This new and enlarged version of Readings in Russian Civilization is the result of fairly extensive revisions. There are now 72 instead of 64 items; 20 of the selections are new. The first volume has undergone the least change with 3 new items; of which 2 appear in English for the first time. In the second volume there are 6 new items; all of them appear in English for the first time. The third volume has undergone the greatest revision; with 11 new items; of which 6 are newly translated from the Russian. It is the editor's hope that items left out in the new edition will not be sorely missed; and that the new selections will turn out to be useful and illuminating. The aim; throughout; has been to cover areas of knowledge and periods which had been neglected in the first edition; and to include topics which are important in the study of the Russian past and present.The bibliographical headnotes have been enlarged; with the result that there are now approximately twice as many entries as in the old edition. New citations include not only works which have appeared since 1963; but also older books and articles which have come to the editor's attention."—From the Editor's Preface". . . a judicious combination of seminal works and more recent commentaries that achieves the editor's purpose of stimulating curiosity and developing a point of view."—C. Bickford O'Brien; The Russian Review"These three volumes cover quite well the main periods of Russian civilization. The choice of the articles and other material is made by a competent and unbiased scholar."—Ivan A. Lopatin; Professor of Asian and Slavic Studies; University of Southern California
#611679 in Books 2005-05-15Original language:EnglishPDF # 1 9.00 x 1.10 x 6.00l; 1.14 #File Name: 0226509893384 pages
Review
6 of 7 people found the following review helpful. ‘The Christian Face of World Religions’ or ‘the undermining of the majority world’By Jim HarriesIn the 19th Century and before; Christianity was assumed by Westerners to be the universal religion that underlay Europe’s universalist aspirations. By the 20th Century; that Christian universalism had been replaced by a list of 11 or so ‘world religions’. By the 20th Century; it appears; Europeans had got off their high hobby horse; and were acknowledging that ‘their’ Christian religion was only one of many religions. What happened to all that historical universalistic fervour; Masuzawa asks in her book?The discourse on world religions grew so massive in the 20th Century that Masuzawa does not take us beyond it’s early decades. Yet; her references to the state of the art then; do not seem so different to the way in which issues are still presented today. Christianity and theology have taken a major thump; lost some of their audience; lost their universalist hegemony; lost much prestige. It is not Christianity but secularism that according to contemporary 20th Century logic brings peace and unity to our world. But yet mysteriously; following the loss of Christianity’s universalism; we now all know; it seems; that religion itself is universal. It is just that religion wears different clothes according to its locale. Hence we have different world ‘religions’.Masuzawa leads us down a few historical trails to help us better understand the wider picture. There was something called ‘comparative theology’. This was a booming discipline in the 19th Century. Through it; numerous high quality scholars through great scholarly endeavours demonstrated the superiority of Christianity over everyone else’s theology. Then in the 20th Century those books were written off. For the last 100 years; no one has read them. The whole discipline has been condemned as biased; self-centred; triumphalist; egotistic and just poor grossly unscientific claptrap. Yet; Masuzawa asks; can things be so simple?Another not-irrelevant rabbit trail Masuzawa takes us on; is an exploration of philology; on the basis of which it was decided that Semitic languages (and; subsequently also Semitic peoples) were inferior to Aryans (Europeans; and many Asians). By the time the philological (linguistic) arguments for such Aryan superiority were discredited; the notion of Aryan superiority was already so deeply ingrained; that Aryans were assumed universally superior. From the universal superiority of Christianity; we moved to the universal superiority of the Aryan race. Such should give us pause for thought.There are reasons ‘religions’ were selected for inclusion in the ‘world religions’ list. Historically contingent reasons have subsequently been forgotten. The list of 11 or so ‘world religions’ appeared in the 20th Century as if fully grown. The same list remains authoritative today. Where did the list come from and how was it put together? Masuzawa tells us. As the list emerged; so did historicity; a new perspective claiming the present to be contingent on ‘accidents’ of prior eras. This was apparently the nail in the coffin for Christian universalists; they were forced to acknowledge Christianity as being as much a product of history as anyone else’s ‘religion’.There is something here being concealed. So; not everyone is Christian; but everyone (the world over; through all history) is now assumed to have (or to have had) ‘religion’. What is this newly universal thing ‘religion’? The contemporary widely held assumption of the universality of ‘religion’ needs; according to Masuzawa; some attention. ‘Religion’ used to be about what people did; how come it has been transformed to a quality somehow conjured “up out of thin air … a unique sphere of life†(313)? When examined closely; ‘religion’ always seems to approximate to the very same Western Protestant Christianity whose universalistic aspirations were so abruptly curtailed. Are contemporary people right to assume that all people everywhere have ‘religion’ that just takes various different shapes and sizes? Not at all; says Masuzawa.From 19th Century efforts at sharing the Gospel with all and sundry; we have moved into a 20th Century when religion (i.e. Western Protestant Christianity; i.e. the Gospel) is assumed already to have been appropriated by all and sundry. Hence Europe managed; in a move that appears to demonstrate great humility; to conceal its universalistic aspirations under a cover of ‘world religions’. The ‘discovery’ of world religions was a process of Western Protestantism being; sometimes almost by default; transposed onto other people’s ways of life. (This is the origin of secularism; as without ‘religion’ one cannot have ‘secularism’.) World religions have been reified by processing them through Western theological screens; Masuzawa tells us! Thus they are inventions; exotically shaped versions of Western Protestant Christianity; designed to combine being exotic with being palatable to Europeans.Masuzawa makes her historic case at great length and with great diligence. Her book ends with an enigma; what does all this mean? It means that Europe’s global Christianisation project continues apace but under wraps. As under wraps; it is not fronted as ‘Christianity’; but as ‘secularism’ (on the assumption that the other things it meets are ‘religions’; i.e. that they resemble Western Protestant Christianity). As a result; outside of the Christian West; religion remains a mystery; unknown. Others might have been able to comprehend that mystery had they had access to the Gospel known by Europeans; but that is now hidden from them. Instead we get a globe with apparently many autonomous centres of religious and secular activity that remain in actuality tied to the apron strings of a self-denying (with a false humility) Mother-Christian-faith; now concealed; in Europe.28 of 29 people found the following review helpful. Very interestingBy WyoteIf you are interested in the history of the study of religion; then (and only then) this is an absolutely great text.First of all; Masuzawa does well what she sets out to do: explore the prehistory of the idea of "world religions" and thus the fascinating background to the activity of "comparative religion." She considers contributions of often neglected scholars; especially in the tradition of Christian apologetics; but even better; in the French academic tradition before Durkheim. That is rarely visited terrain! She also presents familiar figures; especially Max Muller and Ernest Troeltsch; in unusual lights; and makes her case strongly.If you're looking for that; you will enjoy this book as much as I did.Unfortunately; I cannot recommend this at all to anyone unfamiliar with comparative religion: you have to start with Huston Smith and other "world religions" texts; and if you begin to suspect that they oversimplify their subjects for unspoken religious purposes; then you are ripe for this book (and others like it).I even recommend being familiar with the general terrain of the academic study of religion; and if you are not; then I happily recommend Pals' "Seven Theories of Religion" with enthusiasm. More and more fine books in this field appear every year; but that is by far the best introduction that I know of.If you happen to be a fan of folks like Huston Smith; who specialize in "comparative religion"--in which various texts and rituals are taken as represtantive of a "world religion" or "great tradition" or whatever; and then compared to texts and rituals taken to represent other world religions--then this is a book that might shake you.Unfortunately the author does not dare to make the strong claim that comparative religion is largely nonsense; since scholars claiming to be objective and secular (that is; "scientific") have no right to proclaim any manifestation of a religion as its essence; nor to decide how various widely divergent traditions ought to be grouped together. She hints that secular scholars have no real basis for elevating some traditions to the status of world religions and relegating others to some lesser status.She probably believes scholars with those kind of goals should simply admit that they're doing theology; but she's too cautious to take on those issues here. You can find all this being debated openly in religious studies departments everywhere; Masuzawa contents herself merely to give a little historical background; filled (like most academic books) with visciously ironic intimations; but defensively mild theses. If you do want to face the issue straight on; you will find little here to help you. For this; I think the best place to begin may be Jonathan Z. Smith's "Religion; Religions; Religious" in a book titled "Critical Terms for Religious Studies."Finally; I do not ordinarily find myself sympathetic to self-consciously post-modern books - a trait I evidently share with the other reviewers. However; I did not find the post-modernism here troublesome at all; and I doubt most people would. If you're really strongly dedicated to the old Eliade school of religious studies; it might be a little upsetting; but there's a lot of good history in this book - enough to make worthwhile dealing with its theoretical views.(I want to sincerely thank the kind stranger who bought this book for me; finding it on my .com wishlist. It was an excellent; much-appreciated gift.)26 of 36 people found the following review helpful. The contributions are mainly historicalBy D.Masuzawa describes this book not as a criticism of contemporary religious studies but as an archaeology of texts throughout the 19th century that preceded these studies. The last text discussed is from 1923. The book proceeds like this:A position is taken in some older texts that Christianity is the only universally true religion; while all other religions are doomed and limited in scope. Masuzawa's thesis is that the early 20th century's pluralistic notion of "world religions" was a continuation of the biases found in the older Christian-centric view; or; to be more exact; not those exact biases; but either their offshoots after they had been transformed to seek after a more general "European hegemony" or possibly independent biases of a similar nature.The text investigates different movements in religious and cultural studies; where precedents for certain biased behaviors among Europeans are claimed. Again; whether they are intended to be seen as part of one lineage leading up to "world religions" or as independent developments is open.Only the final chapter addresses the problem of pluralism hosting Eurocentrism in a study of the writing of one author; Ernst Troeltsch (1865-1923); in which Masuzawa claims to spot license for bigotry inside the religious freedom granted in a pluralistic scenario.One criticism might contrast the "worst-case" pluralism that Masuzawa sees in Troeltsch with how policies like multiculturalism have actually been implemented; which have only devalued European tradition.Take away the spotty analysis and you have a reasonable contribution to the history of comparative religious studies. Especially useful is the history of the old sense of "world religion;" that is; the view that some religions were proper for the whole world to adopt while others were limited. This should have edged the rating up to 3 stars; but it is so frustrating to see Masuzawa brush so close to pertinent points only to seem to feel an immediate need to force the subject matter into a conspiracy by scholars to assert European command. There is so quick of a rush to do this that it limits the analysis and feels intellectually degrading because of its transparency.Some examples:-She asserts that because F. Max Mueller categorized religions in terms of "revealed religions" (religions based on inspired teachings; like Christianity or Islam) and "natural religions" (like animism); "to call a religion 'revealed' amounts to claiming it is a true religion coming from above; in contradistinction to others that are 'natural' ... or mundanely and humanly manufactured; hence made up; 'false' religions." Really?-Masuzawa thinks it is strange for Mueller's 50-volume "Sacred Books of the East" (1879-1910) to contain so many texts from Indo-European source languages (41 out of 50 volumes); and suggests this comes from Indo-European favoritism; but does not address the fact that the sacred texts in Sanskrit of Hinduism and Buddhism comprise an utterly huge corpus; and so logically such texts would be over-represented. But of course it must have been due to some kind of bias...-Islam's recognition of Hindus as "people of the book" was an "ingenious" breakthrough even though it was done under imperialistic motivation; while the West's embrace of religious pluralism is a scheme to assert European hegemony.
