{"title":"宗教研究 \"数据 \"的非殖民化:反对差异的世界观模式","authors":"Lisa Landoe Hedrick","doi":"10.1093/jaarel/lfae068","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Challenging the false neutrality of secularism, J. Z. Smith (1988) declared that between “religion” and “religious studies” there is “no difference at all.” The subsequent rise of area studies matched the decline of comparative programs whose underwriting logic faltered under postcolonial scrutiny. This turn toward particularity and data expansion was a way of reckoning with the ethnocentric universalizing of modern social theory. Today, scholars in both religious studies and anthropology worry about how ethnocentrism persists in the very form of “the data.” However, the former have largely misunderstood the contributions of anthropology’s ontological turn—specifically the “radical” variant “perspectivism”—to disciplinary reform. I explain why perspectivists suggest replacing talk of multiple views with talk of multiple worlds to model a genuine alternative to cultural relativism.","PeriodicalId":51659,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF RELIGION","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Decolonizing “the Data” of Religious Studies: A Case against the Worldview Model of Difference\",\"authors\":\"Lisa Landoe Hedrick\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jaarel/lfae068\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Challenging the false neutrality of secularism, J. Z. Smith (1988) declared that between “religion” and “religious studies” there is “no difference at all.” The subsequent rise of area studies matched the decline of comparative programs whose underwriting logic faltered under postcolonial scrutiny. This turn toward particularity and data expansion was a way of reckoning with the ethnocentric universalizing of modern social theory. Today, scholars in both religious studies and anthropology worry about how ethnocentrism persists in the very form of “the data.” However, the former have largely misunderstood the contributions of anthropology’s ontological turn—specifically the “radical” variant “perspectivism”—to disciplinary reform. I explain why perspectivists suggest replacing talk of multiple views with talk of multiple worlds to model a genuine alternative to cultural relativism.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51659,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF RELIGION\",\"volume\":\"3 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF RELIGION\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jaarel/lfae068\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF RELIGION","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jaarel/lfae068","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
摘要
J. Z. Smith(1988 年)对世俗主义虚假的中立性提出了质疑,他宣称 "宗教 "与 "宗教研究 "之间 "根本没有区别"。地区研究的兴起与比较项目的衰落相得益彰,后者的支撑逻辑在后殖民主义的审视下摇摇欲坠。转向特殊性和数据扩展是对现代社会理论以种族为中心的普遍化进行反思的一种方式。如今,宗教研究和人类学领域的学者都在担心民族中心主义是如何以 "数据 "的形式持续存在的。然而,前者在很大程度上误解了人类学本体论转向--特别是 "激进 "变体 "视角主义"--对学科改革的贡献。我将解释为什么视角主义者建议用多重世界来取代多重观点,从而真正替代文化相对主义。
Decolonizing “the Data” of Religious Studies: A Case against the Worldview Model of Difference
Challenging the false neutrality of secularism, J. Z. Smith (1988) declared that between “religion” and “religious studies” there is “no difference at all.” The subsequent rise of area studies matched the decline of comparative programs whose underwriting logic faltered under postcolonial scrutiny. This turn toward particularity and data expansion was a way of reckoning with the ethnocentric universalizing of modern social theory. Today, scholars in both religious studies and anthropology worry about how ethnocentrism persists in the very form of “the data.” However, the former have largely misunderstood the contributions of anthropology’s ontological turn—specifically the “radical” variant “perspectivism”—to disciplinary reform. I explain why perspectivists suggest replacing talk of multiple views with talk of multiple worlds to model a genuine alternative to cultural relativism.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of the American Academy of Religion is generally considered to be the leading academic journal in the field of religious studies. Now in volume 77 and with a circulation of over 11,000, this international quarterly journal publishes leading scholarly articles that cover the full range of world religious traditions together with provocative studies of the methodologies by which these traditions are explored. Each issue also contains a large and valuable book review section.