In both, a relatively stable subject invests objects with new statuses
while also being aware of a plurality of lifestyles.
Two things should be added here. First, this is very different
from the claims that recognition is a post-Enlightenment concept,
replacing the codes of honour, or that the idea of mutual recognition
only emerges in the nineteenth century. While our third paradigm
represents a modern concept of recognition, it is only one sub-species
among the cluster of concepts and conceptions investigated in this
study. Its link with modernity is found neither in the rejection of
honour nor in the affirmation of mutuality, but in the Enlightenment
view of personal conviction.
Second, ourfirst and second paradigms do not simply rule out the
claims of toleration. They would probably rule out the strongest
variants of Forst, such as the idea of reciprocal esteem (cf. section
1.4). If we look at the conceptual world of the LatinRecognitions, for
instance, it would probably allow the variants that Forst calls‘per-
mission’and‘co-existence’.^21 Although the author ofRecognitions
clearly prefers the message of the True Prophet, other things are
permitted to happen and the protagonists must practise their faith
within the coexistence of many ideologies. Obviously, the explicit
relationship between recognition and toleration only becomes crucial
in our study after Locke. For this reason, the times of thefirst and
second paradigms would need more study in this regard.
4.2.9. Earlier Theological StudiesSome recent theological literature on recognition was introduced in
sections 1.3 and 3.6. At this point, it can be compared to our results.
I willfirst discuss attempts employing philosophical theology and
then continue to ecumenical dialogue. The studies by Henriksen,
Hector, and Werbick^22 are concerned with the theological reception
of the modern debates since Taylor, Honneth, and Ricoeur. The
historical and conceptual resources of religious recognition are not
attended to in these works. An awareness of these resources would in
my view considerably deepen the valuable insights gained in these
works. While Gregory Walter helpfully focuses on the notion of the
(^21) Forst 2003, 42–8.
(^22) Henriksen 2009; Hector 2011; Werbick 2000. Cf. sections 1.3 and 3.6.
Recognition in Religion 217