William James and Jesus Christ in Late Capitalism

Abstract

Contemporary discourses on “religion” frequently use a distinction between “religious experience” and “institutional religion,” which we have inherited in part as a result of the popularity of William James’ Varieties of Religious Experience. This paper offers a discourse analysis of this distinction—including how it has been taken up by people who say they are “spiritual, but not religious”—and demonstrates that the distinction often seems designed to sanction anything “religious” that might conflict with or upset the status quo in late capitalism. In addition, this paper considers how the distinction has been appropriated by writers who incorporate it into portrayals of Jesus that similarly legitimate a consumerist life under late capitalism.

Les discours contemporains sur la « religion » utilisent fréquemment une distinction entre l’« expérience religieuse » et la « religion institutionnelle », que nous avons héritée, en partie, en raison de la popularité des Varieties of Religious Experience de William James. Cet article analyse cette distinction, ainsi que la façon dont elle est employée par ceux qui se disent « spirituels, mais pas religieux » et démontre que la distinction sert souvent à condamner tout élément religieux qui pourrait s’opposer au statu quo du capitalisme tardif. De plus, cet article regarde comment certains auteurs se sont approprié cette distinction en repensant la vie de Jésus, afin de légitimer une vie consumériste.