Theory, Method, and Madness in Religious Studies

In the academic study of religion, the words “method” and “theory” possess an immutable, authoritative aura and typically function to amplify the legitimacy of any given study. What is more ambiguous, however, is whether those of us engaged in the study of religion actually have a shared understandi...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Method & theory in the study of religion
Main Author: Hart, Patrick (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: Brill 2016
In: Method & theory in the study of religion
Further subjects:B Method theory methodos theōria legitimacy discourse Russell McCutcheon Bruce Lincoln
Online Access: Volltext (Verlag)
Description
Summary:In the academic study of religion, the words “method” and “theory” possess an immutable, authoritative aura and typically function to amplify the legitimacy of any given study. What is more ambiguous, however, is whether those of us engaged in the study of religion actually have a shared understanding of these terms, and whether we are sufficiently attentive to the way in which we use them. Given this ambiguity, and given how pervasive “method” and “theory” are in our field, scholars of religion should be (in the words of J.Z. Smith) “relentlessly self-conscious” and give some consideration to how our discipline has appropriated these terms. Ultimately, I argue that attention to their genealogy can help us better orient ourselves when it comes to deploying “method” and “theory” in our studies.
ISSN:1570-0682
Contains:In: Method & theory in the study of religion
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.1163/15700682-12341346