Can critical religion play by its own rules? Why there must be more than one way to be critical in the study of religion.

According to some of the most vocal proponents of Critical Religion (CR), taking CR seriously entails accepting that “religion” as an analytic category leads to reification and naturalization, and is unduly normative, thus critical scholars of religion should abandon it, and restrict ourselves to studying discursive battles over the uses of “religion.” In this article we build on the case for alternative critical proposals by offering an immanent critique of the work of prominent CR scholars Russell McCutcheon, Craig Martin, and Timothy Fitzgerald, among others. In doing so, we identify and outline CR’s major analytical flaws, which we name: inconsistent historicization, crypto-normativity, and arbitrary abandonment. We conclude that CR scholarship cannot but fail to live up to its own ideals, and moreover that much would be lost were we to limit the critical study of religion to CR.

Jaar van publicatie:2022

Toegankelijkheid:Open