In this book, Marianne Moyaert develops a new interreligious appropriation of Paul Ricoeur’s hermeneutical philosophy. Viewed in context of his philosophical, anthropological, and ethical work, Ricoeur’s fragmentary reflections on the encounters between religions provide insights on global cooperation practices and religious identity concerns.

In this article I will reflect on interreligious dialogue and the tensive relation between openness and identity from a theological perspective. First, I consider the so‐called theology of religions and the threefold soteriological typology of exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralism. Second, I address one of the main criticisms of this approach, namely that the soteriological approach amounts to a perversion of the virtue of openness. This critique is articulated especially within particularism, a model which sets out to move beyond the soteriological (...) fixation of the classical theology of religions. Because this relatively new model has not yet been analyzed systematically in the relevant literature, I will analyze some of its main tenets. I focus especially on the way this model sets out to alter the terms of the discussion on the dialogical tension between openness and commitment by claiming that hermeneutical openness should precede soteriological appreciation. Third, I turn to comparative theology as a fertile expression of particularism. Comparative theology presents itself as a genuinely adequate way to understand and appreciate the otherness of the religious other without losing sight of one's own identity. Moreover, comparative theology gives a new twist to the discussion on the dialogical tension between openness and commitment. Whereas the classical theology of religions seems to be actuated by the conviction that it is both possible and necessary to come to a final and definite soteriological appreciation of the religions, comparative theology sees interreligious encounter first and foremost as an ongoing conversational process, which can yield preliminary results only. It is my contention that this marks the nature of real and authentic dialogue. (shrink)

The present contribution focuses on the place of religion in the public domain and revolves around three concepts: vulnerability, recognition and tragedy. Focusing on these three notions, I will endeavour to shed some light on the complex relationship between religion and the public arena. More specifically, I will draw attention to the fact that the struggle for recognition can often lead to tragedy. There is no adequate political solution to this problem. The reason for this is that the nature of (...) the recognition religious people desire differs from that which the political system seems to be able to offer. Nevertheless, and I hope to elaborate this in what follows, an appropriate answer to this problem needs to be found, since the danger exists that the struggle for recognition might derail . It is in this perspective that I turn to religion. Whereas politics manoeuvres within the domain of solvable problems, religion offers people a framework to deal appropriately with problems for which no solution appears to exist, or at least not an immediate one. In situations of inner conflict, religion can open up perspectives of hope for solidarity. (shrink)

This article focuses on multiculturalism in the context of present-day societies and the need to incorporate minorities within a reframed social order. In his critical theory, Axel Honneth rightly draws attention to the idea of the moral grammar of struggles for recognition. Analyzing his theory in depth, the article shows that Honneth underestimates the violent power of ideological discourse in marginalizing and excluding society’s others, e.g. cultural minorities. It then puts forward an alternative approach based on Ricœur’s creative and original (...) reflections on ideology and utopia. For the incorporation of cultural minorities to occur, the symbolic order of society needs to be critiqued, transformed and expanded. From this perspective, the author highlights the subversive and transformative strength of utopian counter-narratives. The latter form a vital resource for cultural minorities in their struggle for recognition. (shrink)

This article reflects on the struggle for recognition, in particular on the question of how to avoid people becoming battle-weary. Where do people find the strength to continue this struggle without lapsing into violence? These are questions which we derive from one of Paul Ricoeur's latest publications Course of Recognition. Ricoeur claims that the only way to avoid the struggle for recognition degenerating into violent conflicts, is to place it in a horizon of hope – the hope that the struggle (...) does not have the final word on interpersonal relations. In this article we take up Ricoeurs suggestion and elaborate it successively from a broad religious perspective and a Christian-Biblical perspective. This also allows us to develop new anthropological insights concerning the Struggle for Recognition. (shrink)

Even though most people nowadays endorse to the necessity and importance of interreligious dialogue, opinions differ concerning the precise interpretation of the dialogic event. The most fundamental issue remains the dialogical tension between identity and alterity. How can we combine the engagement of religious faith with the openness to the other? At first sight, the pluralistic theology offers the most acceptable answer to this question. Pluralists are convinced that the success of the interreligious dialogue depends on the readiness of the (...) religious traditions and their adherents to abandon all absolute truth claims. However, the pluralistic project is criticized heavily due to a lack of consideration for the particularity of the religious identity. Many believers do not recognize themselves in the pluralistic interpretation of their religion. In the following article I will first explain the basic principle of the pluralistic epistemology, next I will establish the pluralistic contribution to the interreligious dialogue. In third instance, I will formulate some specific Christian critics to the pluralistic project, which can be traced back to a lack of insight in the particularity of the religious identity. In fourth instance I will try to elucidate this assessment by clarifying some aspects of religious identity. I conclude with the position that, if interreligious dialogue wants to be an event between believers of different religious traditions and not in the first place between academics, it should abandon the pluralistic discourse and accept the truly irrevocable religious diversity. (shrink)

ABSTRACTRicoeur’s proposal to understand the encounter between religions as a practice of ‘linguistic hospitality’ has appealed to many interreligious scholars. Usually, religious texts are at the heart of interreligious hermeneutics, turning Ricoeur’s linguistic hospitality into a practice of interreligious cross-reading. Recently, due to the influence of material and ritual scholars, the textual focus of interreligious hermeneutics has been criticized. Two criticisms are prominent. First, the assumption that understanding religious otherness is best mediated via language and texts leads religious scholars to (...) minimize the ‘non-textual’ practices in religious life. Second, interreligious interpreters mistakenly assume that they can read all meaningful action and ritual performances, especially as texts. This assumption leads to a textualization of the world and does not take into account that there might be other ‘vehicles of intelligibility’ apart from texts. In this article, I explore to what extent the criticisms raised against Ricoeur’s interreligious hermeneutics are fair. I have learned from Ricoeur the importance of mediating between seemingly opposed positions, and I seek to follow his example in this article. (shrink)

SUMMARYCultural and religious differences often lead to conflicts, which sometimes even degenerate into violence. This situation has triggered a debate among universalists and particularists on the possibility of a global ethic. This article does not repeat the discussion here between universalism and particularism as such. Rather, its aim is to shed new light on this discussion by turning to the French philosopher Paul Ricœur, one of the great minds of the twentieth century.My starting point is Ricœur's discussion with Hans Küng (...) on the ‘Declaration Towards a Global Ethic’. This discussion is not very well known and has, to my knowledge, not been commented upon by a third party. In this discussion Ricœur immediately signals his “inner resistance” to Küng's project. First, Ricœur states that the global ethic amounts to a “disembodied formalism” because it is founded on too radical a distinction between universal formal norms and particular religious convictions. Moreover, Küngs global ethic also neglects the challenge posed by the application of these formal principles to the ethical complexities with which people are confronted in life. After having explored these objections, I will examine how Ricœur develops an original perspective concerning the contemporary challenge of ethical diversity and the tension between particularity and universality. In this regard, especially his so-called little ethics deserves our attention.In unpacking and analyzing Ricœur's ethical reflections and elaborating on them in view of the context of diversity, I hope not only to argue how this Ricœurian perspective sheds new light on the discussion concerning the possibility of a global ethic but also to contribute in a very specific way to Ricœur studies. In this sense, the following article can also be read as an intercultural or interreligious appropriation of Ricœur's ethical reflections. (shrink)

This article reflects on the struggle for recognition, in particular on the question of how to avoid people becoming battle-weary. Where do people find the strength to continue this struggle without lapsing into violence? These are questions which we derive from one of Paul Ricoeur’s latest publications Course of Recognition. Ricoeur claims that the only way to avoid the struggle for recognition degenerating into violent conflicts, is to place it in a horizon of hope—the hope that the struggle does not (...) have the final word on interpersonal relations. In this article we take up Ricoeurs suggestion and elaborate it successively from a broad religious perspective and a Christian-Biblical perspective. This also allows us to develop new anthropological insights concerning the Struggle for Recognition. (shrink)

Active pluralism, an idea advanced by Steve Stevaert, former leader of the Flemish Socialist political party, has been commonly accepted among most progressive citizens. It is now a political, social and pedagogical ‘hot’ topic. Anyone wishing to be perceived as ‘open’ pleads earnestly for interreligious dialogue. Instead of passive tolerance, which too often leads to indifference, the other should now be entitled to our active concern. What is more, it benefits society as a whole. Congenial as this is, the plea (...) for active pluralism remains rather vague. This vagueness has the advantage that everyone can embrace active pluralism and be a winner. However, if active pluralism is to be more than just the latest novelty it will require conceptual clarity. Only then can it be assessed on whether it succeeds in offering a better alternative to passive pluralism. In this article I reflect on the Flemish discussion on active pluralism and intend to articulate the philosophical, anthropological and hermeneutical presuppositions underlying the concept. To do so, I take as my starting point the recent publication by the philosopher Guido Vanheeswijck, Tolerantie en actief pluralisme. De afgewezen erfenis van Erasmus, More en Gillis. (shrink)

The pluralist hypothesis as popularised by John Hick, which postulates the rough equality of religious traditions, has gained wide approval especially within interreligious circles. Nonetheless, Hick remains one of the most contested philosophers of religion of the twentieth century. Most notably, theologians have been highly critical; their polemical reactions to his pluralist hypothesis reveal their irritation. The question is: from where does this irritation arise? Why are these theologians so offended by a philosopher? How are we to understand the polemics (...) that have arisen in response to Hick’s pluralism? In this article I suggest that the controversy surrounding Hick’s pluralist hypothesis relates to the way he develops his philosophical reflections in a theological direction. There is something wrong with the way he divides the roles between philosophy and theology. I regard the discussion, which emerged from Hicks philosophy of religion as a prototype for a reflection on the complex relation between both disciplines. (shrink)