In the German-speaking area Burkhard Gladigow’s (2005: 289–301)
program, launched 1993–1995, for a religious history of Europe, aroused a
great deal of interest, especially since it encompassed the entire spectrum of
formal and informal (diffuse/invisible) systems of meaning–construction and
interpretation. This approach creates links to debates in sociology, e.g. on
‘invisible’ or ‘diffused’ religion (Cipriani 1988), or on ‘secular’ forms of reli-
giosity (Piette 1993), studies of the reception, appropriation and re-creation
of ‘other’ religions in European history (Stausberg 1998), media representation,
and migration and diasporas (e.g. Baumann 2003; Jacobsen and Kumar [eds]
2004; Vertovec 2004).
To some extent the study of European religious history intersects with the
blossoming study of Western esotericism (von Stuckrad 2005). There are now
three chairs (at EPHE, Amsterdam, and Exeter) in the area with related
MA-programs, a sub-department at the Faculty of Humanities at the University
of Amsterdam, a Centre at Exeter, a scholarly journal (Aries: Journal for the
Study of Western Esotericism; see Hanegraaff 2001), a massive dictionary
(Hanegraaff et al.[eds] 2005), and a professional association, the European
Society for the Study of Western Esotericism (founded 2005). Together with
Tim Jensen, Olav Hammer, known for his innovative approach to New Age
epistemologies (Hammer 2001), has founded a Research Network on European
History of Religions (NEUR), effectively combining the study of Western
esotericism and the religious history of Europe.
Given the current emphasis on dense contextualization, very few scholars
have dared to try their hand at a general or universal history of religions
(exceptions: Stolz 2001; Nesti 2005; Diez de Velasco 2006; Antes 2006). While
this reluctance is understandable, avoiding a broader or even a global
perspective obstructs our view on issues of global importance and possibly
relevant macro-perspectives (Krech 2006: 110–113). The history of religions,
it seems, has failed to pay attention to recent discussions on universal history
(e.g. Fuchs and Stuchtey [eds] 2002, 2003), which contributes to challenging
various ethnocentrisms. For obvious reasons, the project of reconsidering
macro-historical processes will preferably be attempted by groups of scholars
rather than lone individuals.
Since the collapse of phenomenology a new reigning paradigm has not arisen.
Several attempts were made to rehabilitate the study of religion under other
umbrellas, including anthropology, the social sciences, and Kulturwissenschaft.
In many ways, the diagnosis that Frank Whaling and Ursula King provided
roughly a quarter of a century ago still holds true: there is an ‘increasing
diversification of methodological discussion’ (Whaling 1984: 5) and a ‘state
of criticism and uncertainty’ (King 1984: 149)—the latter tendency being
intensified by feminism, postmodernism, and post-colonialism.
Philology is not rated highly these days, but it is still the backbone of much,
if not most, advanced scholarship in the field throughout Europe. Philologists
1111
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1011
1
2
3111
4 5 6 7 8 9
20111
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
30111
1
2
3
4
35
6
7
8
9
40111
42222
3
411
WESTERN EUROPE
37
