Of Bogeymen and The Promises of The Past or How to Construct a Uniform Identity: A Response to Markus Davidsen
The response to Markus Altena Davidsen’s article ‘Theo van Baaren’s Systematic Science of Religion Revisited: The Current Crisis in Dutch Study of Religion and a Way Out’ analyses the image of anthropology depicted in the article. It delineates the role anthropology plays in formulating Davidsen’s v...
| Published in: | NTT |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Contributors: | |
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Amsterdam University Press
[2020]
|
| In: |
NTT
|
| RelBib Classification: | AA Study of religion NBE Anthropology |
| Further subjects: | B
disciplinary identity
B heterogenous discipline B Poststructuralism B the study of religion B Comparison B Diversity B Anthropology B Postcolonialism B feminist critique |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (doi) |
| Summary: | The response to Markus Altena Davidsen’s article ‘Theo van Baaren’s Systematic Science of Religion Revisited: The Current Crisis in Dutch Study of Religion and a Way Out’ analyses the image of anthropology depicted in the article. It delineates the role anthropology plays in formulating Davidsen’s vision for a new disciplinary identity and research agenda of a ‘science of religion’. The response further questions if reanimating a research program from the mid-20th century is indeed the way forward for the discipline. The last part will discuss different views of comparison and its role in research on religion at large. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2590-3268 |
| Reference: | Kritik von "Theo van Baaren’s Systematic Science of Religion Revisited (2020)"
Kritik in "Fundamental Problems and Methods in the Study of Religion (2020)" |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: NTT
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.5117/NTT2020.3.004.RAKO |