Marco Pasi presents a working paper on 'Nationalism, religious individualisation, and Western esotericism in modern Europe (1823-1939): an introduction'

This paper is the first draft of an introduction to the book I am currently working on, based on the research I am doing during my fellowship at the MWK. The book argues for the existence of a significant interplay between three distinct cultural and social phenomena in 19th and 20th -century Europe: nationalism, religious individualisation and Western esotericism. The examination and the interpretation of this interplay is based on the analysis of a number of case studies, taken from different periods and different countries. The present introduction has the purpose of introducing the main concepts and theoretical tools that the analysis will make use of. Due to space constraints, the present version does not discuss all the issues relevant for the project, but tackles only the most important ones. I will proceed first by introducing the three main concepts that feature as protagonists in this work, and I will then explore the way in which they can relate to each other. Finally, I will present the working hypothesis of the project and illustrate the way in which my work will proceed, i.e. through the analysis of a number of selected case studies. Due to space constraints, the present version does not discuss all the issues relevant for the project, but addresses only the most important ones.

Antje Linkenbach presents a working paper on 'Empathy and Dividuality – Connecting two Concepts and Fields of Research'

Background of the paper This paper is a first draft of a contribution to an edited volume titled Dividualizing the Self. The volume will also be an outcome of the work of the research group ‘Religious Individualization in Historical Perspective’, but intends to reverse and complement its focus on ‘individualization’. While most KFG-studies give evidence of individualization as a historically and geographically broad phenomenon, thus challenging standard theories of modernization, which regard (religious) individualization as a specific (early) modern and essentially Western or Christian phenomenon, the planned volume will contest the modernization narrative from a different angle. Taking up idea and concept of ‘dividuality’, extensively explored in anthropological literature, the volume aims to prove the relevance of the ‘dividual’ person also in western and non-western historical, early modern and modern contexts. ‘Dividuality’ will be used in the planned volume as an umbrella term, which allows to perceive the Self / the person as ‘open’ and ‘divisible’. Instead of constructing the Self /the person as a bounded, indivisible, possessive and autonomous entity, it highlights its relational qualities, thereby taking into account not only other persons, but also things / objects and ‘not unquestionably plausible’ agents/authorities (the transcendent, divine). Character of the paper This paper is highly explorative and moves between different disciplines, fully aware about possible risks of (mis)interpretation. Before publication this paper will undergo several rounds of discussion and revision, and will be presented at the final conference (Abschlusskonferenz of the KFG. Comments and suggestions are therefore greatly appreciated.

Abstract:
The paper makes an attempt to use the idea of dividuality, which brings the permeability, relationality and openness of an individual person into focus, to understand the human capacity to show empathy and compassion, and display vulnerability in the face of violence, suffering and death. My starting point is the anthropology of violence and pain, but to further pursue my argument I take up the concept of sympathy in selected philosophical texts from the 18th century, reflect on the differences between empathy and identification, explore empathy as resonance and finally, focus on the relation between autonomy, vulnerability and empathy.

Jutta Vinzent presents a working paper 'On Dividuality and Contemporary Religious Iconography'

This essay will contribute to the exploration of concepts of individuality and dividuality. Its focus will be the role of art objects as mediating processes of constructing, becoming and being in/dividuals. 2 Individuality has been defined as ‘indivisible,’ and in terms of society, the smallest unit to which society can be reduced. It also has been described as fixed, autonomous and self-reflective. The term as such has played a major role in many disciplines and centre-stage in the recent project on individualising titled ‘Religious Individualization in Historical Perspective’ under the PIs of Professor Dr. Jörg Rüpke and Professor Dr. Martin Mulsow (University Erfurt, MWK, 2008-2017). In recent years, scholars have increasingly questioned as to whether subjects are self-contained or cannot be rather broken down and thus deserve to be called dividual. In this light, dividuality have been described as permeable, relational and positional, and often also been associated with pre-modern, non-western concepts, as the discussion about the individual and dividual has been dominated by anthropology. 1 Although there are many conceptions of dividuality, none is a synonym for deindividual, if understood as a defiance of individuality or mourning of the loss of the self-contained individual. Instead, dividuality would rather celebrate the partiality of the self, either as division of the self in a process of constant segmentation or as the abandoning of or detaching from a self-contained individual. In modern and contemporary art, the term has not been applied to personhood, but objects. It was particularly Paul Klee (1922) and Gilles Deleuze (1986 and 1992) who developed a theory of the dividual in the light of painting respectively early cinema. Scholars, such as Joanna Latimer (2009), Glenn Peers (2012) and Michaela Ott (2015) have used the term dividual in view of Frida Kahlo’s self-portraits, Byzantine art and new technologies respectively. Latimer defines dividuality with notions such as fragmentation and fragility, unstableness and leakiness.2 Peers uses the term as opposed to ‘discrete entities like individuals’ and for ‘quasi-object’ that are only superficially objects.3 Both do not refer to a specific theory Ott, on the other hand, has based her book on Deleuze. She interprets ‘dividual’ as part-taking and cites particularly new technology as a reason for the end of the ‘distinctiveness and authenticity of the art work.’4 Consequently, she then applies the term ‘dividual’ to digital art works circulated over the Internet,such as UrsulaBienmann’s Egyptian Chemistry (2012), a multi-channel video installation, with which the artist attempts to penetrate real and virtual realities. Some contemporary artists also call their work ‘dividual’, including Victor Timofeev, who explores hybrid worlds.5 Furthermore, an artist couple, collaborating on Facebook, produces and publishes digital photosfrom everyday life. Here dividual (though not specifically defined) is understood as being produced by more than one artist and able to be shared with others who can contribute to the work via the Internet.6 So far, however, the dividual has not played a huge role in the fine arts, particularly if compared with the numerous articles published on individuality and usages of the term individual. Thus, this essay also contributes to an exploration of the terminology and meaning of the ‘dividual’ in art. In the following, I will consider the theories of Klee and Deleuze first, and then apply the term dividual not to new technologies as Ott has done, but to contemporary art with religious themes in a section. The reason for such a focus is not only because religious themes play a central role in contemporary art, as has been noted by a number of scholars, particularly by James Elkins (2004, 2008) and Aaron Rosen (2015).7 Elkins assumes that these themes create two types of art, existing simultaneously side by side, namely ‘serious’ religious art and that which he describes as ‘sceptical, ambiguous, antireligious, mystical, spiritual.’8 These types also differ in their materiality (including reproducible versus original). Instead, Rosen assumes one type of contemporary religious art, emphasising the works’ complexity and providing deeper interpretations to some of the most contested ones.9 The reason for this essay’s focus on contemporary artists in view of dividuality is that these works play with notions of art and spirituality in a sophisticated and complex manner. This is not to say that dividuality in art objects cannot become visible through other art works; however, I would argue that religious themes in contemporary art provide a body of works which openly aim at something beyond being simply an individual art work, candidly manipulating the viewers’ religious beliefs and aesthetic expectations. The analysis of such works in the light of dividuality will provide not only insights into conceptions of dividuality and individuality, but also a new perspective towards such art works. In fact, I will show that, different from Elkins and Rosen, the underlying issue of the conflicts created by contemporary art using religious themes lies in the notion of individuality as defined by western modernism. Drawing upon Deleuze’s conception of the dividual, I will further suggest a new way of their understanding. In the following, I will concentrate on the iconography of the crucifix as an image of Jesus on the cross. The crucifix emphasizes Jesus’ sacrifice which Christians believe brought about the redemption of the world. In Christian Doctrine, Jesus is the mediator between God and human being. He is the son, next to the Father and the Holy Spirit who form the Trinity, as one god in three divine persons. Such a theology assumes of a dividual God, divided into three. Jesus, however, can be described as an individual, although being also a dividual in the Trinity. Believed to be the incarnation of God Father, Jesus also is essential in view of another central issue of this essay, namely the interpretation of the body in art, in which the body can be interpreted as the incarnation of any image, according to Georges Didi-Huberman.10 In other words, the crucifix (with the body of Jesus) already lends itself to probing the term dividual in a number of ways and thus seems to be an appropriate iconography to study questions about individuality and dividuality. The essay is divided into three main sections. A first will introduce into the conceptions of dividuality in modern and contemporary art and their limits, a second will explore affected perception as dividual and end with a suggestion of the viewer as subject, being both individual and dividual. The final section will outline possible benefits of such a new conception on other subject areas.

Carsten Herrmann-Pillath on 'A Conceptual Model of Two Modes of Religious Individualization: Theory and application on China'

Religious individualization is a multi-facetted phenomenon. There have been attempts at developing a taxonomy of forms of individualization. Starting out from one advanced proposal, the so-called ‘Otto-matrix’, I argue that taxonomy needs to be supplemented by an analysis of evolutionary dynamics. On the one hand, this provides additional rationale for a specific taxonomic structure, and on the other hand, this helps to project the taxonomy on historical trajectories of religious individualization. Against the backdrop of a methodological debate in Chinese religious studies over the so-called ‘religious market model’, I submit a conceptual model of two modes of religious individualization that builds on Henáff’s distinction between the gift exchange and market exchange. In the China debate, Palmer had argued that there is a systematic tension between the market mode and the gift mode which results into a dynamic co-existence. I generalize this idea in extending the market mode along the lines of institutional theory, going back to Hegel’s use of the market as a conceptual template of ‘civil society’. The market mode covers phenomena such as individual rights, freedom of choice and institutionalization, whereas the gift mode is about authenticity, personal experience and community. The two modes connect via two dynamic forces that I demote as ‘religious entrepreneurship’ and ‘community formation’, respectively. These are actually dialectical mechanisms, as, for example, institutionalization may protect formal individual rights, but also may trigger religious entrepreneurship re-establishing claims on authenticity. I show how this dialectical mechanism involves the different dimensions and criteria of the Otto-matrix. The case of China serves as a brief illustration of this conceptual model.

Max Deeg presents a paper on 'Multiple Individualities – The Many Identities of the Chinese Buddhist Monk Xuanzang'

This paper tries to bring into conversation the results and ideas of the KFG „Religöse Individualisierung in historischer Perspektive“ and the material and the sources I am working with. I changed the structure and content of the original draft I had in the light of the discussions in the plenary session and some of the colloquia which had a direct impact on my material and my approach. I found the framework of individualisation particularly helpful for my attempts to de-historisize the biographical material, i.e. to move it away from the positivist reading which is still very much en vogue in the academic field I am working in. I read the biographies as expressions of narrative individualisation through which the same „individual“ can be imagined and appropriated in different ways with different intentionalities and purposes for which I tentatively introduce the term „function“ (to be developed, if feasible at all, into a concept). The paper is therefore a combination of information and material from my „database“ and some deliberations about how this could fit into the wider discourse about individualisation.
The wider project which leads to a series of sub-projects is a new English translation and extensive historical commentary of and to Xuanzang’s „Record of the Western Regions“ written in the 7th century and having had a huge impact in East Asia and on western historical scholarship of Asia. The present paper is part of this main project insofar the latter will include all the relevant material and its analysis and discussion that is connected with Xuanzang and his text, particularly the various biographical traditions and the author’s and the text’s reception history (Rezeptionsgeschichte) which have to be analyzed in their respective contexts. The paper was originally conceived as a to be modified chapter for a monograph on Xuanzang and his wider context requested by Oxford University Press India which can also be used as an introductory complement to the rather bulky and specialized translation cum commentary, meant to be published in installments.

Dorit Messlin: On a typology of religious individualisation

The paper to be given (7.7.2015 at the MWK) presents several typological reflections and methodical concepts which can be used for researching and reconstructing religious individualisation. This begs the question of what purpose a typology of religious individualisation serves and what purpose it should serve in the context of the Kollegforschergruppe (KFG) research programme. Presumably due to the heterogeneous nature of the fields of research, it is not possible to determine a single definition of religious individualisation; therefore a potential emphasis is placed on the further theoretical profiling of the concept of entanglement as a methodical point of the KFG research programme. In addition, typological criteria will be discussed which are deemed particularly relevant for the analysis of figures and dynamics of religious individualisation. Some examples will be used to illustrate these (the Jesuit and moral theologian Baltasar Gracián, 1601-1658).