The Analytical Potential of the Research Category “Religious Other”: Towards the Formulation of the Problem

The paper addresses the problematization of the analytical category religious other and its relation to the category cultural other. It focuses on whether it is justified to distinguish the “religious” as a specific mode of othering, or whether it should rather be seen as a variation of cultural alterity. The study partly draws on the censorship files of the Committee of April 2nd, 1848, where the practice of controlling publications reveals the mechanisms of constructing religious difference. Particular attention is given to the situations in which the secular, claiming the role of a neutral arbiter, becomes involved in the binary opposition of the secular and the spiritual closely linked to the sacred/ profane divide and turns into a full participant in the dynamics of othering within both secular and post-secular contexts. The paper also considers the significance of this analytical category in relation to such notions as heterodoxy, schism, superstition, and heresy. The analysis of the nineteenth-century materials thus raises a broader question: whether a distinct analytical category of the “religious other” is necessary for describing historical processes, or if the concept of cultural alterity is sufficient. The analysis of the applicability of the religious other category to modernity identifies two areas: the transformation of relations between believers of different religions (interreligious dialogue), as well as the problems of interaction between religious and secular consciousness. The religious other may be perceived as an “opponent”, “interlocutor”, “neighbor”, or “partner”. The latter two forms are of particular importance for modern interreligious dialogue or “spiritual diplomacy”, when believers of different religions emphasize peacemaking and cooperation for the common good.

1. Braginskaya N.V., Seleznev M.G., Shmaina-Velikanova A.I. (2016). NOMOS and NOMOI in the Second Book of the Maccabees. RSUH/RGGU Bulletin: “Literary Teory. Linguistics. Cultural Studies”, Series, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 9–38. (in Russian). DOI: 10.28995/2686-7249-2016-6-9-38.

2. Dolbilov M. (2010). Russian Land, Foreign Faith: Ethno-Confessional Policy The Empire’s Ethno-Confessional Policy in Lithuania and Belarus under Alexander II. Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie. (in Russian).

3. Eliade M. (1994). The Sacred and the Profane. Moscow: MSU. (in Russian).

4. Etkind A. (2023). Internal colonization. Russia’s imperial experience. Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie (in Russian). (Included by the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation in the register of foreign agents).

5. Freeze G. (2017). Religious policy of the Russian Empire in the Baltics. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. History, vol. 62, no. 4, pp. 777–806 (in Russian). DOI: 10.21638/11701/spbu02.2017.407.

6. Gessen Yu.I. (1914). The History of Jews in Russia. Saint Petersburg: Pravo, IV+346 pp.

7. Goryunov S. (2021). Between Polemics and Tolerance: Constructing the Religious Other Through the Censorship of Nicholas I. State, Religion and Church in Russia and Worldwide, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 247–276 (in Russian). DOI: 10.22394/2073-7203-2021-39-2-247-276.

8. Goryunov S.A. (2024а). Separation of Censorship and Book Culture into “Secular” and “Spiritual”: In Historical Perspective (from the “Spiritual Regulation” to the “Era of Censorship Terror”). Vestnik of Moscow State Linguistic University. Humanities. No. 7(888), pp. 159–166 (in Russian).

9. Goryunov S.A. (2024b). Semantic adventures of concepts: censorship record-keeping as a source for researching historical semantics of concepts (based on the sources of the “Committee of April 2nd, 1848”). Herald of Culturology. No. 2(109), pp. 59–91 (in Russian). DOI: 10.31249/hoc/2024.02.03.

10. Klier J.D. (2011). Blood libel in the Russian Orthodox tradition. In: Dmitriev M.V. (ed.), Jews and Christians in Orthodox Societies in Eastern Europe. Moscow: Indrik, pp. 181–205 (in Russian).

11. Melnik S.V. (2022). Interreligious Dialogue: Typologization, Methodology, Forms of Implementation. Moscow: INION RAS, 398 pp. (in Russian).

12. Milbank J. (2022). Religion, Science and Magic: Rewriting the Agenda. In: Harrison P., Milbank J. (eds.). After Science and Religion: Fresh Perspectives from Philosophy and Theology, Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press, pp. 75–143.

13. Moyaert M. (2013). Interreligious Di-alogue. In: Cheetham D., Pratt D., Thomas D. (eds.). Understanding Interreligious Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 193–217.

14. Müller M. (1882). Introduction to the Science of Religion: Four Lectures Delivered at the Royal Institution in February and May, 1870. London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 341 pp.

15. Otto R. (2008) The Holy. An Inquiry into the Non-Rational Factor in the Idea of the Divine and Its Relation to the Rational. St. Petersburg: Saint Petersburg State University, 272 pp. (transl. into Russian).

16. Shchipkov V.A. (2024). The Genealogy of Secular Discourse. Moscow: MGIMO-University, 755 pp. (in Russian).

17. Skinner Q. (2018). Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas. In: Atnashev T., Velizhev M. (eds.). Cambridge School: Theory and Practice of Intellectu-al History. Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, pp. 35–81 (in Russian).

18. Tagancev N.S. (1886). The 1885 Code of Criminal and Correctional Punishments. Saint Petersburg: M. Stasyulevich Printing House, 714 pp. (in Russian).

19. Talking Dialogue… (2021). Lehmann K. (ed.). Talking Dialogue: Eleven Episodes in the History of the Modern Interreligious Dialogue Movement. Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter, 377 pp.

20. Tolstoy I.I., Gessen Yu.I. (1907). Facts and Thoughts. The Jewish Question in Russia. Saint Petersburg: Obshchestvennaya Pol’za, 220 pp. (in Russian).

21. Uzlaner D.A. (2008). Disenchanting Discourse: “Religious” and “Secular” in the Language of the Modern Age. Logos. No. 4, pp. 140–159 (in Russian).

22. Uzlaner D.A. (2019). The End of Religion? The History of Secularization Theory. Moscow: HSE Publishing House, 240 pp. (in Russian).

23. Vishlenkova E.V. (1998). Religious Policy in Russia, First Quarter of the 19th Century. Doctoral dissertation. Kazan: Kazan Federal University, 466 pp. (in Russian).