This article addresses the predicament of the academic study of religions and directs the debate into more fruitful fields of research. After a brief account of the most important problems-identified as the "crisis of representation", the "situated observer", and the "dilemma of essentialism and relativism"-I argue that, in order to cope with these afflictions, we should scrutinize religions as systems of communication and action and not as systems of (unverifiable) belief. Not inner states of the mind or speculations about the transcendent are our issue, but the analysis of publicly communicated constructions. The term "fields of discourse" is introduced to denote both the coherence of these cultural arenas and the "recursive" involvement of scholars who are themselves actors in them. As a meta-theoretical instrument, the ideal type of "discourse" makes visible multiple perspectives on religious phenomena and-although the analysis' contingency and ethnocentricity is acknowledged-allows for the description of long-lasting traditions.
The article explores recent approaches to historical analysis of discourse that have been developed in disciplines such as the sociology of knowledge and historical epistemology. These approaches have only sporadically been taken seriously in the academic study of religion, although they have a great potential to establish a study of religion that is both academically rigorous and aware of its societal and historical contexts and limitations. The article defines the necessary concepts for a discursive study of religion as an hermeneutical discipline that scrutinizes and historicizes the societal organization of knowledge about religion. This discourse on religion—defined here as religion—generates, legitimizes, and maintains meaning structures and societal realities. The discourse-historical analysis of religion is not itself a method but a research perspective. Nevertheless, this perspective implies several steps in designing a research project that the article describes with concrete examples.
It has repeatedly been claimed that the study of religion should not essentialize "religion" as an object of study that exists "out there," waiting for us to discover and understand "it." Reflection on the contexts and hidden agendas of concepts of religion are part and parcel of scholarly activity. But can there be an end to such a circle of reflection? This paper argues that definitions of and approaches to religion are intrinsically linked to the episteme and the discourse of the time. After clarifying the terms "discourse," "episteme," and "field," this dynamic is exemplified with the emergence of the academic field of "Western esotericism." The paper concludes that rather than looking for a better definition of religion, the academic study of religion should focus on describing, analyzing, and demarcating the religious fields of discourse. These fields are both the object of study for scholars of religion and the scholars' habitat.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.