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...
Auteur principal: | |
---|---|
Collaborateurs: | |
Type de support: | Électronique Article |
Langue: | Anglais |
Vérifier la disponibilité: | HBZ Gateway |
Journals Online & Print: | |
Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
Publié: |
Amsterdam University Press
[2020]
|
Dans: |
NTT
Année: 2020, Volume: 74, Numéro: 3, Pages: 253-262 |
RelBib Classification: | AA Sciences des religions NBE Anthropologie |
Sujets non-standardisés: | B
disciplinary identity
B heterogenous discipline B Poststructuralism B the study of religion B Comparison B Diversity B Anthropology B Postcolonialism B feminist critique |
Accès en ligne: |
Volltext (doi) |
Résumé: | 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 |
Référence: | Kritik von "Theo van Baaren’s Systematic Science of Religion Revisited (2020)"
Kritik in "Fundamental Problems and Methods in the Study of Religion (2020)" |
Contient: | Enthalten in: NTT
|
Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.5117/NTT2020.3.004.RAKO |