{"id":292,"date":"2020-02-04T10:15:29","date_gmt":"2020-02-04T09:15:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/projekte.uni-erfurt.de\/maxweberkolleg\/?p=292"},"modified":"2020-02-04T10:15:29","modified_gmt":"2020-02-04T09:15:29","slug":"book-launch-in-context-of-akademische-jahresfeier-of-the-max-weber-kolleg","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/projekte.uni-erfurt.de\/maxweberkolleg\/2020\/02\/04\/book-launch-in-context-of-akademische-jahresfeier-of-the-max-weber-kolleg\/","title":{"rendered":"Book Launch in context of \u201aAkademische Jahresfeier\u2019 of the Max-Weber-Kolleg"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Religious Individualisation: Historical Dimensions and Comparative Perspectives<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

ed. by Martin Fuchs, Antje Linkenbach, Martin Mulsow, Bernd-Christian Otto, Rahul Parson und J\u00f6rg R\u00fcpke, Berlin: de Gruyter 2019, 2 Vol., 1416 pages <\/p>\n\n\n\n


Presenters during the book launch were J\u00f6rg R\u00fcpke and Martin Mulsow as speakers of the Kollegforschungsgruppe \u2018Religious Individualisation in Historical Perspective\u2019, and Martin Fuchs and Antje Linkenbach as long-term participants in the project. Bern-Christian Otto and Rahul Parson were unfortunately unable to participate in the event.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

J\u00f6rg R\u00fcpke introduced both the topic of the KFG and the publication. Following this Martin Fuchs, Antje Linkenbach and Martin Mulsow gave a summary overview of the key theoretical and comparative aspects of the publication. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Martin Fuchs<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Starting point of the KollegforschungsgruppeReligious Individualisation in\nHistorical Perspective<\/em>, which came to an end in December 2018 after ten years of intensive\nwork and discussion, and of the book publication launched today[1]<\/a>\nhas been the combined\ncritique of modernization theory and of Western-centrism still prevailing in\nconceptualizations in both, the Social Sciences and Religious Studies.\nIndividualization is not a privilege of the West, or even the modern West. This\nimplies that, instead of regarding individualization as a drawn-out, linear and\nteleological process which reaches its climax in the modern, post-Christian\nWest, we have taken the lens of individualization instead to uncover, and look\nclosely into, a plurality of different processes, across several world-regions\nand across various religions. From a historical perspective, religious\nindividualization appears as a discontinuous development, covering processes of\nshort- or medium-term dur\u00e9e<\/em>, and processes that are reversible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The concept of \u201creligious\nindividualization\u201d can thus be described as a polythetic umbrella term, a\nheuristic tool that permits engaging with multi-facetted phenomena. Dimensions\ncovered include: the enhancement<\/em> of religious self-determination, the pluralisation<\/em>\nof religious options (or the emergence of spaces of choice); the facilitation\nof religious deviance<\/em>; the development of elaborated<\/em> notions of\nthe self; or the realisation of intense experiences<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Such experiences can denote an inner\nstrength<\/em>, which allows voicing outspoken critique<\/em> of social besides\nreligious conditions that affect one\u2019s life, or they can give the strength to\nmobilise and organise for a betterment of such conditions. Such elements of\ncritique are not exclusive to modern, and meanwhile often non-religious forms\nof individualization. We actually do encounter moments of critique, of\ndissatisfaction with religious regulations and dogmas, or with social rules and\npractices in a wider sense, as well as with the structures of power within religious\nas well as political contexts, in many modern as well as pre-modern settings;\nand we regularly discovered that processes of critique connect with increases\nin religious individualization.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We should perhaps specify our\nprocedure here in two ways: Firstly<\/em>, individualization should not be mistaken\nfor individualism, or even methodological individualism. One rather has to\ndifferentiate between the ideal<\/em> of individualism; the ontogenetic<\/em>\nprocess of individuation (as the flipside of socialization); and historical<\/em>\nprocesses of individualization. Secondly<\/em>, individualization refers to\nmore than just individual cases of deviance and difference. What is\nparticularly interesting, as it can also become paradoxical, are the diverse\nmodes of institutionalisation<\/em> of religious individualisations. This\nincludes the institutionalization of (social or cultural) imaginaries as well\nas behavioural patterns (patterns of bodily, emotional, spiritual\nself-practices), but also institution building: modes of conventionalization; processes\nof group formation; of standardization and ritualization of certain ways of\ncommunication, including communication with something beyond direct human\ngrasp; establishing textual canons and traditions; or even the establishment of\n\u2018regimes\u2019 of religious individualisation. Thus, individualization can have paradoxical<\/em>\nconsequences, can result in its contrary, de-individualization. Or one can see\nboth forms side by side. But<\/em>, one also encounters cases of creation of forms of sociality\nor community that provide relatively unconstrained social (including religious)\nspaces for enabling the development of personal options or paths\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this publication, \u2018self\u2019 stands\nas a placeholder for the practices, experiences and representations of humans\ncircumscribed in different ways as person, even persona, identity, individual,\nin part also subject and actor or agent, respectively as \u2018patient\u2019 of someone\nelse\u2019s actions. What has to be emphasized: we understand the concept of Self or individual, like the\nother concept of Religion, as inherently relational<\/em>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Regarding religion, talking of religion<\/em>\nor religiosity firstly means talking of a relationship people think to have to\nsomething else, something beyond, or something felt inside, but in every case\nsomething that is not immediately available. At the same time, secondly, no\nreligious individual can neglect his or her relationship to other people, and\nthere are various religious positions that equally give this relationship\nprominence. Finally, the concern of an individual for him- or herself is often also\nconceived in relational terms, as \u2018self-relation\u2019. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Regarding the notion of \u201cself\u201d: in a\nway, religious individualization underlines the pragmatist insight into the\n\u201cprimary sociality\u201d of humans, and of selves. What many regard as the very core\nof religiosity, self-transcendence<\/em>, is essentially relational. We\ndistinguish three dimensions of self-transcendence: (i) Rather conventionally, the\nexperience of something beyond direct human grasp, something often\nsubstantialised as \u2018the\u2019 transcendent, but something with which individual\nactors want to connect or feel connected. The beyond (which may be a \u2018within\u2019)\ncan be experienced as deepening or widening the (everyday) self, or even as\ncontributing to its actual and authentic formation. (ii) In a wider and at the same time more profane sense, reference is to a\nself, or the image of a self, that reaches out to the world beyond him- or\nherself and experiences some powerful connectivity to something larger or\nbroader in which it feels included, but which, on the face of it, can equally\ndenote non-religious contexts \u2013 as in cases of \u2018collective effervescence\u2019, to\nemploy \u00c9mile Durkheim\u2019s much quoted term. (iii) The phrase refers to those\nsocial relations of a self that impact and connect him or her directly and\ninwardly with others, and become in this way adjuncts of a self. Under the last\nauspices, \u2018transcending selves\u2019 then relates in an emphatic sense of the term\nto what a person or self shares<\/em> with significant others, what we have\nincluded under the concept of \u201cdividuality<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Antje\nLinkenbach<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

When we understand\nindividualisation (here religious individualisation) as contingent possibility\nof freeing oneself from social constraints and given authorities, we have to\nacknowledge that there are always moments that counteract individualisation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Firstly: conditions,\nwhich stimulate individualization (often in form of deviance) can \u2013 in the long\nrun – solidify and allow for stabilisation and institutionalisation of\nindividualisation. It can even happen that in this process new constraints\nemerge \u2013 in form of new authorities, formation of new traditions, or\nstandardized, stereotyped behaviours, a process that could seriously undermine\nindividualization.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Secondly: Individualization\ndoes not mean that we shed away all forms of social bonds or moments of\nrelationality \u2013 with fellow beings, things \/ objects and manifestations of the\ntranscendent, and that we have a clear-cut and one-dimensional identity. Far\naway from being a closed, a buffered Self \u2013 to speak with Charles Taylor \u2013 even\nin modern social constellations the individual person is porous and permeable,\nas it is also partible. Individuality is always paired with dividuality. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The first aspect was subject of\nstudies engaging in the search for \u2018institutionalisation\u2019,\n\u201cconventionalisation\u201d, and de-individualization <\/em>(Part III of the\npublication). Scholars asked: How do processes of religious individualisation\nin all their multifacetedness gather stability over time and become relevant\nnot just for a select few but for a significant number of people?  Their agenda was to\nmove away from the analytical focus on individual actors in favour of broader\nsocial dynamics that indicate processes of enhanced\ndissemination, stabilisation (e.g., through ritualisation), standardisation\n(e.g. through the canonisation of texts), or even the establishment of\n\u2018regimes\u2019 of religious individualisation. Of\ninterest were also processes that eventual relapse into de- or\nnon-individualisation. The case studies cover different religious\nenvironments and historical scenarios, but also approach the research problem\nfrom two different angles.  One part traces\nthe institutionalisation of religious individualisation with a focus on \u2018practices\u2019,\nparticularly ritual practices, but also economic and legislative practices. Other\nstudies analyse the institutionalisation of religious individualisation by\nlooking at \u2018texts and narratives\u2019, especially taking into consideration the\nnexus of authorship, texts, and audience. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The second aspect evolves around the\nconcept of dividuality<\/em>. Dividuality was\nmade prominent in Melanesian anthropology to indicate that persons are\nmulti-authored and composite beings. However, the researchers of the\nKollegforschungsgruppe use \u2018dividuality\u2019 not in an essentialist way that\nconfronts western and non-western ideas and realities of personhood. Moreover\nthey understand it complementary to the concept of the individual and thus\nunderline the co-existence of relational\/dividual and individual aspects of the\nhuman Self. Human beings are constituted by both dividual and individual\nqualities. Therefore, dividuality is an umbrella concept that has an\nontological and a historical dimension: The\nontological perspective brings the (primary) relational sociality of the human\nbeing into focus. Relationality, as conditio humana, implicates openness,\npartibility and vulnerability of the human subject even in its fully\nindividuated form and in all social constellations, including modernity. The\nhistorical perspective brings into focus that dividuality is a lived\nsocial reality and concrete social praxis and allows exploring ideas and realities of permeability and partibility on\nthe one hand, of closeness and boundedness on\nthe other, in particular historical and socio-cultural contexts as well as in particular areas of life and particular\nsituations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The contributions on \u2018dividuality\u2019\nare compiled in Part II of the publication and engage with the different aspects\nof the concept: dividuality as relational pre-condition of humanity and human\nsociality; as partibility, and as porousness or permeability. It covers \u2013 as\nthe other parts of the book \u2013 debates and practices in different historical\nperiods and geographical spaces \u2013 it moves between ancient Rome and Greece,\nmedieval, early modern and modern Europe as well as the Near East, India and\nthe Pacific.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Martin Mulsow<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\ninvestigation of the history of religious individualisation is in many cases,\nas it turned out, an investigation of\nthe history of interconnections, of cultural entanglements, <\/em>onewhich\nexamines the different ways in which cultural boundaries have been crossed. By\n\u2018history of interconnections\u2019 the KFG means an inquiry in the sense of\n\u2018entangled history\u2019 or \u2018histoire crois\u00e9e\u2019, which analyses the reciprocal\ninteractions and transfers between different cultural contexts, regions,\nreligions, and reference systems. It therefore picks up new developments in\nhistory and applies them to our concern with individualisation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Such\nan inquiry involves an increased focus on \u2018boundary-crossing\u2019 interactions and\nexchanges, in which diverse cultural and religious traditions encounter one\nanother and in which ideas and practices that strengthen or trigger\nindividualisation processes are transferred. We could see that migrations of\nideas and practices created complex interactions with consequences for religion\nlong before the great breakdowns of tradition within and outside Europe in the\nnineteenth and twentieth centuries. Seen from this angle, the insights gathered\nby the KFG can be used to trace the vertical, or \u2018deep time\u2019, dimension of\nthese processes of transformation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In\nour volume, we consider two types or conditions of interconnections, on the one\nhand through individuals or groups of cultural\nbrokers<\/em> and on the other hand by structural relationships<\/em> of exchange. Cultural brokers can be\nreligiously deviant individuals – in Europe for instance \u2018Beguines\u2019,\n\u2018visionaries\u2019, \u2018spiritualists\u2019 or practitioners of \u2018learned magic\u2019, who were\nnot always aware of the diverse transnational paths that their sources had\ntaken, but also religious entrepreneurs, including missionaries such as the\nJesuits in China, Japan, and India, merchants, soldiers and researchers across\nhighly variegated cultures. Such people are found across periods and\ncontinents, beginning with \u2018Chaldeans\u2019, \u2018sorceresses\u2019, \u2018magi\u2019, ancient\nastrologers, entrepreneurial ascetics in India and elsewhere, prominent bhaktas<\/em>,\ngurus<\/em>, or saint-poets. Often they are members of the elite but sometimes\nalso of subaltern classes, like Roman military personnel. Again it is important\nfor our volume that these impulses are by no means to be found only in Europe\nor from the early modern period onwards, but also in ancient and medieval as\nwell as non-European societies. In the context of religion, such processes\nemerge above all when they coincide with phases of religious pluralisation.\nThen these encounters \u2013 for instance between the Portuguese Jesuit Monserrate\nand the Mughal ruler Akbar \u2013 provide proofs of the crosscivilisational\ncirculation of ideas, concepts and practices. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

As\nfor structural relationships of\nexchange and interconnection across cultural and religious boundaries, we speak\nof \u2018interconnectional regimes\u2019. That means network structures in which\nstructural conditions like principles, rules, norms, and expectations – on both\nsides \u2013 make long-term interconnections possible. Examples for these structures\nare religious orders, missionary societies but also imperial formations like\nthe Roman, Ottoman or the Mughal Empire, in which various religious strands,\nethnic groups, and also particular officeholders interact.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These are the basic assumptions of\nour volume. And now we would like to invite you to leaf through the table of\ncontents of the publication. You will surely find topics or aspects that\ninterest you and that you can address with your own questions.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

[1]<\/a> Just to add: this publication is not the only result of the work of the\nKFG, there are several other publications of the research group.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Religious Individualisation: Historical Dimensions and Comparative Perspectives ed. by Martin Fuchs, Antje Linkenbach, Martin Mulsow, Bernd-Christian Otto, Rahul Parson und J\u00f6rg R\u00fcpke, Berlin: de Gruyter 2019, 2 Vol., 1416 pages Presenters during the book launch were J\u00f6rg R\u00fcpke and Martin Mulsow as speakers of the Kollegforschungsgruppe \u2018Religious Individualisation in Historical Perspective\u2019, and Martin Fuchs and … „Book Launch in context of \u201aAkademische Jahresfeier\u2019 of the Max-Weber-Kolleg“ <\/span>weiterlesen<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"spay_email":""},"categories":[73,4],"tags":[320,322,321],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/projekte.uni-erfurt.de\/maxweberkolleg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/292"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/projekte.uni-erfurt.de\/maxweberkolleg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/projekte.uni-erfurt.de\/maxweberkolleg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/projekte.uni-erfurt.de\/maxweberkolleg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/projekte.uni-erfurt.de\/maxweberkolleg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=292"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/projekte.uni-erfurt.de\/maxweberkolleg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/292\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":294,"href":"https:\/\/projekte.uni-erfurt.de\/maxweberkolleg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/292\/revisions\/294"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/projekte.uni-erfurt.de\/maxweberkolleg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=292"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/projekte.uni-erfurt.de\/maxweberkolleg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=292"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/projekte.uni-erfurt.de\/maxweberkolleg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=292"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}