Phenomenology versus Historicism

Abstract

Introduction The purpose of this essay is to demonstrate that phenomenological approaches, which include the significance of constructed meanings and symbolic values of events and personalities in their understanding, cannot be reconciled with historicism and positivist accounts of history. Phenomenological accounts of religious issues are imbued with metaphysical significance and are sensitive to discursive constructions of reality and history. To the practitioners of this perspective the beliefs and values of the subject are as important as the sequence of events in histoq. Indeed, for them, the very idea of history is dependent on the way the subject envisions it. The historicists on the other hand see history itself as the driving force behind social constructions of meanings and seek to identify objective forces in order to account for the emergence of beliefs and meanings. Thus, while phenomenologists use values to “understand” history, historicists use history to “explain” values. This paper posits that the significant difference in the treatment of “subjectivity” and its impact on religious beliefs and practices in these two approaches cannot be reconciled. This paper also examines Mircea Eliade’s contention that these two approaches can be reconciled and frnds that claim does not stand up to the case at hand. In order to contrast the differences in the phenomenological and historicist accounts and also to test Eliade’s contentions, this paper employs the Shi’i idea of Imamate as a case study. The findings of this paper are germane to all religious issues, such as Muslim beliefs about the divine nature of the Qur’an and the miracles performed by Prophets. At a basic level the discussion in this paper deals with the fundamental challenge ...