Article Citation: Isa Muhammad Maishanu (2018). On the Origins and Definitions of Comparative Method in the Study of Religion. DEGEL: The Journal of the Faculty of Arts and Islamic Studies, Vol. 16. ISSN 0794-9316
ON THE ORIGINS AND DEFINITIONS OF COMPARATIVE METHOD IN THE STUDY OF RELIGION
Prof. Isa Muhammad Maishanu
Department of Islamic Studies
Usmanu Ɗanfodiyo University, Sokoto
maishanu@gmail.com
Abstract
The academic study of religion started in the Western world around the
1870s with advocates like F. Max Muller, a philologist calling for its
establishment on the basis of Comparative Linguistics. It soon adopted the
comparative method as the main method of expounding the secrets of the
religious realm and the meaning and the mysteries of religious phenomenon with
its ubiquitous nature. The paper revisits those events at the inception of the
discipline, so as to help students and researchers of religion have a
retrospective insight of those early decades for possible reposition of the
field if the need is felt.
Introduction
The academic, objective and ‘dispassionate’ study of the religious phenomena is believed to have ‘started’ as an
academic discipline in Western scholarship in the second half of the 19th
century.[1]
The field had many names from its
inception, ranging from ‘Religionswissenschaft, to ‘Comparative
religion’, to ‘The Science of Religion’ and ‘The History of Religions’,
‘Religious Studies’ and Religiology. Its establishment as an academic
discipline coincided with the acceptance at the time, of ‘comparative method’
as the main methodological approach to the study of nature, man, and society.
Even before modern times, comparative studies, which mostly involves revealing
the value of something, when brought in juxtaposition
with one, or more other things, has been used. This
was carried out at different epochs and in different ways. The decision of
Qabil to kill Habil as presented in the Qur’an, was as a direct result of the
process of comparison, when the former
saw the fate of the sacrifice he offered to Allah as compared to the fate of
his brother’s.[2] Western
academic study of religion came as a result of the socio-intellectual
circumstances of the 19th century Europe. As the level of intellectualism and pursuit
of knowledge of different fields has been enhanced in the West in the period,
and even earlier, the Westerners were accused
of Euro-centrism, in interpreting human history in their favour. This led to the famous, but unscientific theory of evolution, underlying
their interpretation of not only human anatomy or physiology, but also human
history, culture, and religion.
In the religious realm, it is mostly the comparative method that was employed in trying to establish that
evolutionism from the lower to the higher, and from
the most primitive or crude, to the most developed forms of religion, was a
reality. The European, having experienced and
encountered the Christian religion in its different phases, especially
in the conflict between science and the Church, started an earnest and critical study of religion and
its various manifestations independent of the normal
theological framework and institutions. Despite the various findings of Western
researchers on Christianity, which underwent intense and critical research,
some of 19th and early 20th century evolutionists,
writing on the religions of the world, saw Christianity as man’s highest
spiritual attainment, and the final form of man’s religious quest. This
was shown to have been as a result of employing the comparative method in the
study of the discovered religious data from all the different continents. This valuation or rather a theological categorisation of religions was justified, or
so they believe, due to the Christian belief in the Divine that has taken the
human form, and as such, there will never be any further and better development
in religion beyond that.
We intend to study in this paper the conceptions and definitions of the
comparative method, how it started, what forms it took and its relevance or
otherwise to the study of religion from the inception of the field to the last
decades of the 20th century.
A Brief Outline of the Comparative Method in the Study
of Religion in the Modern West
The comparative method due to which, the so-called scientific study of
religion took its name in the beginning, was seen initially, as the one
adequate, and at the same time appropriate method, by means of which to study
the diverse religions of mankind. And this is in order to discover the possible
origins of religion, as well as ‘the purpose that runs through the religions of
mankind’.[3]
What are the different definitions of that method in the different
phases of the development of this nascent field? Before giving the subsequent
conceptions of this method, and what it has acquired in the course of its
application since the 1870s, let us see first what made the pioneers in this
discipline choose and rely upon it. F.
Max Muller, seen generally as the
founder, or one of the founders of Comparative Religion in the West, in pleading for the establishment of this kind of
study as an academic discipline, has opined that, ‘… all higher
knowledge is acquired by comparison and rests on comparison. If it is said that the character of scientific
research in our age is pre-eminently comparative,
this really means that our researches are now based on the widest evidence that can be obtained…’[4] C. P. Tiele, seen
as the only possible contender of Muller in being the founder of this discipline,[5]
was ‘ever-persuaded that it is only as
one compares adequately the materials which history affords, that any permanent
progress can be made in the Science of
Religion …Hence, he esteemed and employed the apparatus of Comparative Religion
in all his higher and more complex investigations.’[6] So, these two co-founders of this discipline
attest to the necessity of employing the comparative method for any scientific
study of man’s religions, at least in their times. Due to this, those who came
after them followed their footsteps in establishing and expounding the method
even further.
Opinions on the Inception of the
Comparative Method
As regards the inception of the comparative method, different persons
were given the honour of founding it. As
usual with the Western scholarship, in tracing the beginning of every
intellectual method or field to their Greek ancestors, S. Cain in The
Encyclopedia of Religion, attributed it to Aristotle in his statement:
Moreover, Aristotle was the founder
of the Comparative method, applied by him primarily to biological studies, but
later extended to many other areas.[7]
Another scholar of religion saw Auguste Comte (1798-1857), as having
“…laid the foundations of the Comparative Method in the Study of social and
religious institutions…”[8]
Nevertheless, up to the middle of 19th
century, the West has no other method by which to study other religions, better
than the yardstick of Christian
revelation. The different elements of what later
became the comparative method were being composed and arranged at the same time, by scholars like
Comte, Darwin, Muller, Spencer, Tylor and others.[9] A
situation described by Sharpe, as a sort of paradigm shift of the
above-mentioned scholars, who were detaching themselves from religion, in line
with a premise of “…the transcendental categories of revelation being replaced
by immanent categories within the temporal process”. This he saw, as nowhere striking as in the
development they discovered from the lower to the higher, and from the simple
to the complex, – or evolution in all spheres of man’s existence.[10]
The theory of evolution as applied in the study of the social sciences
including the history of religions gave the comparative method of that period
the pigment of the thought then.
So it appears that, with much material
being gathered due to explorations,
colonization and academic inquiries, in the realm of religion, one thing seems to be lacking – an effective and adequate method with which to study deeply the
data to discover the ‘mysteries’ and wonders buried in the religious
world. As Sharpe opined, Darwin
suggested evolution as a theory pointing to the possibility of that progressive
development. And it was Herbert Spencer, T.H. Huxley and Benjamin Kidd and
others who showed that it had happened even in the religious sphere.[11] Moreover, Jordan
has pointed out clearly in his definition of the field of Comparative Religion,
the purely evolutionary terms upon which the discipline was initially based.[12]
Carpenter in his book ‘Comparative Religion’, as quoted by Sharpe,
cannot be more categorical when he declared: It is on this great idea
(evolution) that the whole study of the history of religion is now firmly
established.[13]
Another eminent scholar of religion W. Brede Kristensen (1867-1953) in
his lectures from 1925 published post-humorously
in 1960, titled: The Meaning of Religion, explains that comparative
religion has since 1880 compares religions to
determine their value. This came as a
result of the discovery of various ancient religions, or the so-called
primitive religions. The Western
scholars at that time thought that by means of
comparison, they might know which
religion is lower or higher, i.e. to have a general view of the different
degrees of religious evolution and development. [14]
The presuppositions of the Western theory of evolution as applied to history,
which we still witness in works like The End of History, have been
succinctly and candidly outlined by Kristensen in the following words:
The basis (sic) conviction (in the
evolutionary – historical theory) is this that history of mankind has had just ourselves (Westerners) as
its goal, and after frightfully great pains it has generated our civilization, as a result of all that which had
preceded it. History has a meaning: it
follows a continuous line from the primitive through the developed up to the
highest. In religion, as well as, in the rest of our culture, we stand on the
apex of the historical pyramid.[15]
This particular application of the comparative method by mostly anthropologists dominated the field of
religious study from the 1870s to 1920s
or at least up to the beginning of the 21st
century.[16]
Even in that period of the establishment, and consolidation or emancipation of
the Science of religion, from the philosophy of religion and theology, which
came slowly, the field was considered as an adjunct of theology or even
theology with some qualifications.
Muller himself had the two terms of ‘comparative theology’ and
‘theoretic theology’ for the two kinds of religious study.[17]
Due to this added feature of theology, which was to be abandoned later, the issue of value judgement became more
pronounced, with many writers on world religions showing the uniqueness of
Christianity and its being the highest
level of spirituality man can reach. By this, a rapprochement was reached with
Christian theologians who vehemently opposed this kind of liberal study.[18]
After these decades of establishment, the two kinds of
valuation, i.e. evolutionary and theological started receiving attacks. This is
due to the increase in knowledge of more religious communities, and the writing
of some important works, like ‘The Idea of the Holy’ by Otto and ‘Adventures
of Ideas’ by Whitehead. With that, scholars were able to penetrate some of
the subjective and inaccurate assumptions of early Comparative Religionists. This was the shaking of the
comparative – evolutionary method, because of being ‘a priori’ and of having outlived its uses.[19] Even the word ‘comparative’ despite being
extolled at the inception of this discipline as ‘the method’, was viewed later
with great suspicion. It came to be regarded as unscientific, ‘unless, that is,
a very clear historical connection
between the areas to be compared can in fact, be demonstrated’. This may be the reason why in the latest Encyclopaedia of this
field (published in 1987), an entry was given
under the title of ‘Comparative – Historical Method’, which rules out all
speculations as regards the abandonment of the comparative method completely.[20] We also see modern
authorities in the History of Religions, up to the middle of 1980s affirming
the application of the comparative method or to be precise the
comparative – historical method, then and even in the future.[21] It is also
pertinent here to mention that, F. Whaling, being the editor of ‘Contemporary
Approaches to the Study of Religion’ (2 Vols.) has assigned 130
pages for treating Comparative Approaches’ in that work, to show its relevance
and significance in the contemporary study of religion.[22]
The writer of the article on the Comparative – Historical Method’
mentioned above and a well-known authority in the scientific study of religion
today also wrote in the ‘The New Encyclopaedia Britannica’ the
following:
Most students of religion agree,
however, that valid comparisons are
possible, though they are difficult to
make. Indeed, one can see the very
uniqueness of a religion through
comparison, which includes a contrast….[23]
Valid comparisons’ are indeed what everyone will claim to be making, but
in real sense very few are able to make them.
Analysis of Definitions of the
Comparative Method
When we turn to the vast literature written on the field of Comparative
Religion, to see the various ways by which the comparative method has been defined, it becomes clear to us, the
different shades of meaning and conceptions of that singular method. Again starting with Max Muller’s statement
introducing or establishing this new discipline, he said:
A Science of Religion, based on an impartial and truly scientific comparison of all, or at all events, of the most
important, religions of mankind, is now
only a question of time…[24]
That ‘truly scientific comparison’ has remained, for most part of the discipline’s history, precisely
undefined. It even became a target of
attack after few decades of its use. It is pertinent to point here that, Max
Muller was advocating the establishment of the discipline of Comparative
Religion on foundations similar to those of comparative philology, to which he
initially belongs. In showing how we can
reach the origins of religion, he had recourse to the issue of language. He says:
Yet, as it is essential that we
should know the most ancient forms of every language before we proceed to any
comparisons, it is indispensable also, that we should have a clear conception
of the most primitive form of every religion before we proceed to determine its
value, and to compare it with other forms of religious faith.[25]
From the above statements, it becomes evident that the Western idea in
the study of the religions of the world, at least in the views of the pioneers
cited above, arose out of scientific curiosity, and the desire to know the
heterogeneous nature of religions, and perhaps, to be able to discover some
meaning in the unique phenomenon of religion.
This is clear from Muller’s famous
words, ‘He who knows one, knows none’, contrary to what the Christian
clergy were saying that he who knows
Christianity, knows all religions.[26]
If the desire is to compare all religions, then the method to be
employed must be comprehensive and adequate.
The comparative method is then seen to have those qualities, as
explained above. The method has been
defined by Louis H. Jordan, in 1905 as ‘placing numerous religions of the world
side by side, in order that deliberately
comparing and contrasting them, it may frame a reliable estimate of their
respective claims and values’ [27] It is almost in the same words he defined
Comparative Religion.[28] So, it involves the comparison and contrast
of various religions of the world, aiming at estimating ‘their respective
claims and values’, i.e. it involves evaluation of the various (truth) claims
and values of the religions being considered.
This seems to differ very clearly
from what subsequent Comparative Religionists said, as we will see.
Another definition of the comparative method, especially as employed by
one of the great contributors to the field of comparative religion who ‘ranges
far and wide over the world of religion’ Mircea Eliade especially in his book –
‘Patterns in Comparative Religion’ of 1958, is:
to draw together all the examples he
can find of the sacred manifesting itself in different types of hierophanies
and symbols, and to lay bare their archetypal structure.[29]
Here, Eliade is interested more in the different manifestations of the
sacred, taken from their historical contexts and religions, and then compared
and grouped later into types, in order to discover their structures and
significance. This comparison has also been seen as ‘phenomenological typology’.[30]
The last definition we will mention is the one given in The
Encyclopedia of Religion in an article, entitled ‘Comparative –
Historical Method’, where Smart stated that this method draws on historical
data in comparing religions. It ‘aims to
show not only the interplay of the general and the particular elements of religion, but also the interplay of influences
between religious phenomena and the secular factors in human culture”.[31]
It at the same time wants to ‘demonstrate historical connections, and to point
out independent occurrences of similar phenomena’. An added feature which distinguishes the present concept of comparison
from that of the beginning of this century is the writer’s statement:
The comparative – historical method
aims to be as objective as possible about the nature and power of religion; it
is not concerned with whether a particular faith is true.[32]
So, at last, the Western scholars have outgrown their
Euro-Christian-centrism. From the above definitions, what seems to be apparent
is that, the Comparative Method is chiefly concerned with the placing of
different religions, or aspects of those religions, side by side, so as to see
and discover any meaning or insight as regards religion, which may not be
apparent, if one religion only is treated singly. Another belief of some of the scholars who
initiated comparative study of religions
was, as Kitagawa pointed out, that the original natural religion of reason,
and:
…‘truth’ was to be found in the most universal essence of religion and not in its
particular manifestations. The process of differentiation of the original truth
into diverse religions was seen in much the same way as the Old Testament
described the origin of different languages in the legend of the Tower of
Babel.[33]
This makes the search for that truth in all the
religions of man imperative, and that will be pursued, by means of comparative approach. Max Muller demands the authentic knowledge of the various religions to
be taken from the original sources available, after due textual criticism, and those
‘that are still wanting, will be collected and published and translated’.[34]
The other side of this discipline from its inception is history, for a
good deal of the material used, will have to come from historical researches,
employing the historical method scientifically. Tiele, despite stressing the inevitable need for the historical method,
believes, however, that it is not
enough. He said in his ‘Elements of
the Science of Religion’:
… nor
do I think that the historical method will suffice. I agree with Professor Flint that by the
historical method we obtain only history.
But we want more than that; we
wish to understand and to explain…[35]
The historical aspect of the study of religion from the
beginning, coupled with the fact that, of all the methods employed in the study
of religion, it is only the historical that emerged from the methodological
turmoil the discipline has gone through relatively unshaken; [36]
this led to the acceptance of and the emphasis on the historical or
diachronical study, side by side with comparative study. This is also in
addition to the acceptance, especially in North America, of the title ‘History
of Religions’ for the field,[37]
and the subsequent founding of the ‘International Association for the History
of Religions’ in 1950.[38]
Conclusion
From the discussion above, we have seen the inception and different conceptions and definitions of the Comparative
Method. The benefits and objections
raised against it have also been elucidated. In all, it seems that the comparative method
as employed in the study of religion has had many supporters and admirers
especially at the inception of this academic discipline, when it was seen as
‘the’ method for the scientific study of religious traditions of the
world.
References
Allen, D. (1978). Structure and Creativity in Religion. The
Hague: Mouton
Allen, D. (1987) ‘Phenomenology of Religion’. The Encyclopedia of Religion, Eliade, M. (ed.) (New York:
Macmillan, 1987) Vol. 11.
Al-Tabari (n.d.). Tafsir
al-Tabari. Cairo: Dar al-Ma’arif
Bianchi, U. (1987) ‘History of Religions’. In Eliade, M. (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Religion. New York:
Macmillan
Bianchi, U. (1985) ‘Current Methodological Issues in the History of
Religions’ in Kitagawa, J. M. (ed.), The History of Religions, Retrospect and
Prospect, New York: Macmillan
Cain, S. (1956) ‘Study of Religion, History of Study’,
The Encyclopedia of Religion, Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark
James, E. O. (1961). Comparative
Religion, London: Methuen
Jordan, L. H.(1905). Comparative Religion, its Genesis and Growth,
Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark
Kitagawa, J. M., (ed.) (1985). The
History of Religions, Restrospect and Prospect, New York: Macmillan
Kitagawa, J. M., (1959) ‘The History of Religions in America’ in Eliade,
M. and Kitagawa, J. M. (eds.), The
History of Religions, Essays in methodology, Chicago: University of Chicago
Press
Kristensen, W. B (1960). The
Meaning of Religion.The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff
Sharpe, E. J. (1975). Comparative
Religion: A History, New York: Charles Scribne
Sharpe, E. J., (1987) ‘Comparative Religion’ in Eliade, M (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Religion, New York:
Macmillan.
Sharpe, E.J., (1971) ‘Some Problems of method
in the Study of Religion’ Journal of Religion and Religions, 1.
Sharpe, E. J. (n.d) ‘The Comparative Study of Religion in Historical
Perspective’ in Foy, W. (ed.), Man’s
Religious Quest, A Reader, London: Croom Helm
Smart, N. (1987) ‘Comparative – Historical Method’, In Eliade, M. (ed.),
The Encyclopedia of Religion. New
York: Macmillan
Smart, N., (1984) ‘Scientific Phenomenology and Wilfred Cantwell Smith’s
misgiving’, in Whaling, F. (ed.), The World’s Religious Traditions,
Edinburgh: T&T Clark
Smart, N., (1985) ‘The Study and Classification of Religions’, in Goetz,
P. W (e.d), The New Encyclopedia
Britannica, 26. Chicago, Encyclopedia Britannica Inc
Waardenburg, J. (1973). Classical Approaches to the Study of Religion, The Hague: Mouton
Wach, J. (1958). The Comparative Study of Religion, New
York: Columbia University.
Wiebe, D (1981). Religion and Truth, The Hague: Mouton
Whaling, F, (1983). Contemporary Approaches to the Study of
Religion, Berlin: Mouton
[1] See
Waardenburg, J. Classical Approaches to the Study of Religion, (The
Hague: Mouton, 1973), p. 14, cp. Sharpe, E. J., Comparative Religion, A
History, (New York; Charles Scribner’s, 1975), p. 27 ff and Wach, J. The
Comparative Study of Religion, (New York: Columbia University, 1958), p. 3.
[2] See Tafsir
al-Tabari. Cairo: Dar
al-Ma’arif, n.d., exegesis of verse 27 of Surah al-Maidah.
[3] Muller, F. Max, Chips from a German Workshop, in Sharpe, Comparative
Religion, op., cit., p. 31.
[4] ibid., p. 43.
[5] ibid., p. 35, cp. Jordan, L. H., Comparative
Religion, its Genesis and Growth,
Edinburgh: T.
and T. Clark, 1905, p. 523.
[6] ibid., p. 183.
[7] Cain, S. (art) ‘Study of Religion,
History of Study’, The Encyclopedia of Religion,
op., cit., Vol. 14.
[8] James, E. O., Comparative
Religion.London: Methuen, 1961), p. 20.
[9] Sharpe, (art) ‘Some Problems of
Method….’ op., cit., p. 4, cp. Wach, J. The
Comparative Study of Religion (ed.) Kitagawa,
J. M., New York: Columbia
University, 1958
[10] ibid., p. 4.
[11] ibid., p. 4.
[12] Jordan, Comparative Religion,
op., cit., p. 63.
[13] Carpenter, Comparative Religion,
(1913) in Sharpe, Comparative Religion, op., cit.,
p. 95.
[14] Kristensen, W. B., The Meaning of
Religion (trans.) Carman. The Hague: Martinus
Nijhoff, 1960), p. 2.
[15] ibid., p. 11. (Emphasis mine).
[16] Sharpe, Comparative
Religion, op., cit., p. 94, cp. Bianchi, U. (art) ‘History of Religions’ in
The Encyclopedia of Religion, op., cit., Vol. 6, p.404.
[17] Jordan, Comparative
Religion, op., cit., p. 27 cp. Sharpe, Comparative Religion, op.,
cit., p. 43.
[18] Sharpe, E. J.,
(art) ‘Comparative Religion’ in The Encyclopedia of Religion, op. cit.,
Vol. 3, p. 578 cp. Jordan, op., cit., pp.129, 142, 356-359, he even had an
entry in the Index I, under
Christianity titled: ‘Superiority to all its rivals’, p. 613. See for example Carpenter’s and
Bouquet’s works both entitled ‘Comparative Religion’.
[19] Sharpe, (art)
‘Some Problems of Method…op., cit., p. 6.
[20] ibid., p. 8,
cp., Smart, N. ‘art’ ‘Comparative – Historical Method’ The Encyclopedia of
Religion, op. cit., Vol. 3, pp. 571-574.
[21] See Bianchi,
U. (art) ‘ Current Methodological Issues in the History of Religions’ and
Rudolph, K. (art) ‘The Foundations of History of Religions and its Future
Task’, both in Kitagawa, J. M. (ed.), The
History of Religions, Retrospect and Prospect, (New York: Macmillan
1985) pp. 53-72 and pp. 105-120 respectively.
[22] Whaling, F., (ed.) Contemporary
Approaches to the Study of Religion. Berlin:
Mouton, 1983- 84, 2, pp. 165-295
of Vol. 1 (The Humanities).
[23] Smart, N., (art) ‘The Study and
Classification of Religions’, The New Encyclopedia
Britannica. Chicago: Encyclopedia
Britannica Inc., 1985, 26, p. 548.
[24] Muller, Introduction to the
Science of Religion (1873), in Sharpe, op., cit., p. xi
[25] Muller, Introduction to the
Science of Religion (1873) in Waardenburg, Classical
Approaches, op., cit., p. 94.
[26] Sharpe, Comparative Religion,
op., cit., p. 127, cp., pp. 7-13 on the general attitude
of Christian theologians to this issue throughout
the Middle ages.
[27] Jordan, Comparative Religion…,
op., cit., p. xi (Author’s Introduction).
[28] ibid., p. 63.
[29] See Whaling, F, Contemporary Approaches to the Study of
Religion, Berlin:
Mouton, 1983, 1, p. 215.
[30] ibid., pp. 215-216.
[31] Smart, N. (art) ‘Comparative –
Historical Method’ The Encyclopedia of Religion, op.,
cit., 3,
p. 571.
[32] ibid., p. 572.
[33] Kitagawa, J. M., (art) ‘The History
of Religions in America’ in Eliade, M. and
Kitagawa, J. M. (eds.), The History of Religions. Essays in Methodology. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press,
1959, p. 17.
[34] Muller, Chips from a German
Workshop (1876) in Sharpe, Comparative Religions,
op., cit., p.
31
[35] Tiele, C. P., Elements of the
Science of Religion, in Waardenburg, Classical
Approaches, op., cit., p.
100.
[36] Sharpe, E.J., (art) ‘Some Problems
of method in the Study of Religion’. Religion: A
journal of Religion and Religions), Vol. 1, Part
One, Spring 1971, p. 7.
[37] Sharpe, Comparative Religions,
op., cit., p. 136 cp. Wach, J., Introduction to the
History of Religions, Kitagawa et.
al. (eds.) (New York: Macmillan, 1988), p. 19.
[38] Sharpe, ibid., pp. 268.
0 Comments