Integrative Religious Education In Europe A

Studyofreligions Approach Wanda Alberts download

https://ebookbell.com/product/integrative-religious-education-in-
europe-a-studyofreligions-approach-wanda-alberts-42640668

Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.

Integrative Spirituality Religious Pluralism Individuation And

Awakening 1st Edition Mahaffey

https://ebookbell.com/product/integrative-spirituality-religious-
pluralism-individuation-and-awakening-1st-edition-mahaffey-37584744

Emotional Experience And Religious Understanding Integrating

Perception Conception And Feeling Mark Wynn

https://ebookbell.com/product/emotional-experience-and-religious-
understanding-integrating-perception-conception-and-feeling-mark-
wynn-1461302

Integrating Islam Political And Religious Challenges In Contemporary

France Jonathan Laurence Justin Vaisse

https://ebookbell.com/product/integrating-islam-political-and-
religious-challenges-in-contemporary-france-jonathan-laurence-justin-
vaisse-51261652

Religious Minorities Integration And The State John V Tolan

https://ebookbell.com/product/religious-minorities-integration-and-
the-state-john-v-tolan-10848218
The Political Theology Of European Integration Comparing The Influence
Of Religious Histories On European Policies Mark R Royce Auth

https://ebookbell.com/product/the-political-theology-of-european-
integration-comparing-the-influence-of-religious-histories-on-
european-policies-mark-r-royce-auth-6616458

Segregation Integration Assimilation Religious And Ethnic Groups In

The Medieval Towns Of Central And Eastern Europe Derek Keene Balzs
Nagy Katalin Szende

https://ebookbell.com/product/segregation-integration-assimilation-
religious-and-ethnic-groups-in-the-medieval-towns-of-central-and-
eastern-europe-derek-keene-balzs-nagy-katalin-szende-38281694

Bounded Integration The Religionstate Relationship And Democratic

Performance In Turkey And Israel Aviad Rubin

https://ebookbell.com/product/bounded-integration-the-religionstate-
relationship-and-democratic-performance-in-turkey-and-israel-aviad-
rubin-44145640

Integrating Spirituality And Religion Into Counseling A Guide To

Competent Practice 2nd Edition Craig S Cashwell

https://ebookbell.com/product/integrating-spirituality-and-religion-
into-counseling-a-guide-to-competent-practice-2nd-edition-craig-s-
cashwell-10009712

Difference And Sameness As Modes Of Integration Anthropological

Perspectives On Ethnicity And Religion Gnther Schlee Editor Alexander
Horstmann Editor

https://ebookbell.com/product/difference-and-sameness-as-modes-of-
integration-anthropological-perspectives-on-ethnicity-and-religion-
gnther-schlee-editor-alexander-horstmann-editor-51746518
 Wanda Alberts
Integrative Religious Education in Europe

WDE

G
 Religion and Reason

Edited by
Winnifred Fallers Sullivan

Volume 47

Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York

 Wanda Alberts

Integrative Religious Education

in Europe
A Study-of-Religions Approach

Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York

 © Printed on acid-free paper which falls within
the guidelines of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability.

ISSN 0080-0848
ISBN 978-3-11-019661-0

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie;

detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de.

© Copyright 2007 by Walter de Gruyter G m b H & Co. KG, 10785 Berlin

All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. N o part of this book
may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including
photocopy, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in
writing from the publisher.
Printed in Germany
Cover design: Christopher Schneider, Berlin
Printing: Hubert & Co. GmbH, Göttingen
 Foreword

by Rosalind I. J. Hackett

In reading Wanda Alberts' lucid and engaging study of integrative re-

ligious education in Europe, one might be led to think that the notion of
religious education is as contested a concept as that of religion itself.
They are of course related, as Alberts demonstrates so admirably in this
important work. Both are imbricated in cultural history, ideological bat-
tles, political debates, theological wranglings, and pressing social is-
sues; their interpretation carries legal and policy implications for both
individuals and communities.
Alberts chooses to focus her expertise as a religious studies scholar
on the burgeoning, yet much debated, branch of religious education
that she has termed "integrative religious education." This refers to the
non-religious teaching about religion in schools with religiously mixed
classrooms. Europe is her primary research area, with particular atten-
tion to the cases of England and Sweden, and additional examples from
Norway, the Netherlands, and Germany. This lends both breadth and
depth to her analysis, as Europe constitutes a varied and lively forum
for debates over religious education, and England and Sweden have a
long history of employing approaches that emphasize the teaching of
various religions as an obligatory subject in schools. Yet their similari-
ties and differences invite helpful comparison in assessing the merits of
this particular model.
The integrative religious education approach in Europe has been
shaped by a series of theoretical and methodological debates among a
range of stakeholders, whether scholars, educators, religious and politi-
cal leaders, or parents. Deploying to advantage her comparative and
critical skills as scholar of religion, Alberts carefully unpacks the dy-
namics of each context and elucidates the various positions. The main
difference between integrative and separative approaches with regard
to teaching about religions in schools in Europe appears to derive from
divergent conceptions of education and the task of the school in gen-
eral. But, as Alberts revealingly demonstrates, when one examines
vi Rosalind I. J. Hackett

more closely the arguments tendered by the various groups involved in

these debates over the character of religious education then the ques-
tion of power relations between religions and the state becomes more
apparent. Alberts proffers some interesting reflections on which relig-
ion-state configurations are likely to be more conducive to favoring the
integrative approach. It seems fair to say that religious education, espe-
cially non-confessional integrative religious education, appears to excel
in bringing out the ideological and political dimensions of education, as
well as religion ("church")-state entanglements.
These issues of secularity, plurality, religious heritage, and intercul-
turalism will clearly resonate with American readers—whether special-
ists in the field of religious education or not. If they are involved with
school education then they may be inspired by some of the courageous
efforts of academics, teachers, religious leaders, and policy-makers in
various European contexts to develop educational policy and content
more in keeping with the times. There are initiatives in California, 1
Iowa, 2 and Massachusetts, 3 for example, to develop curricular materials
from a non-confessional, comparative religious perspective. Some
schools allow teaching about religion and religions within the context
of other courses, such as history and social studies, and there are wider
efforts to promote this as good education—especially post 9/11.4 But
these are still a drop in the ocean; university students arrive in our
classes with virtually no knowledge of the world's religions, and little
understanding of how religion operates in the lives of individuals,
communities or nations. In contrast to fears in some European quarters
about disestablishmentarianism or loss of religious privilege, in the U.S.
context it is rather the specter of establishmentarianism that looms
large. Furthermore, debates over whether and what to teach about

1 See, e.g., the Religion and Public Education Resource Center (RPERC) "http://www. csu-
chico.edu/rs/rperc/" (accessed September 11, 2007) and Religious Studies in Secondary
Schools http://www.rsiss.net/ (accessed September 11, 2007).
2 The University of Northern Iowa publishes the journal Religion and Education
"http://www.uni.edu/coe/jrae/index.htm" (accessed September 11, 2007).
3 Program in Religion and Secondary Education at Harvard Divinity School
http://www.hds.harvard.edu/prse/hstars (accessed September 11, 2007).
4 See Council on Islamic Education/First Amendment Center (2000) Teaching About Religion
in National and State Social Standards "http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.
asp?documentID=3976" (accessed September 11, 2007).
 Foreword vii

religion in U.S. schools tend to get sidelined by law suits over school
prayer, vouchers, student religious groups, and creationism.5
Little wonder that Kwame Anthony Appiah in his recent book on
The Ethics of Identity claims that:
The greatest controversies about education in democracies, as we know,
tend to occur when people feel that their own children are being taught
things that are inconsistent with claims that are crucial marks of their own
collective identities.6
Throughout the present book, Alberts has been concerned to link her
careful exposition of theory and methodology pertaining to the aca-
demic study of and teaching about religious diversity to discussions of
relevant educational theory and philosophy. It is in the last part of the
book that she really comes to the fore with not only her critique of mis-
guided policy and approaches, but with her advocacy of what an edu-
cationally sound integrative religious education should look like. She
sensitively addresses the ambivalences but also underscores the vital
importance of moving forward with a more inclusive and less discrimi-
natory model of religious education. Her ideal curriculum would in-
clude not just religious traditions but also worldviews and ideologies,
in a discrete subject. As she rightly argues, these educational options
have implications for questions of citizenship, minority rights, religious
pluralism, and intercultural coexistence. She is in good company. The
former U N Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, Pro-
fessor Abdelfattah Amor, placed considerable emphasis on school edu-
cation because of its power to influence the protection of the precarious
right to freedom of religion and belief and to promote tolerance and
understanding. 7

5 See the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, "Religion & Public Schools," 2007
"http://pewforum.org/religion-schools/" (accessed September 10, 2007).
See also the People for the American Way, "Teaching Religion in Public Schools" "http://
www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=2462" (accessed September 11, 2007) and
Charles Haynes (First Amendment Center), "Religious Liberty in Public Schools" "http://
www.firstamendmentcenter.org/rel_liberty/publicschools/topic_faqs.aspx?topic=teaching_
about_religion" (accessed September 11, 2007). See also Thomas, R. Murray. 2006. Religion
in Schools: Controversies around the World. Westport, CT: Praeger, pp. 135-150.
6 Appiah, Kwame A. 2005. The Ethics of Identity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, p.
208.
7 The Oslo Coalition project on School Education, Tolerance, and Freedom of Religion or Be-
lief was formed in 2001 to this end "http://www.oslocoalition.org/html/project_school_ edu-
cation/index.html" (accessed September 10, 2007).
viii Rosalind I. J. Hackett

If one thought for a moment that the field of religious education

was not rich terrain for a contemporary scholar of religion to investi-
gate, Wanda Alberts' work proves otherwise. Similarly, if one imagined
that religious education, particularly integrative religious education,
could make headway without the insights that religion scholars have
with regard to interpretation, authority, representation, and plurality,
then Alberts' work again proves otherwise. Despite the author's ex-
pressed concerns about the resistance of conservative religious forces
and the challenge of increasingly centralized and standardized educa-
tion practices, she is not without optimism. She looks forward to in-
creased momentum for integrative religious education at the European
level and the possibility of reviving the more progressive, emancipa-
tory dimension of religious education.8

8 See, in this regard, Robert Jackson's upbeat editorial for the British Journal of Religious
Education 29,3 (2007): 213-215.
 Table of Contents

Foreword by Rosalind I. }. Hackett ν

Acknowledgements xv

Introduction 1
Integrative religious education 1
The academic study of religions and RE 2
Aims, contents and limitations of this study 5
A note on citations and translations 7

Chapter I
Theory and methodology in the
academic disciplines relevant to integrative RE 8
1 The Study of Religions 8
1.1 The character of the subject 9
1.1.1 The general character of the academic study of religions 9
1.1.2 Implications from the history
of the academic study of religions 14
1.1.3 Recent developments in the study of religions 20
1.1.4 Limitations of the study of religions 28
1.2 The concept of religion 31
1.2.1 The variety of concepts of religion 32
1.2.2 The "subject matter" or "field" of the study of religions 37
1.3 Methodology 41
1.3.1 Methodological variety 43
1.3.2 Methodological integration 46
1.3.3 The representation of religions 51
X Table of Contents

2 Education 55
2.1 Critical educational theory 55
2.1.1 Two aspects of education: "Erziehung" and "Bildung" 55
2.1.2 Critical theory 58
2.1.3 Towards a critical theory of education 60
2.1.4 A critical and constructive theory of education 63
2.2 Didactics 66
2.2.1 The focus on education: critical constructive didactics 67
2.2.2 The focus on teaching:
the "Berlin" and "Hamburg" models 69
2.2.3 The focus on interaction:
critical communicative didactics 70
2.2.4 General didactics and individual school subjects 71
2.3 Intercultural education 74
2.3.1 What is intercultural education? 75
2.3.2 Areas of intercultural learning 80
2.3.3 Intercultural education and educational systems 83

Chapter II

Integrative Religious Education in England 86

1 History and organisation of integrative RE in England 86
1.1 History of integrative RE 86
1.1.1 Developments until the 1960s 87
1.1.2 Ninian Smart's phenomenological approach to RE 88
1.1.3 The Shap Working Party for
World Religions in Education 91
1.2 Organisation of integrative RE 94
1.2.1 Agreed syllabuses 94
1.2.2 The model syllabuses of the School
Curriculum and Assessment Authority 99
1.2.3 The legal situation 105
1.2.4 Teacher training 109
 Table of Contents x j

2 Current approaches to RE in England Ill

2.1 The Westhill Project 112
2.1.1 Aims and contents of integrative RE 112
2.1.2 The concept of religion and
the representation of religions 114
2.1.3 The notion of education and teaching strategies 117
2.1.4 Comment 119
2.2 "A Gift to the Child":
The Religion in the Service of the Child Project 120
2.2.1 The representation of religions 122
2.2.2 The concept of religion 125
2.2.3 The notion of education 126
2.2.4 Comment 127
2.3 The Experiential Approach 130
2.3.1 Aims and contents of integrative RE 130
2.3.2 The concept of religion and
the representation of religions 133
2.3.3 The notion of education 135
2.3.4 Critical evaluation 137
2.4 The Interpretive Approach 142
2.4.1 Aims and contents of integrative RE 143
2.4.2 The concept of religion and
the representation of religions 143
2.4.3 The notion of education 159
2.4.4 Recent developments and projects in interpretive RE 160
2.4.5 Comment 161
2.5 The Critical Approach 162
2.5.1 The critique of the "liberal consensus"
about representing religions in RE 163
2.5.2 Reconstruction: The representation
of religions in a critical framework 165
2.5.3 The notion of education 169
2.5.4 Critical evaluation 171
2.6 The Constructivist Approach 173
2.7 The Narrative Approach 179
xii Table of Contents

Approaches to teaching Christianity 187

2.8 The Chichester Project 187
2.8.1 The general framework 188
2.8.2 Aspects of teaching Christianity 189
2.8.3 The notion of education and teaching strategies 193
2.8.4 Comment 195
2.9 The Stapleford Project 196
2.9.1 Influences on the Stapleford Project 197
2.9.2 Concept cracking 198
2.9.3 Diversity within Christianity 200
2.9.4 RE: religious or educational? 202
2.9.5 The notion of religion 205
2.9.6 Critical evaluation 207

Chapter III

Integrative Religious Education in Sweden 211

1 Religions in Sweden and the Swedish school system 213
1.1 Religions in Sweden 213
1.2 The Swedish school system 215
1.3 Democracy and basic values in Swedish schools 217
2 The history of integrative RE in Sweden 219

3 Aims and contents of integrative RE in Sweden 226

3.1 Aims of integrative RE 226
3.2 Contents of integrative RE 229
3.2.1 Official documents 229
3.2.2 Academic literature 230
3.2.3 Teaching material 234
4 The concept of religion 236
4.1 The concept of religion in official documents about RE 236
4.2 The concept of religion in academic literature 237
4.3 The concept of religion in textbooks 241
 Table of Contents xjjj

5 The representation of religions 245

5.1 Official requirements for the
representation of religions in RE 245
5.2 Academic discourse about the
representation of religions in RE 247
5.2.1 General observations 248
5.2.2 Examples of the representation of
religions in academic literature about RE 251
5.2.3 Further issues in the representation
of religions in academic literature about RE 268
5.3 The representation of religions in textbooks 273
5.3.1 General observations 273
5.3.2 Example: the representation of Islam
in Swedish textbooks 278

6 The notion of education in Swedish RE 282

Chapter IV
Evaluation and Conclusions 290
1 English and Swedish concepts for integrative RE 290
1.1 General features of integrative RE in England and Sweden 290
1.2 Individual aspects of integrative RE in England and Sweden.... 293
1.2.1 Aims of integrative RE 294
1.2.2 The concept of religion 296
1.2.3 The representation of religions 298
1.2.4 Teaching methods and the concept of education 305
2 Integrative RE in the European context 312
2.1 Learning and teaching about different religions in Europe 312
2.1.1 European RE in transition 312
2.1.2 Accounts of the situation of RE in Europe 315
 Table of Contents

2.2 Examples of models and changes in

individual European countries 324
2.2.1 Integrative RE as an individual
school subject - Norway 324
2.2.2 A separative framework and
exceptions to the rule - Germany 328
2.2.3 Integrative RE as a "learning dimension"
of other subjects - the Netherlands 343
2.3 Integrative or separative RE in state schools? 347

3 A framework for integrative RE in Europe 353

3.1 The general character of integrative RE 355
3.1.1 The profile of integrative RE 355
3.1.2 The notion of education 360
3.1.3 Integrative RE in the context of
wider cultural, social and political debates 366
3.2 Individual features of integrative RE 372
3.2.1 The name of the school subject 372
3.2.2 The concept of religion and
the delineation of the subject matter 373
3.2.3 The representation of religions 376
3.2.4 Organisation and transformation 382
3.3 Academic and political desiderata 385

Epilogue: The potential of integrative RE 388

Bibliography 391
Index 437
 Acknowledgements

"There must be an alternative to separating children by confession

when it comes to teaching and learning about religions in schools."
These were my thoughts when I studied German accounts of school
religious education in the face of increasing plurality and globalisation.
In Germany, because of the dominant separative-confessional model,
integrative RE is still somewhat of a taboo topic. Therefore, I sometimes
have to think twice, even at social events, when people ask me about
my work, before I start to talk about it, as there is always the risk of
provoking a heated controversy. In England or Sweden, however, peo-
ple find it difficult to believe that we really have this separative ap-
proach in Germany. It took a while before I was able to break away
from my situatedness in the German context, in which one always has
to excuse oneself for deviating from the dominant model, and dared to
come forward with and stand by my own position about the appropri-
ate educational response to recent challenges for religious education.
Without any doubt, my concept will not be without inconsistencies.
However, -in the young field of integrative religious education, where
we are still debating very basic questions such as the general character
of the subject, it is necessary for us to actually begin to develop con-
cepts from a study-of-religions point of view. It may take some time
until the basic issues concerning integrative RE, as seen from a study-
of-religions perspective, are settled and generally accepted models are
developed. However, I regard being part of this current liminal phase
of RE politics as an exciting challenge and look forward to being in-
volved in further developing models and methods for integrative RE,
together with my colleagues from Northern Europe and elsewhere,
whose work and friendship I appreciate very much.
I wish to thank the people who have supported me while I was
writing this book: the supervisor of my thesis, Michael Pye, Professor of
the Study of Religions in Marburg, supported me in various ways.
Above all, by his example, my interest in international cooperation was
raised. Furthermore, he was there (physically or virtually) to help
whenever there was a problem. I am grateful for the many inspiring
discussions we had. Elisabeth Rohr, Professor of Education in Marburg,
also helped me to develop my ideas about the topic of this thesis from
xvi Acknowledgements

the very beginning. I would like to thank her for her unpretentious and
sincere support.
During my stay in Oxford, Susan Hector and Peggy Morgan helped
me to get access to the English landscape of religious education. I am
also grateful for their general support, companionship and encourage-
ment during that time. While I was in Sweden, my good friend Maria
Andersson helped me in various ways and made her flat feel like a
second home to me.
Alexander Rödel, Konstanze Runge, Peter Schalk, Monika Schrimpf
and Katja Triplett have helped me with comments on the manuscript. I
am particularly grateful to David Smith, who, under an enormous
pressure of time, helped me with errors and infelicities in English be-
fore I submitted my thesis to the University of Marburg. I am also par-
ticularly grateful to Alexander Rödel, who did the time-consuming
formatting of this book, including night shifts, despite his contempt for
the word-processor I used.
Furthermore, I would like to thank Albrecht Döhnert and Winni-
fred Sullivan, who have helped to bring this book into the Religion and
Reason series, and Rosalind Hackett for writing a foreword from a
North-American perspective. My thanks extend also to Charlotte
Fields, who proofread the final manuscript.
My research project was made possible by a scholarship from the
German National Academic Foundation (Studienstiftung des Deutschen
Volkes). I am particularly grateful to Thomas Ludwig, who took a close
look at my case in the application procedure, when it emerged that I
had embarked upon a rather controversial topic.
I am also grateful to Julia Bokowski, Andreas Grünschloß and Hans
Wißmann, who, in my time at the University of Mainz, raised my inter-
est in the academic Study of Religions. Furthermore, I would like to
thank Bernd Päschke for our discussions and his uncompromisingly
critical view of the social and political contexts in which we live. His
ideas and outstanding example of partiality for less privileged people
have encouraged me to articulate my own positions more clearly. I
would also like to thank Gritt Klinkhammer, who has supported me in
many ways since I started as a lecturer at the University of Bremen, so
that I was actually able to complete this book.
Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to all my friends, in-
cluding many of the above, who have accepted my life as migrating
bird, and to my parents, Frauke and Peter Alberts, whose belief and
interest in what I am doing have always been a wonderful support in
my life and work.
 Introduction

Integrative religious education

In this thesis the term "integrative religious education" is used as an

analytical category referring to a particular form of school religious
education in which the children of a class are not separated - as op-
posed to separative confessional approaches - but learn together about
different religions. "Integrative" refers to two distinctive aspects of this
kind of religious education (RE): (1) the non-separative educational
framework, which takes religious plurality - in schools and society in
general - as its starting point and which requires a concept for dealing
with diversity in the classroom, in particular with respect to teaching
about different religions, and (2) making various religions the subject
matter without taking the perspective of any of these religions as an
overall framework.1 Thus, "integrative RE" means non-separative and
non-confessional school education about different religions.
In different countries and languages various terms have been used
to describe this kind of RE. In Germany, for example, "interreligiöser
Religionsunterricht" (interreligious RE), "Religionsunterricht für alle"
(RE for all), "allgemeiner Religionsunterricht" (general RE) and "Re-
ligionskunde" (knowledge about religion) have been suggested.2 The
latter is also used in Sweden, where this school subject is called "re-
ligionskunskap". Unlike "interreligious RE", which implies a religious
encounter, "multifaith RE", which is widely used in English, encapsu-
lates the character of the subject quite well. However, I prefer to use
"integrative RE" in the above sense in order not to emphasise any as-

1 "Integrative" should not be misunderstood as describing an attempt to integrate the

positions of the different religions into a coherent whole.
2 "Interreligiöser Religionsunterricht" and "Religionsunterricht für alle" have been
used, for example, for the Hamburg model, cf. chapter IV, section 2.2.2. "Allge-
meiner Religionsunterricht" was used for example by Gert Otto, who later preferred
"Religionskunde", as it is less ambiguous than the former (see Otto 1992: Allge-
meiner Religionsunterricht - Religionsunterricht für alle). "Religionskunde" is also
used in the new school subject "Lebensgestaltung - Ethik - Religionskunde" (ways
of life - ethics - knowledge about religion), which was introduced in the state of
Brandenburg in the 1990s, see chapter IV, section 2.2.2.
2 Introduction

pect of religion, for example faith, in the name of the subject.3 Some
European countries, particularly in northern Europe, have integrative
RE as an individual school subject.4 Sweden and England have had the
longest traditions of integrative RE as an individual compulsory subject
for all pupils from primary up to secondary levels.

The academic study of religions and RE

If integrative RE is to be educational and not religious in itself, the aca-

demic disciplines of the study of religions and education ought to be
responsible for the design of programmes for this school subject. The
reason for this is that - unlike theologies, which study one or more
religions within a religious framework 5 - the academic discipline of the
study of religions deals with religious diversity from a non-religious
perspective and has, therefore, sought to develop a methodology for an
impartial approach to different religions.
However, the field of didactics has been neglected in the academic
study of religions in many countries for a long time. This is because,
until recently, in most countries of the world school curricula did not
normally include a study of different religions from an impartial point
of view but particular religions were taught from a confessional point
of view. In countries with separative confessional school RE, a need for
the kind of knowledge that the study of religions can provide was first
recognised when so-called alternative subjects, like "ethics", "philoso-
phy of life" or "values and norms" were introduced for children who
did not want to participate in confessional instruction. However, this
has still not brought about the development of a coherent didactics of
the study of religions. This may be demonstrated using the example of
Germany. As most of German RE is confessional, RE in general is re-

3 I have found one article in German that uses the phrase "integrativer Religionsunter-
richt", see Knauth and Weiße 1996: Lernbereich Religion/Ethik und integrativer Re-
ligionsunterricht aus Schülerinnensicht. Like its English equivalent, this did not use
to be a common term for this kind of RE. The formulation "integrative religious edu-
cation", which I have used in conference papers since 2003 (cf., e.g., Alberts 2005:
European models of integrative religious education), has been taken up by some
other scholars, for example Pye and Franke (2004: The study of religions and its con-
tribution to problem-solving in a plural world, 14), or Thomassen (2005: RE in a plu-
ralistic society: experiences from Norway, 241).
4 For integrative RE in the European context see chapter IV.2.
5 It is often overlooked in the debates about integrative RE that this also holds for
universal theologies. Unlike the study of religions, pluralist theologies of religions
are still normative, seeking to make sense of religious diversity.
 Introduction 3

garded as a matter of individual religious traditions and theologies

rather than of the study of religions. Recently, more and more theologi-
ans have started to reflect upon how learning about different religions
may be included in confessional RE.6 However, this kind of reflection
must not be mistaken for a didactics of the study of religions, as these
approaches still operate in a general theological - and not impartial -
framework.7 Apart from a few exceptions, for example, Peter Antes or
Udo Tworuschka,8 most German scholars of religions have shown little
if any interest in school RE until very recently. This also involves a lack
of research from a study-of-religions point of view about existent con-
cepts for teaching different religions in RE.9 The situation is better in
countries with a longer and wider tradition in integrative RE. However,
even in those countries the distinction between the different functions
of the study of religions and various theologies with respect to RE is
not always clearly made and responsibilities are sometimes confused.10
On an international level, RE is again mostly conceived of as sepa-
rative confessional instruction in a particular religion. Therefore, only a
few scholars of religions have taken an interest in RE, but this field has
rather been regarded as an area of interest for theologians. The fact that
integrative RE, which directly relates to the study of religions, may
actually be an alternative or a complement to common practice of RE in
many countries in order to enhance knowledge about different relig-

6 See for example Lähnemarvn 1998: Evangelische Religionspädagogik in interre-

ligiöser Perspektive, Meyer 1998: Zeugnisse fremder Religionen im Unterricht.
"Weltreligionen" im deutschen und englischen Religionsunterricht.
7 Confusion is, for example, caused in the section "Religionen-Didaktik" by Martin
Jäggle in Johann Figl's Handbuch Religionswissenschaft (2003). Contrary to what one
may expect from a compendium in the study of religions, Jäggle, a Catholic theolo-
gian, does not distinguish between teaching different religions in confessional and
non-confessional frameworks. Therefore, theological approaches (e.g. by Johannes
Lähnemann), designed for confessional RE and therefore frequently operating with a
"we" vs. "the other" dichotomy, are presented along with the English A Gift to the
Child approach, which was particularly designed for an integrative framework.
8 See the diverse publications by Antes and Tworuschka, e.g. Antes 1995: Religions-
pädagogik und Religionswissenschaft, Tworuschka 1982: Methodische Zugänge zu
den Weltreligionen. Along with several publications about the representation of dif-
ferent religions, Tworuschka has recently also published a CD-ROM for the explora-
tion of different religions (2004: Religiopolis - Weltreligionen erleben).
9 For accounts of the scarce coverage of questions of didactics in the study of religions
in Germany see Körber 1988: Didaktik der Religionswissenschaft (in: Handbuch re-
ligionswissenschaftlicher Grundbegriffe, vol. 1) and Fauth 1998: Zur Didaktik der
Religionswissenschaft. Cf. also Bauer 1996: Zwischen Religionenkunde und erfah-
rungsorientiertem Unterricht, 155ff.
10 See my criticism of some English approaches, e.g. sections 2.3 and 2.9 in chapter II,
or of the Norwegian approach (chapter IV, section 2.2.1).
4 Introduction

ions, which is more and more acknowledged as an important element

of education, has only recently attracted the interest of more scholars in
the study of religions. Above all, scholars from countries which already
have integrative approaches have been working for an internationalisa-
tion of the debate. Apart from the early ground-breaking work by
Ninian Smart,11 recently the work of the Danish scholar Tim Jensen,
who has for years been engaged in promoting a study-of-religions ap-
proach to school RE on a European level,12 or the contributions by the
English scholar Robert Jackson, who has developed a consistent study-
of-religions approach to teaching different religions in integrative RE
and established an international network of scholars who use similar
methods, 13 are particularly important in this respect, but there are also a
number of other valuable contributions.14 Furthermore, the participa-
tion of scholars of religions in the creation or revision of syllabuses for
integrative RE, and exchange beyond national levels about these pro-
cedures, are important for the development of sound concepts for inte-
grative RE.15
However, as the panel sessions on RE at the world congress of the
International Association for the History of Religions (IAHR) in Tokyo in
2005 have shown, there is still anything but a consensus about a study-
of-religions approach to integrative RE. While some papers clearly em-
phasised the possibilities and limits of a sound study-of-religions posi-
tion, others did not as clearly distinguish between theological and
study-of-religions positions, leaving confusion rather than clarification
about the general role of the study of religions with respect to RE.
However, the fact that questions about RE were discussed in several

11 For the work of Ninian Smart see chapter II, section 1.1.2 and cf., for example, Smart
1968: Secular Education and the Logic of Religion.
12 For the work of Jensen see chapter IV, section 2.1.2 and cf., e.g., Jensen 2002: RE in
public schools - a must for a secular state. Jensen is also one of the few scholars of re-
ligions who take an interest in the increasingly international debate about models of
RE in Europe.
13 For the work of Jackson see chapter II section 2.4. and chapter IV, section 2.2.1 and
cf., for example, Jackson 1997: RE. An Interpretive Approach and 2004: Rethinking
RE and Plurality.
14 See, for example, the work of Nils G. Holm, e.g. Holm (ed.) 2000: Islam and Christi-
anity in School Religious Education or Holm (ed.) 1997: The Familiar and the Unfa-
miliar in the World Religions: Challenges for Religious Education Today. Cf. also the
European research project on Islam in textbooks, see Falaturi and Tworuschka 1992:
A guide to the presentation of Islam in school textbooks, and the recent study on
Christianity, Islam and Judaism in European curricula by Kaul-Seidmann, Nielssen
et al. (2003: European Identity and Cultural Pluralism).
15 Here I refer, for example, to the work of the Norwegian scholar Einar Thomassen in
the committee that revised the syllabus for Norwegian integrative RE, cf. Thomassen
2005: Religious education in a pluralistic society: experiences from Norway.
 Introduction 5

panel sessions at all reflects the general trend that education, and
school RE in particular, are increasingly claiming their place on the
agendas of departments for the study of religions in many regions of
the world.16 Nevertheless, beyond the important work of a few indi-
vidual scholars,17 the development of a coherent school didactics of the
study of religions, which includes recent considerations within this
academic discipline as well as within education, is still in its infancy.
For example, a comparative analysis and criticism of concepts for inte-
grative RE in different countries from a study-of-religions perspective
still remains a desideratum, as does the development of a clear study-
of-religions position about the general character and individual fea-
tures of integrative RE.

Aims, contents and limitations of this study

This study aims at contributing to the development of a school didac-

tics of the study of religions. It provides an analysis of a number of
existent academic concepts for integrative RE from a study-of-religions
perspective. The main focus of my analysis will be on concepts for inte-
grative RE in England and Sweden (chapters II, III, and IV. 1), while the
general situation of integrative RE in Europe will also be taken into
account and further examples from other countries will be discussed
(chapter IV.2). The criteria for my analysis build on my conclusions
about the debates on theory and methodology in the academic disci-
plines which I regard as responsible for integrative RE. My approach to
these debates in the study of religions and education as well as my
conclusions about the character of these disciplines will be outlined in
chapter I. These theoretical and methodological considerations, to-
gether with the results from the analyses of different approaches to
integrative RE in Europe, form the basis for the framework for integra-
tive RE which I suggest in the final part of this study (chapter IV.3).
Sweden and England have been selected for their long and exten-
sive traditions in integrative RE. The situation of integrative RE in
Norway is briefly discussed in chapter IV, section 2.2.1, as an example

16 The regional conference of the IAHR in Yogyakarta and Semarang on Java with the
theme "Religious Harmony. Problems, Practice and Education" (cf. Pye, Franke et
al., ed., 2006: Religious Harmony) also reflected this trend. At this conference a clear
study-of-religions approach to RE was put forward in the panel on "RE in global
perspective". The conference of the European Association for the Study of Religions
(EASR) in Bremen in 2007 also had education as one of its conference themes.
17 Such as Ninian Smart, Robert Jackson or Tim Jensen, as mentioned above.
6 Introduction

of recent developments in the European landscape of RE. Without any

doubt, an in-depth study of other models of integrative RE, for exam-
ple, in Denmark or Estonia,18 would have contributed to the completion
of the picture. However, there is a limit to what can be done in an indi-
vidual study. Furthermore, the issues that have arisen in the study of
integrative RE in Sweden, England and Norway, as well as of other
models for teaching about different religions in Germany and the
Netherlands (chapter IV, sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3) are indicative of the
kinds of debates about RE in other countries as well, for example with
respect to policies towards religious plurality, responsibility for RE in
state schools or the general character of integrative or separative RE.
The main focus of my analysis of current English and Swedish ap-
proaches to integrative RE is on academic concepts for this subject that
have been published by scholars of RE. These concepts are analysed
with respect to the following aspects: aims and contents of integrative
RE, the underlying concept of religion, the representation of religions
and the notion of education. The historical and social contexts in which
these concepts have been developed, including, for example, changing
legal requirements, national guidelines or institutional responsibilities,
are also considered.
This is a theoretical study based on the study of different kinds of
written sources, for example, official documents, academic literature,
teachers' manuals and textbooks for RE, which I collected during my
research in England and Sweden between 2002 and 2005, and not an
empirical study of actual classroom practice of integrative RE, even
though visits to schools and teacher training institutions have comple-
mented my study of the textual sources.
The framework for integrative RE which I suggest in the final part
of this study (chapter IV.3) has been designed for the European situa-
tion in particular, but may also be transferred to other regions, possibly
with some modifications that other contexts make necessary, however
without changing its general character.

18 For Denmark cf. the publications by Jensen, e.g. 2005: European and Danish RE, or
Buchard 2004: RE in the school: approaches in school practice and research in Den-
mark. For Estonia cf. Schreiner 2005: RE in Europe and the information on Estonia
on the website of the European Forum for Teachers in RE, see EFTRE 2005: Estonia.
 Introduction 7

A note on citations and translations

References to literature that is quoted or mentioned in the text are

given in the footnotes, citing the last name of the author(s), the year of
publication and a short title, which may correspond with the original
title but may also be an abbreviated version, for example without subti-
tle or with "RE" as an abbreviation for religious education. Citations
may vary slightly if the author is not a person but an institution. Italics
in quotations are original, unless stated otherwise. Translations from
the German and Swedish are my own.
 Chapter I
Theory and methodology in the academic
disciplines relevant to integrative RE
1 The Study of Religions

This chapter is an introduction to the academic study of religions as the

discipline which is most closely related to integrative RE as a school
subject. As many theoretical and methodological questions which have
been discussed at length in the study of religions are also relevant for
RE - and have frequently been discussed with respect to RE without
reference to the corresponding debates in the study of religions - these
issues will briefly be introduced in this chapter in order to provide a
study-of-religions background for the development of theory and
methodology for integrative RE. Needless to say, there is no one-to-one
correspondence between method and theory in the academic and in the
school subject. A careful evaluation of those aspects of the academic
subject that can be transferred to the school subject, and of the question
as to how this is possible is the delicate task for the development of a
didactic framework for integrative RE, which is still in its infancy in
many countries, including Germany. However, it is important to draw
on insights in the study of religions in order not to blindly reproduce
the debates on issues which have long been settled on other levels, but
to initiate a cross-fertilisation of ideas with respect to similar questions.
This chapter starts by generally introducing the study of religions,
with reference to implications from its history as well as to recent de-
velopments, and as distinct from other disciplines which are concerned
with religion(s), above all theology and philosophy (1.1). It then goes
on to look more closely at the subject matter of the study of religions.
Different concepts of religion will be briefly assessed, followed by con-
clusions about the delineation of the subject matter (1.2). The third sec-
tion of this chapter deals with questions of methodology, in particular
with methodological variety and integration in the study of religions as
well as with selected issues concerning the representation of religions
from a study-of-religions point of view (1.3).
 The Study of Religions 9

1.1 The character of the subject

In the context of this study, an outline of the general character of the

study of religions is helpful, particularly since it is frequently confused
with dialogical theologies and theologies or philosophies of religion.
This section will discuss the distinctive features of the study of religions
as the academic discipline which deals with the variety of religions
explicitly not from a normative point of view. For this purpose, after an
outline of the general character of the academic study of religions
(1.1.1), insights and implications from its history will mapped out
(1.1.2), before some recent developments within this discipline are men-
tioned (1.2.3). The section concludes with some considerations about
the limitations of the academic study of religions, which result from its
self-set secular and scientific framework (1.2.4).

1.1.1 The general character of the academic study of religions

The academic study of religions is a historical, empirical and compara-

tive discipline which deals with the different religious traditions of the
world. As distinct from any theology it is a secular discipline which
does not make judgements about religious truth claims. Neither does it
construe any meaning behind the variety of religions. As a branch of
the social and cultural sciences, it is methodologically agnostic with
respect to religious claims which are not empirically verifiable. Its in-
terest is in the study, analysis and description of religions as anthropo-
logical phenomena, using a methodology which does not prefer any
religion over another.1
The study of religions exists worldwide and there is a variety of na-
tional, regional and international organisations. There is no consensus
about the name of the subject. The German term Religionswissenschaft,
which is rather uncontroversial2, has been designated in English in

1 The following titles may serve as examples of outlines of the general character of the
study of religions to which the characterisation in this section owes a great deal:
Flasche 2000: Von der Selbstbeschränkung und Selbstbegründung der Religionen-
wissenschaft, Pye 1999: Methodological integration in the study of religions,
Pye/Franke 2004: The Study of Religions and its contribution to problem-solving in a
plural world, Stolz 1997: Grundzüge der Religionswissenschaft, Waardenburg 1986:
Religionen und Religion. Systematische Einführung in die Religionswissenschaft.
2 Apart from Rainer Flasche's suggestion to call the subject Religionenwissenschaft in
order to include the plurality of religions in the name, cf. Flasche 2000: Von der
Selbstbeschränkung und Selbstbegründung der Religionenwissenschaft. Another
point, which has been discussed in a number of countries, is the question of whether
10 Method and Theory

various ways. Clearly, Theology or Divinity, which are often still the
names of faculties which also include The Study of Religions are mislead-
ing names for the subject as they explicitly point at a theological charac-
ter of the enterprise. Religious Studies, frequently used in Great Britain,
m a y also be misleading as it implies a religious character. The Study of
Religion or the Science of Religion are acceptable names for the subject.
They do, however, refer to religion in the singular and the latter might
also imply proximity to the sciences as opposed to the humanities.
Therefore, in m y view, the best solution is to call the subject The Study
of Religions,3 because it does not confine it to any individual aspect,
such as the comparative aspect in Comparative Religion, or the historical
aspect in History of Religions, and includes the plurality of religions. 4
Two complementary branches of the study of religions can be
identified, a historical descriptive and a theoretical and comparative
branch. 5 Traditionally, the historical-descriptive branch is concerned
with the history, development and contemporary situation of individ-
ual religions or religious phenomena. For instance, the development
and expansion of different Buddhist traditions from their origins up to
the present day is a classical topic of this branch. The theoretical, com-
parative and systematic 6 branch develops theories on the basis of a
comparative study of religions and religious phenomena from the
whole range of religions. As it is de facto only possible to compare

the name of the subject should emphasise the historical aspect of the discipline. In
Germany the names Religionswissenschaft (the study of religions) and Religions-
geschichte (the history of religions) are often used interchangeably. In order to over-
come the emphasis on the historical aspect, the German Association for the History
of Religions (Deutsche Vereinigung für Religionsgeschichte, DVRG) changed its name to
German Association for the Study of Religions (Deutsche Vereinigung für Religion-
swisenschaft, DVRW) in 2005. Other national and international associations have kept
the emphasis on history, for example, the Danish Association for the History of Religions
(DAHR) or the International Association for the History of Religions (IAHR).
3 The plural in the title seems more felicitous in English than in German.
4 This is, for example, the solution of the European Association for the Study of Relig-
ions (EASR) or the British Association for the Study of Religions (BASR).
5 An early convincing description of the distinction between those two branches can
be found in Wach 1924: Religionswissenschaft. Prolegomena zu ihrer wissenschaf-
stheoretischen Grundlegung, 21, where he uses the word "längsschnittmäßig" for
the historical and the word "querschnittmäßig" for the systematic branch.
6 Note that systematic is used here in a way which is different from frequent use in
English RE, where the distinction between systematic and thematic refers to differ-
ent approaches to RE: in the former ("systematic" or "systems-" approach) religions
are discussed individually, one after the other, and in the latter ("thematic" ap-
proach) phenomena that occur in different religions are discussed comparatively. I
find this systematic - thematic distinction in English RE somewhat misleading as it is
inconsistent with the common understanding of "systematic", especially in the study
of religions.
 The Study of Religions 11

some religions in some respects at a time,7 general theories about relig-

ions, which claim validity also beyond the direct focus of a study have
to be based on further empirical evidence and have to be modified if
any contradictory evidence is found. Therefore, taking account of mis-
takes that have been made in the history of the subject, a certain
amount of caution is advised when it comes to general theories or
statements. The subject matter or "field" with all its phenomena
worldwide is so diverse that general statements are almost impossible,
since nobody could ever have enough knowledge to verify such a
statement in every tradition. This becomes evident also in the difficul-
ties that scholars of religions have in defining "religion" itself (see sec-
tion 1.2). In order to preserve the scientific character of the subject it is
important to clearly define the field for which a theory was developed.
In fact, general theories do not really seem to be necessary in the study
of religions. A consensus has emerged among many scholars of relig-
ions that an analysis and description of structural similarities or "fam-
ily resemblances" 8 of aspects of religions is a more adequate methodol-
ogy in the comparative study of religions. To dispense with general
theories and formulate theories of limited range seems to be more aca-
demically sound in such a complex and disparate field.
Classical comparative studies - for example of rituals, special texts,
postulated superhuman beings 9 - have also been criticised for their
disregard of dynamics or the respective contexts or intentions behind
phenomena that seem superficially similar (see section 1.1.2). These
criticisms, which are in fact often justified, point at shortcomings in the
way those comparisons were carried out. They do not, however, call
comparative methodology as such into question, as a comparative
study of dynamics, contexts and intentions is also possible.10 Generally,

7 Cf. Pye 1972: Comparative Religion: An Introduction through Source Materials, 22.
8 "Family resemblances" is a term that Wittgenstein introduced. For a reception of this
term in the study of religions cf., e.g., Kippenberg 1983: Diskursive Religionswissen-
schaft, 11; Pye 1994: Religion. Shape and shadow, Pye 2000: Westernism unmasked,
Wiebe 2000: Problems with the family resemblance approach to conceptualizing re-
ligion.
9 The frequently used phrase "culturally postulated superhuman agents" was coined
by Milford E. Spiro, see Spiro 1966: Religion: problems of definition and explanation,
96.
10 Cf., e.g., Michael Pye's ideas about a comparative study of religious innovation, see,
e.g., Pye 1969: The transplantation of religions, 1991: Reflections on the treatment of
tradition in comparative perspective, 109.
12 Method and Theory

in comparative studies equal attention should be paid to similarities

and differences.11
The study of religions analyses and describes religious phenomena
from an academic meta-level, which is independent from the insider
perspective, even though the latter is an important voice to be included
in any study (see section 1.3 on methodology). This standpoint of inde-
pendent reflection does not claim to be superior to any religious truth,
but presents a scientific approach to religions, which - by definition -
must not make any religious truth claim itself. One of the important
tasks of the study of religions is the development of concepts that can
be used for different religions without being caught in the mindset of
one tradition (see section 1.3.3).
As the study of religions restricts itself to the study of those aspects
of religions which can be studied scientifically, it has to restrict its field
to what can be studied using scientific methods. Religion is regarded as
a human phenomenon. Therefore, the study of religions approaches its
material with a limited set of specific questions. It is a study of religions
"from the outside" as opposed to the theological endeavour of studying
one or more religions "from the inside". The methodology has to be
comprehensible ("nachvollziehbar") 12 for other scholars. It is grounded
in empirical evidence, not in philosophical or theological speculations.
The study of religions is a discipline, i.e. a methodically ordered ap-
proach to the study of a field. It cannot be integrated into any other
discipline.13
The most common misunderstanding of the study of religions is
mistaking it for a kind of universal theology which includes theological
reflection about religious diversity. This may be due to the dominance
of theologians in public discourse on religions which can in many
countries be regarded as a result of the residual power of institutional-

11 Thus, we could speak of the "comparative and contrastive" study of religions, cf.
Pye 1972: 24; cf. also Segal 2001: In defence of the comparative method; Martin 2000:
Comparison; Paden 2004: Comparison in the study of religion.
12 This German concept, which means something like "comprehensible", in this context
particularly to people who have access to the same kind of material or on material
which was collected and made available by other scholars, seems to be particularly
helpful in describing the requirements of the research process, see also Pye 2000:
Westernism unmasked, 218.
13 Cf. Pye 1999: Methodological integration in the study of religions, 189, where he
shows that the study of religions can neither be integrated in history, as the methods
of historians do not normally involve field-work, nor in sociology, as there is more to
religions than just their social aspects. See also Pye 1982: The Study of Religion as an
autonomous discipline.
 The Study of Religions 13

ised religion. 14 It seems to be difficult to communicate the basic distinc-

tions between religious (universalist theologies), secular (the study of
religions) and secularist (comprehensive secular explanations of relig-
ions) approaches to religions beyond - and even within - academia.
This is one of the reasons why the role of the study of religions as the
academic partner for integrative RE has not yet been fully acknowl-
edged.
Michael Pye draws attention to some other important factors that
contribute to misunderstandings about the general character of the
study of religions: first, the interdisciplinary character of the subject
creates a situation in which people who come from other disciplines,
for example, anthropology, often do not "go to the trouble of acquiring
a methodological orientation in the discipline of the study of relig-
ions". 15 Second, different emphases in the study of religions - such as
phenomenology of religion, anthropology of religion or psychology of
religion - have resulted in some kind of compartmentalisation which is
detrimental, because "if the field is regarded as coherent, then a greater
degree of methodological coordination, or even integration, is intellec-
tually desirable and ought therefore to be sought". 1 6 Finally, there is
serious methodological divergence and sometimes methodological
fashions are for a short period of time regarded as the appropriate
method, while other important methods are neglected. 17 What I am
trying to outline as a contemporary consensus about the general char-
acter of the subject - despite its, in many respects, contested nature - is
the preliminary result of an ongoing process of continuous reflection
and modification of theory and methodology in the worldwide study
of religions. In the next section, important aspects of the history of the
subject and their implications for its present state will be considered.

14 Cf., e.g., McCutcheon 2000: Critics not caretakers: the scholar of religion as public
intellectual, 170.
15 Pye 1999: Methodological integration in the study of religions, 193.
16 Ibid., 192.
17 Cf. ibid., 193. Pye refers to cognitive science as a fashion in the study of religions,
which leads many scholars to neglect the need for fieldwork, textual studies and
comparison.
14 Method and Theory

1.1.2 Implications from the history of the academic study of religions

A useful distinction between four major phases in the history of the

academic study of religions is made by the Danish scholar Armin W.
Geertz.18 He regards the second half of the 19th century as the forma-
tive or "classical" period (phase 1) in which the differences between the
study of religions and theology were formulated. The first 60 years of
the 20th century may be called the adolescent or "modern" period
(phase 2), in which the differences between the study of religions and
basically everything else were formulated and an attempt was made to
provide the study of religions with a positivist, empiricist and histori-
cist foundation. Geertz calls the years between 1970 and 1990 the rebel-
lious early adult period (phase 3) which, according to him, represents
the critical turn in the study of religions and in which everything was
subjected to doubt except the premises of the doubters. In the current
phase (phase 4), which Geertz calls "the-approaching-the-maturity-of-
harried-parents phase", hard decisions at the cost of ideals have to be
made in order to get on with one's life. Geertz's somewhat humorous
account of the history of the subject in analogy to developmental stages
of human beings does in fact address the important phases and turning
points which are all still relevant for the present state of the study of
religions. I am going to demonstrate this with a spotlight discussion of
selected issues from those phases and their implications for today.19
In the first phase (second half of the 19th century) the work of F.
Max Müller is one important starting point for the emergence of the
study of religions as an independent discipline. Many of the issues that
became central questions in the study of religions later were already
addressed by Müller. The editor of the Sacred Books of the East, who saw
close resemblances between religions and languages, regarded a study
of different religions as a necessary prerequisite for an approach to the
phenomenon "religion" in general. He coined the famous phrase about
religions, which has been cited numerously in the history of the study
of religions since then: "He who knows one knows none." 20 Müller
distinguished between a historical study of religions, which deals with
the historical phenomena of religion and a theoretical one, which stud-

18 Cf. Geertz: 2004: Definition, categorization and indecision: or, how to get on with the
Study of Religion, 109f.
19 For a detailed account of phases 1 and 2 cf. also Sharpe: Comparative Religion. A
History.
20 Müller 1876: Einleitung in die vergleichende Religionswissenschaft, 14.
 The Study of Religions 15

ies the conditions that make religion possible.21 His attachment to tradi-
tions that were fashionable at the time when he wrote - for example his
belief that all of humankind unconsciously progresses towards Chris-
tianity, which has a special position among the religions of the world 22
- does not belittle his merit for the academic study of religions as a
discipline independent from theology.
Another development with important impulses for the emerging
identity of the subject took place in the late 19th century Netherlands,
where the history of religions was introduced very early as an aca-
demic discipline. In the work of Cornelius Petrus Tiele, who was Pro-
fessor of the History and Philosophy of Religion in Leiden, we can
again find a number of ideas about the character of the subject, that
were to be discussed intensively later. In his Inleiding tot de godsdienst-
wetenschap (1898), for example, he distinguishes between the general
history of religions and the study of religions which builds on the re-
sults of the general history of religions in that it answers the question of
what the nature of religion is, which reveals itself in all the different
phenomena.23 His methodology is an early version of "the phenome-
nological method", which was used widely in the next phase of the
history of the study of religions: "We study these phenomena [religious
ideas and actions] in order to deduce what is concealed behind the
phenomena." 24 The discrepancy between the proclaimed methodologi-
cal presuppositions for the study of religions as a discipline and the
methodology actually used in one's own work is also similar in the
work of Tiele and the later phenomenologists. On the one hand, Tiele
writes that "[t]he subject matter of our discipline is not the superhuman
itself, but religion which is based on the belief in the superhuman. And
to study this religion as a historical-psychological and at the same time
social, i.e. purely human phenomenon, is definitely a task of science." 25
On the other hand, Tiele presupposes a unity within the diversity of
religions and thereby leaves the methodological framework which he
himself introduced, as he structures his study from a particular meta-
physical/theological perspective.26

21 Cf. ibid., 19. Müller uses the terms "historische Theologie" and "theoretische The-
ologie".
22 Cf. Müller 1979: Essays, XVIIf.
23 Cf. Tiele 1899: Einleitung in die Religionswissenschaft (German edition of the Dutch
original from 1898), 11.
24 Ibid., 35.
25 Ibid., 4.
26 Cf. for example ibid., 257.
16 Method and Theory

Two characteristic trends in the second phase (the first 60 years of

the 20th century) are substantialist and functionalist definitions of relig-
ions and their implications for an understanding of the character of the
study of religions. The phenomenologists of religion had a substantial-
ist understanding of religion as a response to revelation. They did not
differentiate between a religious and a secular study of religions. Most
of them were Christian theologians27 and understood the study of relig-
ions as a kind of universal theology28 which includes reflection about
the variety of religions. They coined, however, terms and concepts
which have played an important role in the study of religions until
today.
Söderblom regarded people as religious if something is holy to
them.29 Similarly, Otto regarded the "numinous" 30 , which is accessible
through experience, as the common aspect of all religion. His conclu-
sion for the study of religions was that without any own experience of
the numinous it is impossible to understand religious people and,
therefore, to be a scholar of religion. Otto's conception of the holy as
consisting in the mysterium tremendum and the mysterium fascinans can
also be found in Gerardus van der Leeuw's Religion in Essence and
Manifestation (1938). "Power" is the important concept in van der
Leeuw's understanding of religion. He interprets the phenomenology
of religion as a study of the ways that human beings respond to this
divine power, i.e. mainly with fear and fascination.31 Friedrich Heiler
also demands that the scholar of religions approaches religion like a
sanctuary with "the original religious emotions of reverent shyness and
admiration". 32 For him, the study of religions is concerned with "relig-
ion as such". 33 The phenomenal world originates from the divine. The
phenomena are interesting only insofar as they are approaches to the

27 Nathan Söderblom, for example, was Bishop in the Church of Sweden, Rudolf Otto
was Professor of Systematic Theology in the Faculty of Theology at the University of
Marburg, Friedrich Heiler was also for some time professor in this faculty.
28 Söderblom wanted to prove the existence of God from the history of religions, Otto
intended to create a covenant of religious people (religiöser Menschheitsbund) and
Heiler extended his efforts for a reunification of the major Christian churches (cf. his
ideas about "protestant Catholicism" [evangelische Katholizität] and his participation
as a Catholic in the Protestant Lord's Supper together with Söderblom) to include an
attempt to unify the variety of religions with the help of the study of religions.
29 Cf. Söderblom 1913: Holiness, 731.
30 A word he invented to denote the holy minus its moral and rational aspects. Cf. Otto
1969: The Idea of the Holy [German original 1917], 6.
31 v.d. Leeuw 1956: Phänomenologie der Religion [1933], 33.
32 Heiler 1920: Das Gebet [1918]: VIII, similarly in 1959: Die Religionen der Menschheit
in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart: 48.
33 Heiler 1920: Das Gebet [1918]: 17.
 The Study of Religions 17

divine. The scholar of religions has to become immersed in the atmos-

phere of the holy in order to approach the heart of religious experi-
ence.34 Heiler does not really see a difference between theology and the
study of religions, because in his view the latter is likewise concerned
with an experience of transcendent realities.35
From the point of view of the phenomenologists, religion is a phe-
nomenon sui generis, which is given a priori. This is also evident in the
work of Mirca Eliade, whose approach is somewhat different from the
others, despite similar presuppositions and results. In contrast to the
other mentioned phenomenologists, Eliade was not a theologian. His
ideas are more independent from a Christian interpretation of the vari-
ety of religions. His work in the study of religions as well as in his fic-
tion36 is concerned with hierophanies, which he regards as the subject
matter of the study of religions. At the heart of his philosophical con-
struction is the assumption of an essential unity of religion and the
holy, which can be studied in these various hierophanies, i.e. manifes-
tations of the holy in space and time. Eliade describes the holy as quali-
tatively different from the profane, an eternal substance and ultimate
reality opposed to the illusion of historical existence.37
In the course of the 20th century it became evident that this "classi-
cal" version of phenomenology of religion is religious in itself. It
presupposed a unity of religion(s) as a starting point for comparisons.
The assumption that it is possible to access the essence of religion by a
study of the variety of phenomena is a philosophical construct which
cannot be a premise of the study of religions if the latter is regarded as
a discipline of the empirical social and cultural sciences and not of
normative or speculative theology or philosophy. The phenomenolo-
gists of religion formulated a number of helpful methodological pre-
suppositions for the study of religions, which helped to shape the char-
acter of the subject and to lay its academic foundations. Interestingly
though, their own work was often inconsistent with those premises.
The most illustrative example is perhaps the concept of intellectual

34 See Heiler 1961: Erscheinungsformen und Wesen der Religion, 14-17, where Heiler
describes his understanding of scientific and religious prerequisites a scholar needs
in the study of religions.
35 Heiler's famous phrase about the relationsthip between the study of religions and
theology is: "Alle Religionswissenschaft ist letztlich Theologie, insofern sie es nicht
nur mit psychologischen und geschichtlichen Erscheinungen, sondern mit dem Er-
lebnis jenseitiger Realitäten zu tun hat." (1961: Erscheinungsformen und Wesen der
Religion, 17).
36 Eliade also produced a remarkable literary work.
37 Cf. Eliade 1954: Die Religionen und das Heilige: e.g. 12f, 56, 519; see also 1957: Das
Heilige und das Profane.
18 Method and Theory

suspense (epoch0) or "bracketing", which can be regarded as an impor-

tant part of "the phenomenological method". The idea was that in the
study of religions one's own religious evaluations and convictions
ought to be bracketed in order to approach the different religions with-
out prejudice and partiality.38 It is, however, easy to find examples to
the contrary in the works of all the phenomenologists mentioned
above.39 In my view, the concept of "bracketing" is still helpful in order
to demonstrate the attempted methodological agnosticism in the meth-
odology of the study of religions, even though it is necessary to com-
plement it with a clear reflection of one's own situatedness in a certain
historical and social context. Influences and ideological presuppositions
cannot be ignored or denied, but have to be made explicit if a study is
to be academically sound.40 This is, for example, an important point of
postcolonial or feminist criticism of the study of religions, which will be
discussed in the next section. Nevertheless, the attempt not to distort
the representation of any religion unduly remains an inalienable and
extremely important task in the study of religions.
As opposed to phenomenology, functional approaches to religion
have often reflected the special interests of individual disciplines which
deal with religion among a number of other phenomena or as a part of
their actual object of study. Religion has been interpreted as compensa-
tion by psychologists like Freud and Jung, as a function of social inte-
gration by sociologists like Dürkheim and Weber or as a means of ca-
tharsis by anthropologists like Malinowski, van Gennep and Turner.
These analyses are helpful for an understanding of certain aspects of
religions. They are, however, unacceptable as comprehensive explana-
tions of the phenomenon "religion". There is no denying the fact that
fear plays a certain role in many religions, that religions frequently
constitute communities and structure contingency. These are, however,
only certain aspects of religion(s) and none of them can serve as a com-

38 See for example the epilegomena of van der Leeuw 1938: Religion in Essence and
Manifestation.
39 A number of such examples can be found in the above paragraph.
40 This also includes, for example, a distinction between one's own religious beliefs and
the methodological agnosticism in the methodology of the study of religions. To
avoid any misunderstanding let me give an example of what kind of reflection of
one's own situatedness I mean. If for example the belief that there is no truth outside
a certain religious group is taken as a starting point for a study of other religions, an
impartial approach will not be possible. This presupposition is incompatible with
the required methodological agnosticism. If, however, for example the influence of a
certain religious and other ideologies on the culture in which one lives, e.g. organisa-
tional and economic structures that are taken for granted and recurrent processes of
"othering" in societal life, are acknowledged, this may help to make explicit the con-
text in which a certain study is conducted.
 The Study of Religions 19

prehensively explanatory feature. The different perspectives on the

multifaceted and disparate field "religions" have to be integrated into
the discipline of the study of religions. The historical, sociological, psy-
chological etc. perspectives are individually insufficient for an adequate
study and representation of religions. Despite all interdisciplinarity,
methodological integration under the premise of the study of religions
is necessary in order to do justice to the breadth of the field and not to
allow any individual aspect to be an explanatory feature for the whole
phenomenon. This insight is an important result of phase 2. The differ-
ences in the understanding of the subject were an important issue at the
10th congress of the International Association for the History of Relig-
ions (IAHR) in 1960 in Marburg, where the gap, particularly between a
universalist theological and an anthropological understanding of the
subject, became evident. This gap can be regarded as the reason for the
dispute on methods ("Methodenstreit") which was to follow in the next
phase.
Even though Geertz emphasises the general scepticism in phase 3
(1970 to 1990), with an IAHR congress on methodology in Turku in
1973, which resulted in theoretical and methodological confusion, he
acknowledges important decisions which were taken in this phase. In
Turku, a growing dissatisfaction with Western science was expressed
by intellectuals from former colonies. The relevance of research to soci-
ety was discussed and in the debate about theory "[m]ost of the par-
ticipants were aware of the fact that there was no meta-theory in the
study of religion." 41 The meeting in Marburg in 198842 as well as the
Warsaw statement in 198943 can be regarded as points of no return. In
Warsaw, agreement was achieved on "conceptualizing religion as a
historical phenomenon, engaging in empirically-based research, but
perhaps more significantly, envisioning the study of religion in terms
of the larger (theoretical) project of studying human society and cul-
ture." 44 The two quotations above illustrate that - despite all disagree-
ment and difficulties - the two important issues which were discussed
with respect to phase 2 (comprehensive functional explanations and the
problems of the classical phenomenology of religion) were taken up
and dealt with constructively at an international level in phase 3. The
study of religions as an independent discipline - which consists of
more than a collection of data from other disciplines - took its place
among the social and cultural sciences. Important outcomes of the dis-

41 Geertz and McCutcheon 2000: The role of method and theory in the IAHR, 18.
42 Cf. Pye (ed.) 1989: Marburg Revisited.
43 See Tyloch 1990: Studies on Religions in the Context of Social Sciences, 8.
44 Geertz and McCutcheon 2000: The role of method and theory in the IAHR, 23f.
20 Method and Theory

pute on methods was that the demand for an adequate, non-

reductionist approach, which does justice to the delicate phenomenon
"religion(s)" and takes seriously the perspective of believers, was sup-
plemented by the paradigm of intersubjective verifiability on the one
hand and by refraining from comprehensive explanations or definitions
on the other. 45 Further issues and implications from the history of the
study of religions which are relevant for phase 4 (from 1990 u p to the
present) will be taken up in the next chapter on recent developments.

1.1.3 Recent developments in the study of religions

Recent developments in the world-wide study of religions are certainly

manifold and cannot be discussed at length here. My focus will be on a
few trends that can be observed in a number of countries in Europe as
well as in international organisations. Without any doubt, others would
mention different developments here.46 In recent years, increased atten-
tion has been paid to phenomena outside institutionalised religion,
often as a direct or indirect response to the secularisation theory, which
is questionable in many respects. Concepts like invisible religion (Luck-
mann) 47 , civil religion (Bellah)48 and implicit religion (Bailey)49 point at
influential aspects of religion beyond institutional organisation. In their
study on "Theoretical correlations between worldview, civil religion,
institutional religion and informal spiritualities" Helena Helve and
Michael Pye present a set of concepts for the study of contemporary
religion and conclude that "the trend is for institutional religion to
weaken, while at the same time civil religion and informal spiritualities
are not weakening. Rather, they are strengthening." 50 The inclusion of a
study of worldviews and an increasing scepticism towards the holy-

45 Ci. Berner 1983: Gegenstand und Aufgabe der Religionswissenschaft, 98.

46 A similar perspective is taken by Armin W. Geertz (2000: Global perspectives on
methodology in the study of religions), who regards the following issues as "post-
modem challenges" to the study of religions: orientalism, the construction of the ex-
otic, the representation and misrepresentation of other cultures, the politics of sci-
ence and feminist criticism.
47 Luckmann 1991: Die unsichtbare Religion.
48 See Bellah 1970: Beyond Belief, especially pp. 168-189 and Bellah and Hammond
1980: Varieties of Civil Religion.
49 See Bailey 1997: Implicit Religion in Contemporary Society; cf. also the journal "Im-
plicit Religion".
50 Helve and Pye 2001/2002: Theoretical correlations between world-view, civil relig-
ion, institutional religion and informal spiritualities, 101.
 The Study of Religions 21

profane dichotomy can be observed in several countries, particularly in

Scandinavia.51
Many of the recent developments are interconnected and influence
each other. Internationalisation (especially growing participation of
scholars from various countries in international conferences) is directly
linked to postcolonial reflection and an awareness of orientalism and
occidentalism. In the attempt to avoid discrimination by misrepresenta-
tion or negligence the criticism of colonialism and orientalism goes
hand in hand with a criticism of androcentrism, which has until re-
cently been another unquestioned paradigm in the study of religions.
The change of perspective from a study of ancient texts to a study of
contemporary religion(s) involved a change to empirical social research
as well as an increasing awareness of the potential social and political
relevance of the study of religions and an acknowledgement of the
social responsibility of the scholar of religions, for example with respect
to criticism of ideologies. In the following, postcolonial reflection, femi-
nist criticism and the debate about social responsibility may serve as an
illustration of the type of discussions which are going on in the study of
religions at the moment.

Postcolonial reflection

Edward Said's seminal work Orientalism (1978) was a milestone in

raising public awareness of the assumed cultural supremacy of the
West in its study of other cultures. It disclosed convincingly the distor-
tions in European constructions of other cultures. The relevance of
Said's criticism for the study of religions cannot be overrated. Many of
Said's points can be regarded as a direct criticism of the study of relig-
ions. One famous example of the kind of distortions of Eastern religions
in the representations of Western scholars is Western constructions of
Hinduism. It can easily be demonstrated that early Western under-
standings of Hinduism were to a considerable extent constructions
based on Western models. A selected set of phenomena, which were
assumed to be the important aspects of any religion - for example an-

51 Cf. for example the importance of the concepts worldview or view of life in the
Nordic study of religions, e.g. Helve 1993: The World View of Young People: A Lon-
gitudinal Study of Finnish Youth Living in a Suburb of Metropolitan Helsinki or
Helve 2000: The formation of gendered world views and gender ideology; see also
Jensen 2002: From the History of Religions to the Study of Religions. Trends and
tendencies in Denmark. A similar approach can be found in Berner 1983: Gegen-
stand und Aufgabe der Religionswissenschaft, which will be further discussed in
chapter 1.2.2.
22 Method and Theory

cient sacred texts in a learned language and a clergy - was taken to be

representative of the entire tradition. Thus, the Brahmanic, scriptural
and traditional aspects of Hinduism were mistaken for the religion
Hinduism as a whole. Recently, there have been a number of attempts -
in India itself and in the West52 - to rewrite the history of Hindu tradi-
tions, with a particular emphasis on the inclusion of formerly marginal-
ised groups, including above all women and lower-class people, in
order to produce a more balanced and realistic account of the complex
and multifaceted phenomena which together make up what is called
"Hinduism". Apart from the special emphasis on the former exclusion
and misrepresentation of women, the inclusion of popular, folk, non-
Sanskritic and regional trends is inalienable in the attempt to appreciate
Hinduism in its full diversity. The blatant distortions of the past - in-
cluding questionable constructions of periphery (e.g. "the East",
women) and centre (e.g. "the West", men) - are no longer admissible.
In 2001, Morny Joy complained that the implications of postcolonial
reflection - in particular reflection on power relations, the discrimina-
tion of coloured or indigenous people, women and marginal groups,
which has taken place in anthropology, history, literature and some
contemporary philosophy - have not yet been adequately considered in
the study of religions.53 She shows repercussions for the study of relig-
ions if the charges are taken seriously and hopes that in the study of
religions, postcolonial reflection, which is still peripheral, will in the
future help to alter the subject considerably in order to free it from its
19th century mindset. Even though the full impact of these criticisms,
which without any doubt involves a serious reconsideration of theory
and methodology in the study of religions, are perhaps still to be ex-
pected, awareness about these matters is continuously increasing. An
example of an important contribution to the debate is the book Religion
im Spiegelkabinett (2003), in which different nuances of orientalism, as
well as its equivalent "occidentalism" are discussed.54

52 For a survey of contributions from India cf. Joy 2001: Postcolonial Reflections. See
also King 1999: Orientalism and the modern myth of "Hinduism".
53 Joy 2001: Postcolonial Reflections: 177. For a similar argument see Nye 2000. Cf. also
Geertz 2000: Global perspectives on methodology in the study of religions.
54 See Schalk (ed.) 2003: Religion im Spiegelkabinett.
 The Study of Religions 23

The gender debate

Feminist criticism - or perhaps more generally: the academic debate

about gender - has become increasingly influential in the study of relig-
ions, even though, as always when residual privileges are at stake, it is
still a long way until the relevant issues obtain due consideration not
only by a committed minority. Feminist criticism is directed at both the
study of religions as an academic institution in which men are over-
represented in many respects55 and theory, methodology and represen-
tation of religions, which are often androcentric in that they exclude,
marginalise or misrepresent women. Gender has become an issue to be
considered in the study of religions somewhat later than in theology.
At the congresses of the International Association for the History of
Religions (IAHR) there have been panels on gender from 1980 (Winni-
peg) onwards, the British Association for the Study of Religions (BASR)
made "Religion and Gender" the theme of its annual conference in
1989. Ursula King recommends two ways of looking at women and
religion: (1) the contribution of women to religion, how they influence
and shape religion, and (2) the different and complex ways in which
women are influenced and shaped, oppressed and liberated by religion.
In a gender-reflected approach to religions a study of the role of
women is particularly important, as it has been neglected for such a
long time. However, "the topic has to be an integral one, concerned
with both women and men, and a study to be undertaken by both sexes
jointly." 56 An important contribution to the debate is the book Women
and Religion, which Ursula King edited in 1995. An update of the de-
velopments and the progress that was made can be found in King and
Beattie (2004) and the new edition of the Encyclopedia of Religion
(2005).57
Donate Pahnke regards "substantial feminism" as particularly rele-
vant to the study of religion. It deals with the cliches about male and
female, rejects the dominant gender stereotypes and questions the cate-
gories male and female insofar as it assumes non-existence of innate
gender differences until there is evidence to the contrary. Pahnke ob-
serves that, in the study of religions and its tradition of androcentric

55 For example, in The Encyclopedia of Religion (Eliade 1987) only 175 out of 1357 con-
tributors are women and among the 142 significant "scholars of religion" there are
only four women, two American and two British. Cf. King 1990: 284.
56 King 1990: Religion and gender, 285.
57 For the reception of the gender debate in the study of religions see also Mikaelsson
2004: Gendering the history of religions; Clark 2004: Engendering the study of relig-
ion.
24 Method and Theory

research about patriarchal major religions, women appear mostly in

their relationships to men or as deviation from the male norm.58 The
task for the study of religions is a comprehensive one:
"Mit der einfachen Lösung, ab jetzt in jedes religionswissenschaftliche
Buch ein Kapitel über ,die Frau' einzufügen, wo vorher keines war, wird es
auch nicht getan sein. Gender-Studies gehören nicht in ein separates Kapi-
tel oder eine sonstige Enklave, sondern müssen in die ganze Breite des For-
schungsspektrums als eine anthropologische Neubestimmung des homo
religiosus eingehen, welche die ,femina religiosa' und ihre Religiosität so-
wohl in den Entdeckungszusammenhang als auch in den Begründungszu-
sammenhang der Forschung einbezieht."59
Edith Franke notes that taking up results from gender studies makes
possible more precise academic work in the study of religions as it cor-
rects the notion of the field and enables a critical perspective towards
society, religions and ideologies. She calls for a cross-fertilisation of the
study of religions and feminist criticism with respect to the following
points: (1) experience of women and men as a field for empirical re-
search (e.g. interviews), (2) partiality and reflexivity: the necessity to
reflect one's own position, (3) contextuality and particularity: clear
definition of the context for which a statement is valid, and (4) recon-
sideration of the subject-object dichotomy in the tradition of critical
social empirical research. As in other academic and societal fields, the
androcentric position must not be mistaken as impartial any longer.60
Randi R. Warne formulates it succinctly when she writes: "Andro-
centrism is a prescriptive ideological stance which is untenable on logi-
cal grounds." 61 She regards the gender-critical turn in the study of relig-
ions as essential "not only for the intellectual integrity of our project,
but for our plausibility and usefulness as intellectuals." 62 The impor-
tance of a reflection of gender differences from the point of view of the
study of religions is a recurrent issue in this work, particularly with
respect to the representation of religions (chapter I, section 1.3.3) and as
an aspect of the framework I suggest for integrative religious education
(chapter IV, section 3).

58 This is obviously not a problem of the study of religions alone, but is part of a socie-
tal context in which women are marginalised. Analogous observations can be made
e.g. for women in politics (e.g. the famous "first ladies") or in sports (e.g. that
women's sports are often labelled explicitly "women....", for example, in the
"Women's Championship" in football while men's sport is regarded as the norm
which is given far more attention).
59 Pahnke 1993: Feministische Aspekte einer religionswissenschaftlichen Anthropolo-
gie, 22f.
60 See Franke 1997: Feministische Kritik and Wissenschaft und Religionen, 107-119.
61 Warne 2000: Making the gender-critical turn, 257.
62 Ibid., 258.
 The Study of Religions 25

Social responsibility

The third recent development in the study of religions which I would

like to outline briefly is the increasing acknowledgement of the social
responsibility of the study of religions as an institution. Especially since
it has become obvious also to the general public that religion is not a
relic from the past which is gradually going to disappear, but which is
very much present in societal and political life in various regions of the
world, scholars of religions have become aware of their possible and
actual contribution to public discourse about religion. In fact, in many
countries the voice of scholars of religions with their impartial perspec-
tive on the variety of religions is virtually absent in public discourse,
contrary to the voice of representatives of the different religious
groups, who are frequently consulted, when it comes to statements
about religious matters. 63 The manifold reasons for that cannot be dis-
cussed here. 64 What is, however, important is that more and more
scholars - quite rightly - regard this as a problem and present ideas on
how to change this unsatisfactory situation.
Kurt Rudolph, whose important paper "Die ideologiekritische
Funktion der Religionswissenschaft" was published in Numen in 1978,
regards a criticism of ideologies as an important aspect of the social
responsibility of the scholar of religion. In a more recent article, he
draws attention to the values of tolerance and humanity, which he de-
scribes as an inheritance of the Enlightenment. They can be a starting
point for the study of religions:
"For scholars of religions, human rights are not part of a creed that one
merely recites without conviction. Furthermore, despite the value-
neutrality of work in the field h u m a n rights should not be left at the door
when one is required to take stances on public issues. ... Here belongs the
impetus to ideological criticism that I have described, as well as its various
effects, whose potential contribution to public life must be emphasized
more strongly than ever." 6 5

As an example of the kind of contributions to public life that he has in

mind, he cites the charter of Remid, the Religionswissenschaftlicher

63 This situation is described, for example, by Rudolph (2000: Some reflections on

approaches and methodologies in the study of religions, 241) or Baumann (1995:
"Merkwürdige Bundesgenossen" und "naive Sympathisanten". Die Ausgrenzung der
Religionswissenschaft aus der bundesdeutschen Kontroverse um neue Religionen)
with respect to Germany and by McCutcheon (2000: Critics not caretakers: the
scholar of religion as public intellectual) with respect to the United States of Amer-
ica.
64 The texts mentioned in the above note provide some points of this discussion.
65 Rudolph 2000: 242.
26 Method and Theory

Medien- und Informationsdienst (Religious Studies Media and Infor-

mation Service) in Germany. 66 This registered society, which was
founded by young scholars of religion in 1989, communicates knowl-
edge about different religions (with an emphasis on contemporary re-
ligion and new religious movements) "in order to foster a peaceful and
tolerant coexistence of people and of the various religions and to facili-
tate mutual understanding and respect." 67 Rudolph emphasises that for
the scholar of religions today it is very important to foster a climate of
tolerance toward "the other" in academic and public life.
Similarly to Rudolph, who sees a close link between the criticism of
ideologies and the criticism of religions in this respect, Edith Franke
demands that the results of the study of religions should be used in
public debates about religious and social conflicts in order to help ob-
jectify and clarify the problems. She writes: "Meines Erachtens sollte
Religionswissenschaft die Religionskritik nicht nur als einen ihrer Un-
tersuchungsgegenstände betrachten, sondern ihre Forschungsergebnis-
se zu kritischen Stellungnahmen heranziehen." 68 The study of religions
as an academic discipline cannot itself provide any criteria for a critical
assessment of religions. However, criteria can be developed out of po-
litical positions (Franke also mentions respect for human rights) and
the study of religions can analyse carefully if and in how far religions
and the creation of religious symbols stabilise and legitimise social
inequalities. What Franke means is not a substantial evaluation of be-
liefs, but a close look at the consequences of particular religious beliefs
for social life.69
Russell T. McCutcheon sparked off a debate about the scholar of re-
ligions as public intellectual. He also is concerned with the critical po-
tential of the study of religions with respect to statements about relig-
ions and ideologies. McCutcheon regards scholars of religions as
culture critics who ought to challenge the ideological mechanisms and
alignments "whereby description becomes prescription and the local is
represented as universal." 70 His criticism of the current - virtually ab-

66 See www.remid.de.
67 Remid: Satzung §2 as cited by Rudolph 2000: Some reflections on approaches and
methodologies in the study of religions, 242 (translation: Gregory Alles), the German
original can be found in: www.remid.de/remid_verein_satzung.htm.
68 Franke 1997: Feministische Kritik and Wissenschaft und Religionen, 118.
69 Cf. ibid., 119. Franke mentions these tasks for the study of religions in the context of
the relationship between a feminist study of religions and the criticism of religions.
Her ideas about the possible contribution of the study of religions to public debates
are, however, relevant not only with respect to gender issues.
70 McCutcheon 2000: Critics not caretakers: the scholar of religion as public intellectual,
177.
 The Study of Religions 27

sent - role of scholars of religions in public discourse in North America

points primarily at the concept of religion which the current study of
religion has inherited from phenomenology and hermeneutics and
which is still widely used: "religion is comprised of sui generis, non-
falsifiable meaning derived from a private experience of mystery, awe,
power, or the sacred ...".71 What is required is a fundamental reconsid-
eration of the concept of religion which acknowledges the political and
social aspects of religion:
"[S]o-called religious systems are perhaps the pre-eminent site for creating
social continuity amidst the discontinuities of historical existence. If this
was our understanding of religion, we would see all the more clearly just
what is at stake when our colleagues obscure matters by uncritically teach-
ing and writing on insider claims concerning certain behaviours and insti-
tutions being socially and politically autonomous systems of faith or salva-
tion."72
The debate about what the social responsibility of the study of religions
exactly comprises and what its limits are, is certainly not uncontrover-
sial.73 On the contrary, it could hardly be any more diverse.74 Neverthe-
less, that there is a social responsibility of the scholar of religions can
hardly be questioned. In a political climate in which stereotypes pre-
dominate, an important function of the study of religion is to provide
reliable analyses of religious systems. Apart from making its knowl-
edge public, the study of religions can, moreover, have important func-
tions as a provider of mediation for dialogue, as the academic disci-
pline responsible for the development of curricula for integrative RE,
and as social mediator in conflicts with a religious dimension, in par-
ticular in helping to overcome false or misleading images of other cul-
tures which may be current in the media and public life.75
In contributions to public debates about religion, it is important not
to simply reproduce the rhetoric of the innate relatedness between re-
ligions and conflict. As Michael Pye has pointed out, the potential for
harmony ought to be studied just as the potential for conflict. To regard

71 Ibid., 168.
72 Ibid., 177.
73 Cf. for example Donald Wiebe's response to McCutcheon's ideas about the scholar of
religion as public intellectual at the IAHR world congress in March 2005 in Tokyo.
74 Cf. for example the very different papers which were presented in the panel "Ange-
wandte Religionswissenschaft" (applied study of religions) at the conference of the
German Association for the History of Religions in Erfurt in September/October 2003, see
DVRG 2003: Thematisches Raster (http://www.uni-erfurt.de/religion_im_konflikt/
beitraege.htm).
75 For this paragraph cf. Franke/Pye 2004: The study of religions and its contribution to
problem-solving in a plural world.
28 Method and Theory

religious diversity as a problem is a normative position, untenable on

scientific grounds. Currently the link between violence, conflict and
religion is all too present in the consciousness of many people, whereas
the facts that religions also actually contribute to peace, and that there
are various interesting models of religious pluralism in different parts
of the world, are easily overlooked. Analyses of models of religious
pluralism are as important as analyses of religious conflicts in order not
to allow the so-called "clash of civilisations" to become a self-fulfilling
prophecy, but instead to actively contribute to a peaceful coexistence of
different religions.76
What I have described here are but spotlights on and opinions
about recent developments in the study of religions, which are in many
ways interrelated. The concept of religion and the delineation of the
subject matter, as well as questions of methodology and the representa-
tion of religions, continue to be contested issues, particularly in the
context of a growing internationalisation of the discipline. As these
issues are important for an understanding of the study of religions as
an academic discipline and, moreover, have implications for theory and
methodology of integrative RE as the corresponding school subject,
they will be discussed in more detail in the following chapters.

1.1.4 Limitations of the study of religions

As will be demonstrated in the next chapter, in the academic study of

religions, the "field" or subject matter has to be delineated in such a
way that it can be studied with the various methods of historical, social
and cultural research. The fact that, in the study of religions, the ap-
proach to the variety of religions is not religious or normative in itself
results in an exclusion of a certain type of questions which cannot be
answered (and sometimes not even asked) from a secular point of view.
Questions about, for example, the origin of "religion", the meaning
behind the variety of religions, the truth of religious claims etc. lie be-
yond the responsibilities or rather possibilities of the study of religions.
The search for religious truth is no more appropriate a task of the study
of religions than the evaluation of religious theory and practice or the
attempt to identify the "essence" of any religion or even of "religion" as
such. As aspects of its own theory and methodology, metaphysical
speculations are beyond the reach of the study of religions, even

76 See, for example, Franke and Pye (ed.) 2006: Religionen nebeneinander. Modelle
religiöser Vielfalt in Ost- und Südostasien, and Wasim, Mas'ud et al. (2005) Religious
Harmony: Problems Practice and Education.
 The Study of Religions 29

though they are an important part of the field which is studied. Like-
wise, any integral understanding of the phenomenon "religion" or re-
ligion as such cannot be achieved with the methods of the study of
religions. Moreover, an attempt to do justice to the self-understanding
of the believers requires an anti-reductionism of the following kind: (1)
no comprehensive explanation of "religion" as such may be given and
(2) religion must not be understood merely as a function of something
else.
Scholars of religions approach religions with a limited set of ques-
tions when they undertake a delineation of the field which is not al-
ready religious itself. Some aspects of religions, which may be impor-
tant and constitutive for an understanding of religion(s) from an
insider's point of view are therefore not directly accessible to the re-
searcher, except from a study of testimonies of believers. The conflict
between the role of the scholar of religions as representative of the dis-
cipline of the study of religions and his or her private interests in find-
ing (religious) truth have often led scholars of religions to go beyond
what is acceptable within the study of religions. A clear distinction is
necessary between what can be said within the limits of the discipline
of the study of religions and private insights or beliefs which are ac-
quired through the study of religions. The descriptions of Michael Pye
and Ulrich Berner with respect to questions which lie outside the
strictly defined academic study of religions are helpful for an under-
standing of the limitations of the subject. Pye (1972) regards the follow-
ing considerations as being beyond the reach of the study of religions:
" W e m a y wish to examine the inner consistency of a belief system from a
critical point of view, or to assess its consistency with our own manner of
understanding the world, or its consistency or manner of conflict with the
views of some philosopher or with the generality of scientific thinking in
the world. W e m a y wish to consider what kind of criteria might be appro-
priate for testing or evaluating the statements made by religious persons.
Or we m a y wish to embark on the systematic formulation of value judge-
ments." 7 7

He emphasises the difference between the rationality of a scientific

theory of religions on the one hand and philosophy on the other, which
has various tasks, including the study of religions. A rational scientific
theory of religions has to be independent from the rationality or irra-
tionality of any religious system. Questions within religious or meta-
physical circles are "questions to be set aside" by the scholar of relig-
ions.78 Berner mentions the following ways in which the border of a

77 Pye 1972: Comparative Religion: An Introduction through Source Materials, 31.

78 Cf. Pye 2000: Westernism unmasked, 226f.
30 Method and Theory

strictly defined study of religions may be crossed: (1) criticism of ide-

ologies, e.g. from the point of view of normative positions which have
to be made explicit; (2) art, e.g. fiction;79 (3) ethics, for example if prin-
ciples like reverence for life, human dignity or tolerance are used in
order to measure the extent to which religious teachings and practices
are in harmony with or in opposition to those principles; (4) theology.
Berner draws attention to the fact that there is always the danger of
crossing the boundaries of the study of religions unconsciously or
without making it explicit. It is important to clearly distinguish be-
tween theory formation in the study of religions and those ways of
crossing the borders of the subject.80
It may be helpful to distinguish between the study of religions as a
discipline and as an institution. While the study of religions as a disci-
pline (i.e. the study of religions in a narrow sense) has to be methodol-
ogically agnostic with respect to values as well, the study of religions as
an institution (i.e. the study of religions in a broader sense) can look at
the same field from a subjectively justified point of view which has to
be made explicit. This may be a political agenda (such as human rights,
international law), an ethical or religious stance (such as reverence for
life) or a pedagogical programme (e.g. emancipation). Then, criteria
which are not produced by the study of religions itself serve as refer-
ence points for statements about different religions. Whatever those
criteria are, it is important to make them explicit and to clearly indicate
at which point the study of religions in a narrow sense is departed
from.81 To distinguish between the study of religions as a discipline and
the study of religions as an institution helps to preserve the character of
the subject on the one hand (in particular in its delimitation to theolo-
gies or philosophies) and on the other hand fosters an ability to con-
tribute to social and political questions.

79 Berner refers to Mircea Eliade's novels and quite rightly notes that the formal dis-
tinction between scientific literature and fiction seems to point to the border between
what is within the limits of the study of religions and what is not, while the procla-
matory impetus can in fact be found in both Eliade's literary and scientific work. Cf.
Berner 1983: Gegenstand und Aufgabe der Religionswissenschaft, 114.
80 Cf. ibid., 113-116.
81 For the distinction between the study of religions as a discipline and as an institution
cf., e.g., Pahnke 1993. Feministische Aspekte einer religionswissenschaftlichen An-
thropologie, 28.
 The Study of Religions 31

1.2 The concept of religion

The discussion about the concept of religion that can be used in the
study of religions has been an important concern since the early origins
of the subject. That the debate is still relevant today can be seen in the
great number of recent publications which deal with the topic. After all,
concepts of religions delineate the subject matter for the discipline of
the study of religions. They are constituents of the discipline as they
imply preliminary decisions about what is considered a part of the
study of religions and what is not. To some extent, concepts of religion
precede the other steps taken in the study of religions. They have im-
plications for the selection of sources, for the choice of methods and the
process of theory formation. One example of the topicality of the task to
reflect upon what can be regarded as the subject matter of the study of
religions was the conference of the British Association for the Study of
Religions (BASR) in Oxford in 2004, which had the title "Mapping the
Field".
As Armin W. Geertz points out, the most appropriate answer to the
question "What is religion?" is: "Who wants to know?". 82 What will be
discussed here is the attempt to find a concept of religion for the aca-
demic discipline of the study of religions. This is not to say that this
generally is the only acceptable or possible concept of religion. For
other purposes and contexts, other concepts of religion may be accept-
able. Furthermore, religious concepts of religion (e.g. those of classical
phenomenology) or functional comprehensively explanatory concepts
of religion are important areas of research for the study of religions,
despite the fact that they are unacceptable as a basis for our subject, as
both these groups are reductionist in their own ways. Likewise unac-
ceptable as a concept of religion for the study of religions is an under-
standing of religion that is highly influenced by what is commonly
regarded as "religion" in that particular part of the world. Michael Pye
has demonstrated that it is necessary to differentiate between those
memes which are pre-scientific cultural assumptions that are deeply
entrenched in the consciousness of people on the one hand, and scien-
tific concepts with designatory, analytical and explanatory functions on
the other.83

82 Cf. Geertz 2004: Definition, categorization and indecision: or, how to get on with the
Study of Religion, 113.
83 See Pye 2002: Memes and models in the Study of Religions. For his analysis of differ-
ent memes about "religion" or "new religions" in various parts of the world see also
the section about the representation of religions, 1.3.3.
32 Method and Theory

The attempt to define the subject matter of the study of religions

and to provide an adequate concept of religion involves reflection
about what the common denominator of the phenomena that are called
"religious" is. As religion does not exist in a vacuum, a consideration of
interrelations between religion and e.g. culture, social and political
contexts, worldview or ideology are indispensable. Furthermore, as
recent anthropology has shown, the interrelations between definition
and power, which are often subtle but pervasive, have to be taken into
account in order to fully acknowledge the circumstances in which the
research process takes place.84
In the following, I am going to present some examples of the vari-
ety of concepts of religion within the study of religions (1.2.1). This
confusing variety may, however, be overcome with a broad delineation
of the subject matter (1.2.2), which is as necessary for integrative RE as
it is for the academic study of religions.

1.2.1 The variety of concepts of religion

The variety of definitions, concepts and theories of religions could

hardly be greater. In 2000, Kurt Rudolph mentions Marxist analysis,
psychoanalytic theories (Sigmund Freud and Carl Gustav Jung), the
"communicative theory" (Emile Dürkheim and his school), the "pur-
posive" theory (Max Weber) and its adaptations (e.g. Peter Berger) and
functionalism (e.g. Bronislaw Malinowski) as older profane theories or
religion. Among the more recent ones he mentions the following ap-
proaches: cultural anthropological (Ralph Linton, Edward E. Evans-
Pritchard), structural (Claude Levi-Strauss), semasiological (Clifford
Geertz), ethological (Konrad Lorenz, Walter Burkert), systems-
theoretical (Niklas Luhmann), cultural-critical (Hans G. Kippenberg)
and his own ideological-critical approach.85 This survey of a selection of
well-known concepts of religion can give a first impression of the di-
versity of approaches to religion from several academic disciplines
which are concerned with religion. One important finding of Per Bilde,
who conducted a study of a number of definitions of religion which he

84 For spotlights from the debate in anthropology, see the works of Clifford Geertz,
James Clifford and Vincent Crapanzano in the bibliography. One obvious example
of the interrelations between definition and power is when the legal status of a
community is decided upon: Can it be registered as a "religion" or not? For the pro-
cedure in Denmark see A.W. Geertz 2004: Definition, categorization and indecision:
or, how to get on with the Study of Religion, 116ff.
85 See Rudolph 2000: Some reflections on approaches and methodologies in the study
of religions, 233.
 The Study of Religions 33

organised into 18 types, 86 was that the definitions clearly reflect the
disciplines from which the respective scholars come. 8 7 Thus, the fact
that religion is approached from different disciplines is one important
reason for the multiplicity of definitions of religion. Before I move on to
the question of what characteristics a study-of-religions concept or
definition of religion should have, I would like to demonstrate the vari-
ety within the existent approaches to religion with a selection of four
well-known and widely discussed examples from the range of defini-
tions, namely the ones by Emile Dürkheim, Mircea Eliade, Clifford
Geertz and Jonathan Z. Smith. 88
Dürkheim, from his sociological perspective, defines religion in
1899 as
"a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to
say, things set apart and forbidden - beliefs and practices which unite into
one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to
them."89
For Eliade, along with other phenomenologists of religion, religion
refers to the experience of the sacred, which manifests itself in various
forms. Eliade regards religion as an important aspect of being or be-
coming truly human. 9 0 Clifford Geertz regards religion as a cultural
system and defines it as
"(1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive,
and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating concep-
tions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with
such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem
uniquely realistic."91

86 The types that Per Bilde identified are: religion as the fulfilment of human destiny,
the feeling of absolute dependence, a flight of fancy or the need for consolation, be-
lief in supernatural powers and concomitant behaviour, an expression of society and
social solidarity, communication with the sacred, aspiring to the ultimate, anxious
piety and conscientious devotion, communication with the world, the means to
overcome the gap between humans and their world, giving meaning, order and
completeness in an otherwise chaotic existence, ensuring the reality of the world, a
part (almost biologically) of being human, what basically motivates humans, an ex-
planation of the world, the aspiration of values, ideology and concomitant behav-
iour, consisting of five (or six) dimensions; cf. Bilde 1991: 9, quoted in: Geertz 2004:
Definition, categorization and indecision, 114.
87 Cf. Geertz 2004: Definition, categorization and indecision, 113f.
88 Here I follow A.W. Geertz (ibid., 113f).
89 Dürkheim 1995: The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, 4, quoted in Geertz 2004:
Definition, categorization and indecision, 113.
90 Cf., e.g., Eliade 1969: The Quest, preface.
91 Geertz 1966: Religion as a cultural system, 4.
34 Method and Theory

In contrast to Eliade, he shows much more attention to the differences

between insider- and outsider-perspectives. Jonathan Z. Smith empha-
sises the outsider perspective even more decisively when he writes that
religion
"is a term created by scholars for their intellectual purposes ... It is a sec-
ond-order, generic concept that plays the same role in establishing a disci-
plinary horizon that a concept such as 'language' plays in linguistics or
'culture' plays in anthropology."92
What can the consequences for the study of religions be in view of the
diversity of approaches to "religion", of which the above examples are
just spotlights? Some basic considerations can provide a starting point
here: an adequate study-of-religions concept of religion should not be
religious in itself and needs to do justice to the plurality of religions
and cultures.93 Taking account of the fact that scholars of religions often
found in the empirical material what they had previously defined and
constructed, it is important to emphasise that concepts and definitions
should be preliminary in character and always open to improvement
and modification by the empirical data. They should not be regarded as
an end point but as a programme, their failure providing a new starting
point.94
Jacques Waardenburg suggests "orientation" as a preliminary con-
cept of religion as a starting point for further research. In this concept
the different religions are regarded as different systems which provide
some kind of orientation. Taking up ideas by Niklas Luhmann,
Waardenburg writes that "a system of orientation enables human be-
ings to find their ways in life and the world by referring to a frame-
work which provides meaning." 95 However, the question of what is
specifically religious in a religious system of orientation as opposed to
a non-religious system of orientation remains. Waardenburg suggests
specific elements, for example the idea that there are spiritual beings to
whom one can relate, norms and values which are regarded as ulti-
mate, or "bestimmte jenseitige, unbedingt, ja absolut geltende Bezugs-
punkte, die sinngebend wirken." 96 He modifies the distinction between
religious and non-religious systems of orientation when he says that
there are also non-religious systems of orientation which have a reli-

92 Smith 1998: Religion, religions, religious, 281f.

93 A good selection of articles about secular theories of religion can be found in Jensen
and Rothstein (ed.) 2000: Secular Theories of Religion. Current Perspectives.
94 Cf., e.g., Michaels 1997: Einleitung, 13.
95 Waardenburg 1986: Religionen und Religion, 34.
96 Ibid., 35 (i.e. "particular transcendent, absolute or ultimate points of reference which
have a meaning-creating effect").
 Another Random Document on
Scribd Without Any Related Topics
gradually, by radiating its intrinsic heat into the cold space of the
universe, has the surface of the glowing ball become condensed into
a thin crust. That the temperature of the earth in remote times was
much higher than it is now, is proved by many phenomena. Among
other things, this is rendered probable by the equal distribution of
organisms in remote times of the earth’s history. While at present, as
is well known, the different populations of animals and plants
correspond to the different zones of the earth and their appropriate
temperature, in earlier times this was distinctly not the case.
We see from the distribution of fossils in the remoter ages, that it
was only at a very late date, in fact, at a comparatively recent period
of the organic history of the earth (at the beginning of the so-called
cænolithic or tertiary period), that a separation of zones and of the
corresponding organic populations occurred. During the immensely
long primary and secondary periods, tropical plants, which require a
very high degree of temperature, lived not only in the present torrid
zone, under the equator, but also in the present temperate and frigid
zones. Many other phenomena also demonstrate a gradual decrease
of the temperature of the globe as a whole, and especially a late and
gradual cooling of the earth’s crust about the poles. Bronn, in his
excellent “Investigations of the Laws of Development of the Organic
World,” has collected numerous geological and palæontological
proofs of this fact.
These phenomena and the mathematico-astronomical knowledge of
the structure of the universe justify the theory that, inconceivable
ages ago, long before the first existence of organisms, the whole
earth was a fiery fluid globe. Now, this theory corresponds with the
grand theory of the origin of the universe, and especially of our
planetary system, which, on the ground of mathematical and
astronomical facts, was put forward in 1755 by our critical
philosopher Kant,(22) and was later more thoroughly established by
the celebrated mathematicians, Laplace and Herschel. This
cosmogeny, or theory of the development of the universe, is now
almost universally acknowledged; it has not been replaced by a
better one, and mathematicians, astronomers, and geologists have
continually, by various arguments, strengthened its position.
Kant’s cosmogeny maintains that the whole universe, inconceivable
ages ago, consisted of a gaseous chaos. All the substances which
are found at present separated on the earth, and other bodies of the
universe, in different conditions of density—in the solid, semi-fluid,
liquid, and elastic fluid or gaseous states of aggregation—originally
constituted together one single homogeneous mass, equally filling
up the space of the universe, which, in consequence of an extremely
high degree of temperature, was in an exceedingly thin gaseous or
nebulous state. The millions of bodies in the universe which at
present form the different solar systems did not then exist. They
originated only in consequence of a universal rotatory movement, or
rotation, during which a number of masses acquired greater density
than the remaining gaseous mass, and then acted upon the latter as
central points of attraction. Thus arose a separation of the chaotic
primary nebula, or gaseous universe, into a number of rotating
nebulous spheres, which became more and more condensed. Our
solar system was such a gigantic gaseous or nebulous ball, all the
particles of which revolved round a common central point, the solar
nucleus. The nebulous ball itself, like all the rest, in consequence of
its rotatory movement, assumed a spheroidal or a flattened globular
form.
While the centripetal force attracted the rotating particles nearer and
nearer to the firm central point of the nebulous ball, and thus
condensed the latter more and more, the centrifugal force, on the
other hand, always tended to separate the peripheral particles
further and further from it, and to hurl them off. On the equatorial
sides of the ball, which was flattened at both poles, this centrifugal
force was strongest, and as soon as, by increase of density, it
attained predominance over the centripetal force, a circular nebulous
ring separated itself from the rotating ball. This nebulous ring
marked the course of future planets. The nebulous mass of the ring
gradually condensed, and became a planet, which revolved round its
own axis, and at the same time rotated round the central body. In
precisely the same manner, from the equator of the planetary mass,
as soon as the centrifugal force gained predominance over the
centripetal force, new nebulous rings were ejected, which moved
round the planets as the latter moved round the sun. These
nebulous rings, too, became condensed into rotating balls. Thus
arose the moons, only one of which moves round our earth, whilst
four move round Jupiter, and six round Uranus. The ring of Saturn
still shows us a moon in its early stage of development. As by
increasing refrigeration these simple processes of condensation and
expulsion repeated themselves over and over again, there arose the
different solar systems, the planets rotating round their central suns,
and the satellites or moons moving round their planets.
The original gaseous condition of the rotating bodies of the universe
gradually changed, by increasing refrigeration and condensation,
into the fiery fluid or molten state of aggregation. By the process of
condensation, a great quantity of heat was emitted, and the rotating
suns, planets, and moons, soon changed into glowing balls of fire,
like gigantic drops of melted metal, which emitted light and heat. By
loss of heat, the melted mass on the surface of the fiery fluid ball
became further condensed, and thus arose a thin, firm crust, which
enclosed a fiery fluid nucleus. In all essential respects our mother
earth probably did not differ from the other bodies of the universe.
In view of the object of these pages, it will not be of especial
interest to follow in detail the history of the natural creation of the
universe, with its different solar and planetary systems, and to
establish it mathematically by the different astronomical and
geological proofs. The outlines of it, which I have just mentioned,
must be sufficient here, and for further details I refer to Kant’s 5
“General History of Nature and Theory of the Heavens.”(22) I will
only add that this wonderful theory, which might be called the
cosmological gas theory, harmonizes with all the general series of
phenomena at present known to us, and stands in no irreconcilable
contradiction to any one of them. Moreover, it is purely mechanical
or monistic, makes use exclusively of the inherent forces of eternal
matter, and entirely excludes every supernatural process, every
prearranged and conscious action of a personal Creator. Kant’s
Cosmological Gas Theory consequently occupies a similar supreme
position in Anorganology, especially in Geology, and forms the crown
of our knowledge in that department, in the same way as Lamarck’s
Theory of Descent does in Biology, and especially in Anthropology.
Both rest exclusively upon mechanical or unconscious causes (causæ
efficientes), in no case upon prearranged or conscious causes
(causæ finales). (Compare above, p. 100-106.) Both therefore fulfil
all the demands of a scientific theory, and consequently will remain
generally acknowledged until they are replaced by better ones.
I will, however, not deny that Kant’s grand cosmogeny has some
weak points, which prevent our placing the same unconditional
confidence in it as in Lamarck’s Theory of Descent. The notion of an
original gaseous chaos filling the whole universe presents great
difficulties of various kinds. A great and unsolved difficulty lies in the
fact that the Cosmological Gas Theory furnishes no starting-point at
all in explanation of the first impulse which caused the rotary motion
in the gas-filled universe. In seeking for such an impulse, we are
involuntarily led to the mistaken questioning about a “first
beginning.” We can as little imagine a first beginning of the eternal
phenomena of the motion of the universe as of its final end.
The universe is unlimited and immeasurable in both space and time.
It is eternal, and it is infinite. Nor can we imagine a beginning or end
to the uninterrupted and eternal motion in which all particles of the
universe are always engaged. The great laws of the conservation of
force(38) and the conservation of matter, the foundations of our
whole conception of nature, admit of no other supposition. The
universe, as far as it is cognisable to human capability, appears as a
connected chain of material phenomena of motion, necessitating a
continual change of forms. Every form, as the temporary result of a
multiplicity of phenomena of motion, is as such perishable, and of
limited duration. But, in the continual change of forms, matter and
the motion inseparable from it remain eternal and indestructible.
Now, although Kant’s Cosmological Gas Theory is not able to explain
the development of motion in the whole universe in a satisfactory
manner, beyond that gaseous state of chaos, and although many
other weighty considerations may be brought forward against it,
especially by chemistry and geology, yet we must on the whole
acknowledge its great merit, inasmuch as it explains in an excellent
manner, by due consideration of development, the whole structure of
all that is accessible to our observation, that is, the anatomy of the
solar systems, and especially of our planetary system. It may be that
this development was altogether different from what Kant supposes,
and our earth may have arisen by the aggregation of numberless
small meteorides, scattered in space, or in any other manner, but
hitherto no one has as yet been able to establish any other theory of
development, or to offer one in the place of Kant’s cosmogeny.
After this general glance at the monistic cosmogeny, or the non-
miraculous history of the development of the universe, let us now
return to a minute fraction of it, to our mother earth, which we left
as a ball flattened at both poles and in a fiery fluid state, its surface
having condensed by becoming cooled into a very thin firm crust.
The crust, on first cooling, must have covered the whole surface of
the terrestrial sphere as a continuous smooth and thin shell. But
soon it must have become uneven and hummocky; for, since during
the continued cooling, the fiery fluid nucleus became more and more
condensed and contracted, and consequently the diameter of the
earth diminished, the thin cold crust, which could not closely follow
the softer nuclear mass, must have fallen in, in many places. An
empty space would have arisen between the two, had not the
pressure of the outer atmosphere forced down the fragile crust
towards the interior, breaking it in so doing. Other unevennesses
probably arose from the fact that, in different parts, the cooled crust
during the process of refrigeration contracted also itself, and thus
became fissured with cracks and rents. The fiery fluid nucleus flowed
up to the external surface through these cracks, and again became
cooled and stiff. Thus, even at an early period there arose many
elevations and depressions, which were the first foundations of
mountains and valleys.
After the temperature of the cooled terrestrial ball had fallen to a
certain degree, a very important new process was effected, namely,
the first origin of water. Water had until then existed only in the
form of steam in the atmosphere surrounding the globe. The water
could evidently not condense into a state of fluid drops until the
temperature of the atmosphere had considerably decreased. Now,
then, there began a further transformation of the earth’s crust by
the force of water. It continually fell in the form of rain, and in that
form washed down the elevations of the earth’s crust, filling the
depressions with the mud carried along, and, by depositing it in
layers, it caused the extremely important neptunic transformations
of the earth’s crust, which have continued since then
uninterruptedly, and which in our next chapter we shall examine a
little more closely.
It was not till the earth’s crust had so far cooled that the water had
condensed into a fluid form, it was not till the hitherto dry crust of
the earth had for the first time become covered with liquid water,
that the origin of the first organisms could take place. For all animals
and all plants—in fact, all organisms—consist in great measure of
fluid water, which combines in a peculiar manner with other
substances, and brings them into a semi-fluid state of aggregation.
We can therefore, from these general outlines of the inorganic
history of the earth’s crust, deduce the important fact, that at a
certain definite time life had its beginning on earth, and that
terrestrial organisms did not exist from eternity, but at a certain
period came into existence for the first time.
Now, how are we to conceive of this origin of the first organisms?
This is the point at which most naturalists, even at the present day,
are inclined to give up the attempt at natural explanation, and take
refuge in the miracle of an inconceivable creation. In doing so, as
has already been remarked, they quit the domain of scientific
knowledge, and renounce all further insight into the eternal laws
which have determined nature’s history. But before despondingly
taking such a step, and before we despair of the possibility of any
knowledge of this important process, we may at least make an
attempt to understand it. Let us see if in reality the origin of a first
organism out of inorganic matter, the origin of a living body out of
lifeless matter, is so utterly inconceivable and beyond all experience.
In one word, let us examine the question of spontaneous
generation, or archigony. In so doing, it is above all things necessary
to form a clear idea of the principal properties of the two chief
groups of natural bodies, the so-called inanimate or inorganic, and
the animate or organic bodies, and then establish what is common
to, and what are the differences between, the two groups. It is
desirable to go somewhat carefully into the comparison of organisms
and anorgana, since it is commonly very much neglected, although it
is necessary for a right understanding of nature from the monistic
point of view. It will be most advantageous here to look separately
at the three fundamental properties of every natural body; these are
matter, form, and force. Let us begin with matter. (Gen. Morph. iii.)
By chemistry we have succeeded in analysing all bodies known to us
into a small number of elements or simple substances, which cannot
be further divided, for example, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, sulphur,
and the different metals: potassium, sodium, iron, gold, etc. At
present we know about seventy such elements or simple substances.
The majority of them are unimportant and rare; the minority only
are widely distributed, and compose not only most of the anorgana,
but also all organisms. If we compare those elements which
constitute the body of organisms with those which are met with in
anorgana, we have first to note the highly important fact that in
animal and vegetable bodies no element occurs but what can be
found outside of them in inanimate nature. There are no special
organic elements or simple organic substances.
The chemical and physical differences existing between organisms
and anorgana, consequently, do not lie in their material foundation;
they do not arise from the different nature of the elements
composing them, but from the different manner in which the latter
are united by chemical combination. This different manner of
combination gives rise to certain physical peculiarities, especially in
density of substance, which at first sight seems to constitute a deep
chasm between the two groups of bodies. Inorganic or inanimate
natural bodies, such as crystals and the amorphous rocks, are in a
state of density which we call the firm or solid state, and which we
oppose to the liquid state of water and to the gaseous state of air. It
is familiar to every one that these three different degrees of density,
or states of aggregation of anorgana, are by no means peculiar to
the different elements, but are the results of a certain degree of
temperature. Every inorganic solid body, by increase of temperature,
can be reduced to the liquid or melted state, and, by further heat, to
the gaseous or elastic state. In the same way most gaseous bodies,
by a proper decrease of temperature can first be converted into a
liquid state, and further, into a solid state of density.
In opposition to these three states of density of anorgana, the living
body of all organisms—animals as well as plants—is in an altogether
peculiar fourth state of aggregation. It is neither solid like stone, nor
liquid like water, but presents rather a medium between these two
states, which may therefore be designated as the firm-fluid or
swollen state of aggregation (viscid). In all living bodies, without
exception, there is a certain quantity of water combined in a peculiar
way with solid matter, and owing to this characteristic combination
of water with solid matter we have that soft state of aggregation,
neither solid nor liquid, which is of great importance in the
mechanical explanation of the phenomena of life. Its cause lies
essentially in the physical and chemical properties of a simple,
indivisible, elementary substance, namely, carbon (Gen. Morph. i.
122-130).
Of all elements, carbon is to us by far the most important and
interesting, because this simple substance plays the largest part in
all animal and vegetable bodies known to us. It is that element
which, by its peculiar tendency to form complicated combinations
with the other elements, produces the greatest variety of chemical
compounds, and among them the forms and living substance of
animal and vegetable bodies. Carbon is especially distinguished by
the fact that it can unite with the other elements in infinitely
manifold relations of number and weight. By the combination of
carbon with three other elements, with oxygen, hydrogen, and
nitrogen (to which generally sulphur, and frequently, also,
phosphorus is added), there arise those exceedingly important
compounds which we have become acquainted with as the first and
most indispensable substratum of all vital phenomena, the
albuminous combinations, or albuminous bodies (protean matter).
We have before this (p. 185) become acquainted with the simplest
of all species of organisms in the Monera, whose entire bodies when
completely developed consist of nothing but a semi-fluid albuminous
lump; they are organisms which are of the utmost importance for
the theory of the first origin of life. But most other organisms, also,
at a certain period of their existence—at least, in the first period of
their life—in the shape of egg-cells or germ-cells, are essentially
nothing but simple little lumps of such albuminous formative matter,
known as plasma, or protoplasma. They then differ from the Monera
only by the fact that in the interior of the albuminous corpuscle the
cell-kernel, or nucleus, has separated itself from the surrounding
cell-substance (protoplasma). As we have already pointed out, the
cells, with their simple attributes, are so many citizens, who by co-
operation and differentiation build up the body of even the most
perfect organism; this being, as it were, a cell republic (p. 301). The
fully developed form and the vital phenomena of such an organism
are determined solely by the activities of these small albuminous
corpuscles.
It may be considered as one of the greatest triumphs of recent
biology, especially of the theory of tissues, that we are now able to
trace the wonder of the phenomena of life to these substances, and
that we can demonstrate the infinitely manifold and complicated
physical and chemical properties of the albuminous bodies to be the
real cause of organic or vital phenomena. All the different forms of
organisms are simply and directly the result of the combination of
the different forms of cells. The infinitely manifold varieties of form,
size, and combination of the cells have arisen only gradually by the
division of labour, and by the gradual adaptation of the simple
homogeneous lumps of plasma, which originally were the only
constituents of the cell-mass. From this it follows of necessity that
the fundamental phenomena of life—nutrition and generation—in
their highest manifestations, as well as in their simplest expressions,
must also be traced to the material nature of that albuminous
formative substance. The other vital activities are gradually evolved
from these two. Thus, then, the general explanation of life is now no
more difficult to us than the explanation of the physical properties of
inorganic bodies. All vital phenomena and formative processes of
organisms are as directly dependent upon the chemical composition
and the physical forces of organic matter as the vital phenomena of
inorganic crystals—that is, the process of their growth and their
specific formation—are the direct results of their chemical
composition and of their physical condition. The ultimate causes, it is
true, remain in both cases concealed from us. When gold and copper
crystallize in a cubical, bismuth and antimony in a hexagonal, iodine
and sulphur in a rhombic form of crystal, the occurrence is in reality
neither more nor less mysterious to us than is every elementary
process of organic formation, every self-formation of the organic cell.
In this respect we can no longer draw a fundamental distinction
between organisms and anorgana, a distinction of which, formerly,
naturalists were generally convinced.
Let us secondly examine the agreements and differences which are
presented to us in the formation of organic and inorganic natural
bodies (Gen. Morph. i. 130). Formerly the simple structure of the
latter and the composite structure of the former were looked upon
as the principal distinction. The body of all organisms was supposed
to consist of dissimilar or heterogeneous parts, of instruments or
organs which worked together for the purposes of life. On the other
hand, the most perfect anorgana, that is to say, crystals, were
supposed to consist entirely of continuous or homogeneous matter.
This distinction appears very essential. But it loses all importance
through the fact that in late years we have become acquainted with
the exceedingly remarkable and important Monera.(15) (Compare
above, p. 185.) The whole body of these most simple of all
organisms—a semi-fluid, formless, and simple lump of albumen—
consists, in fact, of only a single chemical combination, and is as
perfectly simple in its structure as any crystal, which consists of a
single inorganic combination, for example, of a metallic salt or of a
silicate of the earths and alkalies.
As naturalists believed in differences in the inner structure or
composition, so they supposed themselves able to find complete
differences in the external forms of organisms and anorgana,
especially in the mathematically determinable crystalline forms of the
latter. Certainly crystallization is pre-eminently a quality of the so-
called anorgana. Crystals are limited by plane surfaces, which meet
in straight lines and at certain measurable angles. Animal and
vegetable forms, on the contrary, seem at first sight to admit of no
such geometrical determination. They are for the most part limited
by curved surfaces and crooked lines, which meet at variable angles.
But in recent times we have become acquainted, among
Radiolaria(23) and among many other Protista, with a large number
of lower organisms, whose body, in the same way as crystals, may
be traced to a mathematically determinable fundamental form, and
whose form in its whole, as well as in its parts, is bounded by
definite geometrically determinable planes and angles. In my general
doctrine of Fundamental Forms, or Promorphology, I have given
detailed proofs of this, and at the same time established a general
system of forms, the ideal stereometrical type-forms, which explain
the real forms of inorganic crystals, as well as of organic individuals
(Gen. Morph. i. 375-574). Moreover, there are also perfectly
amorphous organisms, like the Monera, Amœba, etc., which change
their forms every moment, and in which we are as little able to point
out a definite fundamental form as in the case of the shapeless or
amorphous anorgana, such as non-crystallized stones, deposits, etc.
We are consequently unable to find any essential difference in the
external forms or the inner structure of anorgana and organisms.
Thirdly, let us turn to the forces or the phenomena of motion of
these two different groups of bodies (Gen. Morph. i. 140). Here we
meet with the greatest difficulties. The vital phenomena, known as a
rule only in the highly developed organisms, in the more perfect
animals and plants, seem there so mysterious, so wonderful, so
peculiar, that most persons are decidedly of opinion that in inorganic
nature there occurs nothing at all similar, or in the least degree
comparable to them. Organisms are for this very reason called
animate, and the anorgana, inanimate natural bodies. Hence, even
so late as the commencement of the present century, the science
which investigates the phenomena of life, namely physiology,
retained the erroneous idea that the physical and chemical
properties of matter were not sufficient for explaining these
phenomena. In our own day, especially during the last ten years,
this idea may be regarded as having been completely refuted. In
physiology, at least, it has now no place. It now never occurs to a
physiologist to consider any of the vital phenomena as the result of a
mysterious vital force, of an active power working for a definite
purpose, standing outside of matter, and, so to speak, taking only
the physico-chemical forces into its service. Modern physiology has
arrived at the strictly monistic conviction that all of the vital
phenomena, and, above all, the two fundamental phenomena of
nutrition and propagation are purely physico-chemical processes,
and directly dependent on the material nature of the organism, just
as all the physical and chemical qualities of every crystal are
determined solely by its material composition. Now, as the
elementary substance which determines the peculiar material
composition of organisms is carbon, we must ultimately reduce all
vital phenomena, and, above all, the two fundamental phenomena
of nutrition and propagation to the properties of the carbon. The
peculiar-chemico-physical properties, and especially the semi-fluid
state of aggregation, and the easy decomposibility of the
exceedingly composite albuminous combinations of carbon, are the
mechanical causes of those peculiar phenomena of motion which
distinguish organisms from anorgana, and which in a narrow sense
are usually called “life.”
In order to understand this “carbon theory,” which I have
established in detail in the second book of my General Morphology, it
is necessary, above all things, closely to examine those phenomena
of motion which are common to both groups of natural bodies. First
among them is the process of growth. If we cause any inorganic
solution of salt slowly to evaporate, crystals are formed in it, which
slowly increase in size during the continued evaporation of the water.
This process of growth arises from the fact that new particles
continually pass over from the fluid state of aggregation into the
solid, and, according to certain laws, deposit themselves upon the
firm kernel of the crystal already formed. From such an apposition of
particles arise the mathematically definite crystalline shapes. In like
manner the growth of organisms takes place by the accession of
new particles. The only difference is that in the growth of organisms,
in consequence of their semi-fluid state of aggregation, the newly-
added particles penetrate into the interior of the organism (inter-
susception), whereas anorgana receive homogeneous matter from
without only by apposition or an addition of new particles to the
surface. This important difference of growth by inter-susception and
by apposition is obviously only the necessary and direct result of the
different conditions of density or state of aggregation in organisms
and anorgana.
Unfortunately I cannot here follow in detail the various exceedingly
interesting parallels and analogies which occur between the
formation of the most perfect anorgana, the crystals, and the
formation of the simplest organisms, the Monera and their next
kindred forms. For this I must refer to a minute comparison of
organisms and anorgana, which I have carried out in the fifth
chapter of my General Morphology (Gen. Morph. i. 111-160). I have
there shown in detail that there exist no complete differences
between organic and inorganic natural bodies, neither in respect to
form and structure, nor in respect to matter and force; and that the
actually existing differences are dependent upon the peculiar nature
of the carbon; and that there exists no insurmountable chasm
between organic and inorganic nature. We can perceive this most
important fact very clearly if we examine and compare the origin of
the forms in crystals and in the simplest organic individuals. In the
formation of crystal individuals, two different counteracting formative
tendencies come into operation. The inner constructive force, or the
inner formative tendency, which corresponds to the Heredity of
organisms, in the case of the crystal is the direct result of its
material constitution or of its chemical composition. The form of the
crystal, so far as it is determined by this inner original formative
tendency, is the result of the specific and definite way in which the
smallest particles of the crystallizing matter unite together in
different directions according to law. That independent inner
formative force, which is directly inherent in the matter itself, is
directly counteracted by a second formative force. The external
constructive force, or the external formative tendency, may be called
Adaptation in crystals as well as in organisms. Every crystal
individual during its formation, like every organic individual, must
submit and adapt itself to the surrounding influences and conditions
of existence of the outer world. In fact, the form and size of every
crystal is dependent upon its whole surroundings, for example, upon
the vessel in which the crystallization takes place, upon the
temperature and the pressure of the air under which the crystal is
formed, upon the presence or absence of heterogeneous bodies, etc.
Consequently, the form of every single crystal, like the form of every
single organism, is the result of the interaction of two opposing
factors—the inner formative tendency, which is determined by the
chemical constitution of the matter itself, and of the external
formative tendency, which is dependent upon the influence of
surrounding matter. Both these constructive forces interact similarly
also in the organism, and, just as in the crystal, are of a purely
mechanical nature and directly inherent in the substance of the
body. If we designate the growth and the formation of organisms as
a process of life, we may with equal reason apply the same term to
the developing crystal. The teleological conception of nature, which
looks upon organisms as machines of creation arranged for a
definite purpose, must logically acknowledge the same also in regard
to the forms of crystals. The differences which exist between the
simplest organic individuals and inorganic crystals are determined by
the solid state of aggregation of the latter, and by the semi-fluid
state of the former. Beyond that the causes producing form are
exactly the same in both. This conviction forces itself upon us most
clearly, if we compare the exceedingly remarkable phenomena of
growth, adaptation, and the “correlation of parts” of developing
crystals with the corresponding phenomena of the origin of the
simplest organic individuals (Monera and cells). The analogy
between the two is so great that, in reality, no accurate boundary
can be drawn. In my General Morphology I have quoted in support
of this a number of striking facts (Gen. Morph. i. 146, 156, 158.)
If we vividly picture to ourselves this “unity of organic and inorganic
nature” this essential agreement of organisms and anorgana in
matter, form, and force, and if we bear in mind that we are not able
to establish any one fundamental distinction between these two
groups of bodies (as was formerly generally assumed), then the
question of spontaneous generation will lose a great deal of the
difficulty which at first seems to surround it. Then the development
of the first organism out of inorganic matter will appear a much
more easily conceivable and intelligible process than has hitherto
been the case, whilst an artificial absolute barrier between organic
or animate, and inorganic or inanimate nature was maintained.
In the question of spontaneous generation, or archigony, which we
can now answer more definitely, it must be borne in mind that by
this conception we understand generally the non-parental generation
of an organic individual, the origin of an organism independent of a
parental or producing organism. It is in this sense that on a former
occasion (p. 183) I mentioned spontaneous generation (archigony)
as opposed to parental generation or propagation (tocogony). In the
latter case the organic individual arises by a greater or less portion
of an already existing organism separating itself and growing
independently. (Gen. Morph. ii. 32.)
In spontaneous generation, which is often also called original
generation (generatio spontanea, æquivoca, primaria etc.), we must
first distinguish two essentially different kinds, namely, autogeny and
plasmogeny. By autogeny we understand the origin of a most simple
organic individual in an inorganic formative fluid, that is, in a fluid
which contains the fundamental substances for the composition of
the organism dissolved in simple and loose combinations (for
example, carbonic acid, ammonia, binary salts, etc.). On the other
hand, we call spontaneous generation plasmogeny when the
organism arises in an organic formative fluid, that is, in a fluid which
contains those requisite fundamental substances dissolved in the
form of complicated and fluid combinations of carbon (for example,
albumen, fat, hydrate of carbon, etc.). (Gen. Morph. i. 174, ii. 33.)
Neither the process of autogeny, nor that of plasmogeny, has yet
been directly observed with perfect certainty. In early, and also in
more recent times, numerous and interesting experiments have been
made as to the possibility or reality of spontaneous generation.
Almost all these experiments refer not to autogeny, but to
plasmogeny, to the origin of an organism out of already formed
organic matter. It is evident, however, that this latter process is only
of subordinate interest for our history of creation. It is much more
important for us to solve the question, “Is there such a thing as
autogeny? Is it possible that an organism can arise, not out of pre-
existing organic, but out of purely inorganic, matter?” Hence we can
quietly lay aside all the numerous experiments which refer only to
plasmogeny, which have been carried on very zealously during the
last ten years, and which for the most part have had a negative
result. For even supposing that the reality of plasmogeny were
strictly proved, still autogeny would not be explained by it.
The experiments on autogeny have likewise as yet furnished no
certain and positive result. Yet we must at the outset most distinctly
protest against the notion that these experiments have proved the
impossibility of spontaneous generation in general. Most naturalists
who have endeavoured to decide this question experimentally, and
who, after having employed all possible precautionary measures,
under well-ascertained conditions, have seen no organisms come
into being, have straightway made the assertion, on the ground of
these negative results: “That it is altogether impossible for
organisms to come into existence by themselves without parental
generation.” This hasty and inconsiderate assertion they have
supported by the negative results of their experiments, which, after
all, could prove nothing except that, under these or those highly
artificial circumstances created by the experimenters themselves, no
organism was developed. From these experiments, which have been
for the most part made under the most unnatural conditions, and in
a highly artificial manner, we can by no means draw the conclusion
that spontaneous generation in general is impossible. The
impossibility of such a process can, in fact, never be proved. For how
can we know that in remote primæval times there did not exist
conditions quite different from those at present obtaining, and which
may have rendered spontaneous generation possible? Indeed, we
can even positively and with full assurance maintain that the general
conditions of life in primæval times must have been entirely different
from those of the present time. Think only of the fact that the
enormous masses of carbon which we now find deposited in the
primary coal mountains were first reduced to a solid form by the
action of vegetable life, and are the compressed and condensed
remains of innumerable vegetable substances, which have
accumulated in the course of many millions of years. But at the time
when, after the origin of water in a liquid state on the cooled crust
of the earth, organisms were first formed by spontaneous
generation, those immeasurable quantities of carbon existed in a
totally different form, probably for the most part dispersed in the
atmosphere in the shape of carbonic acid. The whole composition of
the atmosphere was therefore extremely different from the present.
Further, as may be inferred upon chemical, physical, and geological
grounds, the density and the electrical conditions of the atmosphere
were quite different. In like manner the chemical and physical nature
of the primæval ocean, which then continuously covered the whole
surface of the earth as an uninterrupted watery sheet, was quite
peculiar. The temperature, the density, the amount of salt, etc., must
have been very different from those of the present ocean. In any
case, therefore, even if we do not know anything more about it,
there remains to us the supposition, which can at least not be
disputed, that at that time, under conditions quite different from
those of to-day, a spontaneous generation, which now is perhaps no
longer possible, may have taken place.
But it is necessary to add here that, by the recent progress of
chemistry and physiology, the mysterious and miraculous character
which at first seems to belong to this much disputed and yet
inevitable process of spontaneous generation, has been to a great
extent, or almost entirely, destroyed. Not fifty years ago, all chemists
maintained that we were unable to produce artificially in our
laboratories any complicated combination of carbon, or so-called
“organic combination.” The mystic “vital force” alone was supposed
to be able to produce these combinations. When, therefore, in 1828,
Wöhler, in Göttingen, for the first time refuted this dogma, and
exhibited pure “organic” urea, obtained in an artificial manner from a
purely inorganic body (cyanate of ammonium), it caused the
greatest surprise and astonishment. In more recent times, by the
progress of synthetic chemistry, we have succeeded in producing in
our laboratories a great variety of similar “organic” combinations of
carbon, by purely artificial means—for example alcohol, acetic acid,
formic acid. Indeed, many exceedingly complicated combinations of
carbon are now artificially produced, so that there is every likelihood,
sooner or later, of our producing artificially the most complicated,
and at the same time the most important of all, namely, the
albuminous combinations, or plasma-bodies. By the consideration of
this probability, the deep chasm which was formerly and generally
believed to exist between organic and inorganic bodies is almost or
entirely removed, and the way is paved for the conception of
spontaneous generation.
Of still greater, nay, the very greatest importance to the hypothesis
of spontaneous generation are, finally, the exceedingly remarkable
Monera, those creatures which we have already so frequently
mentioned, and which are not only the simplest of all observed
organisms, but even the simplest of all imaginable organisms. I have
already described these wonderful “organisms without organs,”
when examining the simplest phenomena of propagation and
inheritance. We already know seven different genera of these
Monera, some of which live in fresh water, others in the sea
(compare above, p. 184; also Plate I. and its explanation in the
Appendix). In a perfectly developed and freely motile state, they one
and all present us with nothing but a simple little lump of an
albuminous combination of carbon. The individual genera and
species differ only a little in the manner of propagation and
development, and in the way of taking nourishment. Through the
discovery of these organisms, which are of the utmost importance,
the supposition of a spontaneous generation loses most of its
difficulties. For as all trace of organization—all distinction of
heterogeneous parts—is still wanting in them, and as all the vital
phenomena are performed by one and the same homogeneous and
formless matter, we can easily imagine their origin by spontaneous
generation. If this happens through plasmogeny, and if plasma
capable of life already exists, it then only needs to individualize itself
in the same way as the mother liquor of crystals individualizes itself
in crystallization. If, on the other hand, the spontaneous generation
of the Monera takes place by true autogeny, then it is further
requisite that that plasma capable of life, that primæval mucus,
should be formed out of simpler combinations of carbon. As we are
now able artificially to produce, in our laboratories, combinations of
carbon similar to this in the complexity of their constitution, there is
absolutely no reason for supposing that there are not conditions in
free nature also, in which such combinations could take place.
Formerly, when the doctrine of spontaneous generation was
advocated, it failed at once to obtain adherents on account of the
composite structure of the simplest organisms then known. It is only
since we have discovered the exceedingly important Monera, only
since we have become acquainted in them with organisms not in any
way built up of distinct organs, but which consist solely of a single
chemical combination, and yet grow, nourish, and propagate
themselves, that this great difficulty has been removed, and the
hypothesis of spontaneous generation has gained a degree of
probability which entitles it to fill up the gap existing between Kant’s
cosmogony and Lamarck’s Theory of Descent. Even among the
Monera at present known there is a species which probably, even
now, always comes into existence by spontaneous generation. This
is the wonderful Bathybius Hæckelii, discovered and described by
Huxley. As I have already mentioned (p. 184), this Moneron is found
in the greatest depths of the sea, at a depth of between 12,000 and
24,000 feet, where it covers the ground partly as retiform threads
and plaits of plasma, partly in the form of larger or smaller irregular
lumps of the same material.6
Only such homogeneous organisms as are yet not differentiated, and
are similar to inorganic crystals in being homogeneously composed
of one single substance, could arise by spontaneous generation, and
could become the primæval parents of all other organisms. In their
further development we have pointed out that the most important
process is the formation of a kernel or nucleus in the simple little
lump of albumen. We can conceive this to take place in a purely
physical manner, by the condensation of the innermost central part
of the albumen. The more solid central mass, which at first gradually
shaded off into the peripheral plasma, becomes sharply separated
from it, and thus forms an independent, round, albuminous
corpuscle, the kernel; and by this process the Moneron becomes a
cell. Now, it must have become evident from our previous chapters,
that the further development of all other organisms out of such a
cell presents no difficulty, for every animal and every plant, in the
beginning of its individual life, is a simple cell. Man, as well as every
other animal, is at first nothing but a simple egg-cell, a single lump
of mucus, containing a kernel (p. 297, Fig. 5).
In the same way as the kernel of the organic cell arose in the
interior or central mass of the originally homogeneous lump of
plasma, by separation, so, too, the first cell-membrane was formed
on its surface. This simple, but most important process, as has
already been remarked, can likewise be explained in a purely
physical manner, either as a chemical deposit, or as a physical
condensation in the uppermost stratum of the mass, or as a
secretion. One of the first processes of adaptation effected by the
Moneron originating by spontaneous generation must have been the
condensation of an external crust, which as a protecting covering
shut in the softer interior from the hostile influences of the outer
world. As soon as, by condensation of the homogeneous Moneron, a
cell-kernel arose in the interior and a membrane arose on the
surface, all the fundamental parts of the unit were furnished, out of
which, by infinitely manifold repetition and combination, as attested
by actual observation, the body of higher organisms is constructed.
As has already been mentioned, our whole understanding of an
organism rests upon the cell theory established thirty years ago by
Schleiden and Schwann. According to it, every organism is either a
simple cell or a cell-community, a republic of closely connected cells.
All the forms and vital phenomena of every organism are the
collective result of the forms and vital phenomena of all the single
cells of which it is composed. By the recent progress of the cell
theory it has become necessary to give the elementary organisms,
that is, the “organic” individuals of the first order, which are usually
designated as cells, the more general and more suitable name of
form-units, or plastids. Among these form-units we distinguish two
main groups, namely, the cytods and the genuine cells. The cytods
are, like the Monera, pieces of plasma without a kernel (p. 186, Fig.
1). Cells, on the other hand, are pieces of plasma containing a
kernel or nucleus (p. 188, Fig. 2). Each of these two main groups of
plastids is again divided into two subordinate groups, according as
they possess or do not possess an external covering (skin, shell, or
membrane). We may accordingly distinguish the following four
grades or species of plastids, namely: 1. Simple cytods (p. 186, Fig.
1 A); 2. Encased cytods; 3. Simple cells (p. 188, Fig. 2 B); 4.
Encased cells (p. 188, Fig. 2 A). (Gen. Morph. i. 269-289.)
Concerning the relation of these four forms of plastids to
spontaneous generation, the following is the most probable:—1. The
simple cytods (Gymnocytoda), naked particles of plasma without
kernel, like the still living Monera, are the only plastids which directly
come into existence by spontaneous generation. 2. The enclosed
cytods (Lepocytoda), particles of plasma without kernel, which are
surrounded by a covering (membrane or shell), arose out of the
simple cytods either by the condensation of the outer layers of
plasma or by the secretion of a covering. 3. The simple cells
(Gymnocyta), or naked cells, particles of plasma with kernel, but
without covering, arose out of the simple cytods by the condensation
of the innermost particles of plasma into a kernel, or nucleus, by
differentiation of a central kernel and peripheral cell-substance. 4.
The enclosed cells (Lepocyta), or testaceous cells, particles of
plasma with kernel and an outer covering (membrane or shell),
arose either out of the enclosed cytods by the formation of a kernel,
or out of the simple cells by the formation of a membrane. All the
other forms of form-units, or plastids, met with, besides these, have
only subsequently arisen out of these four fundamental forms by
natural selection, by descent with adaptation, by differentiation and
transformation.
By this theory of plastids, by deducing all the different forms of
plastids, and hence, also, all organisms composed of them, from the
Monera, we obtain a simple and natural connection in the whole
series of the development of nature. The origin of the first Monera
by spontaneous generation appears to us as a simple and necessary
event in the process of the development of the earth. We admit that
this process, as long as it is not directly observed or repeated by
experiment, remains a pure hypothesis. But I must again say that
this hypothesis is indispensable for the consistent completion of the
non-miraculous history of creation, that it has absolutely nothing
forced or miraculous about it, and that certainly it can never be
positively refuted. It must be taken into consideration that the
process of spontaneous generation, even if it still took place daily
and hourly, would in any case be exceedingly difficult to observe and
establish with absolute certainty as such. With regard to the Monera,
we find ourselves placed before the following alternative: either they
are actually directly derived from pre-existing, or “created,” most
ancient Monera, and in this case they would have had to propagate
themselves unchanged for many millions of years, and to have
maintained their original form of simple particles of plasma; or, the
present Monera have originated much later in the course of the
organic history of the earth, by repeated acts of spontaneous
generation, and in this case spontaneous generation may take place
now as well as then. The latter supposition has evidently much more
probability on its side than the former.
If we do not accept the hypothesis of spontaneous generation, then
at this one point of the history of development we must have
recourse to the miracle of a supernatural creation. The Creator must
have created the first organism, or a few first organisms, from which
all others are derived, and as such he must have created the
simplest Monera, or primæval cytods, and given them the capability
of developing further in a mechanical way. I leave it to each one of
my readers to choose between this idea and the hypothesis of
spontaneous generation. To me the idea that the Creator should
have in this one point arbitrarily interfered with the regular process
of development of matter, which in all other cases proceeds entirely
without his interposition, seems to be just as unsatisfactory to a
believing mind as to a scientific intellect. If, on the other hand, we
assume the hypothesis of spontaneous generation for the origin of
the first organisms, which in consequence of reasons mentioned
above, and especially in consequence of the discovery of the
Monera, has lost its former difficulty, then we arrive at the
establishment of an uninterrupted natural connection between the
development of the earth and the organisms produced on it, and, in
this last remaining lurking-place of obscurity, we can proclaim the
unity of all Nature, and the unity of her laws of Development (Gen.
Morph. i. 164).
Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.

More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge

connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and

personal growth every day!

ebookbell.com