2026

The article raises the question how the multiplication of topics, turns, and perspectives in the currents of the study of religions can be explained. After the concept of a paradigm shift (Thomas Kuhn) is introduced, the study examines the epistemological consequences of the question What is religion? It is based on analyzing the practice of defining “religion” in German language encyclopedias of the past three centuries. Surprisingly, the structure of these articles is largely persistent throughout this long period and consists mainly of etymology, definition (Wesensdeutung), and a typology of “religion”. From this, an Aristotelian paradigm can be deduced. The claim for universality entailed in this paradigm ultimately led to a crisis and since the 1960s the Study of Religion has developed alternative approaches that emphasize aspects of human interaction, communication, and reciprocal relationships. I propose to subsume these new perspectives under the term “relational paradigm.” Examples and consequences for this paradigm are offered in the conclusion.

The article discusses Oliver Krüger’s thesis of a paradigm shift in the study of religion — from an Aristotelian essence-based definition toward a relational understanding of religion. The proposed umbrella term of a “relational paradigm” indeed appears to capture the shared methodological and thematic concerns of numerous recent developments in the field of religious studies. While the empirical findings based on German-language encyclopedias are persuasive, from a perspective of religious history it remains necessary to question whether these insights can be readily transferred —at a minimum — to the Western European discourse: Can the Aristotelian paradigm likewise be identified in historical encyclopedias from Italy, Spain, France, and the United Kingdom?    Furthermore, the interpretation of definitional practice as a specifically “European exception” is critically assessed, as it risks perpetuating an unreflected “Westernism.” At this point, it would be essential to more fully incorporate non-European systems of knowledge and encyclopedic traditions.

This short response article will consider Oliver Krüger’s “relational paradigm” as offering a potential mediating position between proponents of systematic-phenomenological and critical-relational approaches in the study of religion\s. Following a recent stand-off in the Dutch study of religion\s, I examine the potential for careful comparisons and generalisations in the field. If Krüger is right and we have been relational for decades, the comparisons and generalisations of systematic and comparative research may be regarded with a charitable attitude. Rather than representing a return to the previous essentialist paradigm, such comparisons may be re-considered as explicit and reflexive approaches to religion\s in past and present. To explore such opportunities, I present four principles and one publication strategy in which relationality takes a central place.

This response to Brand’s and Kollmar-Paulenz’ commentaries further develops the case for a relational paradigm in the Study of Religion by addressing critiques concerning comparison, generalization, and historical scope. It argues that relational approaches do not reject abstraction but relocate scholarly inquiry from the essence of “religion” to the historically contingent relations through which the category is constituted. A comparative survey of English, French, Spanish, and Italian encyclopedias demonstrates that the shift from essentialist to relational understandings extends beyond the German context while simultaneously challenging narratives of a homogeneous European Enlightenment. Rather than abandoning comparison, the article advocates historically situated, non-universalizing forms of theorization that remain sensitive to conceptual dynamics and relations of power. It concludes by arguing that safeguarding epistemological pluralism and academic freedom is indispensable for the future development of relational scholarship in the Study of Religion.