By Charles Tayler (Harvard
University Press 2002.) Reviewed by Ron Dart.
Charles Taylor is very much a significant Canadian court
philosopher of the Enlightenment Liberal project. Taylor, as an apologist and
defender of Enlightenment Liberalism, strategically so, positions himself
between the Classical Tradition and the Postmodern Tradition.
The Enlightenment has tended to move in three directions
when it has had to deal with religion. The secular tradition within
Enlightenment has dismissed religion as an archaic and fading relic of a
disappearing and unenlightened past (see Freud, Marx, Nietzsche, Comte). The
rationalistic tradition within the Enlightenment has been open to religion, but
religion has had to defend and justify its existence within the framework of an
empirical and scientific methodology. The romantic tradition within the
Enlightenment has been more open to religion than either the secular or
the rationalist traditions within the Enlightenment, but, within the romantic
tradition, religion and dogma tend to be pitted against experience and
spirituality, and pluralism becomes the new absolute that dominates the day.
Varieties of Religion
Today: William James Revisited, by Charles Taylor, probes some of these
questions in a thoughtful and sensitive manner. This missive began as a series
of lectures that were delivered in Vienna at the Institute for Human Sciences.
Each chapter in this timely tract for the times approaches the tensions that
exist between religious experience and the communities, institutions and
doctrines that define and bind a religious community together.
The book is divided into four chapters: 1) James: Varieties, 2) The “Twice Born”, 3)
Religion Today and, 4) So Was James Right?
Taylor, rightly so, begins his book by sitting by the side
of a significant religious philosopher of the 20th century. William
James has done much to carry on a tradition that went before him, and to point
the way to a tradition that very much dominates much of our thinking at the
present time. What is this tradition that James so succinctly summarized in his
Gifford Lectures called Varieties of
Religious Experiences, and that much of our modern and postmodern ethos
embodies and reflects? James argued that the heart, core and centre of all
religious experiences, at their best and deepest, are about the individual and
his/her intense and primary experience of the Divine, the Ultimate or God. It
is in this realm of pure and primary experience that the burning fire and heat
of real religion can be found, noted and seen in all its fullness. Dogmas,
doctrines, myths, rituals and institutions are all secondary and derivative of
this primal and essential reality. In fact, it is in the realm of religious
experience that a collision is often found between those who know through
experience and those that think about experience and embody such an
interpretation and translation into institutions (and the myths and rituals of
such institutions).
Taylor makes it clear that there is a certain truth in
James’ argument and position, but it tends to be rather reductionistic
and
one-dimensional. Can we reduce the complex nature of religion to some
pure and
intense experience that ignores or subordinates other aspects of life
and
reality? And, more to the point, does not the historic context of an
experience contribute something to its interpretation? And, equally
important, are all forms and varieties of religious experience equal
for James?
No, not really! James is more nuanced and sophisticated than that.
Taylor is
quite fair to James in this area. James makes it clear that there are
varieties
of religious experience, but some forms of religious experience are
much deeper
and more informative than others. There are those whose understanding
of
religious experience is rather thin and light, who never know or
understand the
real meaning of suffering or depth. Then, there are the ‘twice born’.
It is those
who have come to understand that religious experience is about depth,
about
suffering, about hard and demanding transformation that are the ‘twice
born’.
James makes it quite clear, therefore, that religious experience can be
separated into two areas: the once born and twice born. It is the
second area
that James turns to as marking the path to a deeper and fuller
understanding of
religious experience. This distinction between the once an twice born
moves the
discussion of religious experience to a more thoughtful level, but a
lingering
question still remains. Are all religious experiences at the level of
the twice
born of equal worth and merit?
Taylor walks with James as far as he can on this path.
Taylor makes it clear the James very stands within the Romantic wing of the
Enlightenment Tradition, but there are two forms of Romanticism. There is the
individualist wing of the Romantic heritage that we can call the Low Romantic
clan. There is the corporate wing of the Romantic heritage that we can call the
High Romantic clan. The Low Romantic tradition tended to celebrate religious
experience, but authentic and genuine religious experience, for many a Low
Romantics, always stood in contrast to both the institutions that embodied the
religion and the dogmas, rituals and doctrines that offered an intellectual
interpretation of such religions. The High Romantics challenged and stood in
stark opposition to the Low Romantics on this point. James was very much a
product of the Low Romantic tradition.
Taylor makes it quite clear in, chapter three, ‘Religion
Today’, that many forms of spirituality, mysticism and religion today are
merely a continuation of the Low Romantic and Jamesian tradition. This
tradition, as I mentioned above, tends to pit experience, spirituality and
religious longing above and in contrast to religious communities and
institutions and the ideas, dogmas, texts, traditions and doctrines of such
religions.
Experience and spirituality are seen as a good, and
institutions and dogmas are seen as either repressive or quite subordinate to
the core and centre of true spirituality. We can see this spirituality versus
religion, experience versus dogma dualism played out in many places. Recent
books such as Doug Todd’s Brave Souls
(1996), William Clossen James’, Locations of the
Sacred: Essays on Religion, Literature, and Canadian Culture (1998), Susan McCaslin’s, A
Matter of Spirit: Recovery of the Sacred in Contemporary Canadian Poetry (1998)
and Peter Emberley’s, Divine Hunger:
Canadians on Spiritual Walkabout work out of the same dualistic and Low Romantic
model. Each of these books tells the same predictable tale. There is divine
hunger, the sacred, the spirit, spirituality, mysticism and brave souls. It is
these folk who are the true and heroic pilgrims. Then there are those nasty and
repressive dogmas, rituals and institutions that dam up and cage the freedom of
the winged spirit.
Taylor is most perceptive in the way he draws, and rightly
so, a direct and clear line between the Low Romantics of the 18th
and 19th centuries, James (in the early part of the 20th
century) and much of modern and postmodern religion today. This is a family
tree and lineage that seems to be against dogma and institutions, but is not
the Romantic-Jamesian tradition just another dogma and institution? The
question that needs to be asked, therefore, and Taylor, rightly so, asks it, is
this: ‘So Was James Right?” In daring to ask such a question, Taylor is also
asking a fuller and deeper question? Is the Low Romantic and Jamesian tradition
that so defines and shapes much a religion today, right? What is the appeal of
such a family tree and what are the limitations of such a tradition?
Taylor, in the final chapter of Varieties of Religion Today: William James Revisited, points out
that the Low Romantic-Jamesian-Religion Today dogma tends to be rather
reactionary, dualistic and single vision. Those who only see spirituality and
experience as good, and dogma and institution as bad slip into some serious
problems. We might want to reverse the question by asking this. What is the
good in doctrines, rituals and institutions and what are the dangers in
reducing religion to a private and personal spiritual journey? What happens to
the religious question when religious experience is defined in such a one
dimensional manner? All things in life have a positive and negative side, and
those who only see the positive in spirituality (and not the dark and shadow
side), and only the negative in institutions (and not the positive side) are setting
themselves up for a narrow and limited understanding of the meaning of
religious experience.
Taylor, therefore, comes, when day is done, as a friendly
but firm critic of James and his tribe (past and present). If Taylor comes as a
friendly critic of James, how might we come as a friendly questioner and critic
of Taylor? Taylor, as I mentioned above, is an important and substantive
apologist for the Enlightenment Liberal project. Taylor, as a defender of such
a project, has sought, in a variety of books and lectures (some thin and some
thick) to protect the fullness of the Enlightenment ideal against those within
the Liberal tradition that have sought to thin out the Enlightenment project.
Taylor has been a thoughtful critic of both the secular Enlightenment and the
rationalist Enlightenment. Taylor has made it clear in many a writing that he
thinks the principles of the Enlightenment project should not be banished or
turned against because some have distorted or thinned out the ideal. We need,
in short, to recover the finest and noblest aspects of the humanist wing of the
Enlightenment. This should be applauded and welcomed, but we do need to ask
questions about the limitations of such a worldview, outlook or perspective. We
might want to ask this simple question: So, Is Taylor Right?
Taylor has tried to broaden out and redefine religious
experience in such a way that it is less individual, less private and more
grounded and rooted in a tradition, history, dogma, rituals and institutions.
In this sense, Taylor is much more mature than James in his understanding of
religious experience. But, Taylor and James are both committed to the Liberal
project, and, by days end, Taylor faces the same challenges and questions that
James must face. There are a bewildering variety of religious institutions,
dogmas, rituals and myths. Some of these myths, doctrines and institutions are
deeper, more dependable and firmer than others. Some are more twice born than
others. But, can we say any tradition is truer than others? Such a question
does offend the spirit of the age. Can we say some forms of spirituality (in
the major and minor religions of the world) are deeper and truer than others?
The very asking of such question is an unspeakable in our liberal pluralist age
and ethos. Liberal pluralism has become the new absolute that has relativized
the absolute claims of other religions. It is in this sense that the
Enlightenment view of religion has become the new dogma and institution.
Charles Taylor, as a defender of the Enlightenment Liberal
view of religion, does little to challenge the inner core and roots of
the
Liberal ideal, and, as such, leaves the curious reader somewhat
frustrated. Is
Taylor incapable of thinking outside of the Liberal box and envelop? It
is
understandable why Taylor is so popular. He says, in a thoughtful way,
what the
Liberal Sanhedrin and Mandarin class want to hear. But, is Taylor
right? Those who dare to ask such unspeakable questions will confront
the
liberal intellectual elite of our time, and, such a ruling class will
do much
battle to protect that absolute claims of the liberal way. Just as
Taylor dared
to revisit William James and his notion of religious experience, we
should
revisit Taylor and the liberal notions of religious experience. If
liberals
(and others) cannot ask questions about the limitations, weak chinks
and
Achilles’ heel of liberalism, is not liberalism in danger of becoming a
self
enclosed system and ideology that is not much different from
fundamentalism?
Varieties of Religion
Today: William James Revisited is a must read for two distinct reason. This
missive tracks and traces the roots and sources of much trendy religion today
and points out the limitations of such a single vision notion. Taylor, though,
lacks a serious and sustained criticism of his own agenda. So is Taylor right?
It is this sort of raid on the unspeakable that needs to be done. If this is
not done, the soothing pill of liberalism will put us into a deep and pleasant
sleep and slumber. So, what say ye? Dare we ask questions about the nature of
religious experience that might challenge the crude and subtle forms of the
Enlightenment Liberal tribe that so dominates the day in the early years of the
twenty first century?
rsd