Do Mushrooms Have Religion, Too?
I argue in the paper that Donovan Schaefer's inclusion of animality in the realm of religion via affect rests on the exclusion of non-animal bodies. This exclusion, moreover, is wrapped up in the type of affect theory that Schaefer deploys, specifically phenomenological and psychological approa...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Format: | Electronic Article |
Language: | English |
Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
Journals Online & Print: | |
Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
Published: |
Equinox
[2017]
|
In: |
Bulletin for the study of religion
Year: 2017, Volume: 46, Issue: 3/4, Pages: 4-10 |
Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains: | B
Schaefer, Donovan O. 1981-, Religious affects
/ Protection of animals ethics
/ Religion
|
RelBib Classification: | AA Study of religion |
Online Access: |
Volltext (Verlag) Volltext (doi) |
Summary: | I argue in the paper that Donovan Schaefer's inclusion of animality in the realm of religion via affect rests on the exclusion of non-animal bodies. This exclusion, moreover, is wrapped up in the type of affect theory that Schaefer deploys, specifically phenomenological and psychological approaches over-against Deleuzian and Spinozistic models. Drawing on the latter, among others, and recent studies concerning plants and various fungi, I argue for the inclusion of non-animal life within the discussion of the relationship between affect and religion. I also suggest that such an inclusion may be grasped through investigation into the use and effects of hallucinogenic substances, or ecodelics, as Richard Doyle refers to them. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 2041-1871 |
Contains: | Enthalten in: Bulletin for the study of religion
|
Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1558/bsor.33142 |