In this manner, the recognizer starts the process with her act of
recognition, which provides cognitive access to its object. The third
paradigm is analogical to those modern non-religious views that
understand the recognizer as a power holder whose act constitutes
the recognizee. In these modern views, thefirst performative act
of recognition concerns the status of the recognizee rather than the
self-understanding of the recognizer. After thisfirst act, however,
mutuality and reciprocal influence enter the stage.
After the existentialfirst act, the recognizer begins to understand that
the higher reality has already been there, preparing the way towards the
act of existential attachment. In addition to this, authors like Karl Barth,
who are well aware of classical theological traditions, also include
elements of thefirst and second paradigms in their discussion, so that
their overall view is not merely that of existential attachment.
Schleiermacher’s complex view can be counted among the repre-
sentatives of the third paradigm. For him, the feeling of absolute
dependence is something that needs to be‘recognized’. While this
act is introspective rather than upward, it fulfils purposes that are
similar to Spalding’s upward existential attachment. Religious reality
can be properly understood when it is approached from the basic act
of recognition. Likewise, Schleiermacher’s downward act of recogni-
tion in justification contains aspects of a condition of possibility. The
birth of true faith and the right relationship to God presuppose a
divine downward recognition. The defining feature of existential
attachment is thus not its‘upward’character, but its role as the
theological precondition of later religious insights.
We will discuss the nature of these three paradigms in more detail in
section 4.2. Here they have been introduced as the summary of the
historical Chapters 2 and 3. In some sense, thefirst conversion narra-
tive paradigm already contains everything as a seed or root of all later
elaborations, since it can accommodate heteronomy and identity
change and outline a complex interplay between the recognizer and
the recognizee. On the other hand, it remains rudimentary.
The second paradigm is the most elaborated one, representing
the classical doctrinal development of Western theology. While
both thefirst and the second paradigms focus on the recognizing
subject, the second paradigm involves the most elaborate analysis of
the heteronomous recognizer. The second paradigm manifests very
clearly that such heteronomy is not a post-Hegelian invention but an
integral part of classical Christian doctrine. With regard to the second
Recognition in Religion 199