侮辱宗教:刑罚世俗主义与感情政府

IF 0.8 2区 哲学 0 RELIGION
J Barton Scott
{"title":"侮辱宗教:刑罚世俗主义与感情政府","authors":"J Barton Scott","doi":"10.1093/jaarel/lfad036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article revisits the Indian Penal Code’s restrictions on religious offense, especially Section 295A, with particular attention to nineteenth-century debates about secularizing the English common law of blasphemy. Building on scholarship that takes the histories of British and Indian secularisms as constitutively intertwined, I suggest that these entangled legal secularisms are best studied within a single analytic frame. I further suggest that this colonial secularism was, among other things, an affective apparatus. It linked the modern state to questions of sentiment or feeling, implicitly defining “religious feeling” as a species of affect with an intrinsic link to populational violence. Although colonial law ostensibly sought to reduce such violence, it instead had a more complex and perverse set of effects. Section 295A and its cousins turned law into a relay point for the circulation of affect, a mechanism for the transmission of populational pain.","PeriodicalId":51659,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF RELIGION","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Insulting Religion: Penal Secularism and the Government of Feeling\",\"authors\":\"J Barton Scott\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jaarel/lfad036\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This article revisits the Indian Penal Code’s restrictions on religious offense, especially Section 295A, with particular attention to nineteenth-century debates about secularizing the English common law of blasphemy. Building on scholarship that takes the histories of British and Indian secularisms as constitutively intertwined, I suggest that these entangled legal secularisms are best studied within a single analytic frame. I further suggest that this colonial secularism was, among other things, an affective apparatus. It linked the modern state to questions of sentiment or feeling, implicitly defining “religious feeling” as a species of affect with an intrinsic link to populational violence. Although colonial law ostensibly sought to reduce such violence, it instead had a more complex and perverse set of effects. Section 295A and its cousins turned law into a relay point for the circulation of affect, a mechanism for the transmission of populational pain.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51659,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF RELIGION\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-10\",\"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/lfad036\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF RELIGION","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jaarel/lfad036","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

摘要

本文回顾了印度刑法典对宗教犯罪的限制,特别是第295A条,并特别关注19世纪关于将英国亵渎神明普通法世俗化的争论。基于将英国和印度世俗主义的历史视为本质上相互交织的学术研究,我建议最好在一个单一的分析框架内研究这些相互纠缠的法律世俗主义。我进一步指出,这种殖民世俗主义,除其他外,是一种情感工具。它将现代国家与情感或感觉问题联系起来,含蓄地将“宗教情感”定义为一种与人口暴力有着内在联系的情感。虽然殖民法表面上是为了减少这种暴力,但实际上却产生了一系列更为复杂和反常的影响。第295A条及其同类法案将法律变成了情感循环的中转站,一种传递大众痛苦的机制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Insulting Religion: Penal Secularism and the Government of Feeling
Abstract This article revisits the Indian Penal Code’s restrictions on religious offense, especially Section 295A, with particular attention to nineteenth-century debates about secularizing the English common law of blasphemy. Building on scholarship that takes the histories of British and Indian secularisms as constitutively intertwined, I suggest that these entangled legal secularisms are best studied within a single analytic frame. I further suggest that this colonial secularism was, among other things, an affective apparatus. It linked the modern state to questions of sentiment or feeling, implicitly defining “religious feeling” as a species of affect with an intrinsic link to populational violence. Although colonial law ostensibly sought to reduce such violence, it instead had a more complex and perverse set of effects. Section 295A and its cousins turned law into a relay point for the circulation of affect, a mechanism for the transmission of populational pain.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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