Naming the Game

Charles E. Vernoff
{"title":"Naming the Game","authors":"Charles E. Vernoff","doi":"10.1558/bsor.23548","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In The Archive, we bring back some of our most provocative essays from yesteryear to see what lessons we might learn from them today. Given the shifting grounds on which defenses of the academic study of religion are being made—whether in the IAHR as discussed in The Interview or in the context of the contemporary U.S., a post-Carson v. Makin academy as discussed in The Editorial—we return to a 1983 piece by Charles Elliot Vernoff, originally published in the Council on the Study of Religion Bulletin 15.4, 109-112, where he traces the contours of the field in the early 1980s.","PeriodicalId":354875,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin for The Study of Religion","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bulletin for The Study of Religion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1558/bsor.23548","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In The Archive, we bring back some of our most provocative essays from yesteryear to see what lessons we might learn from them today. Given the shifting grounds on which defenses of the academic study of religion are being made—whether in the IAHR as discussed in The Interview or in the context of the contemporary U.S., a post-Carson v. Makin academy as discussed in The Editorial—we return to a 1983 piece by Charles Elliot Vernoff, originally published in the Council on the Study of Religion Bulletin 15.4, 109-112, where he traces the contours of the field in the early 1980s.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
为游戏命名
在《档案》中,我们带回了一些过去最具争议的文章,看看我们今天可以从中吸取什么教训。鉴于为宗教学术研究辩护的理由正在发生变化——无论是在《采访》中讨论的IAHR,还是在《社论》中讨论的当代美国的背景下,后卡森诉马金学院——我们回到查尔斯·埃利奥特·弗诺夫1983年的一篇文章,最初发表在《宗教研究委员会公报》15.4期,109-112,他在那里追溯了20世纪80年代早期该领域的概况。
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 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Talking Fieldwork with Rebekka King The Institute for Signifying Scriptures Presents A Scholarly Stakeout Ethnography as Heuristic Experience, Historical Research, and Multiple Method Ethnographic Journalism and the Public Understanding of Religion
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1