EdenteV2, Istex, Corpus, bibRecord, 001552

Reflections on the Reflections of Messrs. Junginger, Arvidsson, Albinus, and Ullucci

Identifieur interne : 001552 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 001551; suivant : 001553

Reflections on the Reflections of Messrs. Junginger, Arvidsson, Albinus, and Ullucci

Auteurs : Bruce Lincoln

Source :

Method & Theory in the Study of Religion [ 0943-3058 ] ; 2013.

RBID : ISTEX:2C2C276141AB219D6A81668540C17A5B5A13D625

English descriptors

KwdEn :
- Arvidsson, Chicago press, Cognitive, Cognitive theory, Comparative studies, Daniel ullucci, Diffferent, Diffferent fashion, Harvard university press, Ideology, Junginger, Lincoln method, Mircea eliade, More attention, Mundane commitments, Oxford university press, Political positions, Politische gehalt, Radical transformation, Religious experts, Religious institutions, Religious studies, Social order, Social reality, Stefan arvidsson, Such things.
Teeft :
- Arvidsson, Chicago press, Cognitive, Cognitive theory, Comparative studies, Daniel ullucci, Diffferent, Diffferent fashion, Harvard university press, Ideology, Junginger, Lincoln method, Mircea eliade, More attention, Mundane commitments, Oxford university press, Political positions, Politische gehalt, Radical transformation, Religious experts, Religious institutions, Religious studies, Social order, Social reality, Stefan arvidsson, Such things.

Abstract

Abstract The author responds to the reviews of Gods and Demons, Priests and Scholars (Chicago, 2012) that appear in this issue by Horst Junginger, Stefan Arvidsson, Lars Albinus, and Daniel Ullucci, each of which focuses on different aspects of his work, which he suggests emerged in a rough chronological sequence. Three of these—a concern for the political, ideological, and discursive aspects of religion—he considers justified and complementary to each other, although there is occasional disjuncture and tension between the last two. He rejects the fourth suggestion, however, i.e. that he ought now turn attention to cognitive theory, a line of inquiry he dismisses as trendy, timid, and toothless.

Url:

https://api.istex.fr/document/2C2C276141AB219D6A81668540C17A5B5A13D625/fulltext/pdf

DOI: 10.1163/15700682-12341287

Links to Exploration step

ISTEX:2C2C276141AB219D6A81668540C17A5B5A13D625

Le document en format XML

<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title>Reflections on the Reflections of Messrs. Junginger, Arvidsson, Albinus, and Ullucci</title>
<author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Lincoln, Bruce" sort="Lincoln, Bruce" uniqKey="Lincoln B" first="Bruce" last="Lincoln">Bruce Lincoln</name>
<affiliation><mods:affiliation>Divinity School, University of Chicago, Swift Hall 301, 1025 E. 58th St., Chicago, IL 60637</mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
<affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: blincoln@uchicago.edu</mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
</author>
</titleStmt>
<publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno>
<idno type="RBID">ISTEX:2C2C276141AB219D6A81668540C17A5B5A13D625</idno>
<date when="2013" year="2013">2013</date>
<idno type="doi">10.1163/15700682-12341287</idno>
<idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/2C2C276141AB219D6A81668540C17A5B5A13D625/fulltext/pdf</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">001552</idno>
<idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">001552</idno>
</publicationStmt>
<sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a">Reflections on the Reflections of Messrs. Junginger, Arvidsson, Albinus, and Ullucci</title>
<author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Lincoln, Bruce" sort="Lincoln, Bruce" uniqKey="Lincoln B" first="Bruce" last="Lincoln">Bruce Lincoln</name>
<affiliation><mods:affiliation>Divinity School, University of Chicago, Swift Hall 301, 1025 E. 58th St., Chicago, IL 60637</mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
<affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: blincoln@uchicago.edu</mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
</author>
</analytic>
<monogr></monogr>
<series><title level="j">Method & Theory in the Study of Religion</title>
<title level="j" type="sub">Journal of the North American Association for the Study of Religion</title>
<title level="j" type="abbrev">MTSR</title>
<idno type="ISSN">0943-3058</idno>
<idno type="eISSN">1570-0682</idno>
<imprint><publisher>Brill</publisher>
<pubPlace>Netherlands</pubPlace>
<date type="published" when="2013">2013</date>
<biblScope unit="volume">25</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="issue">2</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="page" from="209">209</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="page" to="219">219</biblScope>
</imprint>
<idno type="ISSN">0943-3058</idno>
</series>
</biblStruct>
</sourceDesc>
<seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0943-3058</idno>
</seriesStmt>
</fileDesc>
<profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Arvidsson</term>
<term>Chicago press</term>
<term>Cognitive</term>
<term>Cognitive theory</term>
<term>Comparative studies</term>
<term>Daniel ullucci</term>
<term>Diffferent</term>
<term>Diffferent fashion</term>
<term>Harvard university press</term>
<term>Ideology</term>
<term>Junginger</term>
<term>Lincoln method</term>
<term>Mircea eliade</term>
<term>More attention</term>
<term>Mundane commitments</term>
<term>Oxford university press</term>
<term>Political positions</term>
<term>Politische gehalt</term>
<term>Radical transformation</term>
<term>Religious experts</term>
<term>Religious institutions</term>
<term>Religious studies</term>
<term>Social order</term>
<term>Social reality</term>
<term>Stefan arvidsson</term>
<term>Such things</term>
</keywords>
<keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Arvidsson</term>
<term>Chicago press</term>
<term>Cognitive</term>
<term>Cognitive theory</term>
<term>Comparative studies</term>
<term>Daniel ullucci</term>
<term>Diffferent</term>
<term>Diffferent fashion</term>
<term>Harvard university press</term>
<term>Ideology</term>
<term>Junginger</term>
<term>Lincoln method</term>
<term>Mircea eliade</term>
<term>More attention</term>
<term>Mundane commitments</term>
<term>Oxford university press</term>
<term>Political positions</term>
<term>Politische gehalt</term>
<term>Radical transformation</term>
<term>Religious experts</term>
<term>Religious institutions</term>
<term>Religious studies</term>
<term>Social order</term>
<term>Social reality</term>
<term>Stefan arvidsson</term>
<term>Such things</term>
</keywords>
</textClass>
<langUsage><language ident="en">en</language>
</langUsage>
</profileDesc>
</teiHeader>
<front><div type="abstract">Abstract The author responds to the reviews of Gods and Demons, Priests and Scholars (Chicago, 2012) that appear in this issue by Horst Junginger, Stefan Arvidsson, Lars Albinus, and Daniel Ullucci, each of which focuses on different aspects of his work, which he suggests emerged in a rough chronological sequence. Three of these—a concern for the political, ideological, and discursive aspects of religion—he considers justified and complementary to each other, although there is occasional disjuncture and tension between the last two. He rejects the fourth suggestion, however, i.e. that he ought now turn attention to cognitive theory, a line of inquiry he dismisses as trendy, timid, and toothless.</div>
</front>
</TEI>
<istex><corpusName>brill-journals</corpusName>
<keywords><teeft><json:string>diffferent</json:string>
<json:string>arvidsson</json:string>
<json:string>lincoln method</json:string>
<json:string>junginger</json:string>
<json:string>cognitive theory</json:string>
<json:string>religious studies</json:string>
<json:string>chicago press</json:string>
<json:string>mircea eliade</json:string>
<json:string>daniel ullucci</json:string>
<json:string>oxford university press</json:string>
<json:string>political positions</json:string>
<json:string>radical transformation</json:string>
<json:string>politische gehalt</json:string>
<json:string>stefan arvidsson</json:string>
<json:string>such things</json:string>
<json:string>social order</json:string>
<json:string>social reality</json:string>
<json:string>diffferent fashion</json:string>
<json:string>more attention</json:string>
<json:string>comparative studies</json:string>
<json:string>mundane commitments</json:string>
<json:string>religious experts</json:string>
<json:string>harvard university press</json:string>
<json:string>religious institutions</json:string>
<json:string>cognitive</json:string>
<json:string>ideology</json:string>
</teeft>
</keywords>
<author><json:item><name>Bruce Lincoln</name>
<affiliations><json:string>Divinity School, University of Chicago, Swift Hall 301, 1025 E. 58th St., Chicago, IL 60637</json:string>
<json:string>E-mail: blincoln@uchicago.edu</json:string>
</affiliations>
</json:item>
</author>
<subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string>
</lang>
<value>Bruce Lincoln</value>
</json:item>
<json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string>
</lang>
<value>religion and politics</value>
</json:item>
<json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string>
</lang>
<value>religion and ideology</value>
</json:item>
<json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string>
</lang>
<value>religion and discourse</value>
</json:item>
<json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string>
</lang>
<value>cognitive theories of religion</value>
</json:item>
</subject>
<arkIstex>ark:/67375/JKT-S31DZL71-X</arkIstex>
<language><json:string>eng</json:string>
</language>
<originalGenre><json:string>other</json:string>
</originalGenre>
<abstract>Abstract The author responds to the reviews of Gods and Demons, Priests and Scholars (Chicago, 2012) that appear in this issue by Horst Junginger, Stefan Arvidsson, Lars Albinus, and Daniel Ullucci, each of which focuses on different aspects of his work, which he suggests emerged in a rough chronological sequence. Three of these—a concern for the political, ideological, and discursive aspects of religion—he considers justified and complementary to each other, although there is occasional disjuncture and tension between the last two. He rejects the fourth suggestion, however, i.e. that he ought now turn attention to cognitive theory, a line of inquiry he dismisses as trendy, timid, and toothless.</abstract>
<qualityIndicators><score>7.611</score>
<pdfWordCount>4315</pdfWordCount>
<pdfCharCount>25556</pdfCharCount>
<pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion>
<pdfPageCount>11</pdfPageCount>
<pdfPageSize>439.37 x 666.142 pts</pdfPageSize>
<refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative>
<abstractWordCount>108</abstractWordCount>
<abstractCharCount>704</abstractCharCount>
<keywordCount>5</keywordCount>
</qualityIndicators>
<title>Reflections on the Reflections of Messrs. Junginger, Arvidsson, Albinus, and Ullucci</title>
<genre><json:string>other</json:string>
</genre>
<host><title>Method & Theory in the Study of Religion</title>
<language><json:string>unknown</json:string>
</language>
<issn><json:string>0943-3058</json:string>
</issn>
<eissn><json:string>1570-0682</json:string>
</eissn>
<volume>25</volume>
<issue>2</issue>
<pages><first>209</first>
<last>219</last>
</pages>
<genre><json:string>journal</json:string>
</genre>
<subject><json:item><value>Review Symposium: Bruce Lincoln’s Gods and Demons, Priests and Scholars: Critical Explorations in the History of Religions</value>
</json:item>
</subject>
</host>
<namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>1971</json:string>
<json:string>2013</json:string>
<json:string>1980</json:string>
<json:string>1980s</json:string>
</date>
<geogName></geogName>
<orgName><json:string>Religions</json:string>
<json:string>University of Minnesota</json:string>
<json:string>National Socialism</json:string>
</orgName>
<orgName_funder></orgName_funder>
<orgName_provider></orgName_provider>
<persName><json:string>John Mowitt</json:string>
<json:string>Hans-Peter Duerr</json:string>
<json:string>Daniel Ullucci</json:string>
<json:string>Cristiano Grottanelli</json:string>
<json:string>Pauline Yu</json:string>
<json:string>Antonio Gramsci</json:string>
<json:string>Louise Lincoln</json:string>
<json:string>Georges Dumézil</json:string>
<json:string>Pietro Clemente</json:string>
<json:string>Jonathan Z. Smith</json:string>
<json:string>Stig Wikander</json:string>
<json:string>Richard Leppert</json:string>
<json:string>Arvidsson</json:string>
<json:string>Lars Albinus</json:string>
<json:string>John Archer</json:string>
<json:string>Vittorio Lanternari</json:string>
<json:string>Bruce Lincoln</json:string>
<json:string>Pier Giorgio</json:string>
<json:string>B. Lincoln</json:string>
<json:string>Jonathan Smith</json:string>
</persName>
<placeName><json:string>Leiden</json:string>
<json:string>IL</json:string>
<json:string>Winnipeg</json:string>
<json:string>Canada</json:string>
<json:string>India</json:string>
<json:string>Europe</json:string>
<json:string>Chicago</json:string>
</placeName>
<ref_url><json:string>http://cscl.umn.edu/grad/csds.html</json:string>
</ref_url>
<ref_bibl><json:string>Saiving 1976</json:string>
<json:string>Lincoln 1983a: 9-25</json:string>
<json:string>Lincoln 1983</json:string>
<json:string>Marx and Engels 1976: 43</json:string>
<json:string>Chicago, 2012</json:string>
<json:string>Lincoln 1983c</json:string>
<json:string>Junginger 2008</json:string>
<json:string>Arvidsson 2007</json:string>
<json:string>[1844]</json:string>
<json:string>Eliade 1958</json:string>
<json:string>Lincoln 1986</json:string>
</ref_bibl>
<bibl></bibl>
</unitex>
</namedEntities>
<ark><json:string>ark:/67375/JKT-S31DZL71-X</json:string>
</ark>
<categories><wos></wos>
<scienceMetrix><json:string>1 - arts & humanities</json:string>
<json:string>2 - philosophy & theology</json:string>
<json:string>3 - religions & theology</json:string>
</scienceMetrix>
<scopus><json:string>1 - Social Sciences</json:string>
<json:string>2 - Arts and Humanities</json:string>
<json:string>3 - Religious studies</json:string>
</scopus>
<inist><json:string>1 - sciences humaines et sociales</json:string>
<json:string>2 - philosophie</json:string>
</inist>
</categories>
<publicationDate>2013</publicationDate>
<copyrightDate>2013</copyrightDate>
<doi><json:string>10.1163/15700682-12341287</json:string>
</doi>
<id>2C2C276141AB219D6A81668540C17A5B5A13D625</id>
<score>1</score>
<fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension>
<original>true</original>
<mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype>
<uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/2C2C276141AB219D6A81668540C17A5B5A13D625/fulltext/pdf</uri>
</json:item>
<json:item><extension>zip</extension>
<original>false</original>
<mimetype>application/zip</mimetype>
<uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/2C2C276141AB219D6A81668540C17A5B5A13D625/fulltext/zip</uri>
</json:item>
<istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/2C2C276141AB219D6A81668540C17A5B5A13D625/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a">Reflections on the Reflections of Messrs. Junginger, Arvidsson, Albinus, and Ullucci</title>
</titleStmt>
<publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority>
<publisher scheme="https://publisher-list.data.istex.fr">Brill</publisher>
<pubPlace>Netherlands</pubPlace>
<availability><licence><p>© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands</p>
</licence>
<p scheme="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-56W3KPD5-3">brill-journals</p>
</availability>
<date>2013</date>
</publicationStmt>
<notesStmt><note type="other" scheme="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-7474895G-0">other</note>
<note type="journal" scheme="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</note>
</notesStmt>
<sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a">Reflections on the Reflections of Messrs. Junginger, Arvidsson, Albinus, and Ullucci</title>
<author xml:id="author-0000"><persName><forename type="first">Bruce</forename>
<surname>Lincoln</surname>
</persName>
<email>blincoln@uchicago.edu</email>
<affiliation>Divinity School, University of Chicago, Swift Hall 301, 1025 E. 58th St., Chicago, IL 60637</affiliation>
</author>
<idno type="istex">2C2C276141AB219D6A81668540C17A5B5A13D625</idno>
<idno type="ark">ark:/67375/JKT-S31DZL71-X</idno>
<idno type="DOI">10.1163/15700682-12341287</idno>
<idno type="href">15700682_025_02_S06_text.pdf</idno>
</analytic>
<monogr><title level="j">Method & Theory in the Study of Religion</title>
<title level="j" type="sub">Journal of the North American Association for the Study of Religion</title>
<title level="j" type="abbrev">MTSR</title>
<idno type="pISSN">0943-3058</idno>
<idno type="eISSN">1570-0682</idno>
<imprint><publisher>Brill</publisher>
<pubPlace>Netherlands</pubPlace>
<date type="published" when="2013"></date>
<biblScope unit="volume">25</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="issue">2</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="page" from="209">209</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="page" to="219">219</biblScope>
</imprint>
</monogr>
</biblStruct>
</sourceDesc>
</fileDesc>
<profileDesc><creation><date>2013</date>
</creation>
<langUsage><language ident="en">en</language>
</langUsage>
<abstract><p>Abstract The author responds to the reviews of Gods and Demons, Priests and Scholars (Chicago, 2012) that appear in this issue by Horst Junginger, Stefan Arvidsson, Lars Albinus, and Daniel Ullucci, each of which focuses on different aspects of his work, which he suggests emerged in a rough chronological sequence. Three of these—a concern for the political, ideological, and discursive aspects of religion—he considers justified and complementary to each other, although there is occasional disjuncture and tension between the last two. He rejects the fourth suggestion, however, i.e. that he ought now turn attention to cognitive theory, a line of inquiry he dismisses as trendy, timid, and toothless.</p>
</abstract>
<textClass><keywords scheme="keyword"><list><head>keywords</head>
<item><term>Bruce Lincoln</term>
</item>
<item><term>religion and politics</term>
</item>
<item><term>religion and ideology</term>
</item>
<item><term>religion and discourse</term>
</item>
<item><term>cognitive theories of religion</term>
</item>
</list>
</keywords>
</textClass>
<textClass><keywords scheme="Journal Subject"><list><head></head>
<item><term>Review Symposium: Bruce Lincoln’s Gods and Demons, Priests and Scholars: Critical Explorations in the History of Religions</term>
</item>
</list>
</keywords>
</textClass>
</profileDesc>
<revisionDesc><change when="2013">Created</change>
<change when="2013">Published</change>
</revisionDesc>
</teiHeader>
</istex:fulltextTEI>
<json:item><extension>txt</extension>
<original>false</original>
<mimetype>text/plain</mimetype>
<uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/2C2C276141AB219D6A81668540C17A5B5A13D625/fulltext/txt</uri>
</json:item>
</fulltext>
<metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="corpus brill-journals not found" wicri:toSee="no header"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"</istex:xmlDeclaration>
<istex:docType PUBLIC="-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v2.3 20070202//EN" URI="http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/2.3/journalpublishing.dtd" name="istex:docType"></istex:docType>
<istex:document><article article-type="other">

<front>

<journal-meta>

<journal-id journal-id-type="e-issn">15700682</journal-id>

<journal-title>Method & Theory in the Study of Religion</journal-title>

<journal-subtitle>Journal of the North American Association for the Study of Religion</journal-subtitle>

<abbrev-journal-title>MTSR</abbrev-journal-title>

<issn pub-type="ppub">0943-3058</issn>

<issn pub-type="epub">1570-0682</issn>

<publisher>

<publisher-name>Brill</publisher-name>

<publisher-loc>Netherlands</publisher-loc>

</publisher>

</journal-meta>

<article-meta>

<article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1163/15700682-12341287</article-id>

<article-categories>

<subj-group>

<subject>Review Symposium: Bruce Lincoln’s <italic>Gods and Demons, Priests and Scholars: Critical Explorations in the History of Religions</italic>
</subject>

</subj-group>

</article-categories>

<title-group>

<article-title>Reflections on the Reflections of Messrs. Junginger, Arvidsson, Albinus, and Ullucci</article-title>

</title-group>

<contrib-group>

<contrib contrib-type="author">

<name>

<surname>Lincoln</surname>

<given-names>Bruce</given-names>

</name>

<aff>

<institution>Divinity School, University of Chicago</institution>

<addr-line>Swift Hall 301, 1025 E. 58th St., Chicago, IL 60637</addr-line>

<country>USA</country>

<email>blincoln@uchicago.edu</email>

</aff>

</contrib>

</contrib-group>

<pub-date pub-type="epub">

<year>2013</year>

</pub-date>

<volume>25</volume>

<issue>2</issue>

<fpage>209</fpage>

<lpage>219</lpage>

<permissions>

<copyright-statement>© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands</copyright-statement>

<copyright-year>2013</copyright-year>

<copyright-holder>Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands</copyright-holder>

</permissions>

<self-uri content-type="pdf" xlink:href="15700682_025_02_S06_text.pdf"></self-uri>

<abstract>

<sec>

<title><bold>Abstract</bold>
</title>

<p>The author responds to the reviews of <italic>Gods and Demons, Priests and Scholars</italic>
 (Chicago, 2012) that appear in this issue by Horst Junginger, Stefan Arvidsson, Lars Albinus, and Daniel Ullucci, each of which focuses on different aspects of his work, which he suggests emerged in a rough chronological sequence. Three of these—a concern for the political, ideological, and discursive aspects of religion—he considers justified and complementary to each other, although there is occasional disjuncture and tension between the last two. He rejects the fourth suggestion, however, i.e. that he ought now turn attention to cognitive theory, a line of inquiry he dismisses as trendy, timid, and toothless.</p>

</sec>

</abstract>

<kwd-group>

<kwd>Bruce Lincoln</kwd>

<kwd>religion and politics</kwd>

<kwd>religion and ideology</kwd>

<kwd>religion and discourse</kwd>

<kwd>cognitive theories of religion</kwd>

</kwd-group>

</article-meta>

</front>

<body>

<p>It is a strange experience to see the way four accomplished scholars react to my last book and my work in general. I appreciate their kind words and am even more grateful for their critical input, but it’s not always clear they read the same volume. To anyone who appreciates the agentive nature of reception and understands that audiences creatively reconfigure texts in ways conditioned by their own habits, expectations, interests and situations of interest, this should hardly be surprising. What <italic>is</italic>
 surprising—to me, at least—is not that these colleagues see different Lincolns, nor that each one emphasizes what he finds most engaging, but that there is a rough stratigraphy to what they select, as three of the four focus on issues and themes I associate with successive stages of my intellectual trajectory. Let me treat these in sequence.</p>

<sec id="B10.1163_15700682-12341287_001" sec-type="head1">

<title><bold>I. Politics</bold>
</title>
 <p>Horst Junginger starts from an old article that marked my first apostasy from then-conventional wisdom, i.e., the notion that religion is something that stands above and offers a refuge from the sordid realm of the political.<xref ref-type="fn" rid="FN1"><sup>1</sup>
</xref>
 As an initial foray, I called attention to the conservative, even reactionary orientation of religious discourses that constitute a mythic past as the sacred ideal toward which those in the present ought aspire, hinting also that scholars who celebrate such myths risk reproducing their bias. In contrast, I observed that eschatologies, apocalypses, and millennarian visions have a different slant, offering radical critiques of established powers and utopian alternatives to the status quo. Accordingly, I called for materials of this sort to receive more scholarly attention. The argument was timid in places, over-reaching in others, unduly schematic, and somewhat awkward. I presented the paper at the IAHR meetings of 1980, where it met a mostly hostile reception and Jonathan Z. Smith was particularly contemptuous in his dismissal. When I submitted it to the standard American journals, it was summarily rejected, but things were different in Europe. There, Hans-Peter Duerr made it the lead piece in his “critical Festschrift” for Mircea Eliade (Lincoln 1983a: 9-25), a German journal quickly republished it (Lincoln 1983), and Vittorio Lanternari secured an Italian translation for the Centenary Volume honoring Raffaele Pettazzoni (Lincoln 1983c).</p>

<p>Having subsequently become aware of the article’s shortcomings, I have never republished it in English and I’ve not thought about it in years.<xref ref-type="fn" rid="FN2"><sup>2</sup>
</xref>
 Junginger, however, reminds me of its interest. Here, I started to think about the political dimensions of religion and reached two broad conclusions: first, that religious discourse not only has a political dimension, it provides effective vehicles and genres with which to advance a wide range of political positions; second, that scholars of religion have regrettably focused their attentions on forms with a right-wing orientation, while insisting that these materials and they themselves are equally apolitical. Initially, I thought this scholarly bias was unconscious and could be reversed simply by pointing it out. Hostile reactions suggested otherwise, for it seemed I’d hit a nerve and in subsequent work I probed deeper. Recognizing that Europe was more open to that project, I decided to spend more time in conversation with European colleagues.</p>

<p>Junginger and others have been more aggressive than I in undertaking a forensic autopsy of our discipline<xref ref-type="fn" rid="FN3"><sup>3</sup>
</xref>
 and I have been more concerned with the politics of religion than with those of religious studies, although I’ve touched on the latter at times, particularly when assessing the work of Georges Dumézil.<xref ref-type="fn" rid="FN4"><sup>4</sup>
</xref>
 Critical awareness of a field and that which it studies are both necessary, however, and the two enterprises are mutually supportive: the chapters that introduce and conclude <italic>Gods and Demons</italic>
 are meant to make that connection. They also revise my earlier, more naive views, for—as Junginger clearly perceives—subsequent research has persuaded me that 1) Although religious discourse offers opportunities for advancing infinitely varied political positions, the self-interest of religious institutions and the ways these articulate with those of privileged social strata ensure that myths, rituals, dogmas, etc., that protect the status quo and advance the interests of elites will enjoy most authority and circulate most widely; and 2) The factors that attract students (at all levels) to the study of religion, plus the nature of most training currently available, the sociology, also the reward structure of the discipline all militate to maintain the myth that religion and religious studies are resolutely apolitical, the first by its nature, the second by conviction. It is a myth worthy of serious <italic>Entmythologisierung</italic>
.</p>

</sec>

<sec id="B10.1163_15700682-12341287_002" sec-type="head1">

<title><bold>II. Ideology</bold>
</title>
 <p>When I first began to explore these issues, the term “ideology” was not part of my operative vocabulary. Although I had read a bit of Marx, only at the urging of Italian colleagues, above all Cristiano Grottanelli, Pier Giorgio Solinas, and Pietro Clemente did I give serious attention to Antonio Gramsci. The lack of a specifically Marxist perspective was a telling weakness in my earliest books, as, for instance, in <italic>Priests, Warriors, and Cattle</italic>
 (1981a), where I misperceived, misdescribed, and misunderstood what is actually a pastoral mode of production and saw it, rather, as an “ecology of religion.”<xref ref-type="fn" rid="FN5"><sup>5</sup>
</xref>
 Similarly, in <italic>Emerging from the Chrysalis</italic>
 (1981b), I followed my <italic>Doktorvater</italic>
, Mircea Eliade in his view that rituals of initiation invest specific styles and stations of life with a sense of transcendent meaning (Eliade 1958), and extended his line of analysis to argue that when the lives in question are constrained by the fact of gender (more importantly, by the gender politics of the society in question), then myths and rituals work overtime to invest impoverished (female) lives with compensatorily enhanced religious meaning.<xref ref-type="fn" rid="FN6"><sup>6</sup>
</xref>
 My wife (Louise Lincoln, always my most astute critic) insisted to me, however, that this was a partial truth at best, and that I was a victim of romanticism. At the time, I was resistant to the point, and neither of us had a language to describe such things. By the mid-1980s, I had learned enough about the workings of ideology—and about religion as a form, style, or mode of same—to understand that whatever beauty, dignity, or meaning these rites conferred upon female existence, female labor was still exploited, while female subjects were systematically subordinated to their male counterparts. Insofar as rituals and their accompanying myths euphemized this situation, persuading women to accept or even embrace it, religion mystified a harsh—but alterable—reality and assisted in its perpetuation. For the book’s second edition (1991), I added a fierce Afterword, laying out this more critical perspective.<xref ref-type="fn" rid="FN7"><sup>7</sup>
</xref>
</p>

<p>Ever since that time, a sense of religion as ideology—i.e., as a partial and distorted picture of the world that embellishes some aspects of lived experience, while occluding others, thereby helping secure the reproduction of social orders that are (in differing measures) hierarchic, exploitative, and oppressive—has been a piece of my professional baggage. There are, however, certain exaggerated positions I try to avoid. These include:</p>

<list list-type="bullet">

<list-item><p>The view that religion is <italic>nothing but</italic>
 ideology. Rather, religion has many aspects and dimensions, of which the ideological is one only. (It is sufficiently important that it ought never be ignored, but it ought not be so emphasized as to eclipse all else).<xref ref-type="fn" rid="FN8"><sup>8</sup>
</xref>
</p>
</list-item>

<list-item><p>The view that all ideologies—and, <italic>a fortiori</italic>
, all religions—are equally mystifying and deleterious. Rather than leaping to condemn a given instance simply because it is ideological, one has to consider how exploitative and unjust a given social order is, how greatly a given ideology misrepresents the nature of that order, how effective it is in securing the consent and/or submission of the dominated, and how important a role it plays in the reproduction of the order and the privileges of the privileged. Some ideologies—also those who produce, circulate, and consume them—are only minimally culpable, others grievously so.</p>
</list-item>

<list-item><p>The view that there are alternatives to ideology. Rather, <italic>pace</italic>
 Marx, social reality is sufficiently complex that it can never be fully and accurately known. As a result, all attempts to theorize are necessarily partial and distorted (albeit in differing styles and measures) and there is no such thing as what he wishfully called “real, positive science” that is capable of perfectly clarifying the way things <italic>really</italic>
 are (Marx and Engels 1976: 43; and cf. the preceding discussion at 41).</p>
</list-item>

</list>

<p>Stefan Arvidsson sees me as operating primarily within the tradition and model of <italic>Ideologiekritik</italic>
 that informs his own important work<xref ref-type="fn" rid="FN9"><sup>9</sup>
</xref>
 and I take it we have no major difference on the above points. We do differ, however, on several issues. For instance, he thinks I need to admit there are “knowledge interests and curiosity that lack ideological motivation” and if he means they are <italic>entirely</italic>
 lacking such motivation (not just that ideology is only one motive among others), then I quite disagree. Curiosity, as I understand it, may be relatively benign, but it is never idle or innocent, for in some measure it always reflects a particular situation of interest. And here Arvidsson thinks it simplistic to focus on this situation of interest, since there is “an objective situation within which the knowledge-seeking subject operates.” I wouldn’t deny this (who would?); my point is simply that all who look at “the same thing” see something different as a result of the perspective from which they look and assumptions derived from their prior experience. While the degree to which their views are partial and distorted may differ, none has full access to a fully-non-ideological <italic>Ding an sich</italic>
, neither in their perception, nor in their speech about it.</p>

<p>Arvidsson further observes that ideological arguments often serve, not to persuade subordinate groups, but to persuade elites that their privileges are justified. On this his point is well taken, but the example he chooses is inapt, for the passage from the Upaniṣadic passage I discussed is one where one group of priestly specialists (the <italic>Udgatṛ</italic>
s) sought to persuade others that this group’s position ought be recalibrated upward.<xref ref-type="fn" rid="FN10"><sup>10</sup>
</xref>
 It is thus a case where a subordinate fraction of an elite sought to persuade themselves <italic>and</italic>
 others that society should be modified, consistent with their ideology and to their benefit.</p>

<p>Finally, he suggests I run the risk of “identifying religion <italic>per se</italic>
 with the theology of priests and elites.” Again, the point is well taken, but there is a sloppiness of diction (perhaps also of analysis) that obscures the issue. Thus, I am uncomfortable with the way Arvidsson first equates ideology with religion, then charges me with equating this to theology (a term and a category I rarely employ). Were I to pursue these issues at length, I would insist that ideology is only a part of religion and would further insist that within any society (also any religion), multiple ideologies circulate. Some of these are produced by priests for their own amusement, some for the benefit and delectation of their patrons, and some for mass consumption. Some ideologies also originate in other social strata, reflect—and advance—other interests, circulate in different fashion, and meet a different kind of reception. I quite agree we should give more attention to these alternate, unofficial, distinctly counterhegemonic ideologies, but we ought not overestimate their power or importance simply because we find them morally or politically congenial.</p>

<p>Arvidsson’s most important point culminates in the splendid set of questions that concludes his essay, above all “How does ideology become part of the individual’s longings and desires?” What he isolates here—and, with equal acumen, when he reminds us that Marx saw religion not just as “the opium of the people,” but also “the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, the spirit of a spiritless situation” (Marx 1964 [1844]: 42)—is the way religious ideologies engage existential needs, providing not just distraction, but also real comfort (even if ultimately based in illusion) to suffering mortals as they face the existential terrors of death, loneliness, pain and fear. Critics, myself included, often lose sight of this and that is a serious error, for it is just such service that gives religion the power of its appeal.</p>

</sec>

<sec id="B10.1163_15700682-12341287_003" sec-type="head1">

<title><bold>III. Discourse</bold>
</title>
 <p>If my Italian friends and colleagues led me to appreciate the nature and importance of ideology for students of religion, those at the University of Minnesota (Richard Leppert, Pauline Yu, John Archer, John Mowitt, and others)<xref ref-type="fn" rid="FN10"><sup>11</sup>
</xref>
 helped me understand that discourse is an even broader—and in ways, more radical—notion that helps one identify certain competences and effects of religion that the model of ideology overlooks. Thus, whereas theories of ideology tend to posit a social reality that is veiled (alternatively: masked, mystified, occluded, distorted, embellished, and/or euphemized) in ideological representations, theories of discourse suggest that insofar as certain kinds of speech penetrate consciousness, shaping people’s perceptions and actions, they actively constitute the things of which they speak: e.g., “sin,” “aristocracy,” or “unAmericanism,” to cite but a few examples. Such things thus become <italic>real</italic>
, but only as long as people take them to be so.</p>

<p>Although I continue to employ a model of ideology on many occasions, since publishing <italic>Discourse and the Construction of Society</italic>
 (1989), I have tended to favor discourse. Among my reasons is that it lets one avoid theorizing a truth that ideology conceals and thus obviates the question: “So how do <italic>you</italic>
 come to know that truth and why is <italic>your</italic>
 knowledge free from mystification?” Discourse, in contrast—at least as I understand it—theorizes no stable, dependable “truth,” only things discursively constructed as such. Lars Albinus—who is far better grounded than I in matters of philosophy—won’t let me get away with this and calls on me to clarify my thinking and terminology.</p>

<p>Being thus pressed to elaborate, I would suggest there is nothing any human can recognize with utter and appropriate confidence as truth <italic>tout court</italic>
. Rather, one deals only with truth-claims, i.e., speech acts, signifying practices, and phenomena that implicitly or explicitly represent themselves to be true and call on their audiences to accept them as such. Confronted with assertions of this sort, audiences use the skills, habits, dispositions, tests and criteria they have learned and internalized over the course of their lives in deciding how to respond. To the extent that any group of people share such things, this aggregate (skills, habits, etc.) and its underlying principles constitute the regime of truth under which truth-claims are evaluated and ultimately ratified or not. Ratification, moreover, is more complex than actors normally understand, for it is not recognition of a truth that is already intrinsic in the proposition to-be-ratified; rather, it is the moment when a given proposition is constituted as-if-true. This socially mediated transaction, moreover, is not conclusive in any definitive sense, for the group’s acceptance remains subject to disputation, doubt, and revision, should new evidence be presented, new tests be applied, or a different regime of truth come to be adopted. The process yields, not “truths,” but “propositions provisionally constituted and ratified as true.”</p>

<p>Albinus is probably right, however, to observe a slippage between my mundane and professional identities and commitments. In the former, I do believe in certain things (science, for one, an anti-hierarchic model of social justice for another, an anti-authoritarian model of politics and knowledge for a third) and I operate within a regime of truth that makes such beliefs seem rational. In my professional work, I recognize that these represent one option among many, neither normative, absolute, nor dependable. Part of my professional activity involves understanding why certain beliefs contrary to those I hold in my mundane life seem equally rational to those who hold them, and there is an abrupt shift when I introduce my mundane commitments to say, in effect, “but of course that is wrong.” Better would be “but of course <italic>I think</italic>
 that is wrong,” and better still “but of course the mundane commitments I hold and the regime of truth that renders them credible lead me to think that is wrong.” The problem is real and becomes more acute when the question at hand is not a model of celestial motion I consider inaccurate, but a model of social order I take to be unjust and exploitative. It is here that I most predictably shift from a model of discourse to one of ideology that lets me voice my indignation. This may well involve a logical fallacy, but if I had to renounce such full-throated statements of outrage, I would give up my work altogether, for they are the moral center that make it all worthwhile.</p>

</sec>

<sec id="B10.1163_15700682-12341287_004" sec-type="head1">

<title><bold>IV. Cognitive Theory</bold>
</title>
 <p>Junginger, Arvidsson, and Albinus thus trace a line of development in my work that leads from politics to ideology to discourse, with each piece complementing, rather than replacing its predecessors, with occasional dissonance. Daniel Ullucci looks a bit further, imagining where this trajectory might (or ought?) go next. Clearly, he means this as a friendly suggestion and there is a point in his essay I find attractive, one that Arvidsson also raises in different fashion. Other aspects of Ullucci’s program, however, are harder for me to accept.</p>

<p>Thus, Ullucci rightly identifies a major issue by pointing up the distinction—and relationship—between religious experts and others, while urging that more attention be directed to “showing how, specifically, religious experts do what they do.” He also notes that attention to this would advance our understanding of how “practices and beliefs we call ‘religious’ affect society as a whole, particularly how relationships of power are negotiated within and through religious institutions, officials, and myths,” and once again I concur. I part company with him, however, when he introduces cognitive theory as the best way to pursue what is, in effect, a question of class (sometimes caste), for which methods and theories that focus on social, economic, historic, and cultural factors seem more appropriate to me than those that gesture (superficially) to the brain.</p>

<p>For some time, cognitive theorists like Whitehouse, McCauley, Lawson, and others have been making the obvious, but non-trivial point that the more complex a proposition is, the more it requires large investments of time, labor, and repetition if it is to be explored, elaborated, and rendered memorable, whence the need for a class of specialists devoted to such endeavors. This being established, a whole series of questions ought follow, including:</p>

<list list-type="bullet">

<list-item><p>How do mental and manual labor begin to diverge?</p>
</list-item>

<list-item><p>How does mental labor comes to be privileged and how do those who devote themselves to it gain elite status?</p>
</list-item>

<list-item><p>How do these specialists enter into relations with other elites from whom they derive material and other forms of support?</p>
</list-item>

<list-item><p>How does this web of relations influence the theories and discourse the specialists develop?</p>
</list-item>

<list-item><p>How are these discourses circulated to non-elite populations?</p>
</list-item>

<list-item><p>How thoroughly and enthusiastically do non-elites consume, metabolize, and reproduce these discourses? To what extent are both consumers and what they consume modified in the process?</p>
</list-item>

<list-item><p>How is it that alternative theories and discourses arise from non-elite actors, and how thoroughly do these reflect interests different from those of elites?</p>
</list-item>

<list-item><p>Do these alternative forms circulate through different channels than do those produced by recognized specialists? Enjoy a different status? Meet a different reception?</p>
</list-item>

<list-item><p>What happens when elite and non-elite forms come into conflict?</p>
</list-item>

</list>

<p>Cognitive studies of religion enjoy considerable favor and I understand why many colleagues find them attractive. They originate in disciplines more prestigious than our own, have the cachet of science, exercise influence in many fields, feel fresh and new, promise rapid advances and radical transformation of our paradigms. All this makes them tempting, even seductive, especially if one has real competence in the biophysical sciences or—more likely—is content to bluff one’s way through, while absorbing such knowledge at second hand.</p>

<p>Beyond this, there is another reason cognitive theory appeals to those in religious studies, which I take to be most important, i.e., it has no critical edge whatsoever and threatens nothing of the slightest importance. To be sure, cognitive theory does not simply repeat a religious view of religion (as revealed truth, sacred reality, salvific practice, etc.) and it does offers some reasonable, if anodyne observations about its nature. Like other vogues that preceded it, however—one thinks of phenomenology, functionalism, and structuralism, for example—it systematically ignores virtually all of the questions that might be disturbing to the religious and their apologists in academe. These include, to cite but a few examples, the interrelation of power and knowledge, the maldistribution of intellectual and discursive authority, the exchange of spiritual goods for material wealth, the production of disciplined/docile subjects, and the interested nature of institutions that represent and experience themselves as somehow more-than-human. If one is to pursue these and related questions, there are better, if less trendy paths to follow than cognitive theory. Personally, I prefer something like a mix of political economy, social history, ethnographic observation, ideological critique, and discourse analysis. In an ideal world, such a composite style of inquiry would call itself “History of religions.”</p>

</sec>

</body>

<back>

<fn-group>

<fn id="FN1"><p><sup>1</sup>
 Bruce Lincoln, “The Politics of Myth,” paper presented at the 1980 meetings of the International Association for the History of Religions (Winnipeg, Canada).</p>
</fn>

<fn id="FN2"><p><sup>2</sup>
 In particular, I now think my attempt to associate cosmogonic myth with right wing politics and eschatology with those of the left was wooden and simplistic, ignoring the supple agency of story-tellers, audiences, and commentators, all of whom can adapt a narrative of any genre to suit their interests and positions. To cite but one example, apocalyptic texts often speak the interests, not of lower social strata in general, but those of displaced elites seeking to recover their positions of privilege. Their narratives may deploy images of radical transformation, while advancing a project of reaction and restoration.</p>
</fn>

<fn id="FN3"><p><sup>3</sup>
 Above all, see the essays in Junginger 2008, a deeply revealing and deeply disturbing volume that has—unsurprisingly, perhaps—received much less attention than it deserves.</p>
</fn>

<fn id="FN4"><p><sup>4</sup>
 See esp. Lincoln 1991: 231-68 and idem 1999: 47-137. My initial training was in Indo-European studies and had a curious origin. I did my graduate work at Chicago from 1971-76, in the immediate aftermath of Haskell Lectures given there by Dumézil (1969) and Stig Wikander (1967), both at the invitation of Mircea Eliade. When I announced my intention to do comparative work, I was informed—first by Jonathan Smith, later by Eliade—that the best, perhaps the only way to do this in rigorous fashion was via comparative Indo-European linguistics of the sort displayed in those lectures. After many years of studying languages, absorbing principles of method, and pursuing research of a vaguely Dumézilian sort, I belatedly came to understand that “Indo-European” was a euphemistic recoding of “Aryan,” and the field remained deeply—perhaps irrevocably—irrigated by racist and fascist subtexts, beginning with its inception in British colonial India, running through the catastrophe of National Socialism, and sustained in creepy circles of the “Nouvelle Droite.” Only at this point did I undertake serious research of the ranking scholars in the field and begin to extricate myself from the endeavor.</p>
</fn>

<fn id="FN5"><p><sup>5</sup>
 Lincoln 1981a. This work began its life as Lincoln 1976. The subtitle of the published version notwithstanding, one finds no attention to the kinds of data requisite for a serious discussion of ecology: climate, soil quality, water sources, species variety and interdependence, etc.</p>
</fn>

<fn id="FN6"><p><sup>6</sup>
 Lincoln 1981b. The book was most immediately motivated by a desire to respond to an article that took Eliade to task for his failure to give separate attention to women’s experience and women’s rituals (Saiving 1976).</p>
</fn>

<fn id="FN7"><p><sup>7</sup>
 Lincoln 1991: 110-19. Ideology already figured as a key concept for me in Lincoln 1986.</p>
</fn>

<fn id="FN8"><p><sup>8</sup>
 The ideological aspect is also sufficiently threatening that those who champion religion consistently minimize or deny it, thereby developing an ideology of religion, i.e., a partial, distorted, and mystified theory of that which they do not just describe, but defend and seek to perpetuate.</p>
</fn>

<fn id="FN9"><p><sup>9</sup>
 Anglophone readers will be familiar with Arvidsson 2006. Equally important is his more recent volume (Arvidsson 2007), which ought be translated and more widely known.</p>
</fn>

<fn id="FN10"><p><sup>10</sup>
 Chandogya Upaniṣad 1.3.6-7, discussed in Lincoln 2012: 5-9.</p>
</fn>

<fn id="FN11"><p><sup>11</sup>
 With these and other gifted colleagues—none of whom had the slightest interest in religion—I helped found Minnesota’s unique interdisciplinary Ph.D. program devoted to “Comparative Studies in Discourse and Society” (described at <ext-link ext-link-type="url" xlink:href="http://cscl.umn.edu/grad/csds.html">http://cscl.umn.edu/grad/csds.html</ext-link>
), within which I got a second education and achieved critical distance from the discipline of my original training.</p>
</fn>

</fn-group>

<ref-list>

<title>References</title>

<ref id="bibr1">

<citation citation-type="book">

<person-group person-group-type="author">

<name><surname>Arvidsson</surname>

<given-names>Stefan</given-names>
</name>

</person-group>

<source>Aryan Idols: Indo-European Mythology as Ideology and Science</source>

<year>2006</year>

<publisher-loc>Chicago</publisher-loc>

<publisher-name>University of Chicago Press</publisher-name>

<comment>2006</comment>

</citation>
</ref>
 <ref id="bibr2">

<citation citation-type="book">

<person-group person-group-type="author">

<name><surname>Arvidsson</surname>

<given-names>Stefan</given-names>
</name>

</person-group>

<source>Draksjukan: Mytiska Fantasier hos Tolkien, Wagner, och de Vries</source>

<year>2007</year>

<publisher-loc>Lund</publisher-loc>

<publisher-name>Nordic Academic Press</publisher-name>

</citation>
</ref>

<ref id="bibr3">

<citation citation-type="book">

<person-group person-group-type="author">

<name><surname>Eliade</surname>

<given-names>Mircea</given-names>
</name>

</person-group>

<source>Rites and Symbols of Initiation: The Mysteries of Birth and Rebirth</source>

<year>1958</year>

<publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>

<publisher-name>Harper & Row</publisher-name>

<comment>1958</comment>

</citation>
</ref>

<ref id="bibr4">

<citation citation-type="book">

<person-group person-group-type="editor">

<name><surname>Junginger</surname>

<given-names>Horst</given-names>
</name>

</person-group>

<source>The Study of Religion under the Impact of National Socialist and Fascist Ideologies in Europe</source>

<year>2008</year>

<publisher-loc>Leiden</publisher-loc>

<publisher-name>E.J. Brill</publisher-name>

</citation>
</ref>

<ref id="bibr5">

<citation citation-type="thesis">

<person-group person-group-type="author">

<name><surname>Lincoln</surname>

<given-names>Bruce</given-names>
</name>

</person-group>

<source>Priests,  Warriors, and Cattle: A Comparative Study of East African and Indo-Iranian Religious Systems</source>

<year>1976</year>

<comment>Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Chicago Dept. of History of Religions</comment>

</citation>
</ref>
 <ref id="bibr6">

<citation citation-type="book">

<person-group person-group-type="author">

<name><surname>Lincoln</surname>

<given-names>Bruce</given-names>
</name>

</person-group>

<source>Priests,  Warriors,  and Cattle: A Study in the Ecology of Religions</source>

<year>1981a</year>

<publisher-loc>Berkeley</publisher-loc>

<publisher-name>University of California Press</publisher-name>

<comment>1981</comment>

</citation>
</ref>
 <ref id="bibr7">

<citation citation-type="book">

<person-group person-group-type="author">

<name><surname>Lincoln</surname>

<given-names>Bruce</given-names>
</name>

</person-group>

<source>Emerging from the Chrysalis: Studies in Rituals of Women’s Initiation</source>

<year>1981b</year>

<publisher-loc>Cambridge, Mass.</publisher-loc>

<publisher-name>Harvard University Press</publisher-name>

</citation>
</ref>

<ref id="bibr8">

<citation citation-type="book">

<person-group person-group-type="author">

<name><surname>Lincoln</surname>

<given-names>Bruce</given-names>
</name>

</person-group>

<person-group person-group-type="editor">

<name><surname>Duerr</surname>

<given-names>H. P.</given-names>
</name>

</person-group>

<article-title>Der politische gehalt des mythos</article-title>

<source>Alcheringa,  oder die beginnende Zeit: Studien zu Mythologie,  Schamanismus,  und Religion</source>

<year>1983a</year>

<publisher-loc>Frankfurt</publisher-loc>

<publisher-name>Qumran Verlag</publisher-name>

<fpage>9</fpage>

<lpage>25</lpage>

</citation>
</ref>

<ref id="bibr9">

<citation citation-type="journal">

<person-group person-group-type="author">

<name><surname>Lincoln</surname>

<given-names>Bruce</given-names>
</name>

</person-group>

<article-title>Der politische gehalt des mythos</article-title>

<source>Psychoanalyse</source>

<year>1983b</year>

<volume>4</volume>

<fpage>305</fpage>

<lpage>318</lpage>

</citation>
</ref>

<ref id="bibr10">

<citation citation-type="journal">

<person-group person-group-type="author">

<name><surname>Lincoln</surname>

<given-names>Bruce</given-names>
</name>

</person-group>

<article-title>Concezione del tempo e dimensione politica del mito</article-title>

<source>Studi e Materiali di Storia delle Religioni</source>

<year>1983c</year>

<volume>7</volume>

<fpage>75</fpage>

<lpage>86</lpage>

<comment>(= Raffaele Pettazzoni Centenary Volume)</comment>

</citation>
</ref>
 <ref id="bibr11">

<citation citation-type="book">

<person-group person-group-type="author">

<name><surname>Lincoln</surname>

<given-names>Bruce</given-names>
</name>

</person-group>

<source>Myth,  Cosmos,  and Society: Indo-European Themes of Creation and Destruction</source>

<year>1986</year>

<publisher-loc>Cambridge, Mass.</publisher-loc>

<publisher-name>Harvard University Press</publisher-name>

</citation>
</ref>

<ref id="bibr12">

<citation citation-type="book">

<person-group person-group-type="author">

<name><surname>Lincoln</surname>

<given-names>Bruce</given-names>
</name>

</person-group>

<source>Discourse and the Construction of Society: Comparative Studies of Myth, Ritual, and Classification</source>

<year>1989</year>

<publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>

<publisher-name>Oxford University Press</publisher-name>

</citation>
</ref>
 <ref id="bibr13">

<citation citation-type="book">

<person-group person-group-type="author">

<name><surname>Lincoln</surname>

<given-names>Bruce</given-names>
</name>

</person-group>

<source>Death, War, and Sacrifice: Studies in Ideology and Practice</source>

<year>1991a</year>

<publisher-loc>Chicago</publisher-loc>

<publisher-name>University of Chicago Press</publisher-name>

</citation>
</ref>

<ref id="bibr14">

<citation citation-type="book">

<person-group person-group-type="author">

<name><surname>Lincoln</surname>

<given-names>Bruce</given-names>
</name>

</person-group>

<source>Emerging from the Chrysalis</source>

<year>1991b</year>

<edition>2nd revised edition</edition>

<publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>

<publisher-name>Oxford University Press</publisher-name>

<comment>1991</comment>

</citation>
</ref>

<ref id="bibr15">

<citation citation-type="book">

<person-group person-group-type="author">

<name><surname>Lincoln</surname>

<given-names>Bruce</given-names>
</name>

</person-group>

<source>Theorizing Myth: Narrative, Ideology, and Scholarship</source>

<year>1999</year>

<publisher-loc>Chicago</publisher-loc>

<publisher-name>University of Chicago Press</publisher-name>

<comment>1999</comment>

</citation>
</ref>

<ref id="bibr16">

<citation citation-type="book">

<person-group person-group-type="author">

<name><surname>Lincoln</surname>

<given-names>Bruce</given-names>
</name>

</person-group>

<source>Gods and Demons,  Priests and Scholars: Critical Explorations in the History of Religions</source>

<year>2012</year>

<publisher-loc>Chicago</publisher-loc>

<publisher-name>University of Chicago Press</publisher-name>

</citation>
</ref>

<ref id="bibr17">

<citation citation-type="book">

<person-group person-group-type="author">

<name><surname>Marx</surname>

<given-names>Karl</given-names>
</name>

</person-group>

<article-title>Contribution to a critique of Hegel’s philosophy of right</article-title>

<source>Marx and Engels on Religion</source>

<year>1964 [1844]</year>

<publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>

<publisher-name>Schocken</publisher-name>

</citation>
</ref>

<ref id="bibr18">

<citation citation-type="book">

<person-group person-group-type="author">

<name><surname>Marx</surname>

<given-names>Karl</given-names>
</name>

<name><surname>Engels</surname>

<given-names>Friedrich</given-names>
</name>

</person-group>

<source>The German Ideology</source>

<year>1976</year>

<publisher-loc>Moscow</publisher-loc>

<publisher-name>Progress Publishers</publisher-name>

</citation>
</ref>

<ref id="bibr19">

<citation citation-type="journal">

<person-group person-group-type="author">

<name><surname>Saiving</surname>

<given-names>Valerie</given-names>
</name>

</person-group>

<article-title>Androcentrism in religious studies</article-title>

<source>Journal of Religion</source>

<year>1976</year>

<volume>56</volume>

<fpage>177</fpage>

<lpage>197</lpage>

</citation>
</ref>

</ref-list>

</back>

</article>
</istex:document>
</istex:metadataXml>
<mods version="3.6"><titleInfo><title>Reflections on the Reflections of Messrs. Junginger, Arvidsson, Albinus, and Ullucci</title>
</titleInfo>
<titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA"><title>Reflections on the Reflections of Messrs. Junginger, Arvidsson, Albinus, and Ullucci</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Bruce</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Lincoln</namePart>
<affiliation>Divinity School, University of Chicago, Swift Hall 301, 1025 E. 58th St., Chicago, IL 60637</affiliation>
<affiliation>E-mail: blincoln@uchicago.edu</affiliation>
</name>
<typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
<genre type="other" displayLabel="other" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-7474895G-0">other</genre>
<originInfo><publisher>Brill</publisher>
<place><placeTerm type="text">Netherlands</placeTerm>
</place>
<dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2013</dateIssued>
<dateCreated encoding="w3cdtf">2013</dateCreated>
<copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2013</copyrightDate>
</originInfo>
<language><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm>
<languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm>
</language>
<abstract>Abstract The author responds to the reviews of Gods and Demons, Priests and Scholars (Chicago, 2012) that appear in this issue by Horst Junginger, Stefan Arvidsson, Lars Albinus, and Daniel Ullucci, each of which focuses on different aspects of his work, which he suggests emerged in a rough chronological sequence. Three of these—a concern for the political, ideological, and discursive aspects of religion—he considers justified and complementary to each other, although there is occasional disjuncture and tension between the last two. He rejects the fourth suggestion, however, i.e. that he ought now turn attention to cognitive theory, a line of inquiry he dismisses as trendy, timid, and toothless.</abstract>
<subject><genre>keywords</genre>
<topic>Bruce Lincoln</topic>
<topic>religion and politics</topic>
<topic>religion and ideology</topic>
<topic>religion and discourse</topic>
<topic>cognitive theories of religion</topic>
</subject>
<relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Method & Theory in the Study of Religion</title>
<subTitle>Journal of the North American Association for the Study of Religion</subTitle>
</titleInfo>
<titleInfo type="abbreviated"><title>MTSR</title>
</titleInfo>
<genre type="journal" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</genre>
<subject><topic>Review Symposium: Bruce Lincoln’s Gods and Demons, Priests and Scholars: Critical Explorations in the History of Religions</topic>
</subject>
<identifier type="ISSN">0943-3058</identifier>
<identifier type="eISSN">1570-0682</identifier>
<part><date>2013</date>
<detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption>
<number>25</number>
</detail>
<detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption>
<number>2</number>
</detail>
<extent unit="pages"><start>209</start>
<end>219</end>
</extent>
</part>
</relatedItem>
<identifier type="istex">2C2C276141AB219D6A81668540C17A5B5A13D625</identifier>
<identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/JKT-S31DZL71-X</identifier>
<identifier type="DOI">10.1163/15700682-12341287</identifier>
<identifier type="href">15700682_025_02_S06_text.pdf</identifier>
<accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands</accessCondition>
<recordInfo><recordContentSource authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-56W3KPD5-3">brill-journals</recordContentSource>
<recordOrigin>© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands</recordOrigin>
</recordInfo>
</mods>
<json:item><extension>json</extension>
<original>false</original>
<mimetype>application/json</mimetype>
<uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/2C2C276141AB219D6A81668540C17A5B5A13D625/metadata/json</uri>
</json:item>
</metadata>
<serie></serie>
</istex>
</record>

Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)

EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV2/Data/Istex/Corpus

HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 001552 | SxmlIndent | more

HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 001552 | SxmlIndent | more

Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri

{{Explor lien
   |wiki=    Wicri/Santé
   |area=    EdenteV2
   |flux=    Istex
   |étape=   Corpus
   |type=    RBID
   |clé=     ISTEX:2C2C276141AB219D6A81668540C17A5B5A13D625
   |texte=   Reflections on the Reflections of Messrs. Junginger, Arvidsson, Albinus, and Ullucci
}}

This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32.
Data generation: Thu Nov 30 15:26:48 2017. Site generation: Tue Mar 8 16:36:20 2022

	Serveur d'exploration sur le patient édenté
	Attention, ce site est en cours de développement ! Attention, site généré par des moyens informatiques à partir de corpus bruts. Les informations ne sont donc pas validées.

Serveur d'exploration sur le patient édenté

Reflections on the Reflections of Messrs. Junginger, Arvidsson, Albinus, and Ullucci

Reflections on the Reflections of Messrs. Junginger, Arvidsson, Albinus, and Ullucci

Source :

English descriptors

Abstract

Links to Exploration step

Le document en format XML

Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)

Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri