Worlds Apart
The Essentials of Critical Thinking
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1558/bsor.v44i4.27562Keywords:
Caroline Schaffalitzky de Muckadell, essentialism, definitions, methodologyAbstract
In this essay, I consider what the publication of Schaffalitzky de Muckadell’s essay “On Essentialism and Real Definitions of Religion” in the JAAR reflects about the state of religious studies as a discipline, arguing that there appears increasing room for overt essentialism in the name of liberal humanism and progressive politics. Reflecting on this unfortunate trend in the academic study of religion, I ask that scholars clarify two things when engaging in critical thinking: the claims embedded in their own identifications and the audience with and to whom they aim to speak.
References
Hughes, Aaron. 2012. “The Study of Islam Before and After September 11: A Provocation.” Method and Theory in the Study of Religion 24: 314–36.http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15700682-12341234
Laqueur, Thomas. 1990. Making Sex: Body and Gender from the Greeks to Freud. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Lincoln, Bruce. 1996. “Theses on Method.” Method and Theory in the Study of Religion 8: 225–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/157006896X00323.
Martin, Craig, et. al. 2014. “Keeping ‘Critical’ Critical: A Conversation from Culture on the Edge.” Critical Research on Religion. (2014). 2(3): 299–312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2050303214552576<
McCutcheon, Russell T. 2007. Studying Religion: An Introduction. London: Equinox.
Schaffalitzky de Muckadell, Caroline. 2014. “On Essentialism and Real Definitions of Religion.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 82 (2): 495–520. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jaarel/lfu015.
Simmons, K. Merinda. 2012. “The Experiential Elephant and the Pursuit of Interdisciplinarity.” Bulletin for the Study of Religion. 41 (3): 2–6.http://dx.doi.org/10.1558/bsor.v41i3.2
Wallace, David Foster. 2005. “Authority and American Usage.” In Consider the Lobster, 66–127. New York: Little, Brown and Company.