R E V I EW S Religion in v o l ution BY LIND H EUM N Rob e r t N . Bella h R E L I G I O N I N HUM N E VOLU TI O Ha r vard U n i ve r sity Press 2 1 1 784 pp., 39.95 clot h In an imervicw wirh Tricyck almosr a decade ago, c h e sociologisr of religion Roberr N. Bellah addressed a ce n tral prob l em-pcrhaps rhe central problem facing relig i ous people roday. O ur modern incellccrual inherirance demands a cr i tica ap pr oach ro received wisdom, yer fa i r h wou l d seem ro req ui re che opposice: cru sr in c he r el i abi li ry and a u r h o ri cariven ess of cr a di c i o n . How can we ap proach ch e st ud y o f r el i g i o n i n a way ch ar i s b or h a ffirm ac i v e a n d c ri t i ca ? Tr icycle as k ed . . B e ll a h, w h o i s wide l y r egar d e d as t h e pr ee mi n e nt fig ur e in h i s fie l d , ag r ec d th at pu tti n g o ur h a n ds over our ears is n ' t a n optio n fo r m odern rel i gious peop l e; we m u sr cr i t i que cradir i on rhoro u g hl y. B ur rhere is a rhi r d possibiliry, Bellah s u g- gesred. Taking a page fro m rhe French philosopher Paul Ricoeur , Bellah suggesred rhar we can move from an unquesrioning acceprance o f tradir i on rhrough a crirical invesr i garion and come out che orher side ro anorher srage of belief, a "sec ond naiveré." Second na i veré, he said, "accepts rhe crirical process , yer ' in and rhrough cr i ricism' ir l ers rhe symbols and narrar i ves embedded in cradirion speak again; i r li scens ro whac chcy are saying . " Bu e h ow do yo u do that T h e r e i s a scene i n thc fi l m ow - a b o u t r h e obscen i t y t ri al o f A ll en G in s- TR ICYCLC S LIMM LR ZOI. berg 's p oem i n whic h che prosecuror rurns ro li rerary criúc Mark Schorer and asks him to translace whar Ginsberg meanr when he wrote "angel heade d hi ps t e r s b ur nin g fo r ch e anc i em heave nl y c on n ec úo n ro c h e star r y d y n a m o i n t h e machi n ery o f n i g hr. " Sc h o r er r e p l i es, " Sir , y ou can 't rr a ns la r e p oer r y inr o p r ose . T h ac ' s w h y ir 's po e rr y . " Ju c l i e poeu y , sym b ols a n d na r ratives s p ea k r h e i r own l an g u age . And i n a n e r a of rationa li sm, rhese rypes o f cruthaccounts, especially in rhe realm of religion, are no longer our narive rongue. Symbols and narrarives may srill be speaking, bur for t he mosr par t we are meaning-monolinguiscs. Maybe you rhink rhe prosecuror was simply square . Then consider rhis. When you lea rn r har c he c r adi ti onal accounts o f che Budd h a's Life don'r line up well with the hisro r ical facrs - or for rha r marrer, when y l ea rn rhar che scr i prures ' claims ro h isro ri ca l accuracy a r e false or, ar best, re s r o n s ha ky groun d o you fccl you h ave l os e so m e th ing? Wh e n you ca k e rh ose acco unr s o ut o f yo u r caregory ma r k e d f ac es" an d put rh c m i m o o n e ma rk e d "sto ri es," did yo u mov e th e m u p or dow n p romo te o r d e more r h e m? Now, wh at h a p pe ns i f y u r h in k o f t h e m as " m yr h s"? H o w do you v a l ue th e m n ow? This i s j u st a s u rface sy mprom o f a profo u nd and ve r y h ar d - ro -se e prob l em wirh enormo u s i p li ca ri o n s f o r ou r ow n self-undersrand i ng an d f o r o ur po r em i a l ro understand othe r s. For severa) ce nr uries, rhere has been a rakeover afoor in rhe realm of h uman mea n ing . In modern Western culture-and inc r eas i ngly globally-a cerrain type o f ra c ional, cheorerical knowledge has come ro d ominare rer- ritOry that throughour ea rli er human hisrory was shared wi t h o r h er modes of knowing, orher for m s of r ru r h. Cu l tu ral forms like poerry, mus i c, t h ea t er, and an wh i ch a r e p rim a ri l y exp r ess i ons of mea nin g-have beco m e sec on d- cl ass c i t- izens, p u s h e d r o c h e m argin s an d re- q i re d i k e G in s b e r g's poem-to s p ea k
