No abstract

In a ground-breaking article Joel Robbins analysed what he characterises as the 'awkward' relationship between anthropology and theology and invited greater anthropological engagement with its disciplinary cousin. This Special Issue responds to this provocation by using Robbins' argument as a bouncing board for wide-ranging forays into a common set of concerns. In investigating anthropological theologies the collection critically attends to the kinds of engagements and encounters that already take place and also lays out future agendas for further interactions. We call for an anthropology that is open to provisional, dialogic and potentially transformative interactions across diverse theologies and suggest that such a move will help shed light on the possibilities of re-modelling the practice of anthropology. AN AWKWARD RELATIONSHIPIn a ground-breaking article Robbins (2006) invites consideration of 'what is or should be the relationship between anthropology and theology?' The fact that the question, as Robbins notes, has hardly ever been asked by anthropologists says something that cuts to the core of the discipline. Indeed, while questions of our location vis-a-vis 'neighbouring' disciplines such as sociology and cultural studies have long haunted anthropology, theology has hardly ever been considered part of our neighbourhood. Direct and explicit discussion of theology has rarely been considered an urgent or necessary task. This has been the case even when theological theories clearly intersect with central anthropological domains of enquiry. In asking for descriptive and normative enquiries into this relationship, Robbins disturbs the status quo and invites critical examination of our conspicuous and assiduous avoidance of this disciplinary cousin.But more than being simply a matter of neglect, the relationship between theology and anthropology (at least from the anthropologists' side) is characterised by deep unease. Probing this discomfort, Robbins suggests that anthropologists have had a thoroughly 'awkward' relationship with theology. This stems from the fact that theology is a 'committed discipline', whereas anthropology, he argues, is not. Perhaps more

The discipline of anthropology is dominated by a secular analytical approach which requires the bounding of religion and its exclusion from anthropological ways‐of‐knowing. This is premised on a historical understanding of the discipline as scientific, rational, objective and modern. While these norms are now routinely critiqued, theology remains peculiarly marginalised. This article probes the contours of an anthropology beyond the secular which involves both critical reflection on the secularity of the discipline and a willingness to experiment with new ways of doing anthropology with/in theology.