{"title":"Contesting empire religion: coloniality and sticky media discourses","authors":"Enqi Weng","doi":"10.1080/14755610.2023.2255305","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTThe concept of religion in settler-colonial Australia is intricately intertwined with whiteness and Christianity and introduced during colonisation. Its influence is evident not only in its integration into Australian society but also in the exclusionary measures within religious communities. Due to Australia’s colonial history, ‘religion’ is often narrowly interpreted, with a conservative, moralistic lens influenced by Eurocentric perspectives. This interpretation tends to have an affective ‘sticky’ dimension that generates significant media discussion. This paper examines the prevalence of ‘empire religion’ in media discourses, and aims to uncover and critique the presence of coloniality in discussions about religion. By adopting a decolonial lens to explore Australian religions and spirituality, this paper argues that sticky media discourses on religion can be seen as reverbs of Australia’s ‘colonial wound’. These reverbs collectively serve as an active resistance and deconstruction of coloniality, urging for greater truth-telling, healing, and a more comprehensive understanding of Australian religions and spirituality.KEYWORDS: Media discoursesaffective discoursesdecolonisingrace and religion AcknowledgementsAn earlier draft of this manuscript was first presented at the Australian Association for the Study of Religion Conference in December 2021. I wish to thank the two reviewers for their comments to improve on this paper. I am also grateful to Dr Steven Tomlins and Andrew Stapleton for their support in proofreading and editing earlier drafts of this manuscript.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).","PeriodicalId":45190,"journal":{"name":"Culture and Religion","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Culture and Religion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14755610.2023.2255305","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
Abstract
ABSTRACTThe concept of religion in settler-colonial Australia is intricately intertwined with whiteness and Christianity and introduced during colonisation. Its influence is evident not only in its integration into Australian society but also in the exclusionary measures within religious communities. Due to Australia’s colonial history, ‘religion’ is often narrowly interpreted, with a conservative, moralistic lens influenced by Eurocentric perspectives. This interpretation tends to have an affective ‘sticky’ dimension that generates significant media discussion. This paper examines the prevalence of ‘empire religion’ in media discourses, and aims to uncover and critique the presence of coloniality in discussions about religion. By adopting a decolonial lens to explore Australian religions and spirituality, this paper argues that sticky media discourses on religion can be seen as reverbs of Australia’s ‘colonial wound’. These reverbs collectively serve as an active resistance and deconstruction of coloniality, urging for greater truth-telling, healing, and a more comprehensive understanding of Australian religions and spirituality.KEYWORDS: Media discoursesaffective discoursesdecolonisingrace and religion AcknowledgementsAn earlier draft of this manuscript was first presented at the Australian Association for the Study of Religion Conference in December 2021. I wish to thank the two reviewers for their comments to improve on this paper. I am also grateful to Dr Steven Tomlins and Andrew Stapleton for their support in proofreading and editing earlier drafts of this manuscript.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).