8/4/2019 1.1 Method in Study of Religion Wiebe Review

1/4

American Academy of Religion

Review: [untitled]Author(s): Donald WiebeSource: Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 48, No. 4 (Dec., 1980), pp. 632-634Published by: Oxford University Press

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1463470 .Accessed: 26/04/2011 20:46

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Oxford University Press andAmerican Academy of Religion are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve

and extend access toJournal of the American Academy of Religion.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ouphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1463470?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ouphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ouphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1463470?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup

8/4/2019 1.1 Method in Study of Religion Wiebe Review

2/4

632 Journalof the AmericanAcademyof ReligionScienceof Religion:Studies n Methodology Reason and Religion:Method andTheory in the Study and Interpretationof Religion, 13). Ed. by LauriHonko. The Hague:Mouton, 1979. xxix+632 pages, indices. $56.50. ISBN90-279-77828.

For those who assume that the academicstudentof religionworks withinacoherent "scientific" rameworkpeculiarto the subjectmatterunder examina-tion, this volume in the Reason and Religionseries will be enlightening.Thescholarsearching or such a coherent frameworkwithinwhichto make sense ofhis own researchwill be disappointed.And the scholar intent on buildinganapologeticfor the "science of religion"on the basis of which it might take its"rightful"placewithin"the communityof sciences"is left in ruins.For, despitethe comfortingtitle of the volume, Scienceof Religion:Studies n Methodology,no unified theoretical or methodologicalpicture of this "field of research"emerges. Instead,explicitacknowledgements made that studies of religionarecharacterizedby an absence of any common body of theory and are beset bymethodologicalconfusionthatis likelyto continue for the forseeablefuture.The editor's claim that the present confusion in the academic study ofreligion is partof a wider breakdownof views on science is unconvincing.This"anarchy" n methodology, rather, is indicative of either the nonexistence of"science of religion"or, using a Kuhnianmetaphor,that the "science"soughtis in a preparadigmatictate. Responses to the dilemma, however, appearlimited. The scholarmay despairof the methodologicaldisarrayand, like theJudges of Israel, "do what is right in his own eyes." He may, alternatively,pursuethe quest for a unifyingparadigm or "a science of religion."ScienceofReligion:Studiesn Methodologyeflects both kinds of responses,each presumingan expertisebelieved to be essential to the scientificstudyof religion.Whatever the criticismsof this volume, it is nonethelessboth an importantand a successful one. It is successful because it is intended basically asdocumentationof the proceedingsof the firststudy conferenceon "Methodol-ogy of the Science of Religion" held under the auspicesof the InternationalAssociationfor the Historyof Religionsin Turku, Finland,in 1973. It containsnot only the papersand preparedcommentary-responses ut also transcriptionsand summaries of the ensuingdiscussions.Althoughthese proceedings nvolvesome tedious repetition, one effect of the volume is to make the readerparticipatoryo the debate. The shortcomingsof the book, then, only reflectthose of the conference tself.The importanceof this work does not lie in the resolution of a centralmethodologicalproblembut ratherin providinga reflectionof the disarray nwhich students of religionfind themselves. Recognizingthe malaisefor what itis, is itself no mean achievement. More importantly,significant questions ofmethodareclearly dentified or future criticalattentionand debate.The conference was organizedaround three principalthemes: "Oral andWrittenDocumentation of Religious Tradition,""The Future of the Phenom-enology of Religion," and "Religion as Expressive Culture." The first wasmainly concernedwith questions of source criticismin both "book" religionsand oral traditions, with most papers drawing attention to the historical/philological characterof the study of religion. The two remaining sectionsdirectedattentionto comparative-systematicinds of research:sociological/an-thropological,phenomenological/typological, cological, and so on. This struc-ture reflectsa polarizationn the conferencebetween historicaland nonhistorical

8/4/2019 1.1 Method in Study of Religion Wiebe Review

3/4

BookNotices 633orientationsin the study of religion. Nevertheless, the papersand discussionsprovide insightfultreatmentsof a varietyof problematic nterpretivecategories.Furthermore,agreementemergeson some methodologicalquestions.On the simplest of methodological levels one finds agreement on theassessmentof the complexityof the phenomenonof religionand the need forsubtlety in one's study of it. There are repeatedwarningsagainsta superficialtreatmentof phenomenatakenout of context, and against misleadingcompara-tive (and typological)studies that ignore contexts. (The "dialectic"of supple-mentationby comparative-systematicesearch,however, is also recognized.)A second point of general agreementamong the participants oncernstherelationshipof "science of religion" to other related disciplines. It seems ageneralworry,that is, that scholars n religiousstudies find their chief source ofmethodological creativityin developments in other fields of research. WalterCapps, for example, sees this "stimulus-and-responseyndrome" of religionscholars as a source of uncertainty n this field of research because it under-mines clearself-definitionand "fudges"disciplinary oundaries.A thirdpoint of agreementconcerns the nature of the study of religionasan academicand nontheologicalenterprise.CarstenColpe's "ideologicalcriti-cism," for example, is an attempt to prevent "science of religion" frombecoming another style of theology. In this he repeats the theme of KurtRudolphin his discussion of the autonomyof religiousstudies and criticismofthe invoking of feeling in the study of religious phenomena. And variousdiscussionsthroughout he volume, such as the commentsof Pye and Werblow-sky on van Baal's and Goldammer's papers, support the argument. EvenBleeker'stalk of the study of religionas a purely scholarlyaffairseems to lendsupport,althoughBleekerstill wishes to make room for "empathy"n the studyof religion. Bleeker's talk of "religio-historical xplanation," ike Bianchi'stalkof "religio-anthropology,"nd Hultkranz'stalk of "religio-ecology,"seem toban all reductionismn an a priorifashion that seems to underminethe issue ofthe autonomyof religiousstudies. Waardenburg's iscussionof "meaning"andGoldammer'sdiscussionof "symbol"also appearto make ontologicalconces-sions in the theologicaldirectionin the way they make use of the concept oftranscendence.Nevertheless,all still seem to hold to the principle hat the studyof religion is an autonomous enterprise.The only outrightoppositionto thisprinciplecomes from EdmundPerry'scommentaryon Colpe'spaper.Complaintsof inadequacyof the treatment of method in the study ofreligionhere must be aimed at the conferenceprogramand not the book whichsimply reflects those proceedings.Such self-criticism,in fact, appearsin thebook itself. Sharpe,for example, complains"thatlittle attempthas been made,even in a section of a methodologicalconference devoted to 'Evaluation ofPrevious Methods,' to state clearly and unambiguouslywhat those methodsactually are" (205). Too much was taken for granted, vis ia vis sharedknowledge,by the conferenceorganizers.Bleeker'scomplaint s also an indirectreflection upon the organizers.He maintains "that the average historian ofreligionsshould abstainfrom speculationsabout matters of method, whichcanonly adequatelybe solved by students of philosophyand of philosophy ofreligion" (176). Even if one disagrees with Bleeker on this matter, it issurprisingthat students of religion have not only excluded philosophersofreligionfrom theirdiscussionsof method, but have also ignoredphilosophersofscience. If progress is to be made in our methodological discussion, thisoversightmust surelybe corrected.

8/4/2019 1.1 Method in Study of Religion Wiebe Review

4/4

634 Journalof the AmericanAcademyof ReligionScienceof Religion:Studiesn Methodologys an interestingand useful book.It is a pity that this record of the first conference on methodology did not

appearsooner to provide guidance and warningfor the organizationof thesecond conference on methodologyheld in Warsaw.DonaldWiebeTrinityCollege, Toronto

PHILOSOPHY

NeitzscheBriefwechsel.KritischeGesamtausgabe,ection2. Ed. by Giorgio Colliand Mazzino Montinari.Berlin and New York:Walter de Gruyter, 1977,1978. Vol. 1: FriedrichNietzscheBriefe,April1869-Mai 1872; 336 pages;DM 86; ISBN 3-11-006634-3. Vol. 2: Briefean FriedrichNietzsche,April1869-Mai 1872; 630 pages; DM 138; ISBN 3-11-006636-X. Vol. 3:FriedrichNietzscheBriefe,Mai 1872-Dezember1874; 299 pages; DM 96;ISBN 3-11-007194-0. Vol. 4: Briefe an FriedrichNietzsche,Mai 1872-Dezember 874; 666 pages;DM 162;ISBN3-11-007196-7.

The magnificentlyedited collection of Nietzsche's correspondencecontin-ues to grow (cf. JAAR,46 [March1978]:103).The four new volumes availablecover the periodfrom 1869 to 1874.They aredivided into volumes of lettersbyNietzsche, II, 1 and 3, and volumes of letters to him, II, 2 and 4. It isinterestingto note that the ratioof letters by Nietzsche to letters to him fromthe first period edited, 1844 to 1869, namely 633 to 221, is reversed in theperiod these volumes cover: 635 to 947. The burdens of fame! A randomreadingof the indicesbearsthis out; the correspondentsnclude such peopleasRichardWagner,the Vischersin Basel, Hans von Btilow (and manyletters toand from his wife Cosima, with whom Wagner's fate was to become sointertwined).FranzLiszt, Overbeck,Jacob Burckhardt, nd one EduardThur-neysen, whose son occupies a place in the story of significantshifts in thetheologicalclimateof our century.(Whichmakesone wonderaloud, how muchthe elder's appreciationof Nietzsche became partof the younger's perceptionthat a changewas in order.) But what these volumes permitone to discern, inadditionto the closeness and love of the whole Nietzschefamily,are the phasesof the Wagner-Nietzsche elationship(over 140 items in these volumes alone)which from times of great mutualrespectand approbationwas to move to anacrimonious break, although that was to happen only later than the timecoveredin these volumes.The initial assessment of the first volumes is amply reinforced by thereadingof the new ones: the "phantom"Nietzschedisappears, he "superman"is characterized y dimensionsof deep affection,pain, anguish,and is received