Do Mushrooms Have Religion, Too?
I argue in the paper that Donovan Schaefer's inclusion of animality in the realm of religion via affect rests on the exclusion of non-animal bodies. This exclusion, moreover, is wrapped up in the type of affect theory that Schaefer deploys, specifically phenomenological and psychological approa...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Equinox
[2017]
|
| In: |
Bulletin for the study of religion
Year: 2017, Volume: 46, Issue: 3/4, Pages: 4-10 |
| Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains: | B
Schaefer, Donovan O. 1981-, Religious affects
/ Protection of animals ethics
/ Religion
|
| IxTheo Classification: | AA Study of religion |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (Verlag) Volltext (doi) |
| Summary: | I argue in the paper that Donovan Schaefer's inclusion of animality in the realm of religion via affect rests on the exclusion of non-animal bodies. This exclusion, moreover, is wrapped up in the type of affect theory that Schaefer deploys, specifically phenomenological and psychological approaches over-against Deleuzian and Spinozistic models. Drawing on the latter, among others, and recent studies concerning plants and various fungi, I argue for the inclusion of non-animal life within the discussion of the relationship between affect and religion. I also suggest that such an inclusion may be grasped through investigation into the use and effects of hallucinogenic substances, or ecodelics, as Richard Doyle refers to them. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2041-1871 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Bulletin for the study of religion
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1558/bsor.33142 |