The End of Enclaves: A Reply to Benson

By James K.A. Smith, Calvin College

ABSTRACT

In reply to Benson’s response, I agree that we should be seeking the dissolution of all enclaves in philosophy of religion—whether continental or analytic.  But I continue to suggest that continental philosophy of religion bears special burdens in this respect.

Read the article.

Comments

[Nick Trakakis]

I found this a very interesting discussion. But Jamie, I am a bit concerned that, in encouraging the end of the analytic/Continental divide, you may be inadvertently helping to create the very kind of monolothic philosophy you are railing against. Perhaps therefore we should foster rather than undo the divide, but this could be done not in the traditional combative way, but in a more informed and dialogic manner where adherents to each side are more open to the other and critical of their own. In other words, let a thousand flowers bloom!

[James K.A. Smith]

I'm very much encouraging real pluralism. So while I do want to end the "divide" between analytic and continental, I'm not suggesting that all philosophy be done in some homogenous way. I thought I opened the first article by emphasizing that these different "styles" and traditions each bring different gifts and resources to the conversation. What I'm suggesting needs to end is (1) the compartmentalization of these approaches into enclaves or little isolated tribes and (2) the animosity between them. So I think we're on the same page in this regard.