Chastening and Disciplining Comparison: Bruce Lincoln and Oliver Freiberger on the Comparative Method in the Study of Religion

IF 0.5 2区 哲学 0 RELIGION Method & Theory in the Study of Religion Pub Date : 2020-07-09 DOI:10.1163/15700682-12341491
Robert A. Yelle
{"title":"Chastening and Disciplining Comparison: Bruce Lincoln and Oliver Freiberger on the Comparative Method in the Study of Religion","authors":"Robert A. Yelle","doi":"10.1163/15700682-12341491","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nThe article reviews two recent books on comparison in the study of religion authored by prominent scholars. Long out of vogue, comparison now must be defended as a or even the central methodology for religious studies. Both philology and critical theory have collaborated to undermine the universalist assumptions on which earlier grand comparisons in the study of religion based themselves. The question is whether the two books considered here manage to rescue comparison from its critics. My reading here suggests that a more robust defense may be needed.","PeriodicalId":44982,"journal":{"name":"Method & Theory in the Study of Religion","volume":"32 1","pages":"482-490"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/15700682-12341491","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Method & Theory in the Study of Religion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15700682-12341491","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The article reviews two recent books on comparison in the study of religion authored by prominent scholars. Long out of vogue, comparison now must be defended as a or even the central methodology for religious studies. Both philology and critical theory have collaborated to undermine the universalist assumptions on which earlier grand comparisons in the study of religion based themselves. The question is whether the two books considered here manage to rescue comparison from its critics. My reading here suggests that a more robust defense may be needed.
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
追逐与约束的比较——论宗教研究中的比较方法
这篇文章回顾了著名学者最近出版的两本关于宗教研究比较的书。比较早已过时,现在必须作为宗教研究的一种甚至是核心方法论进行辩护。语文学和批判理论都协同破坏了普遍主义的假设,而早期宗教研究中的大比较正是基于这些假设。问题是,这里考虑的这两本书是否成功地从批评者那里拯救了这种比较。我在这里的阅读表明,可能需要更强有力的防御。
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
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: Method & Theory in the Study of Religion publishes articles, notes, book reviews and letters which explicitly address the problems of methodology and theory in the academic study of religion. This includes such traditional points of departure as history, philosophy, anthropology and sociology, but also the natural sciences, and such newer disciplinary approaches as feminist theory and studies. Method & Theory in the Study of Religion also concentrates on the critical analysis of theoretical problems prominent in the study of religion.
期刊最新文献
Awkward History, Awkward Theory Front matter The Discursive Side of Sociological Institutionalism in the Study of Religion ‘Religious Literacy’: Some Considerations and Reservations Scholarly Values, Methods, and Evidence in the Academic Study 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