Phenomenology versus Historicism The Case of Imamate

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 ...