Historicism and/or Phenomenology in the Study of Jewish Mysticism: Imagery Techniques in the Teachings of Rabbi Kalonymus Kalman Shapira as a Case Study
Daniel Reiser
Modern Judaism - A Journal of Jewish Ideas and Experience January 5, 2016 DOI: 10.1093/mj/kjv037 (opens in new tab)
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Case report Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Topics | Mysticism Philosophy of mind |
| Citations | 1 |
| Key points | Argues, following Boaz Huss, that the cultural formations categorized as "Jewish mysticism" should be studied not as expressions of a universal religious phenomenon or as phases in a developing Jewish mystical tradition, but as cultural products created by various political interests in distinctive historical, economic, and social contexts. |
Abstract
In recent years, the phenomenological and comparative approaches to the study of Jewish mysticism have come under criticism. This critique has been focused upon the very concept of “mysticism,” calling into question whether or not different mystical elements in different religious faith traditions may be compared with one another. This perspective is typified in the latest works of Boaz Huss, who understands all spiritual phenomena as creations anchored in their respective historical, social, and political contexts: I believe that the different cultural formations categorized as “Jewish mysticism” should not be studied as expressions of a universal religious phenomenon and as different phases in the development of a Jewish mystical tradition, but rather as cultural products that were created as a result of various political interests, in distinctive historical, economic and social contexts. 1