Should the Axial Age Be Renamed? Benjamin Schewel University of Virginia [email protected]
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Volume 13, No 2, Fall 2018 ISSN 1932-1066 Should the Axial Age be Renamed? Benjamin Schewel University of Virginia [email protected] Abstract: The recent popularization of the term "axial age" has stimulated a debate about whether scholars should develop a more precise, way of describing the socio-spiritual parallelisms of the first millennium BCE. This essay evaluates Eugene Halton and John Torpey's recent contributions to this debate. Both authors agree on the basic problem with the term "axial age"—it falsely suggests that history displays one spiritual pivot—yet they reach quite different conclusions regarding terminological alternatives. Halton suggests abandoning the term "axial age" and speaking instead of a "moral revolution." Torpey recommends keeping it but simply applying it to several other periods of transformation. This essay ultimately rejects both suggestions and recommends instead that scholars continue using the term "axial age" in the same, heuristically vague way that they tend to employ other world-historical periodizing terms such as "antiquity," "medieval," or "modernity." Keywords: Halton, Eugene; Jaspers, Karl; Torpey, John; Axial Age; social theory; philosophy of history; historiography. The middle centuries of the first millennium BCE The recent popularization of the term "axial witnessed the emergence of the classical religious and age" has stimulated new lines of critical inquiry. A philosophical lineages—Greek, Hebrew, Persian, Indic, growing literature charts the pre- and post-Jaspersian and Chinese—that still orient the lives of most people development of the idea of an axial age. There is today. Given the centrality of these developments to all also a burgeoning, albeit still flawed, attempt to use subsequent history, Karl Jaspers described this period algorithmic tools for testing the empirical validity of as Achsenzeit (axial age).1 A wide range of distinguished the axial age thesis. Given its numerous empirical and intellectuals engaged and developed Jaspers' concept.2 conceptual limitations, an expanding debate has also But it is only in recent years that the term "axial age" emerged as to whether the term "axial age" is even worth entered the general academic parlance. preserving. Two recent proponents of this position are Eugene Halton and John Torpey. Both authors agree that the axial age thesis falsely suggests that history 1 Karl Jaspers, Vom Ursprung und Ziel der Geschichte, exhibits one and only one spiritual pivot, yet they differ München, DE: Fischer Bücherei, 1955. [Henceforth in their conclusions. Halton prefers to let go of the term cited as UZG] "axial age" and, instead, to speak of a first millennium 2 For example, Eric Voegelin, Arnold J. Toynbee, BCE moral revolution. Torpey alternatively keeps the Marshall G. S. Hodgson, Benjamin Schwartz, Shmuel concept of an axial age, yet applies it to several other Eisenstadt, Jürgen Habermas, John Hick, Robert periods of major socio-spiritual ferment. Bellah , or Charles Taylor. Benjamin Schewel, "Should the Axial Age be Renamed?," Existenz 13/2 (2018), 86-92 First posted 6-23-2019 Should the Axial Age be Renamed? 87 Eugene Halton's Argument debate represents. For example, let us consider the difference between the axial age debate and efforts In a major contribution to scholarship on the history by theoretical physicists to name a newly theorized of the axial age debate, Halton highlights the largely sub-atomic particle. Physicists largely agree about the overlooked line of axial thought that leads from content of their background theoretical framework nineteenth century Scottish folklorist, John Stuart- and of the characteristics of the newly identified sub- Glennie, through to the visionary American urban atomic particle. The only issue is how this sub-atomic planner and social critic, Lewis Mumford.3 However, particle should be named. In such cases, naming rights beyond merely clarifying the presence of this intellectual are given to the first or leading figure who theorized trajectory, Halton further suggests that scholars should the particle, perhaps even by attribution of that person's abandon the term "axial age" altogether and adopt as an name (for instance, the "Higgs-Boson particle"). In the alternative Stuart-Glennie's phrase "moral revolution."4 axial age debate, however, terminological differences Halton presents three arguments for his thesis. represent deeper disagreements about the content The first argument relates to what Halton calls and significance of the period, as well as about the the "ethics of terminology." Specifically, he claims that broader vision of history in which the period is placed. since Stuart-Glennie developed a resonant concept of For example, when Eric Voegelin rejects the idea of the axial age some seventy-five years before Jaspers, an axial age and proposes instead the term "ecumenic terminological ethics requires using Stuart-Glennie's age," the matter cannot be resolved by simply noting term instead of the one introduced by Jaspers. Halton that Jaspers wrote first about the period. For, though, quotes Charles Peirce to support this view: "The author Voegelin acknowledges the same historical parallelisms of a scientific conception has the first right to name it; as Jaspers, he rejects the proposal that they constitute and his name ought to be accepted, unless there are facets of a common socio-spiritual breakthrough. The grave substantial objections to it" (AMR x). terminological divergence between Voegelin and I find this argument unconvincing. Stuart-Glennie Jaspers reflects a meaningful theoretical disagreement. was not the first to highlight the religious-philosophical The same can be said for Stuart-Glennie and Jaspers' parallelisms of the first millennium BCE, as it is shown respectively proposed terms. These debates cannot by Jan Assmann who mentions several thinkers who be resolved by referencing temporal priority. Indeed, preceded Stuart-Glennie on this front.5 So if one decides Halton's own arguments about the earliest stages of to apply Peirce's terminological ethics to the axial age religious history actually confirm the inapplicability of debate, naming rights would have to go to someone else, Peirce's ethics of terminology to the axial age debate. most likely Abraham Hyacinthe Anquetil-Duperron, In addition to highlighting the existence and merits of who is, according to Assmann, the first known figure to Stuart-Glennie's concept of the moral revolution, Halton have written about the subject. also claims that Stuart-Glennie's notion of panzooinism Furthermore, Peirce's terminological ethics does is superior to Edward Tylor's term "animism," not apply to the kind of pre-paradigmatic social- developed in 1871, two years prior to Stuart-Glennie's scientific and humanistic inquiries that the axial age contribution (AMR xi). Halton's second argument concerns the possibility 3 Eugene Halton, From the Axial Age to the Moral of using the term "moral revolution" instead of "axial Revolution: John Stuart-Glennie, Karl Jaspers, and a age." His main claim on this front is that, whereas New Understanding of the Idea, London, UK: Palgrave "axial age" falsely suggests that there is only one Macmillan, 2014. [Henceforth cited as AMR] major pivot to history, the term "moral revolution" 4 Eugene Halton, "Sociology's Missed Opportunity: presents the socio-spiritual developments of the first John Stuart-Glennie's Lost Theory of the Moral millennium BCE as but one period of transformation Revolution, Also Known as the Axial Age," Journal of among others. Classical Sociology 17/3 (August 2017), 191-212. I agree with Halton's critique of this aspect of 5 Assmann lists Abraham-Hyacinthe Anquetil- the axial age thesis, which I henceforth describe as its Duperron, Jean-Pierre Abel Rémusat, Georg F. W. prioritization problem. The term "axial age" suggests Hegel, Eduard Maximilian Röth, Ernst von Lasaulx, that history's one axis emerges in the Eurasian cultural and Victor von Strauß und Torney. See Jan Assmann, developments of the first millennium BCE. Jaspers Achsenzeit: Eine Archäologie Der Moderne, Frankfurt, DE: C. H. Beck, 2018. [Henceforth cited as AAM] describes this situation as follows: Existenz: An International Journal in Philosophy, Religion, Politics, and the Arts 88 Benjamin Schewel It would seem that this axis of history is to be found of these complex developments. Yet it seems equally in the period around 500 B.C., in the spiritual process difficult to argue that any of the other specifying terms that occurred between 800 and 200 B.C. It is there that that authors put forth—transcendence, reflexivity, we meet with the most deepcut dividing line in history. reason and individuality, history, universal-imperial, Man, as we know him today, came into being. For short prophetic, or renunciation—are any more suitable. we may style this the "Axial Period."6 Herein remains the value of the word "axial." It One can expose the conceptual shortcoming in draws one's attention to a complex set of transformations Jaspers' logic by simply noting how, in addition to without suggesting an essential core. Mumford the important religious and philosophical lineages makes this point well when he describes "axial" as that admittedly arose during the first millennium "a deliberately ambivalent term."8 Thus, instead of BCE, "man, as we know him today," also came into limiting inquiry by proposing one theory of the period's being through the contributions of the languages and core, the deliberate vagueness of the term "axial age" patterns of small scale community that arose during the opens a horizon of comparative inquiry within which Paleolithic period, the plants and animals that Neolithic diverse insights can emerge. Indeed, I would go so far peoples domesticated, the cities and bureaucratic states as to argue that if scholars had followed Stuart-Glennie that the early civilizations established, and the new in adopting the term "moral revolution," it would have patterns of technical inquiry that appeared during been more difficult for the various perspectives that one Modernity.