Arthur Bueno presents a working paper on 'Simmel and the Forms of In-dividuality'

The work of Georg Simmel is widely known for the case it makes for a strong connection between modernity and individualization. In his sociological theory as in the Philosophy of Money, in his writings on intellectual history as in his aesthetic and metaphysical essays, a perspective on modern culture is advanced according to which the latter is distinguished from other historical epochs by a peculiar accentuation of individuality. Common to all these different endeavours is, moreover, the view that such foregrounding of the individual is an inherently conflictual process. The emergence of modern individuality is thereby regarded not only as the outcome of struggles against previous forms of social organization, but also as bringing forward new tensions of its own. It is for no other reason that Simmel so often presented the forms taken by the modern individual in dualistic terms. Less visible, however, is the fact that those analyses present not only different figures of in-dividuality, with its accentuated sense of independence and self-sufficiency, but also distinct modes of in-dividuality marked by an openness to being permeated by something other than oneself. In fact, when one follows the thread of these dualisms in Simmel’s work it becomes clear that, despite an initial focus on the boundedness of the in-dividual, the in-dividual aspects of personal and social experience come to acquire over time an increasingly significant role, with decisive consequences for his view on modernity.

Martin Fuchs gives a working paper on 'Self-affirmation, Self-transcendence and the Relationality of Selves: Bhakti as Social Theory'

This is a Werkstattbericht, a report on work in progress, in the full sense of the term! It is not a finished paper. The paper has a long gestation period and represents a step in a process that runs through several stages. It invites comments and critique, in particular with respect to the issues of religious individualization.

This paper does not introduce and discuss a specific historical case of religious practice or ideation. Instead it targets an entire phenomenon, or family of related phenomena, to which the label bhakti has been applied. This has certain drawbacks. In particular, interlinkages between various dimensions of the phenomena under discussion, which a close empirical study can provide, cannot be closely pursued and may thus not become visible. The reasons why I chose to go for an overall discussion of bhakti are twofold. On the one hand, bhakti is still not very well known outside the expert community, and even within South Asia studies or the study of Indic religions, has still not always received adequate attention.[1] On the other hand, taking our interest in the processuality of types of individualization and the modes of institutionalization of such forms, the “case” of an extended moment – or series of moments – of religious history that illustrates the pertinence of individualization observations provides relevant material for a general discussion. There are other contributions in our volumes [the concluding volumes of the KFG after the Eisenach conference later in this month] that provide a much more focussed discussion of particular cases, issues and approaches, as does the forthcoming volume on Bhakti and Self, based on a conference held in Erfurt in the context of the KFG in June 2016.

Bhakti is a case of a special kind not only within Hinduistic or more broadly Indic religions. It stands out also in religious history at large with respect to the extension and duration of existence (depending on how one counts, between 1600 and 2000 years up to our times), and because of the diversity and versatility of this case of religious individualization. Zooming in, the processes we assemble under the name bhakti are highly varied, regarding the composition of participants and followers, their pedigree, their imageries, their conceptualizations, their affiliations, and the social context and social effects. At the same time, certain issues and aspects are recurring. They concern the conceptualization of the Divine; they also concern the ideas regarding the relationship to the Divine and the notions of grace or compassion (kripa,  arul) as well as love (prem), the importance of relationality and connectedness in practices and conceptualizations of self, and also some overall historical dynamics – the ever new emergence of alternative versions of bhakti and the forms of institutionalization.

The aspects I foreground are not final, and I look forward to the discussion for additions and critique. The historically and regionally different cases I allude to more indirectly than directly have still to be fleshed out and referenced (to the extent space allows) once the overall composition of the paper looks satisfactory. And finally, I hope to deepen, and add further dimensions to, the reflections on the relationality of selves at the end of the paper.

---

[1] Axel Michaels in his widely read book on Hinduism – Der Hinduismus: Geschichte und Gegenwart (München: Beck 1998) – dedicates a mere eight, and at that very superficial, pages (pp. 277-285), plus a few short references here and there, to bhakti.

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.

Elisabeth Gräb-Schmidt gives a paper on 'Religion and rationality – transcendence and freedom: About the anthropological and cultural key role of religion'

The research project will look into the reformulation of issues of normativity against the backdrop of Kant´s critique of Metaphysics. In the wake of this turn, it is no longer the general but the individual that informs the search of normativity. In this search, certainty („Gewissheit“) plays a crucial role as pursued by Luther as the specific experience of conscience and as being further developed by Schleiermacher and Kierkegaard in their debate on theoretical and critical aspects of modern subjectivity. In this context, individuality reveals itself as singularity, consolidated through a religious experience originating from a reference to transcendence. These reflections are part of a major project on ethics, aiming to establish normativity on legitimate grounds (ethics of „new realism“).

Qian Zhao presents a working paper on 'Individualization, Cultural Entrepreneurs and Socio-technological Innovations in China: An Empirical Study'

In the topics related with contemporary China, a universal recognized aspect is that China is in transition. Since the economic reforms in 1978, the socioeconomic stature of China is dramatically different from previous. My project tends to examine the changing Chinese society from the perspective of individual in facing with the tremendous socio-economic changes.

This research starts from the current debate of Chinese individualization. Some scholars argued the Chinese individual bears a strong flavor of possessive individualism while no longer uphold the core values of social collectivism, as the primacy of collective interests over those of individuals. It is problematic if we take this statement as granted. It is also too simple to category China society in the individualism/collectivism dualism. This research’s first purpose is to review Chinese individual as discussed in the literature, identify controversies and debates and consider some critical issues of individualism/collectivism. By focusing on a singular but symbolic group – China young cultural entrepreneurs, the second purpose is to propose conceptual and research strategies in substantiating issue of individualism/collectivism in youth, exploring the changes of behaviors and values under socio-technological innovations in the empirical study.

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.

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.

Knud Haakonssen presents a paper 'To know yourself – that’s a whole crowd! Ludvig Holberg as a case study of multiple authorial personae'

This is a revised and expanded version of a lecture that I gave at the Gotha Forschungszentrum in January. The reason for reviving the paper is that it addresses central issues discussed in the KFG plenaries preparing for the end time (cf. the theses from Martin Mulsow and me). The paper is thus not part of my project on natural law. Nor is it theoretical, or methodological, in character; rather, it provides a case study of multiple authorial personae, namely, the work of the Danish polymath Ludvig Holberg (1684-1754). I show how Holberg uses the techniques of contemporary eclecticism in a wide variety of works and genres of works. I suggest that this goes along with an espistemic attitude that is somewhat different from the usual moderate scepticism often associated with eclecticism. And I indicate how a many-sided ambiguity about the supposedly ‘real’ author is effected in order to secure space for a basic, somewhat simplistic but earnest religiosity without jeopardising the pervasive pluralism. A key factor here is the ‘creation’ of the audience, including the scholars who nearly three centuries later pursue the real Holberg. But he, too, is always a persona for an audience. The conclusion – if any – is that it is a kind of category mistake to ask what ‘he’ really believed.

Knud Haakonssen presents a paper on 'To know yourself – that’s a whole crowd! Ludvig Holberg as a case study of multiple authorial personae'

This is a revised and expanded version of a lecture that I gave at the Gotha Forschungszentrum in January. The reason for reviving the paper is that it addresses central issues discussed in the KFG plenaries preparing for the end time (cf. the theses from Martin Mulsow and me). The paper is thus not part of my project on natural law. Nor is it theoretical, or methodological, in character; rather, it provides a case study of multiple authorial personae, namely, the work of the Danish polymath Ludvig Holberg (1684-1754). I show how Holberg uses the techniques of contemporary eclecticism in a wide variety of works and genres of works. I suggest that this goes along with an espistemic attitude that is somewhat different from the usual moderate scepticism often associated with eclecticism. And I indicate how a many-sided ambiguity about the supposedly ‘real’ author is effected in order to secure space for a basic, somewhat simplistic but earnest religiosity without jeopardising the pervasive pluralism. A key factor here is the ‘creation’ of the audience, including the scholars who nearly three centuries later pursue the real Holberg. But he, too, is always a persona for an audience. The conclusion – if any – is that it is a kind of category mistake to ask what ‘he’ really believed.

Antje Linkenbach, Reflections upon religious individualisation in historical perspective with regards to Hindu textual traditions and Bhakti poetry

In her last working paper (Werkstattbericht) the author asked whether one could identify concepts that are central for today’s Human Rights discourse in classical texts from the Hindu traditions. In particular she was looking for concepts like human dignity or human value and analyzed passages from the Upanisads, Dharma- and Arthasastra. Subsequently she concentrated on the Bhagavadgita and selected Bhakti-poetry, however this was not part of the report.

The following paper picks up an earlier suggestion of the plenum of the Kollegforschergruppe on individualisation in historical perspective and tries to discuss how far her mentioned project can contribute to the topic of “individualization”. Looking at the previously examined texts she especially tries to reflect upon the concepts of agency, relationality, dividuality and multiple personae.

Bhakti - Poems

1.          Conscious confessions of one's own ignorance and untouchability

Example 1: Chokamela (13.Jh.), Follower of Vithobas from Pandharpur (Maharashtra), a Mahaear or tanner:

„We know neither science nor Puranas,

About the World we know nothing –
The intricacies of the Agamas and the secrets of the Nigamas
And all the truths contained in the Sastras, we do not know!
Of Yoga and of sacrifices, of the eight spiritual paths,
Of alms, of vows and austerities, we know nothing!
Says Choka. O God, in my candid devotion,
I’ll simply sing Your Name, o Kesava!...“
(in Heehs 2002:332-3)

Example 2: Tukaram (1608-1649), a varkari-bhakta from a village close to Pune, also a follower of  Vithobas:

„I was born in a Sudra family, thus was set free from all pride.

Now it is thou who art my father and mother, O Lord of Pandhari!
I have no authority to study the Vedas; I am helpless in every way,
humble in caste, says Tuka. 

2. Individual leaving of roles predefined by society

Example: Mirabai, daughter of a leader of the Rajputes, born in 1498.
 

Paga bāʼndha ghūʼngharyāʼn ņācyāʼnrī

Ich tanzte mit Fußglöckchen an meinen Füßen.
„Mīrā ist wahnsinnig“, sagten die Leute,
„Diese Sippenzerstörerin“, schimpfte die Schwiegermutter.
Den Giftbecher schickte ihr der König,
Mīrā lachte, als sie ihn austrank.
Körper und Geist habe ich zu Haris Füßen geopfert,
Bei seinem Anblick werde ich Nektar trinken.
Mīrās Herr ist Giridhara Nāgara,

In Deine Zuflucht werde ich gelangen.

(Mirabai 2006)

My eyes are greedy. They’re beyond turning back.

They stare straight ahead, friend, straight ahead,
coveting and coveting still more.
So here I am, standing at my door
to get a good look at Mohan when he comes,
Abandoning my beautiful veil and the modesty
that guards my family’s honor, showing my face,
Mother-in-law, sister-in-lay: day and night they monitor,
lecturing me about it all and lecturing once again.
Yet my quick, giddy eyes will brook no hindrance.
They’re sold into someone else’s hands.
Some will say I’m good, some will say I’m bad –
whatever their opinion, I exalt it as a gift,
But Mira is the lover of her Lord, the Mountain-Lifter.
Without him, I simply cannot live.
(Hawley 2005:111)

 

3.  Criticisms of religions and institutions, including of representations of female roles; advocating personal relationships to God

Example: Kabir (born ca. 1440), Varanasi, from the casts of weavers

...
What’s the use of ablutions, litanies, purifications
         and prostrations in the mosque?
If you pray with a heart full of guile
         what’s the use of Haj and Kaaba?
Twenty-four times the Brahman keeps the eleventh-day fast,
         while the Qazi observes the Ramzan:
Tell me, why does he set aside the eleven months
         to seek spiritual fruit in the twelfth?
 
Hari dwells in the East, they say
and Allah resides in the West,
Search for Him in your heart, in the heart of your heart:
There He dwells, Rahim-Ram!
...
(in Vaudeville 1993: 217-18)

Vain-glorious of authority, you make me to be circumcised; never will I endure it, brother!

If it is God that makes thee to be circumcised, why came not this cutting of itelf?
If by circumcision one becomes Turk, what then will be said of your women?
‚Half the body’, so the wife is styled; then you still remain Hindu!
By putting on the sacred thread, does one become a Brahman?
What has thou given to women to wear?
She from birth is but a Sudra! Why dost thou eat the food she brings, O Pande?
(in Keay 1995:12-13)

4.  Criticising the religious legitimacy of hierarchy

 

Example: Kabir

If the Creator

had invented caste
Why didn’t He mark the Brahmans at birth
with the triple line?

A Shudra you were born,

a Shudra you die!
Why do you befool the world
with that contrived ‚sacred Thread’?

If you are a Brahman,

born from a Brahmani,
Why didn’t you enter this world
through a different path?

If you are a Turk,

born from a Turkini,
Why didn’t God himself
circumcise you in the womb?

Says Kabir,

there are no low-born:
This man alone is vile
who des not invoke Ram.
(in Vaudeville 1993:218-19)

5.  Criticising the outruling of the lower jatis and so-called untouchables, and the absurdity of untouchability

Example: Kabir

It’s all one skin and bone,
one piss and shit,
one blood, one meat.
From one drop, a universe.
Who’s Brahmin? Who’s Shudra?
(in Hess/Singh 2001:19)

Pandit, look in your heart for knowledge.

Tell me where untouchability
came from, since you believe in it.
Mix red juice, white juice and air –
a body bakes in a body.
As soon as the eight lotuses
are ready, it comes
into the world. Then what’s
untouchable?
Eighty-four-hundred thousand vessels
decay into dust, while the potter
keeps slapping clay
on the wheel, and with a touch
cuts each one off.

We eat by touching, we wash

by touching, from a touch
the world was born.
So who’s untouched? asks Kabir. ....
(in Hess/Singh 2001:17):

6.  Respect and elevation by God, the utopia of the subjugated

Example: Raidas or Ravidas, Chamar and shoemaker, born ca. 1377

 „Creator, I am Your wretched servant!

Grant Your vision  to this hopeful one.
My soul is restless for Your vision.

 You are first and last, God and man,

You manifest as angel and man.
You are the refuge sought by Pirs and prophets,
What have I, poor and dirty, to fear?
...

 

Till now I was an unhonoured shoemaker,
a wretched servant of yours.
I can get no answer at Your door,
 Raidas says, I am wretched.

God, if I did not sin, Infinite One,

how could Your name be „Uplifter of the fallen“?
(in Heehs 2002:368

The regal realm with the sorrowless name:

they call it Queen City, a place with no pain,
No taxes or cares, none owns property there,                        
no wrongdoing, worry, terror, or torture,
Oh my brother, I’ve come to take it as my own,
my distant home, where everything is right.
That  imperial kingdom is rich and secure,
where none are third or second – all are one.
Its food and drink are famous, and those who live there
dwell in satisfaction and in wealth.
They do this or that, they walk where they wish,
they stroll through fabled palaces unchallenged.
Oh, says Ravidas, a tanner now set free,
those who walk besides me are my friends.
(Hawley 2005:333-334)