Michael Bergunder

What is religion

Religious studies cannot agree on a common definition of its subject matter. To break the impasse, important insights from recent discussions about post-foundational political theory might be of some help. However, they can only be of benefit in conversations about “religion” when the previous debate on the subject matter of religious studies is framed slightly differently. This is done in the first part of the article. It is, then, shown on closer inspection of past discussions on “religion” that a consensus-capable, contemporary, everyday understanding of “religion,” here called Religion 2, is assumed, though it remains unexplained and unreflected upon. The second part of the article shows how Religion 2 can be newly conceptualized through the lens of Ernesto Laclau’s political theory, combined with concepts from Judith Butler and Michel Foucault, and how Religion 2 can be established as the historical subject matter of religious studies. Though concrete historical reconstructions of Religion 2 always remain contested, I argue that this does not prevent it from being generally accepted as the subject matter of religious studies. The third part discusses the previous findings in the light of postcolonial concerns about potential Eurocentrism in the concept of “religion.” It is argued that Religion 2 has to be understood in a fully global perspective, and, as a consequence, more research on the global religious history of the 19th and 20th centuries is urgently needed.

Was ist Religion? Kulturwissenschaftliche Überlegungen zum Gegenstand der Religionswissenschaft

Zusammenfassung Die Religionswissenschaft kann sich nicht auf einen gemeinsamen Gegenstand einigen. Bei genauerem Hinsehen zeigt sich jedoch, dass in der bisherigen Diskussion ein konsensfähiges zeitgenössisches Alltagsverständnis von „Religion“ vorausgesetzt wird, das aber unerklärt und unreflektiert blieb. Im Rahmen eines kulturwissenschaftlichen Ansatzes ist es möglich, dieses Alltagsverständnis so zu konzeptualisieren, dass es als historischer Gegenstand der Religionswissenschaft etabliert werden kann. Dazu wird insbesondere auf die theoretischen Ansätze von Ernesto Laclau, Judith Butler und Michel Foucault zurückgegriffen. Die vorgestellten Überlegungen sind unmittelbar anschlussfähig an die postkolonialen Debatten und ermöglichen dadurch zugleich, das Konzept eines „europäischen Religionsbegriffs“ zugunsten eines globalen Verständnisses zu überwinden. Abstract Within the discipline of religious studies there is no consensus about the definition of its object. However, a closer look at former scholarly discussions shows the existence of a contemporary understanding of “religion” that might be widely agreeable, though, so far, it has received scant reflection. From a cultural studies perspective, it can be understood as the previously undeclared, historical object of religious studies. Moreover, this approach opens a link to postcolonial debates and can overcome the notion of a “European concept of religion” in favour of a more global perception of “religion”.

What is Esotericism? Cultural Studies Approaches and the Problems of Definition in Religious Studies

There is an ongoing debate whether esotericism could be a meaningful subject for Religious Studies. The recent history of the academic research into esotericism will be presented and critically discussed, how it has tried to define its subject and how this discussions have reached an impasse. It is proposed that certain theoretical perspectives from cultural studies offer alternative ways in determining a research subject, especially one based on Ernesto Laclau’s concept of “empty signifiers.” This argument will be followed by a methodological application that translates the theoretical considerations into a concrete and specific research design of discursive networks.

“Religion” and “Science” within a Global Religious History

The paper argues that the final forging of our current understanding of “religion” and “esotericism” did not take place before the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and that it was a global endeavor right from the beginning. Previous research has not fully appreciated the new situation that arose because of scientific materialism and the challenge presented by conceptions of a general religious history. By focusing on the relationship of “religion” and “science” within a global religious history ( globale Religionsgeschichte ) from the late nineteenth century till today, the paper shows how “religion” and “esotericism” can be understood as constitutive parts of the same global history.