Religion, Theory, Critique, and Epistemological Anarchy

A Review Essay

Authors

  • Tenzan Eaghll Mahidol University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1558/bsor.38949

Keywords:

Richard King, Religion, Theory, Critique, epistemology anarchy

Abstract

This review essay of the volume Religion, Theory, Critique: Classical and Contemporary Approaches and Methodologies. suggests that the feild of religiouos studies is characterized by epistemological anarchy. The author applauds the editor of the volume for the content and theoretical continuity in the volume, but also draws attention to the epistmological tensions exposed in the chapters and sections to suggest that they reveal a sort of theoretical anarchy at play in the feild.

Author Biography

  • Tenzan Eaghll, Mahidol University

    Tenzan Eaghll completed his doctorate at the University of Toronto in 2016. He is a lecturer at the College of Religious Studies, Mahidol University, Thailand. His research focuses on the intersection of Continental philosophy and Method and Theory in the study of religion. His writings have appeared in such places as Religious Compass and the Bloomsbury Critiquing Religion: Discourse, Culture, Power series.

References

Eaghll, Tenzan. 2018. “The Return of Homo Religiosus.” The Religious Studies Project. https://www.religiousstudiesproject.com/2018/04/26/the-return-of-homo-religiosus

Feyerabend, Paul K. 1975. Against Method. New York: Verso.

King, Richard, ed. 2017. Religion, Theory, Critique: Classic and Contemporary Approaches and Methodologies. New York: Columbia University Press.

Mignolo, Walter D. 2012. Local Histories/Global Designs. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Strausberg, Michael, ed. 2009. Contemporary Approaches to Religion: A Critical Companion. New York: Routledge.

Downloads

Published

2019-11-11

Issue

Vol. 48 No. 1-2 (2019)

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Eaghll, T. (2019). Religion, Theory, Critique, and Epistemological Anarchy: A Review Essay. Bulletin for the Study of Religion, 48(1-2), 35-39. https://doi.org/10.1558/bsor.38949