FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2019984246> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2019984246 endingPage "11" @default.
• W2019984246 startingPage "5" @default.
• W2019984246 abstract "Introduction: Feminist Theory and the Study of South Asian Religions Karen Pechilis (bio) The essays in this section provide examples of scholars engaging feminist theory with materials from South Asian religious traditions, including Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam. The papers were originally presented on a panel, “Feminist Theory and the Study of South Asian Religions,” which was jointly sponsored by the Feminist Theory and Religious Reflection Group and the Religion in South Asia Section at the Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Religion in San Antonio, Texas, in 2004. I organized the panel, the chair was Rita D. Sherma, and the respondent was Carol Anderson. The essays have been revised for publication. The Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion (JFSR) is a vibrant forum for scholarly discussion of feminist theory and religion from a multiplicity of disciplines, including thealogy/theology, cultural studies, gender studies, and history. Critically reflective discussions in the journal call for expanded discussion of non-Western traditions, amplifying the pioneering path of Rita Gross, a contributing editor of the journal, in feminism and Buddhism.1 By now, there have been many studies of women and goddesses in South Asian traditions, especially Hinduism, a number of which explicitly engage feminist theories.2 [End Page 5] However, one of the issues that came up during the discussion following the presentation of these papers was that such studies might not be as visible to feminist scholars of religion as they could be. A suggestion was made that this lack of visibility may be due to the leading role that theological and thealogical studies have played in defining feminist studies of religion, rather than studies that are historical-textual (represented in this section by Susan Landesman’s and Karen Pechilis’s essays) or ethnographic (Carla Bellamy’s essay). At that time, panel and audience members proposed ideas on what distinguished theaology and theology, on the one hand, and the history of religions mode of study, on the other. Notably, when various topics were raised, such as dialogue with traditions outside of one’s own, critical analysis, and theoretical discourse, members of each camp claimed these aspects for their modes of study. By the close of the session, many of us could see that there were considerable regions of overlap, but there was not a theoretical discussion of why this might be the case. In thinking further about this issue after the conference, I noted with interest an attempt by preeminent current theorist of religion Jonathan Smith to articulate the terms of commonality. For Smith, much of the imagination of difference between theological and humanities studies of religion is basically a red herring—he later identifies it as politically motivated—which obscures fundamental issues in the study of religion: The history of the history of religions is not best conceived as a liberation from the hegemony of theology—our pallid version of that tattered legend of the origins of science, whether placed in fifth-century Athens or sixteenth-century Europe, that depicts science progressively unshackling itself from a once regnant religious world-view. Our variant of this twice-told tale needs to be set aside, not because such a claimed liberation has been, in so many moments of our history, an illusion, but rather because this way of retelling the tale occludes a more fundamental issue that yet divides us. In shorthand form, this is the debate between [End Page 6] an understanding of religion based on presence and one based on representation.3 Smith indicates further that an understanding of religion based on presence is one that assumes that religion is unique or sui generis in terms of both human culture and scholarly study; that religion is “reality”; that language is self-evident and transparent; that the goal of study is to discover a universal principle or idea; and whose method “denies the legitimacy of translation, and the cognitive value of difference.” In contrast, an understanding of religion based on representation assumes that religion is an interrelated aspect of human culture and an interrelated discipline of scholarly study; that religion is an intellectual category; that language is a cultural construction; that the goal of study is to propose generalizations; and whose..." @default.
• W2019984246 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2019984246 creator A5090679318 @default.
• W2019984246 date "2008-04-01" @default.
• W2019984246 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W2019984246 title "Introduction: Feminist Theory and the Study of South Asian Religions" @default.
• W2019984246 cites W123399014 @default.
• W2019984246 cites W1484871092 @default.
• W2019984246 cites W169012471 @default.
• W2019984246 cites W2052187544 @default.
• W2019984246 cites W3173472524 @default.
• W2019984246 cites W565698435 @default.
• W2019984246 cites W600601921 @default.
• W2019984246 cites W633789543 @default.
• W2019984246 cites W636901492 @default.
• W2019984246 cites W645189428 @default.
• W2019984246 doi "https://doi.org/10.2979/fsr.2008.24.1.5" @default.
• W2019984246 hasPublicationYear "2008" @default.
• W2019984246 type Work @default.
• W2019984246 sameAs 2019984246 @default.
• W2019984246 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W2019984246 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2019984246 hasAuthorship W2019984246A5090679318 @default.
• W2019984246 hasConcept C107993555 @default.
• W2019984246 hasConcept C128536511 @default.
• W2019984246 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2019984246 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2019984246 hasConcept C157150851 @default.
• W2019984246 hasConcept C19165224 @default.
• W2019984246 hasConcept C24667770 @default.
• W2019984246 hasConcept C27206212 @default.
• W2019984246 hasConcept C2777688943 @default.
• W2019984246 hasConcept C2779555700 @default.
• W2019984246 hasConcept C3019281177 @default.
• W2019984246 hasConcept C4445939 @default.
• W2019984246 hasConcept C46610780 @default.
• W2019984246 hasConcept C510816226 @default.
• W2019984246 hasConcept C75699723 @default.
• W2019984246 hasConceptScore W2019984246C107993555 @default.
• W2019984246 hasConceptScore W2019984246C128536511 @default.
• W2019984246 hasConceptScore W2019984246C138885662 @default.
• W2019984246 hasConceptScore W2019984246C144024400 @default.
• W2019984246 hasConceptScore W2019984246C157150851 @default.
• W2019984246 hasConceptScore W2019984246C19165224 @default.
• W2019984246 hasConceptScore W2019984246C24667770 @default.
• W2019984246 hasConceptScore W2019984246C27206212 @default.
• W2019984246 hasConceptScore W2019984246C2777688943 @default.
• W2019984246 hasConceptScore W2019984246C2779555700 @default.
• W2019984246 hasConceptScore W2019984246C3019281177 @default.
• W2019984246 hasConceptScore W2019984246C4445939 @default.
• W2019984246 hasConceptScore W2019984246C46610780 @default.
• W2019984246 hasConceptScore W2019984246C510816226 @default.
• W2019984246 hasConceptScore W2019984246C75699723 @default.
• W2019984246 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2019984246 hasLocation W20199842461 @default.
• W2019984246 hasOpenAccess W2019984246 @default.
• W2019984246 hasPrimaryLocation W20199842461 @default.
• W2019984246 hasRelatedWork W112238890 @default.
• W2019984246 hasRelatedWork W1511819243 @default.
• W2019984246 hasRelatedWork W2019984246 @default.
• W2019984246 hasRelatedWork W2108800461 @default.
• W2019984246 hasRelatedWork W2807797045 @default.
• W2019984246 hasRelatedWork W3033034644 @default.
• W2019984246 hasRelatedWork W3179432414 @default.
• W2019984246 hasRelatedWork W4210804958 @default.
• W2019984246 hasRelatedWork W577866465 @default.
• W2019984246 hasRelatedWork W649241478 @default.
• W2019984246 hasVolume "24" @default.
• W2019984246 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2019984246 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2019984246 magId "2019984246" @default.
• W2019984246 workType "article" @default.