Religion and Belief After the Turn to Power: A Response to Craig Martin
The introduction of power as a key analytical concept was a watershed moment in the history of religious studies. But what exactly does it mean to embrace the turn to power? Does it mean giving up on the study of experiences, meanings, and beliefs? Or does it just mean changing how we approach them?...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Format: | Electronic Article |
Language: | English |
Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
Journals Online & Print: | |
Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
Published: |
Brill
2017
|
In: |
Method & theory in the study of religion
Year: 2017, Volume: 29, Issue: 4/5, Pages: 334-339 |
Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains: | B
Religion
/ Theory
/ Religious experience
/ Power
|
IxTheo Classification: | AA Study of religion AD Sociology of religion; religious policy |
Further subjects: | B
theory of religion
religious experience
meaning
interpretation
social power
post-structuralism
|
Online Access: |
Volltext (Verlag) |
Summary: | The introduction of power as a key analytical concept was a watershed moment in the history of religious studies. But what exactly does it mean to embrace the turn to power? Does it mean giving up on the study of experiences, meanings, and beliefs? Or does it just mean changing how we approach them? In my book, Visions of Religion, I argue that we can retain experience and meaning as meaningful analytical concepts even after the turn to power. We can do so without embracing any of the key assumptions of perennialism or what Craig Martin calls neo-perennialism. In this response to Martin, I show that his categorization of my approach as neo-perennialist is based upon a series of misattributions. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1570-0682 |
Reference: | Kommentar zu "“Yes, ... but ...”: The Neo-Perennialists (2017)"
Kommentar in "Rejoinder (2017)" |
Contains: | In: Method & theory in the study of religion
|
Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1163/15700682-12341398 |