William E. Paden

Elements of a new comparativism1

While the field of religious studies is witnessing considerable creative work in socio-historical, cognitive, and hermeneutical analysis, it is less clear, with a few notable exceptions (Smith 1978, 1982, 1987, 1990, Poole 1986), how comparativist models have been advanced Indeed, comparativism has been widely perceived to be part of the problem rather than part of the solution But if it is the comparative, cross-cultural nature of religious subject matter which constitutes and justifies religious studies as a secular field of knowledge, this is unfortunate and ironic I see the issue of comparativism as follows How, after Eliade, and af ter the critique of the contextless character of classical comparativism, is it possible to recast the viability of cross-cultural analysis? Is there a con cept of comparative perspective which can link cross-cultural knowledge with contextualist concerns, and which can reconcile morphological and anthropo logical forms of analysis? By what premises can we understand how generic and culture-specific aspects of religious data illuminate each other? In briefly outlining some elements of a reconstructed vocabulary of comparativism, I hope to solicit responses that will engage, test, or refine its rationale Comparativism has been an evolving and varied discourse, traditionally laden with religious or anti-religious purpose In multiple phases it has fo cused on (a) reconstruction and evaluation of the so-called beliefs and histo ries of other, i e , non-Christian, religions, (b) the creation of morphological inventories of classes of religious phenomena, usually given some hierar chical significance, and (c) the reconstruction of transhistorical patterns of religious meanings Conceptually dominant has been phenomenological dis

UNIVERSALS REVISITED: HUMAN BEHAVIORS AND CULTURAL VARIATIONS

This paper explores one way of addressing current skepticism about cross-cultural comparisons. The typical challenge to comparativism is that it either imposes or suppresses cultural meanings; religion, as a form of culture, is contextual and hence intrinsically incomparable. In contrast, I advance a model that identifies panhuman forms of behavior shared by any culture. Differences in historical religious life, in turn, can be described as cultural versions and transformations of those default behaviors. Comparativism then finds a broader, species-level basis for both commonality and significant variation. The paper explores various theoretic underpinnings and implications of this approach.

A new comparativism: Reply to the panelists

I am grateful for these thoughtful replies and the questions they pose Readers will immediately see how different are the theoretical frames of the panelists and how this variety of concerns reveals the pluralistic and even territorial character of contemporary theoretical inquiry Hewitt presses political issues about how one handles otherness, Wiebe seeks to locate comparativism in relation to the history of Religionswissenschaft, and Lawson requires expli cation of the theoretical status and relevance of comparative patterns from the point of view of cognitive psychology

Tracks and themes in a shifting landscape: reflections on 50 years of the study of religion

The essay reflects on concepts that the author has found useful in navigating decades of changes in the academic study of religion. Among these themes or threads are the notions of reflexive framing and aspectualism, worlds as environments, and the continuing need to discover cross-cultural patterns. Explicating these constitutes the main section. Before that the author begins with a very brief account of how he entered the stream of the so-called History of Religions field in the 1960s, which in turn will indicate why these tracks have emerged the way they did. The discussion then takes on the gateway issue of the category religion, favoring its use as a stipulated taxon for a feature of cultural behavior, namely, interaction with gods, and thus a viable subject matter for study.

Shifting worldviews: modeling sacrality in naturalistic perspective

ABSTRACT In this essay, I offer an exercise in modeling a multifaceted concept of sacrality. I do so within the context of my increasing interest in naturalistic, evolutionary views of human social behavior. I distinguish four genres of behavior and their ethological trajectories where sacrality can thus be re-contextualized, at the same time freeing the term from its essentialized versions in religious studies. The behavioral frames include: making-sacred as dedicating objects for secure respect, defending the subsequent social order from violation, attributing status or prestige to objects, and responding to sacred ‘prompts’ with commensurate actions within niche-specific environments.

Response to Review Panelists

This article consists of replies to the reviewers. For Ambasciano I show that his concern about the taint of epistemic phenomenologies can be largely deflected by understanding the exact contextualization of the materials he questions, particularly their place in the function, structure and serialized nature of the argument. Responding to Segal I try to clarify the evolutionary role of functionalism, the relation of Durkheim and Eliade as I am using them, and the role of difference in comparativism. Willard’s questions about the relations of my natural history approach to the cultural evolution model provides a good opportunity to point out their complementarity and differences.