保护差异:保护主义策略与分道扬镳

IF 0.5 2区 哲学 0 RELIGION Method & Theory in the Study of Religion Pub Date : 2020-06-01 DOI:10.1163/15700682-12341480
M. Tong
{"title":"保护差异:保护主义策略与分道扬镳","authors":"M. Tong","doi":"10.1163/15700682-12341480","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nThis article takes an interdisciplinary look at protectionist doxa at the intersection of two distinct fields: early Christian studies and rabbinics. I argue that both fields maintain a protectionist doxa of difference; that is, a doxa that early Christianity and rabbinic Judaism are fundamentally different from each other. This difference, which supports the constitution of each field as separate from the other, nevertheless has a secondary effect of shaping our approach to our objects of study—early Christianity and rabbinic Judaism. Specifically, this doxa of difference occludes the ways in which early Christianity and rabbinic Judaism can be similar. I focus specifically on the current “polysemy” debate within rabbinics and show how this doxa has functioned to obstruct comparative approaches across disciplines rather than facilitate them.","PeriodicalId":44982,"journal":{"name":"Method & Theory in the Study of Religion","volume":"-1 1","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/15700682-12341480","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Protecting Difference: Protectionist Strategies and the Parting of the Ways\",\"authors\":\"M. Tong\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15700682-12341480\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nThis article takes an interdisciplinary look at protectionist doxa at the intersection of two distinct fields: early Christian studies and rabbinics. I argue that both fields maintain a protectionist doxa of difference; that is, a doxa that early Christianity and rabbinic Judaism are fundamentally different from each other. This difference, which supports the constitution of each field as separate from the other, nevertheless has a secondary effect of shaping our approach to our objects of study—early Christianity and rabbinic Judaism. Specifically, this doxa of difference occludes the ways in which early Christianity and rabbinic Judaism can be similar. I focus specifically on the current “polysemy” debate within rabbinics and show how this doxa has functioned to obstruct comparative approaches across disciplines rather than facilitate them.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44982,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Method & Theory in the Study of Religion\",\"volume\":\"-1 1\",\"pages\":\"1-9\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/15700682-12341480\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Method & Theory in the Study of Religion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15700682-12341480\",\"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":"Method & Theory in the Study of Religion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15700682-12341480","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

这篇文章在两个不同的领域:早期基督教研究和拉比研究的交叉点上对保护主义教条进行了跨学科的研究。我认为,这两个领域都保持着保护主义的差异;也就是说,早期基督教和拉比犹太教本质上是不同的。这种差异支持了每个领域的独立构成,然而,它对我们研究对象——早期基督教和拉比犹太教——的方法产生了次要影响。具体来说,这种差异阻断了早期基督教和拉比犹太教的相似之处。我特别关注当前拉比内部的“多义性”争论,并展示了这种争论是如何阻碍而不是促进跨学科的比较方法的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Protecting Difference: Protectionist Strategies and the Parting of the Ways
This article takes an interdisciplinary look at protectionist doxa at the intersection of two distinct fields: early Christian studies and rabbinics. I argue that both fields maintain a protectionist doxa of difference; that is, a doxa that early Christianity and rabbinic Judaism are fundamentally different from each other. This difference, which supports the constitution of each field as separate from the other, nevertheless has a secondary effect of shaping our approach to our objects of study—early Christianity and rabbinic Judaism. Specifically, this doxa of difference occludes the ways in which early Christianity and rabbinic Judaism can be similar. I focus specifically on the current “polysemy” debate within rabbinics and show how this doxa has functioned to obstruct comparative approaches across disciplines rather than facilitate them.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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