Gendering Religious Studies: Reconstructing Religion and Gender Studies in Japan

Author(s):  
Noriko Kawahashi ◽  
Kayoko Komatsu ◽  
Masako Kuroki
2013 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 168-187 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sîan Melvill Hawthorne

In this paper I examine the uneasy intersection between ‘religion’, ‘gender’ and ‘postcoloniality’ as it is staged in the sub-field of religion and gender within religious studies and theology. Noting the lack of sustained attention in this field to those postcolonial challenges that might question the prioritization of gender as the site from which critique should be originated, and suggesting that this neglect might compromise the assumption that, because of its alignment with the politics of the marginal, it is comparatively less implicated in colonial knowledge formations, I argue that scholars of religion and gender risk perpetuating imperialist figurations found elsewhere in the academic study of religions. I propose the figure of the catachresis, as theorized by Gayatri Spivak, as a potential step towards displacing those European concept-metaphors and value-codings that both derive from imperialist ideologies and sustain the fiction operational within much, though not all, religion and gender scholarship of a generalizable or normative epistemic subjectivity. I suggest these ideologies ultimately prevent an encounter with the women and men who exist beyond this mode of production and whose priorities may be configured entirely differently to those that seem currently to inform and produce the intellectual itineraries of the field.


Author(s):  
Sîan Melvill Hawthorne

This paper examines Ursula King’s claim in her edited volume Religion and Gender (1995) that introducing feminist gender-critical approaches in the study of religions constitutes a paradigm shift for the field/discipline. I will sketch a broadly positive assessment of how this claim has been borne out, noting the important connection it advances between scholarly subjectivity and disciplinary identity, and drawing attention to the ways in which the working through of the paradigm shift has implied and instantiated a reconfiguration of disciplinary territory. The topological metaphors that underpin the feminist paradigm shift, as well as traditionally disciplinary terrain and transformation more generally, are helpful for examining how knowledge may be structured, taken apart, and remade, creating and remaking a certain kind of disciplinary citizen-subject on the model of the nation state that enables inclusion, but also exclusion. This latter point then leads to a more critical analysis that examines the function of feminist topologies in religious studies and outlining how the solitary focus on gender in the proposed paradigm shift marginalised race and postcolonial terrain, however much it challenged the androcentrism of religious studies. I will thus suggest that in staying true to the vision that King promotes through all of her work on 'religion and gender', the connection between scholarly and disciplinary identity she invokes, and the future she envisions, demands that the unfinished nature of the paradigm shift must be addressed such that an integrated/intersectional model of inclusion and complexity becomes the foundation for work going forward.


Author(s):  
Peggy Morgan

This article seeks to demonstrate the wide-ranging nature of Professor Ursula King’s research and intellectual interests within the field of religious studies. It highlights her personal engagement not only with issues in science, ecology and religions, Hinduism, education, spirituality, feminist and gender studies on an international stage, but also her involvement dialogically with the people whose work and religious lifeways she has encountered.  It shows a continuing and remarkable vitality and freshness in an arena of interests across both local, personal and global issues.


2021 ◽  
Vol 33 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 441-462
Author(s):  
Michael Bergunder

Abstract “Global religious history” derives its name from the German phrase “globale Religionsgeschichte”. This term articulates an approach that aims to be relevant to the whole field of religious studies, and it encompasses theoretical debates, particularly in the areas of postcolonialism and gender studies. Thus, “Global” embodies, acknowledges, and incorporates all prevalent terms of and the parameters for the global constitution of present-day academia and society. “Religious” means that it concerns religious studies. “History” denotes a genealogical critique as the central research interest. Historicization in that sense is not limited to philological research of sources from the past but also relevant to any research based on data from contemporary anthropological fieldwork or other empirical methods. This approach also aims to provide a pertinent influence on research practice, and seeks to circumvent any artificial segregation of theory and practice.


2013 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-40
Author(s):  
Matt Sheedy

An interview with Darlene Juschka (cross-appointed Professor of Women's and Gender Studies and Religious Studies at the University of Regina), focusing on her 2009 book Political Bodies/Body Politics: The Semiotics of Gender (Equinox Publishing). The conversation ranged from a look at some of the key influences upon her theoretical development to her work on the construction of gender/sex in the Eurowest and its deployment through myth, ritual and sign-symbol, along with applications of this theory to religious studies and her more recent work on the concept of pain.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document