Don’t Say All Religions Are Equal Unless You Really Mean It: John Hick, the Axial Age, and the Academic Study of Religion A Dissertation Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy To the Department of Ancient History In the Faculty of Arts at Macquarie University Sydney by Jack Tsonis Primary Supervisor: Dr Stephen Llewelyn July 2013 Synopsis Don’t Say All Religions Are Equal Unless You Really Mean It: John Hick, the Axial Age, and the Academic Study of Religion Jack Tsonis 2013 This dissertation undertakes a critical analysis of the “pluralist” view of religious diversity, which holds that all religions are responses to the same transcendent reality. Although the pluralist ideal has a long history in western thought, primary focus is placed on recent articulations of the argument as represented by figures such as John Hick, Huston Smith, and Wilfred Cantwell Smith. Particular focus is placed upon the philosophical theory of religion offered by Hick in 1989. The aim of this work is to show that despite the intention of pluralist thinkers to move beyond the Eurocentric categories that have traditionally pervaded the western study of religion, their arguments invariably remain predicated on the problematic “world religions” paradigm, as well as a number of other discourses that have their root in the cultural hierarchies of the nineteenth century. I therefore suggest that in spite of their egalitarian ideals, the pluralist theory of religions ultimately reifies and reinforces many of the Eurocentric assumptions about “religion” that it seeks to overcome. This argument is made by employing a discourse-analytical reading of Hick’s theory, building upon numerous critical works in religious studies that have addressed the problematic history of the world religions paradigm. After providing a detailed introduction to the pluralist perspective and its place in contemporary debate, attention turns to the various criticisms that have been levelled at the world religions paradigm, focusing particularly on the cultural hierarchies that are implied by the seemingly benign rhetoric of “great” traditions and “world” religions. Focus then returns to Hick’s argument with these problems in view, paying attention primarily to his use of the “Axial Age” metanarrative, which serves as the historical backbone of his argument. As will become clear, by following Karl Jaspers’ division of religions into “pre-axial” and “post-axial”, Hick reproduces a form of civilizational exceptionalism that stems directly from nineteenth-century race theory and other paradigms of cultural difference by which European imperialism was justified. I show that Hick’s argument replicates at least six standard tropes of colonial discourse with regard to the non-urban (i.e. “primitive”) other, and claim that this undermines his clearly stated methodological and ethical goals. This dissertation therefore also begins to outline a much needed critique of the Axial Age construct, something so far missing from critical literature in the field. The final chapter provides a detailed survey of recent historiographical trends that render the key assumptions of the Axial Age narrative empirically untenable; but in the interests of constructive critique, this discussion is also used to sketch out some alternative approaches to emplotting long-term religious history that are more in line with current historiographical standards. The Conclusion looks at how these issues impact on the pluralist theory, as well as the larger question of how they relate to contemporary debates about the place of pluralism and theological essentialism in the academic study of religion. Although I suggest that it seems impossible to reconcile traditional theological pluralism with contemporary critical standards, my ultimate contention is that if these issues continue to be addressed, then opportunities will be presented to develop an increasingly sophisticated vocabulary for the treatment of long-term religious history that could bring together many strands of recent scholarship and move the academic study of religion in exciting new directions. For Vicki, Con, and Toby Preface I, James George McLean Tsonis, hereby declare that I am the sole author of this work, which is being submitted under my preferred name of Jack. No part of this dissertation has been published or submitted to any other university or institution. All sources of information have been duly cited. Whilst the body of the work can be read entirely on its own, the footnotes provide substantiation for all relevant claims, and often gesture towards topics that are beyond the scope of the main discussion. In general, works are cited in full the first time they appear in a chapter, in shorthand thereafter. In addition to the main bibliography, a supplementary bibliography has been provided for reasons that are explained within. It primarily includes works that are not discussed in the body of the text, but which are relevant to one of the central methodological concerns of the analysis and informed much of the research. Jack Tsonis Sydney July 2013 Acknowledgements I firstly wish to thank my family for their love and support. This work is dedicated to them with gratitude and affection. I also express sincere thanks to the Department of Ancient History at Macquarie University for giving me the space to pursue this somewhat idiosyncratic project, and for trusting that it would come together. Thanks also go to Trevor Evans for his facilitation of the Department’s weekly seminars, at which early versions of chapters 4 and 5 were presented and profitably critiqued. My supervisorial team has been outstanding. Stephen Llewelyn, as primary supervisor, has been an invaluable mentor and dialogue partner for five years now, and his unfailing patience allowed me to follow my nose and find my own way to the argument. I also wish to acknowledge Stephen’s tireless support of all his students, which stands as a model of engaged and responsible pedagogy. I have had the privilege of working with three exceptional associate supervisors over the last four years. Brent Nongbri read all of the chapters in draft, and his feedback always helped to sharpen my thinking. Cavan Concannon provided important guidance in the early stages of my candidature, when the plan for this dissertation resembled little more than a plate of dropped spaghetti. I also acknowledge the support of Professor Larry Welborn, who set me upon many fruitful paths in the early stages, and whose enthusiasm was infectious. Further thanks go to Professor Edwin Judge, who took the time on several occasions to provide detailed feedback on a number of my proposals. Yet while I am deeply indebted to each of them, it goes without saying that all conclusions offered in this work are mine alone. I have also been fortunate to receive advice and guidance from a host of generous scholars over the past four years. I particularly wish to thank Ward Blanton for his kind hospitality on a visit to Glasgow in 2011, during which trip (and our many conversations) the foundations of this dissertation snapped into place. Another person who has given me a good deal of her time is Carole Cusack of Sydney University, who regularly suggested readings that kept me moving in fresh directions, and whose eagerness to help has been little short of heroic. I further thank Professor Dale Martin for making time to chat in New Haven whenever I have been in the neighbourhood, and for helping to facilitate a number of useful connections with other scholars. Amongst my student colleagues, I give special mention to Bernard Doherty, whose willingness to share ideas and books made all the difference at the start, and whose diabolical sense of humour always kept me laughing. Similar thanks go to Sean Durbin for his facilitation of the Religion Reading Group at Macquarie, which put me in touch with many works that ultimately played an important role in my argument. Sean also provided helpful feedback on a section of the draft. I also enjoyed regular conversations with Brad Bitner, whose warmth and erudition have been greatly appreciated by all students in HDR3, as well as David Baker, who was ever ready to share his expertise on big history. In my wider life, I am lucky to have a funny, intelligent, and vivacious set of friends. I single out for particular mention the Esteemed Esquires of the Atterton Academy – Jimbo, Weebs, Nicko and Dravid – who enrich my life immeasurably, and who inspire me always with their own passions and insights. In the game of not taking life too seriously, these are co-conspirators of the highest order. Finally I thank Sofia Eriksson, the sweetest of Swedes, who has the remarkable capacity of being relentlessly critical while constantly supportive. Not only did she read everything that I put in front of her, but her incessant concern with the nature of discourse has been an unwavering source of stimulation. Without her, the successful completion of this work is unthinkable to me. Table of Contents Synopsis …………………………………………………………………………………. iii Preface …………………………………………………………………………………… vii Acknowledgements ……………………………………………………………………… ix CHAPTER 1 Theological Pluralism and the “World Religions”: Sketching Out the Issues ……… 1 Pluralism and the Inescapable Presence of the Other 10 Pluralism in the Shadow of Colonialism 20 The Critical Shape of this Work 36 CHAPTER 2 John Hick and the Pluralist Theory of Religions ……………………………………… 51 The Modern Enterprise of Theories of Religion 54 The Pluralistic Hypothesis