Lü Jianfu: On Issues Concerning the Theoretical Construction of Marxist Religious Studies
At the 2021 National Conference on Religious Work, General Secretary Xi Jinping explicitly proposed the need to "strengthen the disciplinary construction of Marxist religious studies." This was both an affirmation of the status and role of Marxist religious studies and a requirement addressed to its developmental direction and current deficiencies. Disciplinary construction comprises many aspects, which can be summarized into three major components: people, things, and scholarship. "People" refers to talent, the primary factor, with the specific content being team building and talent cultivation. "Things" refers to the material environment—the external conditions including research facilities and teaching equipment. "Scholarship" refers to doctrines and theories, including the disciplinary system, theoretical system, knowledge system, and practical application; this is the core content of disciplinary construction. Strengthening the disciplinary construction of Marxist religious studies means strengthening all three aspects—people, things, and scholarship—with the "people" aspect being the most central.
At the National Conference on Religious Work, General Secretary Xi Jinping proposed cultivating three teams for religious work: a team of Party and government cadres, a team of representative figures from religious circles, and a team of religious studies researchers. Regarding the team of religious studies researchers, the primary requirement is steadfastness in ideology and politics. This is a requirement for the talent itself: ideologically, they must take Marxism as their guide, and politically, they must be loyal to the interests of the Communist Party of China and the broad masses of the people. Where there are "people," there must be "scholarship"; the purpose of the "people" lies in the "scholarship." In terms of "scholarship," there is a requirement for both the Party and government cadres and the religious studies researchers to uphold the Marxist view of religion. The former must "attain proficiency" [1]—without proficiency, they cannot carry out practical work in an innovative manner or successfully perform the Party's religious work. The latter must "persist"—without persistence, they will deviate from the correct Marxist track and slide toward non-Marxist doctrines such as Western religious studies and religious culturalism [2], resulting in religious studies failing to play its role as a "supporting discipline" within the philosophy and social sciences. However, how to strengthen the discipline of Marxist religious studies and what kind of Marxist religious studies to persist in involves certain conceptual issues existing in the development of Marxist religious studies in our country. This article explores the concepts and relationship between "Marxist religious studies," the discipline to be strengthened, and the "Marxist view of religion," which must be persisted in, attempting to offer reference opinions for strengthening the theoretical construction of Marxist religious studies.
I. The Scientific Nature of Marxist Religious Studies
Marxist religious studies is a doctrine and theoretical system of Marxism concerning religious issues; it is also a disciplinary category and system within religious studies. A distinction can be made between narrow and broad senses of Marxist religious studies. In the narrow sense, it refers to the doctrines of the classical Marxist writers regarding religious issues. In the broad sense, it refers to the system of doctrines and the disciplinary system formed by studying religious issues from a Marxist standpoint, viewpoint, and method—or rather, the system of doctrines, disciplinary systems, and schools formed by further elucidating the foundation of the classical Marxist writers' doctrines on religious issues. These include Soviet Marxist religious studies as well as Chinese Marxist religious studies.
Regarding the concept of Marxist religious studies, it is said to have been proposed as early as the Soviet period. In our country, it was in 1979 that Mr. Ren Jiyu [3] published "Struggling for the Development of Marxist Religious Studies," which explicitly proposed and defined "Marxist religious studies," marking the formation of the theoretical system of Chinese Marxist religious studies. Yet a decade later, when General Theory of Religious Studies (hereafter General Theory) was published, even the term "religious studies" seemed somewhat unfamiliar to people. "As for the formulation ‘Marxist religious studies,’ it remained a rather controversial issue; whether such a field of learning even existed was still under exploration and discussion." Another ten years later, when the New Edition of General Theory of Religious Studies (hereafter New Edition) was published, it still expressed doubt as to "whether such a field of study genuinely exists, which remains a highly controversial issue in our country’s academic circles requiring serious exploration." For a long time, people had criticized religious studies as a bourgeois pseudo-science; once the task of establishing religious studies was set, they often treated Marxist theory on religion as the existing system of religious studies. This claim clearly did not align with actual conditions. At that time, setting aside whether the system of doctrines and academic systems had been established, religious studies as an independent disciplinary category had already been included in the national standards for disciplinary classification and the Ministry of Education's professional catalog. One could say an institutionalized discipline of religious studies had already taken shape.
Since Ren Jiyu published Collected Essays on Buddhist Thought in the Han and Tang Dynasties in 1963 and Chairperson Mao issued the "Instruction on Strengthening the Study of Religious Issues," our country began constructing the disciplinary system of Marxist religious studies. This involved establishing research institutions, organizing research teams, launching religious studies journals, founding the "Religious Studies Association," setting up religious studies majors, offering religious studies courses, and compiling religious studies textbooks. It should be said that "religious studies" was a trending concept and had already formed a system of doctrines and a disciplinary system. Marxist religious studies was an inherent part of this; Chairperson Mao explicitly instructed the establishment of religious studies led by Marxists, with everything constructed according to Marxist religious studies. Regarding the theoretical system of religious studies, General Theory was initially planned and designed according to a Marxist "Principles of Religious Studies." The religious studies courses offered at Peking University were all taught according to Marxist religious studies. Even when subsequent scholars took over these courses, their doctrinal systems generally followed the thinking of Ren Jiyu’s papers on Marxist religious studies and his Handouts on Religious Studies. For example, the first major section covered the principles of religious studies (including scientific atheism); the second covered the origin and development of religion; the third covered the relationship between religion and other forms of social ideology; and the fourth covered the religious policies of the proletarian party. General Theory and the New Edition merely expanded, systematized, refined, deepened, or pruned on this basis. For instance, although the definition of religious studies in the "Principles" section added the "four-element theory" (proposed long ago by Soviet scholars) and "culturalism," it was still defined around Engels’ theory of "illusory reflection." Despite praising Western religious studies as "true" religious studies, the authors did not "borrow" many Western viewpoints when arguing key issues such as the concept, essence, function, laws, and history of religion; instead, they frequently employed Marxist doctrines. Consequently, people still view General Theory and the New Edition as works of Marxist religious studies. Another example is the section on the relationship between religion and other forms of social ideology: in addition to religion’s relation to philosophy, aesthetics, and morality, this section included research on religion and history, politics, literature, art, and science. General Theory removed the content on philosophy, history, literature, and aesthetics, retaining politics, art, and science, while the New Edition changed the chapter title to "Religion and Culture." The section on the religious policy of the proletarian party was titled "Religion and Socialism" in General Theory and simply deleted in the New Edition. To be sure, the innovativeness of General Theory and especially the New Edition was very distinct, characterized by the introduction of Western religious studies and religious culturalism. By claiming to take "truth as the teacher," they essentially announced the abandonment of Marxism as the guiding ideology, even if they objectively could not avoid using Marxist religious theory. From this, it is evident that when General Theory and the New Edition questioned the existence of religious studies in China, they were merely refusing to recognize the Chinese Marxist religious studies pioneered by Ren Jiyu. They believed that only what they established—taking "truth as the teacher," borrowing from Western religious studies and religious culturalism, and combining these with Marxist religious theory—was genuine Chinese religious studies.
While the Chinese Marxist religious studies established by Ren Jiyu according to Chairperson Mao’s instructions can continue to be explored and discussed, and even allowed to be "highly controversial," the doctrines of the classical Marxist writers regarding religious issues upon which he relied cannot be denied. Thus, General Theory and the New Edition proposed that the classical Marxist writers had only a "view of religion" (zongjiaoguan), not "religious studies" (zongjiaoxue). This is a viewpoint that limits its systematic and disciplinary nature, assuming that because the religious theories of the classical Marxist writers do not constitute a "study" (xue), the attempts of later generations to establish a so-called Marxist religious studies are therefore highly suspect. General Theory states: "People generally recognize that the basic principles of the Marxist view of religion are truly scientific religious theories, but whether these theories can be called ‘Marxist religious studies’ is a matter of great hesitation. At the mention of ‘religious studies,’ people often think of Max Müller, Tylor, Frazer... it seems only the Western religious research they represent constitutes true religious studies." If so, what exactly is the difference between religious studies and a view of religion? General Theory proposes two criteria: first, in terms of discipline, religious studies possesses independence, while a view of religion is merely subordinate; second, in terms of content, religious studies is systematic, while a view of religion is merely scattered and particular. Measuring by these points, the New Edition argues that the religious theories of the classical Marxist writers are merely appendages of Marxist philosophy and lack the independence of a humanities discipline. Simultaneously, these discourses are relatively scattered and have not been systematized into a system of religious studies. The conclusion is that "in Marx and Engels, there is only a ‘view of religion’ scattered across various works; there is no ready-made system of ‘religious studies’ that can be copied and used immediately."
However, these two measuring criteria are themselves problematic. Take the criterion of independence: when observing a social phenomenon, one’s method is either materialist or idealist in a philosophical sense; there is no third method of observation. Marxism observes religious phenomena using historical materialism and dialectical materialism, hence it is called Marxist religious studies. Marxism uses dialectical and historical materialism to observe the socio-economic phenomena of capitalism, constituting Marxist political economy. Similarly, it uses these to observe the phenomena of the socialist movement, forming scientific socialism. But we cannot say because of this that political economy is an appendage of Marxist philosophy, or that scientific socialism is an appendage of Marxist philosophy. The "three major components" of Marxism are just components of Marxism itself, not meant in a disciplinary sense. In a disciplinary sense, Marxist philosophy remains a type of philosophy, political economy still belongs to the category of economics, and scientific socialism belongs to the category of social formations. But precisely because Marxism is composed of doctrines with different attributes, combined with its guiding status, it is treated as an independent disciplinary category in our country’s new disciplinary classification. In nature, Marxist religious studies belongs to Marxism, but in disciplinary classification, it belongs to religious studies. The independence of religious studies does not mean it has already formed a complete discipline; it is often a discipline in a taxonomic sense—that is, a designated discipline. Because of this misunderstanding, some scholars have concluded that there is an independent religious studies in the West from which many sub-disciplines have branched out. In fact, Western religious studies to this day does not have a "general religious studies," let alone sub-disciplines; those so-called sub-disciplines are merely the research fields of other disciplines. Marxist religious studies does not imply independence from religious studies, and an independent humanities discipline does not imply it has an independent third philosophical method of observation. The independence of a discipline lies in the specialized research methods of the discipline itself; a discipline in the modern sense can only be called such if it possesses modernity—that is, scientificity.
The criterion of systematicity is merely a "quantitative" measure. Scattered versus concentrated discourse, or particular versus universal viewpoints, are simply differences in quantity and degree. The main factor in the independent formation of a discipline lies in "quality"—that is, the ability to point out the nature, characteristics, laws, and functions of its object of study, and to possess principles, practicality, and methodology. If measured by this qualitative standard, Marxist religious studies is not necessarily untenable, whereas comparative religious studies might not necessarily be tenable!
Furthermore, the formation of a discipline follows a process of origin, formation, and development; it has a starting point and an endpoint. This is also true of Marxist religious studies. From the perspective of Marxist religious studies in the narrow sense, Marx and Engels are merely the endpoint of its formation; its starting point and sources lie in the Young Hegelians, Feuerbach, 19th-century European religious historiography, and early anthropology. From the perspective of Marxist religious studies in the broad sense, Marx and Engels are the beginning. The field was developed by Lenin and Stalin, and after being introduced to our country, it underwent further development. It not only inherited the religious principles and scientific atheism of the classical Marxist writers but also enriched and developed the proletarian party’s theories and policies regarding religious work, forming religious theories and policies with Chinese characteristics. More importantly, it uses the Marxist religious studies standpoint, viewpoint, and method to study various religious phenomena, forming a general field of religious research with certain characteristics and a relatively complete institutionalized discipline.
The person who first proposed and defined Marxist religious studies in China was Mr. Ren Jiyu [4]. His 1979 paper used Marxist religious studies as its title, labeled "Striving to Develop Marxist Religious Studies." In this text, he provided a penetrating summary of Marxist religious studies, pointing out: "The founders of Marxism conducted extensive research on religious issues using the scientific worldview of dialectical materialism and historical materialism. They summarized the achievements of previous religious research, critically inherited the legacy of various historical atheisms, and laid the foundation for Marxist religious studies. From then on, religious studies became a science. Marxist religious studies is an important aspect of the entire scientific system of Marxism." This means that it was only because the founders of Marxism studied religious issues with a scientific worldview of dialectical materialism and historical materialism, and adopted the attitude of scientific atheism toward religious concepts, that religious studies became a science.
There are two points in this definition of Marxist religious studies. First, the founders of Marxism "laid the foundation of Marxist religious studies," and this foundation consists of the principles of Marxist religious studies. If we say that Marxist religious studies is a grand edifice, these principles are its foundation. The foundation determines the height and structure of the superstructure [5]; the foundation and the edifice share not only a hierarchical relationship but also a structural one, belonging to the same construction system. The theoretical edifice of Marxist religious studies is composed of its principles, specific theories, and knowledge. Where there is theory, there is a theoretical system; where there is a theoretical system, it indicates the existence of a systematic body of knowledge.
Second, from that point on, religious studies became a science. This "religious studies" refers specifically to Marxist religious studies; it is a "science" rather than a so-called humanities discipline in the general sense. Being "scientific" is the fundamental characteristic of modern disciplines. In a narrow sense, science refers to the natural sciences. When the general principles and methods of natural science are applied to the study of social phenomena, it becomes social science; when applied to the study of ideology and thought, it becomes materialist philosophy. These are collectively called the philosophy and social sciences, which is science in the broad sense. Western so-called humanities focus primarily on the construction of knowledge and are not necessarily scientific. For example, comparative religion maintains neutrality toward religious theology and is not based on scientific critique; it runs counter to the spirit of scientific atheistic critique in Marxist religious studies. This is the result of its emergence from religious theology; thus, it cannot be a modern discipline characterized by scientific criticality.
Starting from the nature of religious studies, Mr. Ren Jiyu defined it as follows: "Marxist religious studies is the science that, under the guidance of dialectical materialism and historical materialism, studies the laws governing the emergence, development, and eventual disappearance of various religions." This definition demonstrates another characteristic of why Marxist religious studies is a science—it studies the objective laws of things, specifically the objective laws of the birth, development, and movement toward the demise of religion. He further stated: "The thoroughness of Marxist religious studies on the issue of atheism does not lie in the firmness with which it advocates scientific atheism, but in the fact that it scientifically reveals the essence of religion and the objective laws of its occurrence, development, and movement toward demise, demonstrating the necessity of religion as a social phenomenon emerging and disappearing historically. In comparison, all other religious theories either refuse to acknowledge the existence of such objective laws due to class prejudice, or are unable to recognize these objectively existing laws due to the limitations of their worldview. Therefore, they are not scientific religious studies; only Marxist religious studies is true science." Scientifically revealing the essence and objective laws of religious phenomena is the hallmark of Marxist religious studies. This is because Marxists are historical materialists who believe that all things and phenomena have objective laws of emergence, development, and disappearance. Religion, as a socio-historical phenomenon of humanity, is no exception; it appeared only when humanity reached a certain stage of development, evolved along with the development of human society, and will eventually disappear.
The scientific nature of Marxist religious studies is reflected not only in its guidance by dialectical materialist and historical materialist philosophy but also in its scientific atheist worldview. Because the object of religious studies—religion—is not only an inverted idealistic worldview but also a distorted idealistic worldview, only scientific atheists can conduct critical scientific research upon it. Mr. Ren Jiyu later provided a definition in his Lectures on Religious Studies based on the research object: "Religion is a social phenomenon of human society at a certain stage of development, and religious studies is the science that studies the laws of the emergence, development, and disappearance of religion." He added: "Religion itself is not a science; it stands on the opposite side of science and opposes it. However, using the standpoint, viewpoint, and method of historical materialism to study religion—this research is science." It can be seen that Mr. Ren Jiyu believed the study of religion by the classic Marxist authors was scientific research possessing the common characteristics of modern science. This distinguishes it not only from old atheism [6] but even more so from other bourgeois religious studies. He said: "The Western bourgeoisie also has the name 'religious studies,' which is inherited from medieval theology. Theology looks at this issue from a religious standpoint. They have the same name as Marxist religious studies, but they are not the same thing; there is an essential difference." That is to say, Marxist religious studies differs essentially from Western bourgeois religious studies; the latter follows the theological tradition and retains religious belief, while the former is built on the basis of science and atheism and adopts a critical attitude toward religious theology.
For an academic system in the modern sense to qualify as a discipline, its greatest characteristic is its scientific nature. The fundamental reason why the religious research of the founders of Marxism became Marxist religious studies also lies in its scientific nature—it scientifically revealed the essence of religion and the objective laws of its birth, development, and disappearance. Similarly, the reason why the results of the founders' critique of religion are called the Marxist religious view is fundamentally because it is a scientific worldview, with its atheistic concepts grounded in science.
II. The Worldview Significance of the Marxist Religious View
The view that Marxism has only a "religious view" (宗教观) but no "religious studies" (宗教学) also appeared during the discussions for compiling the "Religious Studies" textbook for the Marxist Theory Research and Construction Project [7]. From beginning to end—from the review of topic selection to the writing process, and through changes in leadership and drafts—a tone of negating Marxist religious studies while promoting Western religious studies and "religious culture theory" was pervasive. Its actual intent was to use the "Marxist religious view" to negate "Marxist religious studies" and to oppose using the theoretical system of Marxist religious studies to compile religious studies textbooks. This is because the "Marxist religious view" refers to the basic thoughts and specific viewpoints of the classic Marxist authors and the proletarian party regarding religious issues. It is mainly used by Party and government cadres and in theoretical circles, allowing a certain amount of room for maneuver in interpretation and reading. In contrast, "Marxist religious studies" possesses theoretical rigor and academic systematicity; it is a concept used by the academic community, and as an established disciplinary system, it offers little opportunity for "theoretical breakthroughs" [8].
There is no inherent difference in meaning between the "Marxist religious view" and "Marxist religious studies." Both represent the basic standpoint, viewpoint, and method held by Marxism toward religious issues. It is just that the former is expressed in terms of a "view" (guan)—meaning viewpoints or concepts—and its meaning is more specialized; in terms of worldview, it is applicable to the theoretical world and the social level. The latter is expressed in terms of a "study" (xue)—meaning scholarship or a discipline—and its meaning is broader, applicable to the academic community and the disciplinary level. But why did these concepts, which differ only in expression, become different viewpoints and methods in the compilation of the "Project" [9] textbooks? We must look at the background of how the concept of the "Marxist religious view" has been used.
The concept of the "Marxist religious view" was seen as early as the 1980s, but only as a general term referring to the viewpoints of classic Marxist authors on religion. By the 1990s, this term rose to become a specific concept with ideological significance. In contrast to the religious idealistic worldview, it referred to the Marxist materialist worldview—that is, the scientific atheist worldview. This concept was first used in the publicity and education of the Marxist religious view, starting from the frontier ethnic regions and gradually spreading across the country; beginning with the education of Party members and cadres and spreading to school education. This was because between March and April 1990, the Baren Township riot occurred in Akto County, southern Xinjiang. This was an act of violent terrorism by "East Turkestan" religious extremists who, under the banner of religion, attempted to overthrow the local people's political power. Although this terrorist activity was handled in a timely manner, it marked the beginning of a series of "East Turkestan" religious extremist terrorist activities in the Xinjiang region aimed at undermining ethnic unity and splitting the motherland's unity, which lasted for eighteen years and caused extremely bad influence. In December of that year, the National Religious Work Conference was held. Premier Li Peng emphasized that correctly treating and handling religious issues is an important task in China's socialist construction and an important part of building socialism with Chinese characteristics. To do religious work well, Premier Li Peng specifically proposed conducting publicity and education on the Marxist religious view and the Party's religious policy among all Party members and cadres at all levels across the country. Consequently, scholars and theoretical workers in frontier ethnic regions responded actively, coordinating with the publicity and education activities by publishing numerous papers. Among them, scholars in the Xinjiang region were the earliest and most frequent users of the concept of the "Marxist religious view."
For instance, Tang Shimin, in his paper "The Marxist Religious View and the Party's Religious Policy" published that year, explained: "The Marxist religious view is an important part of Marxist philosophy and the theoretical basis for the proletarian party and the socialist state it leads to formulate religious policies." He stated that Marx and Engels "created the Marxist theory on religious issues and formulated the policy principles for the working-class party to treat religion, thereby establishing a scientific and complete Marxist religious view and forming the Marxist religious studies system." He also stated that the Marxist religious view is composed of three basic theories: first, religion is created by humans when human society reaches a certain stage; second, religion is an inverted worldview and is the opium of the people; third, with social development and progress, religious ideas will gradually fade and religion will eventually vanish on its own.
Guo Zhengli also provided a definition in his paper "On Adhering to the Marxist Religious View and Fully Implementing the Party's Religious Policy," written that year: "The so-called Marxist religious view is the entire Marxist worldview on religious issues, namely the scientific and complete doctrine regarding religion." "The Marxist religious view for the first time scientifically revealed the laws of religion and its development and disappearance, providing a solid scientific theoretical basis for the Communist Party of China's policy of freedom of religious belief. It is of great significance that we have always adhered to this correct religious view in the past, present, and will continue to do so in the future." He specifically emphasized: "The Marxist religious view always adheres to the basic viewpoint that religion is the opium of the people. We do not agree with liberalized viewpoints such as the so-called 'obsolescence theory,' the 'inheritance from predecessors theory,' and the 'theory of total harmony between socialism and religion.'" "We must never think that the essence of religion in a socialist society has undergone a fundamental change and that religion is no longer the opium of the people."
Sakunda Dongcheng published "Some Reflections on Studying Lenin's Theory on Religious Issues" the following year, likewise pointing out: "The Marxist worldview on the religious issue is the basis for the proletarian party to clarify and formulate the correct attitude and policy toward religion. Its content is very rich and certainly cannot be summarized in one sentence. However, the sentence 'religion is the opium of the people' is an important part of the Marxist religious view; it is the 'cornerstone.' The cornerstone must never be shaken. To shake the cornerstone is to shake the entire Marxist worldview on the religious issue. To negate the negative social role of religion is not the Marxist religious view." He added: "A few years ago, due to the spread of bourgeois liberalization, the Marxist religious view was attacked, and the viewpoint that 'religion is the opium of the people' bore the brunt." Not only is the negative role of religion in history undeniable, he argued, but "let us look at reality: the reason why overseas forces use religion to conduct infiltration and sabotage against our country, and why a tiny minority of ethnic separatists use religion to incite riots and trouble, or even launch counter-revolutionary armed rebellions under the banner of religion, is precisely because religion has a negative side. If we negate the negative role of religion and one-sidedly emphasize its so-called positive role, errors in the guidance of religious work and loss of control in management will inevitably occur."
Papers authored by scholars and theoretical workers from the Xinjiang region concerning the Marxist view of religion are utilized for publicity and education [10]. Their purpose is to help Party and government cadres establish a correct scientific worldview, enabling the accurate implementation of the Party’s religious work and the elimination of the harms caused by religious extremist ideology. Consequently, the connotation of the "Marxist view of religion" in this context must have defined content; it differs from academic papers which primarily express individual viewpoints. It must also be based on the regulations of the Party Central Committee regarding the educational content of the Marxist view of religion, rather than exploring it solely from a pedantic or academic perspective. Looking at the subsequent content of Marxist worldview education within the education system, the theories involving religious issues have remained consistent; there have been no significant shifts due to differing opinions in the academic community. Furthermore, because scholars and theoretical workers in Xinjiang are located in a region where practical religious issues occur, the publicity and educational functions of their papers are of great importance and high sensitivity. Once published, they generate social repercussions and must undergo repeated review. Thus, the papers by Xinjiang scholars in the 1990s should be seen as reflecting the mainstream thought of the academic and theoretical circles of that time.
From the initial use and definition of the "Marxist view of religion" by Xinjiang scholars, several points can be discerned: First, the connotation of the "Marxist view of religion" is entirely consistent with that of "Marxist religious studies" (宗教学), differing only slightly in extension. The Marxist view of religion emphasizes worldview education and is primarily targeted at Party members, cadres, and youth. Second, the Marxist view of religion refers to the entire worldview of the classical Marxist writers—Marx, Engels, and Lenin—regarding religious issues; it is therefore the theoretical basis upon which the proletarian party and the socialist state under its leadership formulate religious policy. Third, denying the fundamental viewpoints of the classical Marxist writers—such as the idea that religion is the "opium of the people"—is a manifestation of bourgeois liberalization [11] in the academic field. This would lead to errors in guiding religious work and a loss of control in management, resulting in negative impacts.
From this, one can also see that Marxist religious studies is not an "ivory tower" discipline; it is closely related to practical religious issues and religious work. It also pervasively involves people's worldviews—whether to uphold a scientific worldview or cling to a religious one. Moreover, religion is not willing to withdraw from social life; it attempts to continue developing and exist long-term in socialist society. Therefore, it not only controls the worldview of religious believers but also attempts to seize control over the ideological sphere. In particular, it interferes in the field of religious research in an attempt to damage the nascent Chinese Marxist religious studies. At the very moment when the field of religious studies provoked the controversy over the "opium of religion" theory, promoted Western religious studies alongside "religious culture theory" [12], and infiltrated research on the Marxist view of religion, violent terrorist activities of Xinjiang religious extremism, "Tibetan independence" incidents, and overseas religious infiltration in several populous provinces were also occurring. This leads one to suspect a connection between religion and its proxies' confrontation with Marxist ideology in the fields of research and theory, which is also a manifestation of religious extremism's efforts to undermine ethnic unity, national unification, and social stability in a socialist country.
Starting from the late 1990s, the publicity and education regarding the Marxist view of religion gradually broke through the limitations of the classical Marxist writers, expanding to include the thought of Chinese Communist Party leaders on religious issues. The theory and policy of the Party’s religious work during the period of socialism with Chinese characteristics were also incorporated into the category of the Marxist view of religion for discussion. This completely exceeded the scope defined by Premier Li Peng at the time, which limited publicity and education to the two aspects of the Marxist view of religion and the Party’s religious policies. Subsequently, the publicity and education of the Marxist view of religion shifted from the fields of Party-government cadres and school education to the field of academic research. This not only exceeded the specific connotation and educational scope of the Marxist view of religion but also led to a situation where all research on theoretical issues in religious studies was conducted under the banner of the "Marxist view of religion." Specifically, through academic exchange and "free contention," the Marxist view of religion was dismantled and used to replace Marxist religious studies, in an attempt to transform the Marxist view of religion into a "large basket" for collecting Western religious studies, religious culture theory, and even religious thought.
III. The Disciplinary System of Marxist Religious Studies
Regarding the construction of the disciplinary system of Marxist religious studies, Mr. Ren Jiyu [13] pointed out early on in his papers: "Religious studies must study the history, current situation, sects, doctrines, and scriptures of various religions, as well as their role in social history; it must also study scientific atheism, the principles of Marxist religious studies, and the policies of the proletariat toward religion." Here, the content of the theoretical construction of Marxist religious studies is divided into four major areas: 1) general research on religion, 2) scientific atheism, 3) the principles of Marxist religious studies, and 4) the policies of the proletarian party toward religion.
Within this framework, the relationship between the principles of religious studies—as an inquiry into the commonality of religion—and general religious research—which inquires into the particularity of specific religions—is addressed. Mr. Ren Jiyu further stated: "The content of Marxist religious studies is extremely rich. Since it must reveal the laws of the origin, development, and eventual demise of religion, it must specifically study the roots of the emergence and the history of the development of various religions. Since it must explain the essence of religion and its role in social history, it must specifically study the history, doctrines, sects, scriptures, theories, and social significance of various religions, as well as the relationship between religion and class struggle and other ideologies (such as philosophy, ethics, law, culture, art, and science) in society. That is to say, in addition to general research on the common essence and common laws of development of all religions, Marxist religious studies must conduct specific research on the special laws of various different religions. Therefore, primitive religion, Buddhism, Taoism, Christianity, Islam, religious psychology, and religious art should all be constituent parts of Marxist religious studies research." From the "principles of Marxist religious studies," two other fields are derived: first, general religious history—the historical process of the origin, development, evolution, and demise of religion, specifically divided into the four historical stages of primitive religion, national-state religion, world religion, and contemporary emerging religions; second, the relationship between religion and other social ideologies—namely, religion and philosophy, morality, aesthetics, psychology, law, politics, culture, art, science, etc.
In 1993, the National Standard for Subject Classification and Codes was promulgated, followed by a new version in 2009, with further revisions in 2011 and 2016. However, the classification of religious studies has not changed significantly. The 2009 edition added a tertiary discipline, "Buddhist Sectarian Studies." In this system, religious studies serves as a primary discipline (一级学科), with 19 secondary disciplines (二级学科), 8 of which include 47 tertiary disciplines (三级学科). In this national standard classification, the basic categories of religious studies are largely set according to Ren Jiyu’s theoretical system. Among the 19 secondary disciplines, apart from "other disciplines of religious studies," the "theory of religious studies" corresponds to the principles of religious studies; "atheism" corresponds to scientific atheism; and "primitive religion," "ancient religion," and "contemporary religion" correspond to religious history. Research on Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Taoism, Hinduism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Manichaeism, Sikhism, Jainism, Shinto, as well as Chinese folk religion and beliefs and the religions of Chinese ethnic minorities, corresponds to general religious research. Of course, there is no category in the disciplinary classification corresponding to the "religious work theory and policy of the proletarian party," but the fact that "ethnic issues and ethnic policy" is set under ethnology shows that "policy" can indeed be listed as a discipline. These 47 tertiary disciplines fall under 8 secondary disciplines, and a large portion of them belong to Western religious studies or even religious subjects. Notably, within the tertiary disciplines under the "theory of religious studies," the first is explicitly labeled "Marxist religious studies," implying that the other disciplines do not fall within the scope of Marxist religious studies. This also indicates that the primary discipline of "religious studies" itself is not synonymous with Marxist religious studies. It is no wonder that the secondary discipline "atheism" is not called "scientific atheism"; under it, besides being classified into Chinese and foreign, there is only "history of atheism," with no category for scientific atheism or its theory. Under the "theory of religious studies," there are 11 tertiary disciplines. Except for Marxist religious studies, mythology, other disciplines of the theory of religious studies, and the combined "religious literature and art," the other seven tertiary disciplines—religious historiography, religious philosophy, religious sociology, religious psychology, comparative religious studies, religious geography, and religious philology—all belong to the category of Western religious studies. However, seeing as "religious literature and art" does not include the suffix "studies" (学), the thinking behind it likely stems from the relationship between religion and other social ideologies; since religion is related to various fields, it was thought they should become sub-disciplines of religious studies. Secondary disciplines are not only named after religion, but some tertiary disciplines also directly use religious subjects, such as Biblical studies, Quranic studies, Hadith studies, Islamic theology (Kalam), and Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh), merely using "studies" as a wrapper.
The appearance of a large number of Western religious studies subjects in the disciplinary classification is because the Chinese religious studies community has been dominated by Western religious studies for many years. They have vigorously promoted Western religious studies and proposed a completely Westernized disciplinary setup, which directly influenced the national standard classification. In the early years, the Western religious studies translated and introduced were limited to a few types, such as comparative religion, religious historiography, religious philosophy, religious sociology, religious anthropology, religious psychology, and religious phenomenology. Later, these increased, leading to the division of religious studies into two major categories: religious studies as a humanities science and religious studies as a social science. The humanities branches include 11 subjects: religious historiography, comparative religion, religious philology, religious archaeology, religious linguistics, religious philosophy, religious phenomenology, religious psychology, religious literature and art, religious geography, and religious ecology. The social science branches include 8 subjects: religious politics, religious law, religious economics, religious sociology, religious anthropology, religious ethnology, religious criticism, and religious communication. Together, these two categories of religious studies were set with 19 secondary disciplines, more than triple the national standard. Some scholars have further divided religious literature and art into religious literature, religious art studies, religious musicology, and religious aesthetics; they have also separated religious ethics, religious culturology, religious mythology, and religious economics, and proposed religious management, religious education, and so on. Coupled with China's self-created "ethnic religious studies," the sub-disciplines of religious studies have reached as many as 29, exceeding the number of sub-disciplines in any natural or social science—truly a world record for a discipline! Furthermore, after the 2021 National Conference on Religious Work [14] explicitly called for strengthening the construction of the discipline of Marxist religious studies, these Western religious studies concepts were grafted onto the Marxist discipline. Suddenly, terms like "Marxist religious historiography," "Marxist religious philosophy," "Marxist religious sociology," "Marxist religious politics," and "Marxist religious culturology" began to appear.
Firstly, these so-called Western religious studies and their sub-disciplines are entirely assembled and grafted in China; Western academia has not formed a "general religious studies," let alone various sub-disciplines of religious studies. If there were a parent discipline, it would be religion, and definitely not religious studies! This "religion" is Christianity; comparative religious studies and religious philosophy are precisely branches of Christian theology. Using the term "religion" for Christianity, calling religion a "study" (学), conducting "comparative" research, and calling theology "philosophy"—all of these are merely academic labels and packaging for Christian theology in modern society; it is simply old wine in new bottles. The reason Max Müller called his theology "comparative religion" was that his breakthrough lay in incorporating Christianity into the category of "religion." In the Western tradition, Christianity was the "sacred religion" (圣教), while other religious phenomena were merely vulgar and ignorant "religions." Thus, he said that knowing only one religion (Christianity) does not count as religious studies; knowing more than two religions is religious studies. Only when there are two or more religions can a comparison be made, and only through comparison can the commonalities of religion be revealed. Hence, he called his theology "comparative religion," and that was all.
Secondly, most of the so-called branches of religious studies are actually branches or research areas of other disciplines. Religious sociology is a research area of sociology; religious anthropology is a research area of cultural anthropology (a branch of anthropology); religious psychology is a research area of psychology; and religious phenomenology belongs to the field of phenomenology within philosophy. If one uses sociological methods to study religious phenomena, it is called religious sociology, not the other way around. If one were to use religious studies methods to study social phenomena, it should be called "social religious studies" (社会宗教学). In fact, no such discipline or research area exists, because "religious studies" cannot serve as a method for studying social phenomena; it fails both as a method and in its object. According to the expressive conventions of the Chinese language, "religion" is the modifier and "X-studies" is the subject; this means "religion" is the object of research for "X-studies," not vice versa.
Looking at the representative figures of these sub-disciplines or research fields, almost none are identified in general dictionaries as the "founder" of a specific "religious studies" sub-discipline. For instance, Durkheim, a representative figure of the so-called sociology of religion, is identified as a French Jewish sociologist and anthropologist; Max Weber as a famous German sociologist, political scientist, economist, philosopher, and thinker. Similarly, Tylor, a representative of so-called religious anthropology, was the founder of British cultural anthropology and a primary representative of classical evolutionism, while Frazer was a British anthropologist, ethnologist, and historian of religion. Wundt, representing so-called religious psychology, was a German physiologist, psychologist, philosopher, and the "father of experimental psychology"; James was an American psychologist and philosopher; Freud was an Austrian psychologist and the founder of the psychoanalytic school. From this, we can see that the famous scholars categorized as representatives of religious studies sub-disciplines are almost all famous scholars of the philosophy and social sciences; religion was merely one of their research fields. Even if their fields are consequently termed the sociology of religion, religious anthropology, or religious psychology, these remain sub-disciplines of sociology, anthropology, and psychology—they are by no means sub-disciplines of religious studies.
Furthermore, the fact that religious studies possesses such a vast array of sub-disciplines, covering nearly all research fields of the humanities and social sciences, is itself proof that it is not a "discipline," much less a "science." This is because modern disciplines constitute a scientific method of categorizing and studying natural and social phenomena. Take a stone, for example: physics studies its weight and mass; chemistry studies its chemical composition; mathematics studies its shape and data; anthropology studies its use as a tool; philosophy studies its subjective and objective existence; linguistics studies its nomenclature, and so on. Imagine if religious studies were to study the concept of it being endowed as a sacred object or the act of worshiping it; it nonetheless cannot study its weight, composition, shape, name, utility, or its subjective/objective nature. It is evident that what can cover all fields of the humanities and social sciences is not "religious studies," but religion itself! Only religion permeates every aspect of human society and culture—particularly in historical Western societies where religion permeated every field of life—and even in modern society, religion continues to influence various aspects of social life. Therefore, to ignore the scientific and academic nature of modern disciplinary categorization and establish sub-disciplines by treating religious studies "as" religion is more than just disciplinary expansionism based on a community of interests; it is a clear-cut case of religious infiltration [15] into the research and management fields of the philosophy and social sciences. From this, one can also understand why, although religious studies is already an independent discipline in the national standards for disciplinary classification, some scholars remain resentful that it is placed as a secondary discipline under philosophy in the Ministry of Education's degree management catalog; their intention likely lies here.
Finally, regarding the establishment of so-called Marxist history of religion, Marxist philosophy of religion, Marxist sociology of religion, Marxist political science of religion, or Marxist culturology of religion within the discipline of Marxist religious studies—the reasoning is nothing more than that the founders of Marxism discussed religious issues within these disciplines and fields or used their methods. But does this mean these sub-disciplines were actually formed? Or can the fields studied by the classical Marxist writers be called sub-disciplines like the sociology of religion? The answer is naturally no. This is because the line of thinking behind their establishment is exactly the same as the construction of Western religious studies sub-disciplines described above: it lacks scientific rigor and does not conform to disciplinary facts. In terms of nomenclature and logical relations, Marxism consists of its three major components: philosophy, political economy, and scientific socialism. Among these, Marxist historical materialism (or the materialist conception of history) is one of the two major components of Marxist philosophy. The materialist conception of history and "historiography" are two different concepts. Marxism advocates that religion has a history of emergence, development, and eventual withering away [16], but this does not mean Marxism has a "historiography of religion." One can only say the founders of Marxism had a materialist "view of religious history." The historiography of religion is a sub-discipline of history, belonging to the field of specialized history; it is not a sub-discipline of religious studies.
Similarly, the concept of a "Marxist philosophy of religion" is inherently self-contradictory. Marxism only has Marxist philosophy—namely, dialectical materialism and historical materialism—which belongs to logical thinking. Conversely, the "philosophy of religion" belongs to idealism; its core is religious faith and its mode is intuitive thinking, which is diametrically opposed to Marxist philosophy. If something is philosophical, it cannot be faith-based. If it is speculative, it cannot be intuitive. If it is materialist, it cannot be idealist. If it belongs to Marxist philosophy, it cannot be a philosophy of religion. Even if there is speculative philosophy within religion, it serves theology—following the famous dictum that "philosophy is the handmaiden of theology" [17]—but this does not change the differing natures of philosophy and theology.
Furthermore, regarding "Marxist sociology of religion": although Marx is categorized by Western academia as one of the three founders of sociology, what Marx studied and practiced was the movement of scientific socialism. This is worlds apart from Western sociology’s "purely objective description" of certain social phenomena and its method of non-intervention. Moreover, conducting field surveys or using statistical methods is not unique to sociology; these are methods shared by multiple disciplines.
As for "Marxist culturology of religion," this is entirely a graft from "religious culture theory," using "mastery" [18] as its basis. However, the four modes by which Marx said humanity "grasps" (or masters) the world refer to the spiritual level, not the cultural level; to call it culturology is a misnomer. When Marx discussed the basic ways humanity spiritually grasps the world, he primarily discussed the mode of thinking; the artistic, religious, and practical modes were mentioned only in passing, with no intention of affirming these three forms. Art grasps the world through images, religion through fantasy, and practice through instinctive response. Marx was merely stating that three other forms exist; as for whether these three forms truly "grasped" the world, he did not elaborate, though his expressive intent was clearly negative. From the perspective of Marx's overall thought, the artistic, religious, and practical forms cannot correctly grasp the world because these forms are not rational thinking. Only rational thinking can grasp the objectivity of the world; other forms—be they figurative, fantastical, or perceptual—are more a subjective and superficial reflection of the world. Among these, religion employs a fantastical and distorted form of reflection, so it certainly cannot correctly grasp the objective world.
To strengthen the disciplinary construction of Marxist religious studies, we must take Marxist religious studies with Chinese characteristics as the standard, using the actually formed Marxist religious studies as a foundation to enrich and reinforce it. We should summarize the experiences and lessons of the past 60 years of disciplinary construction in Marxist religious studies and, on the established disciplinary foundation, uphold the fundamentals and break new ground [N]. The four established research areas or sub-disciplines are: first, the principles of Marxist religious studies; second, scientific atheism; third, the theory and policy of proletarian parties regarding religious work; and fourth, general religious studies. Among these, general religious studies is often too similar to religious professional studies and easily confused with religion itself; it should no longer be established as a separate discipline but integrated into the first three. As such, the standard should be to strengthen the following three major disciplines:
Marxist Religious Theory, including: (1) Principles of Marxist Religious Studies: 1) Theory of Religion (concepts and definitions), 2) Theory on the Essence of Religion, 3) Theory on the Function of Religion, etc. (2) History of Religion: 1) Theory on the Laws of Religion, 2) Primitive Religions, 3) Ethno-national Religions, 4) World Religions, etc. (3) Theory of Religious Belief: 1) Religious Faith, 2) Religious Doctrine, 3) History of Religious Thought, etc. (4) Relations between Religion and Other Social Ideologies: 1) Religion and Philosophy, 2) Religion and Ethics, 3) Religion and Aesthetics, 4) Religion and Literature/Art, 5) Religion and Politics, etc.
Scientific Atheism, including: (1) Principles of Scientific Atheism; (2) History of Atheism: 1) History of Chinese Atheism, 2) History of Foreign Atheism; (3) Atheistic Propaganda and Education; (4) Cult Research: 1) Cult Research, 2) Emerging Religions, 3) New Theism.
Theory and Policy of Proletarian Parties Regarding Religious Work, including: (1) Theory of Proletarian Parties’ Religious Work: 1) Marxist Theory and Policy on Religious Work, 2) CPC Theory on Religious Work, 3) Foreign Proletarian Parties’ Theory on Religious Work; (2) Policies and Regulations on Religious Management in Socialist Countries: 1) Chinese Religious Management Policies and Regulations, 2) Other Countries’ Religious Management Policies and Regulations; (3) History of Religious Management: 1) History of Chinese Religious Management, 2) History of Foreign Religious Management; (4) Current Status of Religion: 1) Current Status of Religion in China, 2) Current Status of Foreign Religion.
Online Editor: Tong Xin Source: Science and Atheism