Abstract
This paper examines the debate on reductionism in the study of religions, which developed in North America since the 1980s. The debate started with social scientists' reductionistic criticism of Mircea Eliade for his non-reductionistic approach to the study of religions. In view that the debate started among English-speaking scholars, this paper first reexamines Eliade's thesis in English translation by carefully comparing it with that in its original French version, thus grasping his message as given to the English-speaking scholars. I will then demonstrate the points of the reductionistic critique by focusing on arguments by Robert Segal and Wayne Proudfoot. I will further show that in the process of the debate the meaning of "reduction" came to be precisely defined, and in consequence even non-reductionistic approach such as Eliade's was regarded reductionistic. In conclusion, I will argue that if the debate on reductionism is examined beyond the narrow scope of "Eliade critique," it has left us with a number of important questions with respect to the methodology of religious studies. It is claimed as an example that the debate opens up the question of whether or not the believer's own view is also reductionistic.
