A Response to Wolfart’s “Religious Literacy”: Some Considerations and Reservations
This text addresses three related aspects of Wolfart’s article on religious literacy: the critique of assumptions on the outcome of increased religious literacy, questions about the purpose of religious education, and the suggestion that religious studies are ex-theological. Although the predictabil...
| Auteur principal: | |
|---|---|
| Type de support: | Électronique Article |
| Langue: | Anglais |
| Vérifier la disponibilité: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | En cours de chargement...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publié: |
Brill
2022
|
| Dans: |
Method & theory in the study of religion
Année: 2022, Volume: 34, Numéro: 5, Pages: 453-464 |
| Sujets / Chaînes de mots-clés standardisés: | B
Religion
/ Savoir
/ Pédagogie des religions
/ Science des religions
/ Théologie
/ Philosophie de l'éducation
|
| RelBib Classification: | AA Sciences des religions AH Pédagogie religieuse |
| Sujets non-standardisés: | B
Religious Education
B Educational Philosophy B ex-theology B Commentaire B Gert J.J. Biesta B Religious Literacy |
| Accès en ligne: |
Volltext (kostenfrei) Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| Résumé: | This text addresses three related aspects of Wolfart’s article on religious literacy: the critique of assumptions on the outcome of increased religious literacy, questions about the purpose of religious education, and the suggestion that religious studies are ex-theological. Although the predictability of the results of certain classroom activities presents a fundamental problem, I argue that the tentative and generic abilities highlighted in the religious literacy discourse may function as a starting point to elaborate on a better definition of religious literacy in religious studies. Moreover, based on Biesta’s educational philosophy, I argue that the religious literacy discourse is about learnification in rhetorical disguise as value-based education. Instead, I suggest that the purpose of religious education should be (re)considered from Biesta’s three dimensions of qualification, socialization, and subjectification. Finally, I problematize Wolfart’s suggestion that religious studies are ex-theological and conclude that, although there are a theological dimension and a genealogy to be observed in the religious literacy discourse, other kinds of scholarly aspects are also worth exploring further. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1570-0682 |
| Référence: | Kommentar zu "‘Religious Literacy’: Some Considerations and Reservations (2022)"
|
| Contient: | Enthalten in: Method & theory in the study of religion
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1163/15700682-bja10079 |