The Ritual Animal: A Response to Reviews
This is a response to six reviews of The Ritual Animal (Whitehouse, 2021). The reviews covered a wide range of topics, from evolutionary theory (e.g., Bryson; Shilton and Jablonka), to group psychology (e.g., Putra) and development (e.g., Umbres), and the evidence from archaeology and deep history o...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Equinox Publ.
2022
|
| In: |
Journal for the cognitive science of religion
Year: 2020, Volume: 8, Issue: 2, Pages: 182-195 |
| Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains: | B
Ritual
/ Ritual
/ Religiosity
/ Cultural evolution
/ Group psychology
|
| IxTheo Classification: | AD Sociology of religion; religious policy AE Psychology of religion AG Religious life; material religion |
| Further subjects: | B
cognition and history
B modes of religiosity B Group Identity B Ritual B Evolution B Prehistoric archaeology |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | This is a response to six reviews of The Ritual Animal (Whitehouse, 2021). The reviews covered a wide range of topics, from evolutionary theory (e.g., Bryson; Shilton and Jablonka), to group psychology (e.g., Putra) and development (e.g., Umbres), and the evidence from archaeology and deep history on the role of ritual in the evolution of socio-political complexity (e.g., Watkins). Some of the reviewers spanned all these topics in various ways (e.g., Sterelny). I am grateful for the high quality of engagement and the many generous remarks. Although I also disagree with some of the arguments advanced in the reviews, I argue that they have collectively opened up a variety of important questions worthy of further research. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2049-7563 |
| Reference: | Kritik von "The (Most) Algorithmic Animal (2022)"
Kritik von "Representing Group Rituals (2022)" Kritik von "Rituals, Music, and the Landscape Metaphor (2022)" Kritik von "How Ritual an Animal? (2022)" Kritik von "Ritual Animals also Require Pedagogy, Communication, and Social Reasoning (2022)" Kritik von "Doctrines of Neolithic Religiosity (2022)" |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Journal for the cognitive science of religion
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1558/jcsr.23748 |