Comparing ‘Religion’ and ‘Nonreligion’: towards a Critique of Modernity
This essay starts with reference to “grapefruits” in Oliver Freiberger’s (2019) Considering Comparison and to “apples” and “oranges” in Bruce Lincoln’s (2018) Apples and Oranges: Explorations In, On and With Comparison. It disagrees with Freiberger when he compares “grapefruits” with some generic ca...
| Auteur principal: | |
|---|---|
| Collaborateurs: | ; |
| Type de support: | Électronique Review |
| Langue: | Anglais |
| Vérifier la disponibilité: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | En cours de chargement...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publié: |
Brill
[2020]
|
| Dans: |
Method & theory in the study of religion
Année: 2020, Volume: 32, Numéro: 4/5, Pages: 455-463 |
| Compte rendu de: | Apples and oranges (Chicago : The University of Chicago Press, 2018) (Horii, Mitsutoshi)
Considering comparison (New York, NY : Oxford University Press, 2019) (Horii, Mitsutoshi) |
| RelBib Classification: | AA Sciences des religions AB Philosophie de la religion |
| Sujets non-standardisés: | B
Shrine
B Nonreligion B Categories B Comparison B Compte-rendu de lecture B Religion B Oliver Freiberger B Bruce Lincoln |
| Accès en ligne: |
Volltext (Verlag) Volltext (doi) |
| Résumé: | This essay starts with reference to “grapefruits” in Oliver Freiberger’s (2019) Considering Comparison and to “apples” and “oranges” in Bruce Lincoln’s (2018) Apples and Oranges: Explorations In, On and With Comparison. It disagrees with Freiberger when he compares “grapefruits” with some generic categories in Religious Studies including “shrine.” The category of “shrine” resembles more “fruits,” for example, because two shrines could have completely different genealogies, just like apples and oranges, but still belong to the same generic category. Then, the essay compares the categories of “religion” and “tree.” The boundary between “religion” and “nonreligion” is as arbitrary as that of “tree” and “non-tree.” At the same time, “religion” and “nonreligion” share common characteristics just like “tree” and “non-tree” do. Given this, it concludes with the suggestion that, when the “religiousness” of ostensibly “nonreligious” modernity is articulated, the category “religion” functions as a useful rhetorical tool to subvert modernity’s claim of universality and factual reality. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1570-0682 |
| Référence: | Kritik in "Comparison Considered (2020)"
Kritik in "By Way of Response (2020)" |
| Contient: | Enthalten in: Method & theory in the study of religion
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1163/15700682-12341487 |