Gender and the Conceptualization of Religion and Islam

IF 0.1 0 RELIGION Implicit Religion Pub Date : 2023-07-20 DOI:10.1558/imre.23274
G. Maltese
{"title":"Gender and the Conceptualization of Religion and Islam","authors":"G. Maltese","doi":"10.1558/imre.23274","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The critique of power asymmetries reproduced by Eurocentric and essentialist conceptualizations of generic terms and analytical concepts is well-established in religious studies and gender studies, especially when investigating Islam. Yet each discipline is in danger of omitting the most critical discussions of the other. Discussions about conceptualizations of religion and Islam, even those adapting theoretically sophisticated global history approaches, largely ignore gender. Scholars of gender studies, in turn, have barely queried or nuanced “religion” and “Islam” as categories. Thus, they fail to take into account how conceptualizations of religion and Islam as generic terms have affected the power relations under scrutiny. This article aims to address this momentous mutual exclusion by examining a tract published in 1940 in the context of Anglophone Southeast and South Asian Muslim intellectual circles. Drawing on Judith Butler’s critical engagement with Luce Irigaray and on Butler’s notion of subversion by thoroughgoing appropriation and redeployment and situating this case study within the mentioned mutual exclusion, I argue that studying the relation between concepts of femininity and masculinity and concepts of religion and Islam poses important questions regarding colonial, androcentric, and phallogocentric epistemologies underlying contemporary religious studies and gender studies. I contend that religion-making and gender-making should not be investigated apart from each other.","PeriodicalId":53963,"journal":{"name":"Implicit Religion","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-20","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.23274","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

The critique of power asymmetries reproduced by Eurocentric and essentialist conceptualizations of generic terms and analytical concepts is well-established in religious studies and gender studies, especially when investigating Islam. Yet each discipline is in danger of omitting the most critical discussions of the other. Discussions about conceptualizations of religion and Islam, even those adapting theoretically sophisticated global history approaches, largely ignore gender. Scholars of gender studies, in turn, have barely queried or nuanced “religion” and “Islam” as categories. Thus, they fail to take into account how conceptualizations of religion and Islam as generic terms have affected the power relations under scrutiny. This article aims to address this momentous mutual exclusion by examining a tract published in 1940 in the context of Anglophone Southeast and South Asian Muslim intellectual circles. Drawing on Judith Butler’s critical engagement with Luce Irigaray and on Butler’s notion of subversion by thoroughgoing appropriation and redeployment and situating this case study within the mentioned mutual exclusion, I argue that studying the relation between concepts of femininity and masculinity and concepts of religion and Islam poses important questions regarding colonial, androcentric, and phallogocentric epistemologies underlying contemporary religious studies and gender studies. I contend that religion-making and gender-making should not be investigated apart from each other.
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
性别与宗教和伊斯兰教的概念化
欧洲中心主义和本质主义对通用术语和分析概念的概念化所再现的对权力不对称的批判在宗教研究和性别研究中得到了证实,尤其是在调查伊斯兰教时。然而,每一门学科都有可能忽略另一门学科中最关键的讨论。关于宗教和伊斯兰教概念化的讨论,即使是那些采用理论上复杂的全球历史方法的讨论,也在很大程度上忽视了性别。反过来,性别研究学者几乎没有质疑或细致入微地将“宗教”和“伊斯兰教”作为类别。因此,他们没有考虑到宗教和伊斯兰教作为通用术语的概念化如何影响所审查的权力关系。这篇文章旨在通过研究1940年在英语国家东南亚和南亚穆斯林知识界发表的一篇文章来解决这种重大的相互排斥问题。根据朱迪斯·巴特勒与Luce Irigaray的批判性接触,以及巴特勒通过彻底挪用和重新部署颠覆的概念,并将本案例研究置于上述相互排斥的范围内,我认为,研究女性气质和男性气质概念与宗教和伊斯兰教概念之间的关系,以及当代宗教研究和性别研究背后的以阴茎为中心的认识论。我认为,宗教制造和性别制造不应该分开调查。
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