Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

2

Dumai wrote (edited )

i haven't read the book so i can't respond to anything on that front, but the author of the article seems to interpret "modern" to describe a certain set of positive values when scholars more frequently use it to describe a social condition, and its in the latter sense that hasidism is unarguably modern - it was founded in the 18th century, it arose in confrontation to the rationalisation of religion and the secularisation of society, it makes some distinctly modernist assumptions about how religion works and what it is... it's modern! if you think anything like hasidism could exist pre-modernity you're very wrong.

The fact that ancient religion is part of the modern world doesn’t necessarily make it modern.

you mean to say religion is a static, unchanging object to be wholly juxtaposed with the "secular"? well that's fucking fantastic news for haredim, christian fundamentalists, and "muslim extremists". for one thing, it means they may be right that they represent their religious traditions in their truest, "original" senses, or at least that this would be something worth caring about, so you've done most of the job of legitimating their ideas for them here! great work.