Skip Navigation


Journal of the American Academy of Religion Advance Access originally published online on June 30, 2006
Journal of the American Academy of Religion 2006 74(3):720-750; doi:10.1093/jaarel/lfj090
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
74/3/720    most recent
lfj090v1
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 McCutcheon, R. T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press, on behalf of the American Academy of Religion. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

"It’s a Lie. There’s No Truth in It! It’s a Sin!": On the Limits of the Humanistic Study of Religion and the Costs of Saving Others from Themselves

Russell T. McCutcheon

Russell T. McCutcheon, Professor and Chair of the Department of Religious Studies, 212 Manly Hall at the University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0264.

Juxtaposing two recent texts that each address the scholar’s role when it comes to issues of difference, this essay investigates how members of our field’s dominant liberal humanistic tradition address potentially competing systems of representation. After comparing the recent work of Robert Orsi with that of Paul Courtright, the essay concludes that, when it comes to those Others whose differences can easily be tolerated or overlooked with little or no cost, scholars in this tradition deploy a different sets of tools than when their work focuses on Others for whom they feel little affinity and whose interests conflict with their own. Failing to understand all scholarship as necessarily involved in acts of translation and redescription—acts that are all equally removed from some posited authentic source—the essay ends by suggesting that we risk the future of our field when we employ different methods for different people, all based on the degree of our personal identification with our subject matter.

How many things have to happen to you before something occurs to you?

—Robert Frost1


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


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Am Acad ReligHome page
K. L. LaMothe
What Bodies Know About Religion and the Study of It
J Am Acad Relig, September 1, 2008; 76(3): 573 - 601.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Am Acad ReligHome page
E. Slingerland
Who's Afraid of Reductionism? The Study of Religion in the Age of Cognitive Science
J Am Acad Relig, June 1, 2008; 76(2): 375 - 411.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


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.