Affiliation:
1. Centre for Sociological Research , KU Leuven
2. School of Religion, Queen’s University , Kingston, ON , Canada
Abstract
Abstract
According to some of the most vocal proponents of Critical Religion (CR), taking CR seriously entails accepting that religion as an analytic category leads to reification and naturalization and is unduly normative, thus critical scholars of religion should abandon it and restrict ourselves to studying discursive battles over the uses of religion. In this article, we build on the case for alternative critical proposals by offering an immanent critique of the work of proponents of CR. In doing so, we identify and outline CR’s major analytical flaws, which we name as follows: inconsistent historicization, crypto-normativity, and arbitrary abandonment. We conclude that CR scholarship cannot but fail to live up to its own ideals, and moreover that much would be lost were we to limit the critical study of religion to CR.
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Cited by
23 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. Do you practice the critical study of religion?;Religion;2024-08-28
2. What are Scholars For?;Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature and Culture;2024-07-03
3. Critical Religion and the Sociology of Religion;Method & Theory in the Study of Religion;2024-06-27
4. In Search of Rules for a Critical Study of Religion;Method & Theory in the Study of Religion;2024-06-27
5. Critical Religion Takes a Punch: Notes on a Scholarly Skirmish;Method & Theory in the Study of Religion;2024-06-27