Skip Navigation

Journal of the American Academy of Religion 2004 72(4):973-1001; doi:10.1093/jaarel/lfh086
© 2004 by American Academy of Religion
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Abeysekara, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Identity for and against Itself: Religion, Criticism, and Pluralization

Ananda Abeysekara

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, VA 24061

Confronted as we are with new sorts of postcolonial political orderings, the study of postcolonial religion demands a new practice of criticism. Meeting this demand, among other things, involves a different kind of rethinking of still taken-for-granted assumptions about the liberal distinction between religion and secularism and related concepts like nation, tolerance, and unity. Secularists of varying disciplinary persuasions remain unable to offer an alternative view of the distinction, as they obtain their conceptions of "religion" in advance of the conjunctures in which differing definitions of religion come into being. Through a reading of a particular public dispute among Buddhist parties contending to define Buddhist identity and difference in varying terms in late 1990 Sri Lanka, I offer a refashioned conceptualization of the relation between the secular and the religious that helps us understand how agonistic spaces of dispute can oblige religious identity to be both for and against itself, producing a new postcolonial politics of care for the "Other." Finally, with some help from Foucault and Heidegger, I argue that conceptualizing these agonistic spaces as public sites that demand such a "care for the Other" can constitute an ethic of intervention and affirmation.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.