What's in a name?': the case for Study of Religions'
This article makes the case for adopting Study of Religions' as a single common disciplinary name for cross-cultural, comparative and theoretical studies of religion/s'. I argue that the grammatical and substantive format of this name adequately addresses disciplinary requirements and re...
| Subtitles: | Futures |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Routledge
[2020]
|
| In: |
Religion
Year: 2020, Volume: 50, Issue: 1, Pages: 129-136 |
| Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains: | B
Science of Religion
/ Name
/ Unity
/ Identification
|
| RelBib Classification: | AA Study of religion |
| Further subjects: | B
Paradigm
B Poststructuralism B Religious Studies B study of religions B post-1960s B Discipline |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (Resolving-System) |
| Summary: | This article makes the case for adopting Study of Religions' as a single common disciplinary name for cross-cultural, comparative and theoretical studies of religion/s'. I argue that the grammatical and substantive format of this name adequately addresses disciplinary requirements and resolves a longstanding debate in the field. It also supplies a distinctive, recognizable international brand. While poststructuralist and deconstructionist work in the field has been stimulating, it has not fostered positive disciplinary identification. Adoption of a single name will promote centripetal drive and theoretical coherence which is where the most effective work in the Study of Religions has been done since the 1960s - and continues. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1096-1151 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Religion
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1080/0048721X.2019.1685181 |