018a: fn. 14).
On the surface this is not problematic but depending on how the point is addressed this does connect to contentious claims by the other “phenomenology of religion” and its view of the sui generis status of religion.
I avoid using “transcendental” so as not to have the use confused with Husserl’s understanding of the Transcendental reduction, for instance. Indeed, it is one of the tasks of a proper phenomenology of religion to clarify the different senses of “transcendent” and its cognates.
For my full critique of Spickard’s phenomenological sociology see Tuckett (2018b).
I openly admit that my argument is deficient for engaging with Steinbock through Alvis. Unfortunately I have not been able to gain access to Phenomenology and Mysticism yet.
While the phrasing may appear tautological, it sits within the general polemic trend of the necessity to call such studies “critical” simply to differentiate them from other studies. Based on how this point is developed we might equally call this the a priori critique.
This term is used in a strict phenomenological sense to indicate a distinct existence of an individual unit which is separable from other such distinct existences. Within the scope of entities are included objects, events and persons. Importantly the use of “entity” makes no distinction as to the physical or psychical status of that entity. The full clarification and exposition of this position is, in fact, one of the tasks to be undertaken by a proper phenomenology of religion.
This point opens up the methodological difficulty of translation and “comparable terms” which, also, is another task of clarification as part of a proper phenomenology of religion.
This opens up the gambit to atheism, humanism, communism, and a host of other cases being included. In itself this is not problematic from a theoretical standpoint, but the point rather is that people would normally object to this ascription.
As consistently revealed by every first year undergraduate course on Religious Studies I have taught, what the incoming students think religion is and what they think count as religions rarely match up.
To provide a personal anecdote, a colleague happened upon me while I had a copy of The New Phenomenology (2013) by Simmons and Benson. Rather unfortunately, they happened to open the book at a chapter titled “The call, prayer, and Christian philosophy”. I was then subjected to some collegial scorn before I was able to explain that I only happened to have the book to critique it in the vein of Janicaud.
What is not objectionable here is the use of the Chrétien, but the use of Chrétien without providing some form of defence against Janicaud’s critique.
Notable names in this context include Wilhelm Herrmann, Rudolf von Harnack, Ernst Troeltsch, and Otto.
I use the hyphens here to indicate that this is not a history in the sense of understanding the chronological events of a religion (see Tuckett 2016a: 90f.).
Which was no less problematic as a phenomenology (Tuckett 2017).
In point of fact, Husserl himself provide a critique of this very counter-ontological in his discussion of “lived body” in Ideas II when he turns to the consideration of ghosts (1989: 101f.).
While this might not seem obvious in the case of those subjected to the theological critique it is important to appreciate the situation that the Great Success of Modern Science Argument creates. With each new discovery, the realm of Nature expands, shrinking the realm of Spirit. Importantly, because of the ontological preference, no argument, predicated on the realm of Spirit, can contest this. I intend to provide a fuller account of this process, particularly in relation to the development of various “phenomenologies of religion” in The Idea of Religion (Tuckett forthcoming).
Juergensmeyer then also provides plenty of examples of “symbolic” secular violence in other places.
I consulted both to see if Cavanaugh’s critique had altered Juergensmeyer’s argument in anyway. Juergensmeyer claims in a footnote that Cavanaugh has misunderstood his argument (2017: 335 fn. 10). However, reproducing the same rhetorical flourish with Breivik as with McVeigh indicates the reverse is the case.
Particularly in The Ideology of Religious Studies Fitzgerald questions whether there should be a discipline of Religious Studies at all.
Here the same question can be asked of the view that “violence is wrong”: is this to be located as an a priori concept in the structure of transcendental consciousness or is it to be located in the identity of the European life-world as Europe? I admit to no answer either way on this, only to highlight this as a “self-evidency” in need of phenomenological analysis.
References
Alles, G. (2001). Toward a genealogy of the holy: Rudolf Otto and the apologetics of religion. Journal of the American Academy of Religion,69(2), 323–341.
Alles, G. (2014). Rudolf Otto, cultural colonialism and the “discovery” of the holy. In T. Fitzgerald (Ed.), Religion and the secular: Historical and colonial formations (pp. 193–210). London: Routledge.
Alvis, J. (2017). Anthony J. Steinbock: Phenomenology and mysticism: The verticality of religious experience. Human Studies,40, 589–598.
Ayaß, R. (2017). Life-world, sub-worlds, after-worlds: The various “realnesses” of multiple realities. Human Studies,40, 519–542.
Barber, M. (2017). Resistance to pragmatic tendencies in the world of working in the religious finite province of meaning. Human Studies,40, 565–588.
Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. London: Penguin Books.
Boyer, P. (1994). The naturalness of religious ideas: A cognitive theory of religion. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Boyer, P. (1996). What makes anthropomorphism natural: Intuitive ontology and cultural representations. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute,2, 83–97.
Boyer, P. (1998). Cognitive tracks of cultural inheritance: How evolved intuitive ontology governs cultural transmission. American Anthropologist,100, 876–889.
Boyer, P. (2000a). Evolution of the modem mind and the origins of culture: Religious concepts as a limiting case. In P. Carruthers & A. Chamberlain (Eds.), Evolution and the human mind (pp. 93–112). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Boyer, P. (2000b). Functional origins of religious concepts: ontological and strategic selection in evolved minds. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute,6, 195–214.
Boyer, P. (2001). Religion explained: The evolutionary origins of religious thought. New York: Basic Books.
Breivik, A. (2011). 2083: A European Declaration of Independence. https://publicintelligence.net/anders-behring-breiviks-complete-manifesto-2083-a-european-declaration-of-independence/.
Cantwell Smith, W. (1967). Questions of religious truth. London: Golancz.
Cantwell Smith, W. (1978). The meaning and end of religion. New York: Harper & Row.
Capps, W. (1995). Religious studies: The making of a discipline. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Cavanaugh, W. (2009). The myth of religious violence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chalamet, C. (2008). Reassessing Albrecht Ritschl’s theology: A survey of recent literature. Religion Compass,2(4), 620–641.
Chidester, D. (2014). Empire of religion. London: University of Chicago Press.
Chrétien, J.-L. (2004). The ark of speech (A. Brown, Trans.). London: Routledge.
de Caro, M., & MacArthur, D. (Eds.). (2004). Naturalism in question. London: Harvard University Press.
Durkheim, E. (2001). The elementary forms of religious life (C. Cosman, Trans.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Eliade, M. (1959). The sacred and the profane (W. Trask, Trans.). London: Harcourt Inc.
Eliade, M. (1969). The quest: History and meaning in religion. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Fitzgerald, T. (1997). A critique of ‘religion’ as cross-cultural category. Method and Theory in the Study of Religion,9, 91–110.
Eliade, M. (1998). The sacred and the profane (W. R. Task, Tans.). New York: Harcourt, Brace & Inc.
Fitzgerald, T. (2000). The ideology of religious studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fitzgerald, T. (2007). Discourse on civility and barbarity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fitzgerald, T. (2010). ‘Experiences deemed religious’: Radical critique or temporary fix? Strategic ambiguity in Ann Taves’ religious experience reconsidered. Religion,40(4), 296–299.
Fitzgerald, T. (Ed.). (2014). Religion and the secular: Historical and colonial formations. London: Routledge.
Fitzgerald, T., Stack, T., & Goldenberg, N. (Eds.). (2015). Religion as a category of governance and sovereignty. Leiden: Brill.
Girard, R. (2013). Violence and the sacred (P. Gregory, Trans.). London: Bloomsbury.
Guttmann, H. M. (2009). Gewaltunterbrechung, Warum Religion Gewalt nicht hervorbringt, sondern bindet. Gutersloh: Gutersloher Verlagshaus.
Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time (J. Macquarrie & E. Robinson, Trans.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Heiler, F. (1932). Prayer: A study in the history and psychology of religion (S. McComb, Trans.). London: Oxford University Press.
Hoshikawa, K., & Staudigl, M. (2017). A Schutzian analysis of prayer with perspectives from linguistic philosophy. Human Studies,40, 543–563.
Husserl, E. (1965). Phenomenology and the crisis of philosophy (Q. Lauer, Trans.). London: Harper Torchbooks.
Husserl, E. (1970a). Logical investigations (J. Findlay, Trans.). London: Routledge.
Husserl, E. (1970b). The crisis of European science and transcendental phenomenology: An introduction to phenomenological philosophy (D. Carr, Trans.). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
Husserl, E. (1982). Ideas pertaining to a pure phenomenology and to a phenomenological philosophy, first book: General introduction to pure phenomenology (F. Kerstan, Trans.). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
Husserl, E. (1989). Ideas pertaining to a pure phenomenology and to a phenomenological philosophy second book: Studies in the phenomenology of constitution (R. Rojcewicz, A. Schuwer, & J. Scanlon, Trans.). London: Kluwer Academic Publishing.
Janicaud, D. (2000). The theological turn of French phenomenology. In D. Janicaud, J.-F. Courtine, J.-L. Chrétien, M. Henry, J. L. Marion, P. Ricoeur, & B. Prusak (Eds.), Phenomenology and the “theological turn” (2nd ed., pp. 16–103). New York: Fordham University Press.
Jurgensmeyer, M. (2000). Terror in the mind of god. The global rise of religious violence. London: University of California Press.
Jurgensmeyer, M. (2008). Global rebellion: Religious challenges to the secular state, from Christian militias to al Qaeda. London: University of California Press.
Jurgensmeyer, M. (2017). Terror in the mind of god. The global rise of religious violence (4th ed.). London: University of California Press.
Luckmann, T. (1967). The invisible religion. New York: Macmillan.
Luckmann, T. (1985). Uber die Funktion der religion. In P. Koslowksi (Ed.), Die Religiose Dimension der Gesellschaft. Religion und ihre Theorien (pp. 26–41). Tubingen: Mohr.
Masuzawa, T. (2005). The invention of world religions. London: University of Chicago Press.
McCutcheon, R. (1997). Manufacturing religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McCutcheon, R. (2001). Critics not caretakers: Redescribing the public study of religion. Albany: State University of New York Press.
McCutcheon, R. (2013). A modest proposal on method. Method and Theory in the Study of Religion,25, 339–349.
Molendijk, A. (2000). At the cross-roads: Early dutch science of religion in international perspective. In S. Hjelde (Ed.), Man, meaning, and mystery: 100 years of history of religions in Norway (pp. 19–51). Leiden: Brill.
Murphy, T. (2010). The politics of spirit. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Nietz, M., & Spickard, J. (1990). Steps towards a sociology of religious experience: The theories of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi and Alfred Schutz. Sociological Analysis,51, 15–33.
Otto, R. (1923). The idea of the holy. (J. Harvey, Trans.). London: Oxford University Press.
Pals, D. (1996). Seven theories of religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pals, D. (2015). Nine theories of religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Preus, S. (1987). Explaining religion: criticism and theory from Bodin to Freud. London: Yale University Press.
Prusak, B. (2000). Translators introduction. In D. Janicaud, J.-F. Courtine, J.-L. Chrétien, M. Henry, J. L. Marion, & P. Ricoeur (Eds.), Phenomenology and the “theological turn” (pp. 3–15). New York: Fordham University Press.
Pyysiäinen, I. (2003). Buddhism, religion, and the concept of ‘god’. Numen,50, 147–171.
Ritschl, A. (1872). A critical history of the Christian doctrine of justification and reconciliation (J. Black, Trans.). Edinburgh: Edmonston and Douglas.
Ritschl, A. (1900). The Christian doctrine of justification and reconciliation: The positive development of doctrine (H. MacKintosh & A. Macaulay, Trans.). Edinburgh: T&T Clark.
Ryba, T. (1994). The Idea of the sacred in twentieth-century thought: Four views (Otto, Nygren, Scheler, Tymieniecka). In A. T. Tymieniecka (Ed.), Analecta Husserliana XLIII: From the sacred to the divine (pp. 21–42). London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Scheler, M. (1980). Problems of a sociology of knowledge (M. Frings & K. Stikkers, Trans.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Schutz, A. (1962). Collected papers I: The problem of social reality, M. Natanson (ed.). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
Sharpe, E. (1986). Comparative religion: A history (2nd ed.). La Salle: Open Court.
Sheets-Johnstone, M. (2016). Strangers, trust, and religion: On the vulnerability of being alive. Human Studies,39, 167–187.
Simmons, J. A., & Benson, B. E. (2013). The new phenomenology: A philosophical introduction. London: Bloomsbury.
Smart, N. (1969). The religious experience of mankind. London: Collins.
Smart, N. (1973). The phenomenon of religion. London: Macmillan.
Smart, N. (1996). The dimensions of the sacred. California: University of California Press.
Spickard, J. (1991). Experiencing religious rituals: A Schutzian analysis of Navajo ceremonies. Sociological Analysis,52(2), 191–204.
Srubar, I. (2017). Religion and violence. Paradoxes of Religious Communication. Human Studies,40, 501–518.
Staudigl, M. (2017). Alfred Schutz and phenomenology of religion: Explorations into ambiguous territory. Human Studies,40, 491–499.
Strenski, I. (2006). Thinking about religion: An historical introduction to theories of religion. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Tuckett, J. (2015a). Levels of intersubjectivity: Scheler’s “idea of man” and Schutz’s human prejudice. Schutzian Research,7, 105–128.
Tuckett, J. (2015b). The prejudice of being human in the study of non-ordinary realities. Diskus. https://doi.org/10.18792/diskus.v17i2.69.
Tuckett, J. (2016a). Clarifying phenomenologies in the study of religion: Separating Kristensen and van der Leeuw from Otto and Eliade. Religion,46(1), 75–101.
Tuckett, J. (2016b). Clarifying the phenomenology of Gerardus van der Leeuw. Method and Theory in the Study of Religion,28(3), 227–263.
Tuckett, J. (2017). Toward a proper phenomenology of religious experience. Journal for the Study of Religion Experience,3, 3–43.
Tuckett, J. (2018a). The idea of social science and proper phenomenology. London: Springer.
Tuckett, J. (2018b). Prolegomena to a philosophical phenomenology of religion: A critique of sociological phenomenology. Method and Theory in the Study of Religion,30, 97–136.
Tuckett, J. (2018c). Spirituality and intersubjective consensus: A response to Ciocan and Ferencz-Flatz. Human Studies,41, 313–331.
Tuckett, J. (forthcoming). The idea of religion: A historical sociology of knowledge. Leiden: Brill.
van der Leeuw, G. (1963). Religion in essence and manifestation (2nd ed.) (J. Turner & H. Penner, Trans.). New York: Harper and Row Publishers.
Zachhuber, J. (2013). Theology as science in nineteenth-century Germany. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tuckett, J. The a Priori Critique of the Possibility of a Phenomenology of Religion: A Response to the Special Issue on “Schutz and Religion”. Hum Stud 42, 647–672 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-019-09502-w
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-019-09502-w