“邪教”的回归

IF 0.1 0 RELIGION
A. Thomas, Edward Graham-Hyde
{"title":"“邪教”的回归","authors":"A. Thomas, Edward Graham-Hyde","doi":"10.1558/imre.23573","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Recent years have seen an apparent “return” of normative religious and cultic language in political and media discourses, often adopted in pejorative and confrontational contexts. Arguably driven by contemporary political divisions and debates surrounding COVID-19 restrictions, terms including “cult,” “brainwashing,” and “groupthink” have reignited discourses surrounding so-called “cultic” behaviour and beliefs. We argue, however, that the “cult debate” has not returned, but rather transitioned into new and implicit conversations surrounding “good” and “bad” religion. In this special issue of Implicit Religion, we seek to avoid re-treading old ground concerning definitions of “cults,” and instead adopt a renewed approach to the academic study of normative cultic language—placing an emphasis on the ways in which these terms are used, negotiated, and understood in contemporary discourses.","PeriodicalId":53963,"journal":{"name":"Implicit Religion","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Return of the “Cult”\",\"authors\":\"A. Thomas, Edward Graham-Hyde\",\"doi\":\"10.1558/imre.23573\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Recent years have seen an apparent “return” of normative religious and cultic language in political and media discourses, often adopted in pejorative and confrontational contexts. Arguably driven by contemporary political divisions and debates surrounding COVID-19 restrictions, terms including “cult,” “brainwashing,” and “groupthink” have reignited discourses surrounding so-called “cultic” behaviour and beliefs. We argue, however, that the “cult debate” has not returned, but rather transitioned into new and implicit conversations surrounding “good” and “bad” religion. In this special issue of Implicit Religion, we seek to avoid re-treading old ground concerning definitions of “cults,” and instead adopt a renewed approach to the academic study of normative cultic language—placing an emphasis on the ways in which these terms are used, negotiated, and understood in contemporary discourses.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53963,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Implicit Religion\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Implicit Religion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1558/imre.23573\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Implicit Religion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1558/imre.23573","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

近年来,在政治和媒体话语中出现了规范的宗教和邪教语言的明显“回归”,这些语言往往是在轻蔑和对抗的情况下采用的。可以说,在当代政治分歧和围绕COVID-19限制的辩论的推动下,“邪教”、“洗脑”和“群体思维”等术语重新点燃了围绕所谓“邪教”行为和信仰的话语。然而,我们认为,“邪教辩论”并没有回归,而是转变为围绕“好”和“坏”宗教的新的隐含对话。在本期《隐性宗教》特刊中,我们试图避免重走“邪教”定义的老路,而是采用一种新的方法来研究规范的邪教语言——强调这些术语在当代话语中的使用、协商和理解方式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Return of the “Cult”
Recent years have seen an apparent “return” of normative religious and cultic language in political and media discourses, often adopted in pejorative and confrontational contexts. Arguably driven by contemporary political divisions and debates surrounding COVID-19 restrictions, terms including “cult,” “brainwashing,” and “groupthink” have reignited discourses surrounding so-called “cultic” behaviour and beliefs. We argue, however, that the “cult debate” has not returned, but rather transitioned into new and implicit conversations surrounding “good” and “bad” religion. In this special issue of Implicit Religion, we seek to avoid re-treading old ground concerning definitions of “cults,” and instead adopt a renewed approach to the academic study of normative cultic language—placing an emphasis on the ways in which these terms are used, negotiated, and understood in contemporary discourses.
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
Implicit Religion
Implicit Religion RELIGION-
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
2
×
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