May 2013 Philippe Bornet, University of Lausanne

A Necessary Evil ?

The Constitutive Role of Comparison in the Study

of Religions

1
Summary

1. Introduction: Francis Wilford’s story

2. Comparing comparisons
 Genetic
 Analogical
 Recent perspectives (Smith, Paden)
3. In practice: “hospitality” as a comparative entry
 Building a comparison (what/how to compare?)
 Specific examples from brahmanical and rabbinic contexts
 Results and reflexive remarks (why to compare?)
4. Conclusion: comparison as a tool for “de-provincializing” the
study of religions
2
Genetic comparison

Context A Context B

Risks :
-Interpreting similarities between A and B as the products of an influence,
discarding the possibility of independent development
-Privileging A as the exclusive source of influences observed in context B
-Privileging similarities over differences

3
Analogical comparison

tertium comparationis

Context A Context B
Risks :
-Ontological status of the tertium comparationis ?
-Failing to recognize that abstract categories / taxonomies reflect the
interests of the scholar
4
Classification of religions according to C. P. Tiele (1830-
1902)

5
Analogical comparison

tertium comparationis

Context A Context B
Risks :
-Ontological status of the tertium comparationis ?
-Failing to recognize that abstract categories / taxonomies reflect the interests of the
scholar
-Decontextualization of each compared item
-Insufficient attention to differences between A and B, because of a deductive 6
approach seeking to find instances of the tertium comparationis in A and B
“For someone in the human sciences, comparison is our form of
experimentation. We are not allowed to experiment on human beings,
fortunately. But if I am right, what we do with comparison is to take
something out of its place, something else out of its place, and put
them in a place that is in our head. That results in disturbing the
environment of that thing, as the scientists do when they alter the
environment in an experiment. They torture the elements so as to
make them speak. Our way to doing it is by putting them by
neighbors that they never intended to have, and to see what happens.”

Source: Smith, Jonathan Z., “Interview avec J. Z. Smith”, Asdiwal 5, 2012.

7
“When I hear a Sioux spokesman say that the buffalo are not gone
because they can never die, I hear a stream of associations like, ‘there
was never a time when He was not,’ or ‘the holy cemetery of Najaf has
always existed,’ or ‘the Vedas (or the Qu’ran or the Torah) are the eternal
blueprint of the world,’ or, according to President Bush, ‘Freedom is
given by God from the beginning.’ No one would say these are all the
same, but they all do bear a point of resemblance relative to the theme of
mythicizing sacred objects by understanding them as existing at the
foundation of the world. They are all something we’ve seen before.”

Source: Paden, William, “Tracks and themes in a shifting landscape: reflections on 50 years of the
study of religion”, Religion 43(1), 2013, p. 98.

8
“The etic viewpoint studies behavior as from outside of a
particular system, and as an essential approach to an alien
system. The emic viewpoint results from studying behavior as
from inside the system”. “The etic approach treats all cultures or
languages – or a selected group of them – at one time. It might
well be called ‘comparative’. […] The emic approach is, on the
contrary, culturally specific, applied to one language or culture at
a time.”

Source: Pike, Kenneth, Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of

Human Behavior, p. 37.

9
[Comparisons] “of weaker and more modest sort that (a) focus on
a relatively small number of comparanda that the researcher can
study closely; (b) are equally attentive to relations of similarity
and those of difference; (c) grant equal dignity and intelligence to
all parties considered and (d) are attentive to the social, historical
and political contexts and subtexts of religious and literary texts.”

Source: Lincoln, Bruce, “Theses on comparison” in Gods and Demons, Priests and
Scholars, Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 2012, p. 123.

10
 Building a comparison

• Marcel Detienne, Comparing the Incomparable (2000): a

comparative entry that is not too general but not too narrow
either (cf. the act of “founding”)
Building a comparison

Choice of rabbinic and brahmanical texts:

•Provides leverage to question certain assumptions derived from a Christian

model of religion in the study of religions
“Indeed, I would suggest that the comparative study of these
traditions [i.e. ‘Judaisms’ and ‘Hinduisms’] is of significance
precisely because it provides the basis for developing an
alternative model of ‘religious tradition’ founded on categories
other than Christian-based categories of interpretation that have
tended to dominate our scholarly inquiries.”

Source: Holdrege, Barbara, Veda and Torah, New York: SUNY, 1996, p. ix.

13
Building a comparison

Choice of rabbinic and brahmanical texts:

•Provides leverage to question certain assumptions derived from a Christian

model of religion in the study of religions
•Availability of sources that belong to similar discursive genre (“normative
texts”)
– Rabbinic literature
– Dharmasūtra / Dharmaśāstra

•Involves a class of elites that legitimates its authority through the exclusive
possession of revealed texts
– cf. Brian Stock, “Textual community” as “a small group of literati whose fellowship and
communal life is based on a shared devotion to an authoritative text or set of texts.”
•Relates to socio-historical contexts in which “tradition” underwent major
changes (destruction of the Temple, changes in the scheme of sponsoring)
Main characteristics of the documents

Rabbinic texts Indian dharma texts

Date Approx. 200 – 600 Approx. -300 – 300
Authorship Palestinian and Babylonian Rabbis Learned Brahmins
Audience Learned people, other Rabbis Mostly learned Brahmins
Main Mishna, Talmud Yerushalmi, Talmud Āpastamba Dharma Sūtra, Baudhāyana
documents Bavli, Derekh ´Ereṣ Rabbah, Derekh Dharma Sūtra, Gautama Dharma Sūtra,
´Ereṣ Zuta. Vasiṣṭha Dharma Sūtra, Mānava Dharma
Śāstra
Notion of ´akhsanya, hakhnasat ha-´oreḥin ātithya (argha)
“hospitality”,
main terms
Hospitality Cooking, domestic rituals, groups, Cooking, correct behavior, domestic
linked with hierarchies, education, purity rules, rituals, hierarchies, persons, purity rules,
(in the texts) system of merits, Temple rituals sacrifices, system of merits, varṇa
Relations of hospitality: rabbinic context

→ Host Rabbis (rabbi, « lay people » (yiśra´el, Foreigners / « pagans »

↓ Guest rav, talmid yehudi, `am ha-´areṣ, (min, ṣeduqi, ger, goy,
ḥakam, etc.) etc.) nokhri, `oved avoda
zara, `akkum, kuti)

Rabbis

« lay people »

Foreigners /
« pagans »
BT Berakhot 10b (transl. Epstein)

“That passeth by us continually (tamid) (2 R 4, 9). R. Jose son of

R. Ḥanina said in the name of R. Eliezer b. Jacob: If a man
(´adam) entertains (me´areaḥ) a scholar (talmid ḥakham) in his
house and lets him enjoy his possessions, Scripture accounts it to
him as if he had sacrificed the daily burnt-offering (temidin).”
Hospitality as a virtue

• Ritual aspect of the social interaction and comparison with

Temple sacrifices

• Hospitality associated to an elaborated system of “merits”

• Specific position of rabbis and relation to the study of Torah

The dangers of hospitality

• `am ha-´areṣ: the “ignoramus,” whose companionship is

discouraged

• Non-Jews (goyim) and “pagans” (nokhrim): questions of

purity, intermarriage, but also friendship and necessity of
keeping good social relations among neighbors

• Situation of a non-Jewish host inviting a Jewish guest more

problematic than the opposite case
Relations of hospitality: brahmanical context

→ Host dvija śūdra, cāṇḍāla, etc.

↓ Guest
Brahmins kṣatriya, vaiśya

Brahmins

kṣatriya, vaiśya

śūdra, cāṇḍāla, etc.

Āpastamba Dharma Sūtra 2.(3).6.4–5. (transl. Olivelle)

“3 A guest (atithi) comes blazing like a fire. 4 When someone

has studied one branch from each of the Vedas in accordance
with the Law, he is called a ‘vedic scholar’ (śrotriya). 5 When
such a man comes to the home of a householder devoted to the
Law proper to him – and he comes for no other purpose than to
discharge the Law – then he is called a ‘guest’ (atithi).”
Hospitality as a virtue

• Atithi (guest) as a technical term reserved to Brahmins

• Relation between domestic hospitality and solemn (śrauta)

sacrifices

• Hospitality as one of the “great sacrifices” (mahāyajña)

prescribed daily to a householder (gṛhastha)

• Symbolical consequences of hospitality given to a atithi

Mānava Dharma Śāstra 3.110; 112. (transl. Olivelle)

“110 A Kṣatriya is not called a ‘guest’ (anatithi) in the house of a

Brahmin; nor is a Vaiśya, a Śūdra, a friend, a relative, or an elder.
[…]. 112 Even when a Vaiśya or a Śūdra arrives at his house
fulfilling the conditions of a guest, he should show kindness and
feed him along with his servants.”
The dangers of hospitality

• Hospitality to a non-Brahmin: a possibility (vikalpa) but not

an obligation (vidhi)

• The system of “leftovers” (ucchiṣṭa)

• Some cases explicitly excluded: contacts with members of

“heterodox” movements
What then?

• In principle: nothing is “incomparable”

• Comparison as a way out of exceptionalism or exemplarity (cf.
Detienne)
Comparing normative discourses

redactors
redactors
supposed world
supposed world

Dharma Sūtra
Talmudim
What then?

• In principle: nothing is “incomparable”

• Comparison as a way out of exceptionalism or exemplarity (cf.
Detienne)
• To produce fresh insights on a topic that has already been
studied in a given socio-historical context
The socio-historical level (to each context
respectively)

Similarities
•Process of ritualization of domestic practices and “domesticization” of
ritual practices
•Accent on the roles of “elites”, guardians of the tradition, as well as
the preservation of knowledge
•…

Divergences
•Historical scheme of the “domesticization” clear in the rabbinic
context (disappearance of sacrifices), much fuzzier in the brahmanical
context
•Model of the “ideal society” (egalitarian or not, commensality vs.
sharing a meal according to a predefined order of precedence)
•…
What then?

• In principle: nothing is “incomparable”

• Comparison as a way out of exceptionalism or exemplarity (cf.
Detienne)
• To produce fresh insights on a topic that has already been
studied in a given socio-historical context
• To develop theoretical insights, potentially useful for the study
of other contexts
On a theoretical level

• Between gift and hospitality : re-assessing M. Mauss

– Hospitality as a modality of gift, implying some kind of

reciprocity (direct or indirect)

– Specific features of hospitality (time, space) that

complicate the system

– Creation of solidarity vs. affirmation of hierarchies

On a theoretical level

• Cross-cultural practices of hospitality

– Welcome and farewell formulae

– Arrival hour, order of precedence
– Comfort, seats
– Menu, preparation of food
– Number of guests
– Duration of hospitality
– Position of the actors in the domestic space
– Threshold, between “exterior” and domestic space
– …
What then?

• In principle: nothing is “incomparable”

• Comparison as a way out of exceptionalism or exemplarity (cf.
Detienne)
• To produce fresh insights on a topic that has already been
studied in a given socio-historical context
• To develop theoretical insights, potentially useful for the study
of other contexts
• To refine and improve the analytical terminology
On the level of analytical categories

• Difficulty to apply certain classical heuristic devices of the

study of religions, e.g.
– Distinction “sacred” / “profane”
– Practice or law vs. Doctrine and belief
– Nucleus of the family and domestic space rather than individual actors

• Notion of “sacrifice” (cf. R. Girard)

• Distinction between “charity” and “hospitality”

Comparison as a tool for “de-provincializing” the
study of religions

 Even “biased” comparisons have contributed to enrich the

analytical toolbox of scholars of religion, by turning “religion”
into an academic problem

 Not comparing is dangerous as well…

 Inevitability of comparison and necessity of self-conscious

comparative works

34
Some recent comparative works
 Holdrege, Barbara, Veda and Torah: transcending the textuality of
scripture, Albany (NY): State University of New York Press, 1996.
 Pollock, Sheldon, The Language of the Gods in the World of Men,
Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006.
 McClymond, Kathryn, Beyond sacred violence: a comparative study of
sacrifice, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 2008.
 Freiberger, Oliver, Der Askesediskurs in der Religionsgeschichte: eine
vergleichende Untersuchung brahmanischer und frühchristlicher Texte,
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2009.
 Bornet, Philippe, Rites et pratiques de l’hospitalité : mondes juifs et
indiens anciens, Stuttgart: Steiner, 2010.

35
Thank you for your attention!

36