Normative Elements in Eliade's Phenomenological Understanding of Symbolism

Of course, Eliade’s analysis and understanding of religious symbolism is not without its problems and its critics. Robert Baird’s critique of 1970 was one of the earliest and clearest of these, with specific relevance to homo religiosus and symbolism. Baird is apparently sympathetic to Claas Jouco Bleeker’s claim that the History of Religions is an empirical discipline without any philosophical aspirations. Baird states that for Eliade, “[n]ot only are the hierophanies which he describes hierophanies for those involved, but they are in fact hierophanies,” and thus a shift has been made “from the apparently descriptive to the normative ... an ontology has been posited from the start.” However, one must wonder whether this is not necessarily the case with any phenomenological analysis. Any phenomenon, x, is not only an x for those involved but is in fact an x (that is, a phenomenal x). So no ontology is necessarily posited but the apprehension of an ontology by the subject who experiences the x. Thus the apprehension of beauty in certain objects—especially if this experience is repeated commonly in a social group—is in fact the presence of beauty. It could thus remain descriptive and avoid normativity except the claim that such experiences do indeed occur for certain subjects and are in fact apprehended as revealing ontology. Baird’s criticism was first published in The Union Seminary Quarterly Review 25/4 (1970 ): 505–16 and included as “Phenomenological Understanding: Mircea Eliade,” in Baird’s book, Category Formation and the History of Religion , 86–91 (The Hague: Mouton, 1971). All rights reserved. Copyright© 1971 by Mouton de Gruyter. Reprinted by permission of Mouton de Gruyter.