Eintrag weiter verarbeiten
Distinctions, Differentiations, Ontology, and Non-humans in Theories of Religion
Gespeichert in:
| Zeitschriftentitel: | Method & Theory in the Study of Religion |
|---|---|
| Personen und Körperschaften: | |
| In: | Method & Theory in the Study of Religion, 22, 2010, 4, S. 354-374 |
| Format: | E-Article |
| Sprache: | Unbestimmt |
| veröffentlicht: |
Brill
|
| Schlagwörter: |
| author_facet |
Stausberg, Michael Stausberg, Michael |
|---|---|
| author |
Stausberg, Michael |
| spellingShingle |
Stausberg, Michael Method & Theory in the Study of Religion Distinctions, Differentiations, Ontology, and Non-humans in Theories of Religion Religious studies |
| author_sort |
stausberg, michael |
| spelling |
Stausberg, Michael 0943-3058 1570-0682 Brill Religious studies http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/157006810x531139 <jats:sec><jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>This essay has four main parts. (1) Reviewing previous theories of religion, it suggests that it may be helpful not to conflate, a priori, the notions of (the) religious on the one hand and religion\s on the other, and that it may be useful to explore concepts such as (the) sacred and transcendence as independent yet related to the business of theorizing religion. (2) Distinguishing social/cultural from biological/genetic evolution, it outlines the occurrence of three processes/stages of the evolution of religious affairs and religions(s), here called attributive, structural, and functional differentiation respectively. While the first two processes/stages occurred in the remote and ancient past respectively, the third process/stage is typical of modernities and has by now globalized. (3) The article argues that recent criticisms of the validity of the category of religion are informed by a reverse sui generis approach characterized by a tacit claim that religion is an anomaly, by virtue of its supposedly being inherently different from similar concepts. The article suggests that John Searle’s philosophy may throw light on the mode of existence (ontology) of religion as an example of social and institutional reality, as an intentionality- and observer-relative yet real and empowering structure. (4) In the final section, the article engages some lines of thinking of Bruno Latour’s interpretation of Actor-Network-Theory, in particular the category of non-humans and the importance of things (objects) for social reality, including religion.</jats:p> </jats:sec> Distinctions, Differentiations, Ontology, and Non-humans in Theories of Religion Method & Theory in the Study of Religion |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1163/157006810x531139 |
| facet_avail |
Online |
| finc_class_facet |
Theologie und Religionswissenschaft |
| format |
ElectronicArticle |
| fullrecord |
blob:ai-49-aHR0cDovL2R4LmRvaS5vcmcvMTAuMTE2My8xNTcwMDY4MTB4NTMxMTM5 |
| id |
ai-49-aHR0cDovL2R4LmRvaS5vcmcvMTAuMTE2My8xNTcwMDY4MTB4NTMxMTM5 |
| institution |
DE-15 DE-Rs1 DE-Pl11 DE-105 DE-14 DE-Ch1 DE-L229 DE-D275 DE-Bn3 DE-Brt1 DE-D161 DE-Gla1 DE-Zi4 |
| imprint |
Brill, 2010 |
| imprint_str_mv |
Brill, 2010 |
| issn |
0943-3058 1570-0682 |
| issn_str_mv |
0943-3058 1570-0682 |
| language |
Undetermined |
| mega_collection |
Brill (CrossRef) |
| match_str |
stausberg2010distinctionsdifferentiationsontologyandnonhumansintheoriesofreligion |
| publishDateSort |
2010 |
| publisher |
Brill |
| recordtype |
ai |
| record_format |
ai |
| series |
Method & Theory in the Study of Religion |
| source_id |
49 |
| title |
Distinctions, Differentiations, Ontology, and Non-humans in Theories of Religion |
| title_unstemmed |
Distinctions, Differentiations, Ontology, and Non-humans in Theories of Religion |
| title_full |
Distinctions, Differentiations, Ontology, and Non-humans in Theories of Religion |
| title_fullStr |
Distinctions, Differentiations, Ontology, and Non-humans in Theories of Religion |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Distinctions, Differentiations, Ontology, and Non-humans in Theories of Religion |
| title_short |
Distinctions, Differentiations, Ontology, and Non-humans in Theories of Religion |
| title_sort |
distinctions, differentiations, ontology, and non-humans in theories of religion |
| topic |
Religious studies |
| url |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/157006810x531139 |
| publishDate |
2010 |
| physical |
354-374 |
| description |
<jats:sec><jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>This essay has four main parts. (1) Reviewing previous theories of religion, it suggests that it may be helpful not to conflate, a priori, the notions of (the) religious on the one hand and religion\s on the other, and that it may be useful to explore concepts such as (the) sacred and transcendence as independent yet related to the business of theorizing religion. (2) Distinguishing social/cultural from biological/genetic evolution, it outlines the occurrence of three processes/stages of the evolution of religious affairs and religions(s), here called attributive, structural, and functional differentiation respectively. While the first two processes/stages occurred in the remote and ancient past respectively, the third process/stage is typical of modernities and has by now globalized. (3) The article argues that recent criticisms of the validity of the category of religion are informed by a reverse sui generis approach characterized by a tacit claim that religion is an anomaly, by virtue of its supposedly being inherently different from similar concepts. The article suggests that John Searle’s philosophy may throw light on the mode of existence (ontology) of religion as an example of social and institutional reality, as an intentionality- and observer-relative yet real and empowering structure. (4) In the final section, the article engages some lines of thinking of Bruno Latour’s interpretation of Actor-Network-Theory, in particular the category of non-humans and the importance of things (objects) for social reality, including religion.</jats:p>
</jats:sec> |
| container_issue |
4 |
| container_start_page |
354 |
| container_title |
Method & Theory in the Study of Religion |
| container_volume |
22 |
| format_de105 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_de14 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_de15 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_de520 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_de540 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_dech1 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_ded117 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_degla1 |
E-Article |
| format_del152 |
Buch |
| format_del189 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_dezi4 |
Article |
| format_dezwi2 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_finc |
Article, E-Article |
| format_nrw |
Article, E-Article |
| _version_ |
1792339159920148482 |
| geogr_code |
not assigned |
| last_indexed |
2024-03-01T15:43:43.02Z |
| geogr_code_person |
not assigned |
| openURL |
url_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fvufind.svn.sourceforge.net%3Agenerator&rft.title=Distinctions%2C+Differentiations%2C+Ontology%2C+and+Non-humans+in+Theories+of+Religion&rft.date=2010-01-01&genre=article&issn=1570-0682&volume=22&issue=4&spage=354&epage=374&pages=354-374&jtitle=Method+%26+Theory+in+the+Study+of+Religion&atitle=Distinctions%2C+Differentiations%2C+Ontology%2C+and+Non-humans+in+Theories+of+Religion&aulast=Stausberg&aufirst=Michael&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1163%2F157006810x531139&rft.language%5B0%5D=und |
| SOLR | |
| _version_ | 1792339159920148482 |
| author | Stausberg, Michael |
| author_facet | Stausberg, Michael, Stausberg, Michael |
| author_sort | stausberg, michael |
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | 354 |
| container_title | Method & Theory in the Study of Religion |
| container_volume | 22 |
| description | <jats:sec><jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>This essay has four main parts. (1) Reviewing previous theories of religion, it suggests that it may be helpful not to conflate, a priori, the notions of (the) religious on the one hand and religion\s on the other, and that it may be useful to explore concepts such as (the) sacred and transcendence as independent yet related to the business of theorizing religion. (2) Distinguishing social/cultural from biological/genetic evolution, it outlines the occurrence of three processes/stages of the evolution of religious affairs and religions(s), here called attributive, structural, and functional differentiation respectively. While the first two processes/stages occurred in the remote and ancient past respectively, the third process/stage is typical of modernities and has by now globalized. (3) The article argues that recent criticisms of the validity of the category of religion are informed by a reverse sui generis approach characterized by a tacit claim that religion is an anomaly, by virtue of its supposedly being inherently different from similar concepts. The article suggests that John Searle’s philosophy may throw light on the mode of existence (ontology) of religion as an example of social and institutional reality, as an intentionality- and observer-relative yet real and empowering structure. (4) In the final section, the article engages some lines of thinking of Bruno Latour’s interpretation of Actor-Network-Theory, in particular the category of non-humans and the importance of things (objects) for social reality, including religion.</jats:p> </jats:sec> |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1163/157006810x531139 |
| facet_avail | Online |
| finc_class_facet | Theologie und Religionswissenschaft |
| format | ElectronicArticle |
| format_de105 | Article, E-Article |
| format_de14 | Article, E-Article |
| format_de15 | Article, E-Article |
| format_de520 | Article, E-Article |
| format_de540 | Article, E-Article |
| format_dech1 | Article, E-Article |
| format_ded117 | Article, E-Article |
| format_degla1 | E-Article |
| format_del152 | Buch |
| format_del189 | Article, E-Article |
| format_dezi4 | Article |
| format_dezwi2 | Article, E-Article |
| format_finc | Article, E-Article |
| format_nrw | Article, E-Article |
| geogr_code | not assigned |
| geogr_code_person | not assigned |
| id | ai-49-aHR0cDovL2R4LmRvaS5vcmcvMTAuMTE2My8xNTcwMDY4MTB4NTMxMTM5 |
| imprint | Brill, 2010 |
| imprint_str_mv | Brill, 2010 |
| institution | DE-15, DE-Rs1, DE-Pl11, DE-105, DE-14, DE-Ch1, DE-L229, DE-D275, DE-Bn3, DE-Brt1, DE-D161, DE-Gla1, DE-Zi4 |
| issn | 0943-3058, 1570-0682 |
| issn_str_mv | 0943-3058, 1570-0682 |
| language | Undetermined |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-01T15:43:43.02Z |
| match_str | stausberg2010distinctionsdifferentiationsontologyandnonhumansintheoriesofreligion |
| mega_collection | Brill (CrossRef) |
| physical | 354-374 |
| publishDate | 2010 |
| publishDateSort | 2010 |
| publisher | Brill |
| record_format | ai |
| recordtype | ai |
| series | Method & Theory in the Study of Religion |
| source_id | 49 |
| spelling | Stausberg, Michael 0943-3058 1570-0682 Brill Religious studies http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/157006810x531139 <jats:sec><jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>This essay has four main parts. (1) Reviewing previous theories of religion, it suggests that it may be helpful not to conflate, a priori, the notions of (the) religious on the one hand and religion\s on the other, and that it may be useful to explore concepts such as (the) sacred and transcendence as independent yet related to the business of theorizing religion. (2) Distinguishing social/cultural from biological/genetic evolution, it outlines the occurrence of three processes/stages of the evolution of religious affairs and religions(s), here called attributive, structural, and functional differentiation respectively. While the first two processes/stages occurred in the remote and ancient past respectively, the third process/stage is typical of modernities and has by now globalized. (3) The article argues that recent criticisms of the validity of the category of religion are informed by a reverse sui generis approach characterized by a tacit claim that religion is an anomaly, by virtue of its supposedly being inherently different from similar concepts. The article suggests that John Searle’s philosophy may throw light on the mode of existence (ontology) of religion as an example of social and institutional reality, as an intentionality- and observer-relative yet real and empowering structure. (4) In the final section, the article engages some lines of thinking of Bruno Latour’s interpretation of Actor-Network-Theory, in particular the category of non-humans and the importance of things (objects) for social reality, including religion.</jats:p> </jats:sec> Distinctions, Differentiations, Ontology, and Non-humans in Theories of Religion Method & Theory in the Study of Religion |
| spellingShingle | Stausberg, Michael, Method & Theory in the Study of Religion, Distinctions, Differentiations, Ontology, and Non-humans in Theories of Religion, Religious studies |
| title | Distinctions, Differentiations, Ontology, and Non-humans in Theories of Religion |
| title_full | Distinctions, Differentiations, Ontology, and Non-humans in Theories of Religion |
| title_fullStr | Distinctions, Differentiations, Ontology, and Non-humans in Theories of Religion |
| title_full_unstemmed | Distinctions, Differentiations, Ontology, and Non-humans in Theories of Religion |
| title_short | Distinctions, Differentiations, Ontology, and Non-humans in Theories of Religion |
| title_sort | distinctions, differentiations, ontology, and non-humans in theories of religion |
| title_unstemmed | Distinctions, Differentiations, Ontology, and Non-humans in Theories of Religion |
| topic | Religious studies |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/157006810x531139 |