Do you practice the critical study of religion?
The term ‘critical’ has become ubiquitous in academia these days. It is always a term of praise, but, for many in the academic study of religion, being critical also provides a marker that distinguishes the kind of scholarship that belongs in the academy from the non-academic approaches that do not...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Interlibrary Loan: | Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany) |
| Published: |
2024
|
| In: |
Religion
Year: 2024, Volume: 54, Issue: 4, Pages: 706–726 |
| Further subjects: | B
Reflexivity
B Critical Theory B Enlightenment B Philosophy of religious studies B Immanuel Kant B Frankfurt School B postcritique |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | The term ‘critical’ has become ubiquitous in academia these days. It is always a term of praise, but, for many in the academic study of religion, being critical also provides a marker that distinguishes the kind of scholarship that belongs in the academy from the non-academic approaches that do not belong there. Over the past few hundred years, however, the term has been used to identify very different virtues. In this paper, I distinguish five broad senses of the term. I explain what is distinctive about each one, and I identify tensions generated between them. I close with my own proposal that one can combine all five senses of critique in a single coherent academic field, and that this integrated vision would be the best approach for the academic study of religion. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1096-1151 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Religion
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1080/0048721X.2024.2388436 |
