![]() |
CiteULike | ![]() |
nbr's CiteULike | ![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
Register | ![]() |
Log in | ![]() |
Sociological definitions, language games, and the "essence" of religion |
Reviews
[Write a review of this article]
Notes for this articleCriticized very directly by Fitzgerald in his "Playing Language Games" article.
Find related articles from these CiteULike users
Find related articles with these CiteULike tags
Posting History
AbstractSociologists of religion have long debated the definition of religion. In this article, I survey the debate and find a partially hidden consensus. This debate, in conjunction with recent criticisms of the concept "religion" in religious studies, and by drawing on Ludwig Wittgenstein's notion oflanguage games, provides helpful pointers for developing a non-essentialist conception of religion. I argue that "religion" (as a phenomenon and as a concept) is a historical and social construction, but that this does not require us to dispense with the concept altogether.
BibTeX record
RIS record