Response to Contributors

In my first contribution to this issue, I looked at my motives for writing The Ideology of Religious Studies (IRS). I tried to sort out some of the inherent problems and contradictions in IRS, as well as the parts that seem to me to be valid and worthwhile. I suggested that, when I wrote IRS, I was not fully conscious that there is an unresolved tension between two different projects. One is limited critique, which tries to isolate the critical deconstruction of religion and turns a half-opened eye to the similar and inherent problems in other categories strongly associated with “secular” universities, such as “politics,” “society,” “nation” or “culture.” The other is extended or unlimited critique, which follows the critical logic where it goes, and consistently subjects other categories to similar treatment. I was not fully conscious of this antagonism at the time of writing, and I think it may help to understand the different things that different people have derived from IRS.