Attached Critique: Paranoid and Reparative Studies of Religion
In this article, I examine debates about the relationship between critique and normativity in the study of religion. One position in this debate bars the critic from any involvement in normative claims; the other finds that critique fails to achieve the detached status necessary for nonnormative arg...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Brill
2024
|
| In: |
Method & theory in the study of religion
Year: 2024, Volume: 36, Issue: 3/4, Pages: 377-406 |
| Further subjects: | B
postcritical
B Critique B reparative reading B paranoid reading |
| Online Access: |
Presumably Free Access Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | In this article, I examine debates about the relationship between critique and normativity in the study of religion. One position in this debate bars the critic from any involvement in normative claims; the other finds that critique fails to achieve the detached status necessary for nonnormative argumentation. I turn to parallel discussions concerning the critical and postcritical found in literary scholarship, particularly Sedgwick (2003 [1997]; 2007) and Felski (2015), to suggest a path forward. Where Felski proposes a rejection of critique on account of its failed production of detachment, Sedgwick maintains the usefulness of critique for specific goals. I argue that critique is always already normative. Its effectiveness at communicating and promoting the normative claims that already motivate it requires an attached critic, who cannot imagine themself at a distance from the situations they analyze. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1570-0682 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Method & theory in the study of religion
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1163/15700682-bja10106 |