Between Romantic and Pragmatic Expressivism: Charles Taylor and Jeffrey Stout on the Expressive Value of Religion

Abstract

This thesis compares the writings of Charles Taylor and Jeffrey Stout on expressivism and religion. Taylor and Stout both formulate expressivist theories in order to defend the expressive value of religion in secular modernity. Taylor appeals to a Romantic form of expressivism that highlights the importance of poetic language for articulating religious faith, while Stout argues for a pragmatic expressivism which focuses on the role of “expressive rationality” in religious language. Stout follows Robert Brandom in theorizing the rational aspects of language described by pragmatic expressivism, and applies Brandom’s philosophical project to an analysis of religious and ethical discourse. Taylor criticizes Brandom’s rationalist theory of language for its neglect of the “disclosive” dimension of language. From Taylor’s Romantic-inspired perspective, language works to theologically and ontologically “disclose” the world to human beings, which he argues is best seen through the exemplary poetic expression of post-Romantic authors such as Paul Celan and Gerard Manley Hopkins. The conflict between Romantic and pragmatic expressivism visible in the Taylor/Brandom debate is expanded to consider the division between Taylor’s and Stout’s approaches to the topic of religious expression. The disagreement between their expressivisms is particularly salient in their diverging approaches to metaphysics and theology. Taylor’s Romantic expressivism leaves room for both immanent and transcendent interpretations of the world, especially per the “ontological indeterminacy” of post-Romantic poetry. Stout, on the other hand, critiques metaphysics and theology for positing a non-human world of transcendence, arguing that religious expression should adapt itself to the nonmetaphysical perspective of modern secularized discourse. His criticism of Taylor’s Catholicism is considered in this respect, and rejected for its attempt to interpret Taylor as supplying a dogmatic metaphysics, whereas Taylor’s Romantic expressivism is concerned with exploring and not asserting what metaphysical or theological realities exist. Romantic expressivism is also considered in a positive light for avoiding the anthropocentrism that pragmatism is committed to. Finally, Taylor’s and Stout’s work on religious expression is considered in relation to their shared criticism of John Rawls’s “idea of public reason” which seeks to limit the public expression of religious ideas. Stout’s pragmatic expressivism gives him the resources to provide a more fulsome response to Rawls than that given by Taylor. Although Taylor is also concerned about Rawls’s political theory, he is ultimately more ambivalent about Rawls than Stout is. Following Brandom’s notion of “expressive freedom,” Stout crafts an appealing alternative conception of public rationality that is able to incorporate the insights of religionists.