promise, he regards this as very similar to gift exchange.^23 As I will
argue in more detail in section 4.3, a more differentiated view regarding
linguistic categories can illuminate the specificnatureofreligious
recognition.
Veronika Hoffmann clearly moves the discussion from the mere
reception of contemporary philosophy towards a proper consider-
ation of existing theological resources. As she adopts the ideas of
Ricoeur, Hénaff, and Bedorf and interprets traditional religious issues
through them, her study remains very different from ours. At the
same time, interesting parallels with the present study can be
observed. Hoffmann underlines the necessity of reciprocal moves in
issues of recognition.^24 This is in keeping with the historical insights
of our study, since religious recognition almost always occurs in
terms of mutuality, although this mutuality seldom means equality.
Likewise, the non-economic character of this mutuality is signifi-
cant in both our study and Hoffmann.^25 Especially in the second
paradigm, the emerging social bond is not economic in the sense of
buying and selling. Acts of recognition do not manifest economy or
patronage but they are, like the favours or benefits in Seneca’s dis-
cussion, acts that constitute the social bond and its participants. At
this point, however, my results are slightly different from those of
Hoffmann. Because her interpretation follows Hénaff and Bedorf so
closely, she does not pay detailed attention to the constitution of
participants in the acts of recognition. In addition, the historical
fact that thefirst and second paradigms reserve the term‘recognition’
for upward acts changes some premises that are formulated with the
help of modern authors.
In ourfirst and second paradigms, the act of recognition is a cause
to which the identity of the recognizer relates as its effect. Given this,
Hoffmann’s claim of‘creative misrecognition’in the divine act of
justification^26 assumes an exaggerated stability in the recognizer, the
recognizee, and the act of recognition. The idea of creative misrecog-
nition may capture some features of the third paradigm with its
more stable recognizer. Even here, however, the recognizee emerges
after the act of recognition as its effect. Rather than misrecognition,
the effect could be described as transformation.
(^23) Walter 2013. Cf. section 1.3. (^24) Hoffmann 2013, 285–315, 409–64.
(^25) Hoffmann 2013, 300. (^26) Hoffmann 2013, 321–2.
218 Recognition and Religion