The Experiential Elephant and the Pursuit of Interdisciplinarity
Keywords:Ann Taves, interdisciplinarity, religious experience
Critiques of Religious Experience Reconsidered by Ann Taves have primarily focused on the book's tether to a category of "specialness," seen by some as its own problematic metaphysical pursuit. My own response will take up the issue that Taves suggests is one of her central aims; namely, that of interdisciplinary discourse. While many scholars find that pursuit a natural and necessary one, bringing voices into conversation around a single and stable object of discourse, I suggest that the implications of this notion are more complicated than often supposed.
Fitzgerald, Timothy. 2010. “‘Experiences Deemed Religious’: Radical Critique or Temporary Fix? Strategic Ambiguity in Ann Taves’ Religious Experience Reconsidered.” 2010. Religion. 40: 296–99. doi: 10.1016/j.religion.2010.09.005. Available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048721X10000679
McCutcheon, Russell. 2010. “Will Your Cognitive Anchor Hold in the Storms of Culture?” 2010. Journal of the American Academy of Religion. 78: 1182–193.
Spickard, James. 2010. “Does Taves Reconsider Experience Enough? A Critical Commentary on Religious Experience Reconsidered. 2010. Religion. 40: 311–13. doi: 10.1016/j.religion.2010.09.009. Available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048721X10000710
Taves, Ann. 2009. Religious Experience Reconsidered: A Building-Block Approach to the Study of Religion and Other Special Things. Princeton: Princeton University Press.