William James, Pluralism, and the Science of Religious Experience

Abstract—In recent years a number of political theorists have attempted to rediscover William James as a forefather of radical pluralism. These readings have focused on a selection of James’ writings, which emphasize the importance of pursuing pluralist values such as essential difference, and agonal contestation. Yet these recent, pluralist interpretations of James generally neglect some potential inconsistencies arising out of his work on religious experience. The portrayal of James as a stalwart champion of irreducible abundance and diversity is troubled by his no less passionate interest in creating a “science of religion”, which seeks to gather a great variety of religious experiences only to excise that which is uncommon. In this paper I will attempt to better elucidate this portion of James’ work, which should reveal a more complex and multilayered understanding of James as a political thinker, while also posing some concerns surrounding the broader project of radical pluralism itself.

In the provocatively titled essay “What Makes a Life Significant?” William James gives an account of an 1896 visit to Chautauqua Lake and its surrounding community. On first viewing, the bucolic setting and convivial society impressed upon James a near utopian character. He remarked upon the health, the education, the social equality, and the physical and mental vitality of its inhabitants. “You have, in short,” James wrote, “a foretaste of what human society might be, were it all in the light, with no suffering and no dark corners.”² And yet, as James stayed on in this peaceful setting, he became increasingly restless. He found himself longing for some respite from “this goodness too uninspiring.” After a week in utopia, James felt more relief than anxiety to be leaving, and happily reclaimed his residency in this “wicked world.”

James’ experience at Chautauqua has been recovered recently by those engaged in reinvigorating the study of James’ pluralism, and for good reason. The scene portrays James as a thinker who shunned the ease and comfort of uniformity, one who intentionally sought after the plural and contesting opportunities of existence. It evokes an image of James as the restless and intrepid adventurer, fleeing the nausea of conformity, and seeking the untamed vistas of America’s rugged diversity. It is this James of Chautauqua Lake that inspired Kennan Ferguson to write: “…James held contestation as a necessary requirement for the fulfillment of human character…”³

In the following essay, I will critically examine this characterization of James as the unwavering proponent of pluralistic contestation. While James often displayed a hearty appreciation for the agonal character of existence, there is also within his writing an attendant longing for release from both internal and external conflict. ‘Ease,’ ‘Peace,’ ‘Rest,’ ‘Security,’ are words that erupt in regular abundance from James’ writing. They appear most frequently in his work on religious experience, where his focus often turns towards unification, attempting to settle ideas about god, and allowing god to settle our reception of the world. I will argue that this attempt to know god in more definitive terms, by making use of what James refers to as a ‘Science of Religion,’ displays a more conflicted relationship to the pluralistic universe than his pluralist readers have recognized.

James was himself surely a conflicted thinker. At times he reveled in this conflict, pursuant of any dynamic hostility to his security of mind. But this same portion of James’ character drew him toward those who desired, and at times achieved the peace and security of ontological certainty acquired through religious experience. On my reading James is far more resistant to the prescriptive aims of radical pluralism, and the Chautauquan allegory is equally as enlightening for the ways in which this community draws James in, even as it eventually pushes him away.

To be clear, my purpose in the following essay will not be to refute James’ commitment to pluralism. Recognizing the depth of that commitment is no doubt essential to understanding and appreciating his work. My intention is rather to add some amount of conflict and hesitancy to that commitment. By better understanding James’ conflicted desire for both the Chautauquan state of peace and security, and...