Inter-Religious Dialogue and Syncretism in the Context of Globalization
For centuries now some of the most tragic pages of human history have been associated with religious conflicts, with the ongoing battle for the “supreme Truth”. Remembrance of the crusades still echoes in our collective memory as we pursue the same battle against the religious “other”. We tend to put value in our truth while dismissing the other. In the age of globalization, this supposed battle for the “supreme Truth” seems to have significantly diminished as international cooperation flourished on the way to people appealing to values of interfaith tolerance and principles of interreligious dialogue.
I would like to write about (Inter)Religious Dialogue and Syncretism in the context of Globalization. My hypothesis is that in recent times we witnessed an unprecedented wave of migration and intercultural exchanges and that in the context of globalization, world religions co-share ideas and form a new form of religious syncretism. I would like to further explore this into the ways in which interreligious dialogue is conducted in this context and with what outcomes and possible recommendations. In my opinion, religion plays a deeply influential role in the building of the most fundamental and latent parts of culture, such as attitudes, beliefs, cognition, values, and worldviews. I would like to present in this essay these processes and tensions of cultural-religious exchanges by offering a model of pluralistic interfaith dialogue. Literature from both dialogue/communication theory and religious pluralism/syncretism would be reviewed and the conclusion of the paper would rely on the intersection between postmodernism and religious pluralism.
In order to assess the assignment, one ought first to ask what is culture and what do we understand by interculturalism? For me, culture is the product and reflection of a society’s capacity to imagine and rationalize – be it in the past, present, or future. Following constructivist social theories, we may agree that every sign, letter, word, language, concept, etc. are social construct developed by different societies at different times. The fluidity of this process is remarkable as we make structures within structures and supra-structures that seem to put an order in our reality while constructing our truth. From this derives the reason for these to exist: creating a comprehensible common language by which we can understand the world. The interactions and intersections of such structures and supra-structures can be therefore seen as interculturalism.
Globalization, development, international migration, and the creation and mobilization of innovative expressions of identity have impacted the world in far-reaching ways. As a consequence of the cultural change, which underpins these processes, conceptualizations such as ‘religion’, ‘ideology’, and ‘fundamentalism’ have come under considerable scrutiny in popular, policy, and intellectual circles. This has precipitated the erosion of scholarly assumptions and implicit understandings concerning terminology, taxonomy, and definition. Nonetheless, re‐comprehension and readjustment within certain disciplinary traditions have been slow and contested as the fluidity of terms and definitions rose significantly. What is surprising, however, is that the notion of syncretism or religious fusion has received comparatively little attention. This despite the fact religion must have been a hugely important element of the human past, as it is in the present, and most likely will be in the future.
In my research for the present paper, it was interesting to observe a common idea that in the emerging area of intercultural dialogue research scholars begin with the assumption ‘‘that cultural identity and difference are constructed dialogically’’. With a strong emphasis on the co-construction of meaning and truth(s), a significant postmodern thread runs through much of the communication studies literature concerning dialogue. It is also crucial to take note that in our global age, encounters with religious “others” are no longer isolated occurrences. Also, because of increased interfaith contact, many individuals are engaging in sense-making processes, trying to grapple with the inevitable tensions associated with subjectivity, especially when one is in the presence of a different religious belief/practitioner.
At this point, I should make clear the definition of “syncretism” as applied in my paper but I consider this to be a rather difficult task. As it turned out in my research, the term is also used quite fluidly and any attempted definition lacks the depth of the differentiated conceptualization of opposition and mixture that this term combines. It is at least fair to say that syncretism had many different meanings at different times. As two anthropologists note ‘“syncretism” is a contentious term’. The term is derived from the ancient Greek words syn ‘with’ and crisis ‘mixture’ and has been used in Christian theology since the early 17th century. Most frequently the syncretistic notion is utilized to describe the mixture/fusion of traditional and world religions, especially those brought into contact during the history of colonialism.
Moreover, to some scholars, the history of religion confirms that ‘every religion is, in essence, syncretistic – there are no pristine origins or essences’. This sentiment links the theme of syncretism with the past and the archaeological enterprise. If the simple fact of syncretism is that it ‘is for many reasons a persistent and universal phenomenon in human history’ and that ‘it cannot but happen, unless people live in entire isolation’, then any appreciation of the past requires comprehension of the syncretistic process. However, simply to note all religions are mixtures is not at all helpful for the present study and is confusingly similar to ‘explaining the phenomenon of syncretism with syncretism’. Thus greater precision is needed concerning the many intricacies of this cultural process. Concepts need to be disentangled if attempts to comprehend them are to be successful, otherwise, convolution and confusion are unavoidable.
The anthropologist Thomas Eriksen has provided some useful distinctions between various categories of cultural syncretism. Eriksen's scheme provides useful demarcations between distinct forms of cultural fusion. More famously Leopold and Jensen asked a very important question: ‘do we locate syncretism in mind, culture, or in politics?’ This relates to whether syncretism can optimally be understood in terms of psychology and cognition, through linguistics, symbolism, and discourse, or through political power and social orchestration.
Turning back to our main subject of interreligious dialogue, we can consider, as previously noted, that every religion is syncretistic – synthetically incorporating external cultural, material, and ritual elements over time. In this case, the only authentic dimension to religions concerns the synchronicity of the syncretistic mix. In cultural studies usage, the term is almost exclusively applied within a relativist framework. Within such a cosmopolitan and pluralist framework, equal theological and ritual perspectives can be further modeled. Scholars theorizing religious otherness and religious pluralism have raised a number of compelling issues previously unexplored within the communicative understandings of dialogue.
It is fair to say that with such a rich interdisciplinary history, dialogue is an especially abstract and complex concept that defies simple definitions. To my mind, dialogue is always contextual and unique to those participating to it. While abstract, complex, and thoroughly contextualized, however, ‘‘Dialogue is concretely realizable, and above all, practical accomplishment’’. As a communication process, dialogue is inherently a negotiation or tension between self and other. Rather than imposing one’s subjective will upon others via monologue, dialogue fully invites the differences of others. Such an invitation requires openness (and even commitment) to mystery, vulnerability, and change. When describing pluralistic dialogue, Swidler highlighted the importance of both trust and mutuality: ‘‘Dialogue can take place only on the basis of mutual trust,’’ adding that ‘‘dialogue must be a two-sided project’’.
Another finding of my research was that dialogue is always deeply embedded within the unique cultural context of the subject and other, such as culturally situated ritualistic practices (e.g. rites of passage). Because of the contextual nature of meaning, ‘‘each participant eventually must attempt to experience their partner’s religion or ideology ‘from within’’’. In practice, this means that ‘‘we must not compare our religious ideals with our partner’s practice’’. By acknowledging the inextricable relationship between meaning and context, we learn from others and, simultaneously, expand our own conceptions of faith so that religion becomes less parochial by incorporating lessons from other religions. During the pluralistic dialogue, our religious beliefs retain their uniqueness, but this uniqueness develops and takes on new depths by relating to religious others in mutual interdependence.
As previously mentioned, how we respond to otherness is central to dialogue. In order to understand how individuals and faith communities respond to the concept of the religious other, a number of paradigms have been advanced to understand the numerous responses to religious otherness. A number of classification systems have been advanced to understand the many responses to religious otherness. For example, Panikkar proposed six ‘‘rational’’ responses to religious otherness: (1) only one religion is true, (2) religions refer ultimately to the same truth, (3) all religions are false, (4) truth is subjective, (5) religions are the product of history, and (6) each religion has unique features and presents mutually incommensurable insights. Eck asserted that three responses to otherness have received considerable attention in Christian theological discussion: (1) exclusivism (other traditions are incorrect), (2) inclusivism (other traditions are partially correct but limited), and (3) pluralism (other traditions provide an opportunity for dialogue and discovery). Similar to Eck, Neville also discussed exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism but added to the list perennialism, in which reality is viewed as hierarchical; at the lower levels of reality, differences abound (history, practices, contexts) but at the highest level is a single ineffable Truth.
According to the findings in the postmodern literature, there are four main paradigms of religious otherness in terms of dialogue and interaction: exclusivism, relativism, reductionism, and pluralism. Although each paradigm is often evoked during dialogic encounters across different religious faiths, I will argue that only pluralism is compatible with the communicative understandings of dialogue, especially in the context of ongoing globalization. In pursuing my argument, I shall first briefly describe each paradigm as follows:
Exclusivism is the first mentioned paradigm and contends that the truth is unitary and unequivocal, both in doctrine and form. It maintains a closed experiential system that focuses on the differences of the religious other. It encounters religious otherness with an attitude of certainty and righteousness. In addition, exclusivists view their beliefs as the ultimate revelation of the transcendent, espousing the view that, ‘‘our own community, our tradition, our understanding of reality, our encounter with God, is the one and only truth, excluding all others’’. In essence, the exclusivist adopts what might be referred to as a ‘‘religion-centric’’ view of the religious other.
The second paradigm refers to the relativist (sometimes referred to as perennialist). It revolves around the idea of a core truth with multiple manifestations. Religious differences, within this paradigm, are viewed as different manifestations of a single ineffable Truth. Relativists view truth claims as both fluid and dynamic because of their historical and cultural roots.
The third paradigm, that of reductionists, maintains a closed system because religious differences (e.g. truth claims) are evaluated using its own ideology as the basis for understanding. Reductionists do not actively engage the religious other. Instead, they use their own concepts and categories ‘‘for defining what is important in religion and for determining what other religions must be saying, meaning, and doing’’. Although reductionists acknowledge the truth claims of religious others, they view their system of beliefs and practices to be the ultimate and overarching truth. The reductionist’s approach to interfaith interaction, therefore, would be to develop a ‘religio-centric’ understanding of other faith traditions.
For the fourth and final paradigm, it is safe to say that it explores a pluralistic response to religious otherness. As Eck explained, the pluralist views religious otherness as ‘‘an opportunity for our energetic engagement and dialogue with one another. It does not mean giving up our commitments; rather, it means opening up those commitments to the give-and-take of mutual discovery, understanding, and, indeed, transformation’’. Pluralists maintain an open ideological system and embrace the fundamental differences of the religious other. Within the paradigm of pluralism, ‘‘dialogue is the exchange of experience and understanding between two or more partners with the intention that all partners grow in experience and understanding’’.
Nevertheless, one of the common misconceptions of religious pluralism is that dialogue will ultimately lead to consensus. It is crucial to underline that pluralistic dialogue, however, is not designed to reveal a unitary conception of truth (i.e. syncretism). In place of the unreachable and perhaps undesirable goal of agreement amongst the faith traditions, the pluralist seeks to promote dialogue that legitimizes disagreement. As Rescher explained, accepting pluralism means accepting ‘‘the inevitability of dissensus in a complex and imperfect world. Strive to make the world safe for disagreement. Work to realize processes and procedures that make dissensus tolerable if not actually productive’’. Moreover, pluralists see the inherent virtue in disagreement and frame disagreement as a vital part of the community.
To better understand this phenomenon, we can look into the example of South Korea and its religious realm. From my point of view, South Korea is a perfect example of a religious mosaic which gradually transformed itself through syncretism. Many Christian denominations in South Korea are now almost “unrecognizably Christian” because of the profound syncretistic effects of Buddhism and native Korean beliefs.
The most fascinating example of religious syncretism in South Korea is the Unification Church. Sun Myung Moon, the founder of the Unification movement, openly confesses that his special revelation, although primarily Christian, integrates the best aspects of Buddhism and Confucianism. Unificationist metaphysics especially shows the influence of Eastern dipolar concepts of reality and deity. Furthermore, the founder boasts about his claim that he is a Korean shaman– in the best sense of the word, with a mission given directly by Jesus Christ. The two most significant Asian elements of Unification theology are the relational ontology drawn from Buddhism/Daoism and the emphasis on familial piety that comes from Confucianism.
For the Unificationists, rather than playing down the Christian elements, the Rev. Moon is of course primarily a confessing Christian who has attempted to adapt biblical revelation to an Oriental setting. As Andrew Wilson states: “Divine Principle is an honest indigenization of Christianity because it not only expresses the biblical message in Confucian terms but also allows the Bible to address and critique Confucian life and values”. Unificationists believe that it is the suffering of God and humans together that genuinely redeems a fallen creation. It is here that the Orientalization of Christianity by the Rev. Moon and his emphasis on the Heart of God makes its most profound contribution. A combination of the Suffering Servant of Isaiah and the Buddhist Bodhisattva ideal has led to a new powerful interpretation of Christianity.
With a relational ontology and social view of human nature, the Rev. Moon's Confucian Christianity breaks with western Christianity most controversially on the issue of the redemptive work of Christ. Humanity is not saved by individual forgiveness through the sacrifice of Christ, but by the establishment of a perfect human community with a Messianic couple at its head. True to its Confucian roots, Divine Principle tells us that we are saved through filial piety, not through blood sacrifice. Therefore, the Rev. Moon sees the death of Jesus as a horrible defeat, not a victory over sin. The Crucifixion prevented Jesus from marrying and setting up the familial basis for the Kingdom of God. Equally provocative, but faithful to yin‑yang polarity, is the Unification view that the Messiah cannot be a single individual, but the Saviour must be a perfect married couple, especially understandable given that in Asia the masculine must always be completed by the feminine.
Most religions respond to the charge of religious syncretism very defensively, for they believe that it undermines basic claims to purity and uniqueness. In contrast, the Unification Church openly embraces syncretism in an honest and refreshing way.
Within an era of cultural and ethnic violence, finding ways to promote religious pluralism is not simply an academic discussion but a critical issue in promoting the welfare and survival of religious communities. The coexistence of multiple faith traditions within close geographic proximity presents new challenges to scholars of dialogue and religious pluralism. As Eck stated, ‘‘but nowhere, even in today’s world of mass migrations, is the sheer range of religious faith as wide as it is today”. Of interest is the role that dialogue might play in managing the conflicts emerging from the deeply held beliefs and traditions of others. This type of dialogue can be seen in the international cooperation mechanisms embedded now in governing laws and changing mentalities of emerging generations as paradigms shifted throughout centuries.
To conclude, history has thought us some very important lessons on the paramount of mindfulness. As globalization shifted our limited understanding of the other to a more inclusive ‘approval’ and openness to dialogue, we are now more interconnected and interdependent of what used to be ‘the other’. Religious beliefs are still shaping our mentalities, values, behaviors, etc. in the postmodern age but the new environment is fertile for intercultural and interreligious encounters. Although we may agree that religion in itself is a syncretic product, postmodernism and globalization do not offer further religious syncretism but a mere productive space of interconnectedness and mindfulness towards the religious other. The border between us and the supposed other is indeed more fluid due to dialogue and mutual understanding, but it is important to keep in mind that its fluidity does not disassemble it.
Nevertheless, we should not view dialogue as a panacea, as a remedy to all world problems (in terms of religious conflicts). I consider it as rather a necessary process in the arduous process of community building in a multicultural society, the kind of society most of us are part of now due to globalization. Pluralistic dialogue serves as means of demystifying the religious other, allowing people to navigate beyond the trappings of superficial categories. Dialogue allows people to disclose deeply held experiences and beliefs, without which, meaningful relationships cannot develop. In the everyday life of people around the world, where we share organizations such as schools, neighborhoods, workplaces, and so forth with members of many faith communities, dialogue serves as a mechanism for beginning to build the trust essential to addressing the complex issues we presently face.
Bibliography
1. Clack, T. (2011). Syncretism and religious fusion. The Oxford handbook of the archaeology of ritual and religion, pp 226-242.
2. Deutsch, E. (2004). Holy otherness: Religious difference revisited in A. Lannstrom (Ed.), The stranger’s religion, pp. 96-112.
3. Eck, D. L. (2002). A new religious America: How a ‘‘Christian country’’ has become the world’s most religiously diverse nation. San Francisco: Harper.
4. Eck, D. L. (2003). Encountering God: A spiritual journey from Bozeman to Banaras. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
5. Eriksen, T. H. (1997). Multiculturalism, individualism and human rights: Romanticism, the Enlightenment and lessons from Mauritius in R. Wilson (ed.), Human Rights: Culture and context (London: Pluto).
6. Hammond, S., Anderson, R., & Cissna, K. (2003). The problematics of dialogue and power. Communication Yearbook, 27, pp 125-157.
7. Joseph, J.E. (2004). Language and identity. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
8. Keaten, J.A. and Soukup, C. (2009): Dialogue and Religious Otherness: Toward a Model of Pluralistic Interfaith Dialogue, Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 2:2, pp 168-187.
9. Knitter, P. (1985). No other name?. London: SCM Press.
10. Leopold, A. M. and Jensen, J. S. (2004). General introduction in A. M. Leopold and J. S. Jensen (eds), Syncretism in Religion: A reader. London: Equinox, pp 1–8.
11. Magowan, E. (2001). Syncretism or synchronicity? Remapping the Yolngu feel of place, Australian Journal of Anthropology, 12(3), pp 275–90.
12. Mawson, T. (2005). Belief in God. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
13. Meyer, B. (1994). Beyond syncretism. Syncretism/Anti-syncretism: the politics of religious synthesis, pp 45-68.
14. Monceri, F. (2009). The transculturing self II. Constructing identity through identification. Language and Intercultural Communication, 9(1).
15. Neville, R. C. (2004). Toward a theology of world religions: The existential threats. In A. Lannstrom (Ed.), The stranger’s religion, pp 113-130.
16. Panikkar, R. (1979). Myth, faith and hermeneutics. New York, NY: Paulist Press.
17. Panikkar, R. (1984). Religious pluralism: The metaphysical challenge. In L. S. Rouner (Ed.), Religious pluralism, pp 97-115.
18. Pye, M. (1971). Syncretism and ambiguity. Numen, 18, pp83–93.
19. Rescher, N. (1993). Pluralism: Against the demand for consensus. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
20. Shaw, R. and Stewart, C. (1994). Introduction: Problematizing syncretism. in C. Stewart and R. Shaw (eds), Syncretism/Anti‐Syncretism: The politics of religious synthesis. London: Routledge, pp 1–26.
21. Strine, M. (2004). When is communication intercultural? In R. Anderson, L. Baxter, & K. Cissna (Eds.), Dialogue: Theorizing difference in communication studies. Thousand, Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
22. Swidler, L. (1987). Interreligious and interideological dialogue: The matrix for all systematic reflection today. In L. Swidler (Ed.), Toward a universal theology of religion, NewYork: Maryknoll, pp. 5-50.
23. Veer, P. Van Der. (1994). Syncretism, multiculturalism and the discourse of tolerance, in C. Stewart and R. Shaw (eds), Syncretism/Anti-syncretism: the politics of religious synthesis (London: Routledge), pp 196–211.
24. Wolf, A. (2006). Subjectivity in a second language: Conveying the expression of self. Bern: Peter Lang.
25. George D. Chryssides (2004), Unificationism: A study in religious syncretism, in Religion: empirical studies, Editor: Steven Sutcliffe, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd, Chapter 14.
26. Andrew Wilson (1982), “Biblical Hermeneutics in Divine Principle: The Context of Confucianism” in Hermeneutics and Horizons: The Shape of the Future, ed. Frank K. Flinn. New York: Rose of Sharon Press.
