On a balanced critique: ( or on the limits of critique)

Self Cite

This editorial discusses the place of critique at different stages in research and writing. It evokes Foucault's conception of critique as transformative and draws from the symposium in this issue examining the role of critique in anthropology to shift the conversation to the question of when critique occurs. The editorial advocates for the notion of critique as a competency that is dependent upon context.

Section: Purview and Purpose: What Is Critique?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Critical trajectories and the timing of critique

King

Goldstein²,

Boyarin

2018

Self Cite

“…“How should scholars think about the social implications of their critique?” ask Goldstein, King and Boyarin (2017: 4). Our elegant or inelegant formulations about the meaning and consequences of religious ideas rarely reach wide audiences.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

On neither burying nor praising religion

Beit‐Hallahmi

2017

In response to the April 2017 Critical Research on Religion editorial ''On a balanced critique: (or on the limits of critique),'' the author suggests first that defining religion is possible and helpful, and that even those who claim not to define the subject demonstrate knowledge of its boundaries. Academic research on religion can offer useful generalizations and insights, while having no impact on the fortunes of religion in the real world. When believers perceive academic research as hostile to religion, they are absolutely right. All academic approaches to religion reflect its loss of authority under secularization. Our work is always a critique in the strongest sense, especially when it deals with the psychological foundations of religious beliefs. Even a ''balanced'' critique undermines belief plausibility and will incur the wrath of true believers.

“… 2 See Goldstein, Boyarin, and Boer 2014; Goldstein et al. 2015; Goldstein, King, and Boyarin 2016, 2017.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

What makes Critical Religion critical? A response to Russell McCutcheon

Goldstein¹

2020

Self Cite

This is a response to Russell McCutcheon's (2018) book chapter titled "On Concepts and Entities: Varieties of Critical Scholarship" in which he criticizes the value-driven approached advocated in previous editorials of Critical Research on Religion. This response points out that critical religion (the approach of McCutcheon and others) is also value-driven and not nonnormative as he claims, but that this is what makes it critical.