Grace M. Jantzen- What’s the Difference?

Knowledge and Gender in (Post) Modern

Philosophy of Religion

One might summarize Jantzen text as a systematic anatomy of a major cleavage where
the notion of gender plays the part of the “methodological scalpel”. The major dichotomy
between analytical (Anglo-American) and poststructuralist (Continental) paradigms is
approached by Jantzen in a comparative mainframe, design explain the structural
differences and their impact for the specific area of the philosophy of religion.

In my opinion, the author opposes the two major trends of the disciplinary field not
necessarily to build a rigid taxonomy, but to make visible different visions on the
important canonical concept such as: difference, God, reason, religion or gender.
Ultimately, Jantzen’s epistemological task is to fill the gap between Analytical and
Continental Philosophy of Religion by opening channels for inter-paradigmatic
communication and by setting the grounds for a process of conceptual acculturation
where themes and grids produced by Continental philosophy can be integrated within the
Analytical tradition.
The central question of this article seems to be: Is the Analytical tradition alone a fertile
ground for the development of a comprehensive philosophy of religion in the context of
post/ late modernity?

The first major theme of the article is represented by the claim that Anglo-American
philosophy of religion uses a restrictive definition of God and religion using as pillars the
traditional Christian theology. Therefore, the philosophical approach to religion remains
confined to a defense of the transcendence of God and to an inquiry about the rationality
of the subject-believer. Existence of God is regarded as an “ objective fact” and the
problem of justification appears to be primordial. The rationality of the subject is
considered an aprioric premise, and therefore, subjects as: ideology, power, gender
unconsciousness are not seriously taken into account by Anglo-American philosophy of
religion, considered to be highly speculative and impossible to be fully integrated in a
strictly argumentative and empirical mainframe.

1
The second theme of the article is organized around Jantzen’s plea for the Continental
philosophy as a movement of thought able to actively integrate crucial concepts derived
from the postmodern episteme. Works of Derrida, Lacan, Kristeva or Irigaray can serve
as theoretical landmarks for a new epistemology of difference which acknowledges the
importance of “ bastard” concepts such as: gender, unconsciousness ideology and
dominance for the field of philosophy of religion.
If we accept that psychoanalysis has a place in the explanatory frame of religious studies,
all previous certitudes are seriously shattered. Moreover, the appeal to socially
constructed, de-centered subject, structured simultaneously by power, culture, ideology
and gender opens the way for a hermeneutical critique of ideology. Moreover, in this
context, gender functions as the matrix difference which explain the essential masculine
construction-projection of civilization, religion and culture. A radical –and very fertile-
application of Lacanian pshichanalitical theory of desire and projection would be the
dismantlement of any claims of innate rationality of reality. Confronted with
unconsciousness, and ideology the traditionally rational and logical structures of the life-
world appears to be both the result of masculine repression of desire and the final product
of power games and domination structures.
The strong connection between unconscious, desire, power, ideology and knowledge
within the boundaries of philosophy itself makes the deconstruction of the “given” an
epistemological necessity not a simple trend or a fashion in the history of thought.
Jantzen’s defense of post structuralism starts from the presumption that gender and
ideology cannot be avoided as serious themes for any non-dogmatic and intellectually
responsible philosophical enterprise.

The third major theme of the text is represented by the reevaluation of understanding of
religion in the Continental thought.
Under a superficial analysis, post-structuralism can be regarded as relativist, anti-
religious school of thought heavily inspired by neo-Marxist radical rejection of all
religions as institutionalizations of political and ideological hegemony.
Probably the most salient contribution of Jantzen’s text is the break of this old stereotype
forged by the conservative tradition of thought in regard to post-structuralist philosophy.

2
In Jantzen’s opinion, despite the largely acceptance of Lacan’s definition of God as a
essentially masculine projection of the self embedded within original phallocratic model
of civilization, the Continental philosophy cannot be automatically rejected as a non/anti
religious paradigm.
On the contrary, religion is very present in the deconstructive bodies of work from Lacan
to Derrida and from Kristeva to Irigaray. The significant difference from the Anglo-
American thought is brought by a completely non-canonical definition of religion
employed by Continental philosophers. Religion and civilization are inseparable, ergo;
the narrow definition of religion in terms of “world religions” (Christianity, Islam,
Hinduism, Buddhism or Judaism) will no longer suffice in a post-metaphysical context.
Religion in many forms and reconfigurations is present everywhere in terms of
mythologies, symbolic frames, or forms of belonging. Secular new religions, tribal or
non-canonical religious beliefs should also be included in a systematic fashion into a
larger field of post-modern philosophy of religions.

Jantzen’s conclusion seems to be that the analytically justified isolationism of Anglo-

American philosophy of religion dominated by the cult of methodological accuracy and
the predisposition for conservative argumentative structures, cannot function as a proper
medium for an inclusive and open-ended philosophical reflection. Consequently, the
solution for the opening of the Analytical paradigm towards the post-modernity would be
an active dialogue with the Continental thought, a communicative action between
apparently incommensurable paradigms. As in the case of relationship between Western
and non-Western tradition, even within the seemingly unified Western thought, knowing
the difference remains the ultimate methodological imperative able to forge a new
epistemological context.