基督教:“划分理智的方式”

IF 0.5 2区 哲学 0 RELIGION Method & Theory in the Study of Religion Pub Date : 2019-06-25 DOI:10.1163/15700682-12341447
A. Gow
{"title":"基督教:“划分理智的方式”","authors":"A. Gow","doi":"10.1163/15700682-12341447","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nAnidjar’s Blood can be read, with Amy Hollywood, as a political intervention designed to alienate and creatively reuse the familiar terms ‘blood’ and ‘Christianity’ to mean quite different things, namely a set of biologically, emotionally, and politically charged metaphors circulating within and fuelling a hegemonic cultural world system. While this is a clear possible reading throughout, Anidjar provides an explicit key to justify these meanings only on page 258, allowing that he has used each term as ‘catachresis’— to command our attention but also to redirect it. Contrary to Francis Landy’s wish that Andijar provide an accounting of how (actual) blood in (actual) Christian tradition relates to blood in Judaism, I suggest that Anidjar’s project requires nothing of the sort, working as it does at an entire level of abstraction above the plane of paratactically organized and comparable ‘religions’.","PeriodicalId":44982,"journal":{"name":"Method & Theory in the Study of Religion","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/15700682-12341447","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Christianity: “A Manner of Dividing the Sensible”\",\"authors\":\"A. Gow\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15700682-12341447\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nAnidjar’s Blood can be read, with Amy Hollywood, as a political intervention designed to alienate and creatively reuse the familiar terms ‘blood’ and ‘Christianity’ to mean quite different things, namely a set of biologically, emotionally, and politically charged metaphors circulating within and fuelling a hegemonic cultural world system. While this is a clear possible reading throughout, Anidjar provides an explicit key to justify these meanings only on page 258, allowing that he has used each term as ‘catachresis’— to command our attention but also to redirect it. Contrary to Francis Landy’s wish that Andijar provide an accounting of how (actual) blood in (actual) Christian tradition relates to blood in Judaism, I suggest that Anidjar’s project requires nothing of the sort, working as it does at an entire level of abstraction above the plane of paratactically organized and comparable ‘religions’.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44982,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Method & Theory in the Study of Religion\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-06-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/15700682-12341447\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Method & Theory in the Study of Religion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15700682-12341447\",\"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/10.1163/15700682-12341447","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

阿尼贾尔的《血》可以被艾米·好莱坞解读为一种政治干预,旨在疏远并创造性地重新使用熟悉的术语“血”和“基督教”来表示完全不同的东西,即一套在霸权文化世界体系中循环并推动其发展的生物、情感和政治隐喻。虽然这是一个清晰的可能的阅读,但Anidjar只在258页提供了一个明确的关键来证明这些含义,允许他使用每个术语作为“catachresis”-命令我们的注意力,但也重新定向它。与Francis Landy的愿望相反,Anidjar提供了(实际)基督教传统中的(实际)血液与犹太教中的血液之间的关系,我认为Anidjar的项目不需要这种描述,因为它在抽象的整体层面上工作,而不是在协同组织和可比较的“宗教”层面上。
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
Christianity: “A Manner of Dividing the Sensible”
Anidjar’s Blood can be read, with Amy Hollywood, as a political intervention designed to alienate and creatively reuse the familiar terms ‘blood’ and ‘Christianity’ to mean quite different things, namely a set of biologically, emotionally, and politically charged metaphors circulating within and fuelling a hegemonic cultural world system. While this is a clear possible reading throughout, Anidjar provides an explicit key to justify these meanings only on page 258, allowing that he has used each term as ‘catachresis’— to command our attention but also to redirect it. Contrary to Francis Landy’s wish that Andijar provide an accounting of how (actual) blood in (actual) Christian tradition relates to blood in Judaism, I suggest that Anidjar’s project requires nothing of the sort, working as it does at an entire level of abstraction above the plane of paratactically organized and comparable ‘religions’.
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