A Normative Turn in the Study of Religions?

Abstract

In his book Why Study Religion? ethicist and philosopher Richard B. Miller criticizes the discipline of religious studies for being negligent about the fundamental goal of its academic pursuits. In this review essay, the authors challenge Miller’s diagnosis by arguing that scholars of religion do share a common goal and that the state of affairs bemoaned by Miller is healthier than he admits. The essay raises doubts concerning his selection of six “methodologies” that supposedly represent the field and it challenges Miller’s interpretation of Jonathan Z. Smith’s famous comparative analysis of the Jonestown massacre. The essay proposes a different distinction between goals and values in research and critically reviews the four goals/values proposed by Miller, three of which appear to represent business as usual. The essay argues that Miller’s proposed teleology is suspicious, not as innovative as he seems to think, and maybe even a retrogression. Finally, the essay faults Miller’s undertheorized conception of religion.

Religious Studies: Wither and Why?

“…It is quite gratifying to see that both periodicals have continued their service to the field, with RSR now marking its 50th anniversary and The Bulletin its 54th. 4 For detailed assessments of Miller's proposal for an unapologetically normative and methodologically uniform field, see Stausberg et al (2023) and McCutcheon (2023b) (both of which judge his proposals to be far more traditional and thus less innovative than he claims). A rather different view on the importance of methodological plurality, as well as reasons to focus on how the category "religion" itself is used by different actors, is found in Patton ( 2019)-a plurality for which she advocates that Stausberg et al would likely see as an indication of the field's vibrancy, as they term it, rather than Miller's claim that it signals its malaise.…”

“… 4 4 For detailed assessments of Miller's proposal for an unapologetically normative and methodologically uniform field, see Stausberg et al. (2023) and McCutcheon (2023b) (both of which judge his proposals to be far more traditional and thus less innovative than he claims). A rather different view on the importance of methodological plurality, as well as reasons to focus on how the category “religion” itself is used by different actors, is found in Patton (2019)—a plurality for which she advocates that Stausberg et al.…”

Engaging the Deeper Shifts: Content Expansion and Scientific Engagement

“…In a recent review of a potential “normative turn,” Stausberg et al. (2023) listed many others, including the performative, spatial, aesthetical, material, queer, critical, and digital turns. These “turns,” which are largely perspectival, are characteristic of humanities disciplines, where new theoretical perspectives provide one of the traditional means of offering something original.…”