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...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Contributors: | ; |
| Format: | Electronic Review |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | |
| Interlibrary Loan: | Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany) |
| Published: |
[2020]
|
| In: |
Method & theory in the study of religion
Year: 2020, Volume: 32, Issue: 4/5, Pages: 455-463 |
| Review of: | Apples and oranges (Chicago : The University of Chicago Press, 2018) (Horii, Mitsutoshi)
Considering comparison (New York, NY : Oxford University Press, 2019) (Horii, Mitsutoshi) |
| IxTheo Classification: | AA Study of religion AB Philosophy of religion; criticism of religion; atheism |
| Further subjects: | B
Book review
B Shrine B Nonreligion B Categories B Comparison B Religion B Oliver Freiberger B Bruce Lincoln |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (Verlag) Volltext (doi) |
| Summary: | 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 |
| Reference: | Kritik in "Comparison Considered (2020)"
Kritik in "By Way of Response (2020)" |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Method & theory in the study of religion
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1163/15700682-12341487 |