Connecting Fitzgerald and Latour for the Sake of Democratic Religious Studies

IF 0.1 0 RELIGION Implicit Religion Pub Date : 2020-05-02 DOI:10.1558/imre.41065
Milan Fujda
{"title":"Connecting Fitzgerald and Latour for the Sake of Democratic Religious Studies","authors":"Milan Fujda","doi":"10.1558/imre.41065","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There is a theoretical and methodological toolbox for postcolonial, i.e. truly democratic, religious studies which is available and ready for use. Through it, the discipline can drop the analytical categories of \"religion\" and \"belief \" completely from its vocabulary. Timothy Fitzgerald's criticism of the colonising rhetorical structure of \"religion\" can thus be carried into completion. This was made possible by redesigning a social science methodology within the study of science and technology. Bruno Latour and his colleagues refined it by employing approaches from ethnomethodology and symbolic interactionism. This paper demonstrates how to transplant this symmetrical approach to religious studies. The distinctiveness of the discipline won't be lost if religion remains in the background as a completely vague horizon-idea arranging the range of heterogeneous interests of various scholars in the field together. Its etic (theoretical) use, however, must be strictly prohibited in order to foster the elaboration of precise descriptive language capturing the exact components operating in the ordering processes under scrutiny.","PeriodicalId":53963,"journal":{"name":"Implicit Religion","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Implicit Religion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1558/imre.41065","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: 1

Abstract

There is a theoretical and methodological toolbox for postcolonial, i.e. truly democratic, religious studies which is available and ready for use. Through it, the discipline can drop the analytical categories of "religion" and "belief " completely from its vocabulary. Timothy Fitzgerald's criticism of the colonising rhetorical structure of "religion" can thus be carried into completion. This was made possible by redesigning a social science methodology within the study of science and technology. Bruno Latour and his colleagues refined it by employing approaches from ethnomethodology and symbolic interactionism. This paper demonstrates how to transplant this symmetrical approach to religious studies. The distinctiveness of the discipline won't be lost if religion remains in the background as a completely vague horizon-idea arranging the range of heterogeneous interests of various scholars in the field together. Its etic (theoretical) use, however, must be strictly prohibited in order to foster the elaboration of precise descriptive language capturing the exact components operating in the ordering processes under scrutiny.
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
从民主宗教研究的角度看菲茨杰拉德和拉图尔
有一个后殖民的理论和方法工具箱,即真正民主的宗教研究,可以使用。通过它,该学科可以将“宗教”和“信仰”的分析范畴完全从其词汇中删除。蒂莫西·菲茨杰拉德对“宗教”的殖民主义修辞结构的批判由此得以完成。这是通过在科学和技术研究中重新设计社会科学方法论而实现的。布鲁诺·拉图尔和他的同事们采用了民族方法论和象征互动主义的方法对其进行了提炼。本文展示了如何将这种对称的方法移植到宗教研究中。如果宗教作为一个完全模糊的地平线概念,将该领域不同学者的异质兴趣范围安排在一起,那么该学科的独特性就不会丧失。然而,必须严格禁止其etic(理论)使用,以促进精确描述语言的发展,捕捉在仔细审查的订购过程中运行的确切组件。
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
Implicit Religion
Implicit Religion RELIGION-
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
2
期刊最新文献
Allowing Belief The Intersectional Logic of “Bad Religion” “I Believe in Bees” Does Anyone Sincerely Believe in Science? and Several Other Questions Critical Race and 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