Sociological Controversies in Perspective
The historian of political science Quentin Skinner argues that it is not possible to understand correctly the meaning of a text if one ignores the intentions of its author. This approach is useful not only in the understanding of historical texts, but also for the interpretation of present writings....
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Springer
1994
|
| In: |
Review of religious research
Year: 1994, Volume: 36, Issue: 1, Pages: 70-86 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | The historian of political science Quentin Skinner argues that it is not possible to understand correctly the meaning of a text if one ignores the intentions of its author. This approach is useful not only in the understanding of historical texts, but also for the interpretation of present writings. The dispute over secularization that has raged in the '60s and '70s, and still lingers on, is a case in point. By taking into account the very divergent interests and intentions that lie behind the antagonists' contributions, one can understand several puzzling characteristics of this dispute. First and foremost, one can understand why it often remains at the level of a sterile confrontation of people arguing past each other instead of taking the form of an enlightening intellectual debate, and why, terminological differences put aside, the arguments of the critics of the secularization thesis are in fact so similar to those of the proponents of this very thesis. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2211-4866 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Review of religious research
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.2307/3511653 |