Rozbite kubki po dekonstrukcji: współczesne antropologiczne teorie religii = SHATTERED POTS FOLLOWING DECONSTRUCTION : CONTEMPORARY ANTHROPOLOGICAL THEORIES OF RELIGION
The aim of the article is an attempt to answer the question whether under the influence of changes in the very subject-matter of anthropological research (a shift from traditional religions to great traditions perceived in different scales), there occurred any changes in the approach to religion and...
| Subtitles: | SHATTERED POTS FOLLOWING DECONSTRUCTION |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | Polish |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Wydawn. Uniw. Jagiellońskiego
2007
|
| In: |
Studia religiologica
Year: 2007, Volume: 40, Pages: 135-169 |
| Further subjects: | B
badania porównawcze religii
B historia religii B filozofia religiistudia religiologica B psychologia religii B Religia B antropologia religii B socjologii religii B Religijność B wuj B wydawnictwo uj B religioznawstwo |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | The aim of the article is an attempt to answer the question whether under the influence of changes in the very subject-matter of anthropological research (a shift from traditional religions to great traditions perceived in different scales), there occurred any changes in the approach to religion and what consequences this could have had on the general religious reflection. The main effect of this convergence of the subject-matter of research is the superposition of anthropology of religion on religious studies, which is visible particularly in the methodological reflection: the bulk of the discourse concerning the methodology of religious studies is taking place within and on the circumference of anthropology. In view of the division within religious studies, into essential trends which treat religion as a phenomenon sui generis and particular trends which explore each religion as a separate phenomenon, the first problem that seems to confront scholars is the very definition of religion; the second one is to do with establishing a suitable comparative methodology. Anthropologists tend to define religion in terms of the Wittgenstein concept of „family resemblance”, and consequently, they look for instruments that would make it possible for them to carry our comparative studies; in doing so, they create holistic theories of religion. Reductionist theories, such as Stewart Guthrie’s neoanimism and memetics, are on the one hand burdened with ideological anti-religious assumptions, and on the other, they treat religion too narrowly, without taking advantage of the principle of „family resemblance”; that is why, their conclusions do not have a universal character, in spite of the fact that they assume to have it. The more extended cognitive theories (Pascal Boyer, Scott Atran) operate on a wider spectrum of religiogenous factors, beginning with semiotic and ending with neurological ones; what is problematic in them is the transition from the level of individual to social experience which is worked out within biogenetic structuralism or ritual studies. The evolution which has taken place within the ecology of religion, from the determinist conceptions of Steward or Harris, through cultural ecology of the early Rappaport and Vayda, to the uniform conception of working out comparative religious studies on the basis the ecology of Hultkranz, turned it into a promising, though limited research tool. An important attempt aimed at recognizing the relation between the ecosystem and man’s cultural activity, is Rappaport’s most recent proposition which leads to attributing a religious function to ecosystems. Rappaport’s theory of religion has a synthetic character combining within it the achievements of cultural ecology, ritualistic studies and semiological research. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2084-4077 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Studia religiologica
|