Decolonizing “the Data” of Religious Studies: A Case against the Worldview Model of Difference

IF 0.8 2区 哲学 0 RELIGION
Lisa Landoe Hedrick
{"title":"Decolonizing “the Data” of Religious Studies: A Case against the Worldview Model of Difference","authors":"Lisa Landoe Hedrick","doi":"10.1093/jaarel/lfae068","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Challenging the false neutrality of secularism, J. Z. Smith (1988) declared that between “religion” and “religious studies” there is “no difference at all.” The subsequent rise of area studies matched the decline of comparative programs whose underwriting logic faltered under postcolonial scrutiny. This turn toward particularity and data expansion was a way of reckoning with the ethnocentric universalizing of modern social theory. Today, scholars in both religious studies and anthropology worry about how ethnocentrism persists in the very form of “the data.” However, the former have largely misunderstood the contributions of anthropology’s ontological turn—specifically the “radical” variant “perspectivism”—to disciplinary reform. I explain why perspectivists suggest replacing talk of multiple views with talk of multiple worlds to model a genuine alternative to cultural relativism.","PeriodicalId":51659,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF RELIGION","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF RELIGION","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jaarel/lfae068","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Challenging the false neutrality of secularism, J. Z. Smith (1988) declared that between “religion” and “religious studies” there is “no difference at all.” The subsequent rise of area studies matched the decline of comparative programs whose underwriting logic faltered under postcolonial scrutiny. This turn toward particularity and data expansion was a way of reckoning with the ethnocentric universalizing of modern social theory. Today, scholars in both religious studies and anthropology worry about how ethnocentrism persists in the very form of “the data.” However, the former have largely misunderstood the contributions of anthropology’s ontological turn—specifically the “radical” variant “perspectivism”—to disciplinary reform. I explain why perspectivists suggest replacing talk of multiple views with talk of multiple worlds to model a genuine alternative to cultural relativism.
宗教研究 "数据 "的非殖民化:反对差异的世界观模式
J. Z. Smith(1988 年)对世俗主义虚假的中立性提出了质疑,他宣称 "宗教 "与 "宗教研究 "之间 "根本没有区别"。地区研究的兴起与比较项目的衰落相得益彰,后者的支撑逻辑在后殖民主义的审视下摇摇欲坠。转向特殊性和数据扩展是对现代社会理论以种族为中心的普遍化进行反思的一种方式。如今,宗教研究和人类学领域的学者都在担心民族中心主义是如何以 "数据 "的形式持续存在的。然而,前者在很大程度上误解了人类学本体论转向--特别是 "激进 "变体 "视角主义"--对学科改革的贡献。我将解释为什么视角主义者建议用多重世界来取代多重观点,从而真正替代文化相对主义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
11.10%
发文量
50
期刊介绍: The Journal of the American Academy of Religion is generally considered to be the leading academic journal in the field of religious studies. Now in volume 77 and with a circulation of over 11,000, this international quarterly journal publishes leading scholarly articles that cover the full range of world religious traditions together with provocative studies of the methodologies by which these traditions are explored. Each issue also contains a large and valuable book review section.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信