(Re)thinking Religious Studies

Autor/in	Enstedt, Daniel
Titel	(Re)thinking Religious Studies
Quelle	In: Educational Theory, 70 (2020) 1, S.57-72 (16 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0013-2004
DOI	10.1111/edth.12406
Schlagwörter	Religious Education; Religious Cultural Groups; Guidelines; Social Values; Higher Education; Risk; Stereotypes; Teaching Methods; Institutional Characteristics; Educational Philosophy; Socialization; Qualifications; Personal Autonomy + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Kirchliche Erziehung; Religionserziehung; Religionspädagogik; Kirchliche Gruppe; Religionszugehörigkeit; Richtlinien; Sozialer Wert; Hochschulbildung; Hochschulsystem; Hochschulwesen; Risiko; Klischee; Teaching method; Lehrmethode; Unterrichtsmethode; Bildungsphilosophie; Erziehungsphilosophie; Socialisation; Sozialisation; Qualifikation; Qualifikationsstufe; Individuelle Autonomie
Abstract	The world religions paradigm (WRP), often regarded as hegemonic in research and education in religious studies, has long been criticized for being modeled on predominantly Protestant, Christian, and Western ideas about religion, and thus running the risk of reductionism and of a failure to recognize expressions of religion that do not fit this framework. Despite this, it is difficult to get rid of the prevailing WRP, especially in education. In addition, nonconfessional, nonreligious, secular education in religion may be biased by norms and values that assume that religion as such is outdated and irrational. The seemingly neutral, nonreligious, or agnostic position that is present in religious studies at the higher education level can then be seen as aligned with an institutional, not necessarily personal, secular bias that rules out religion from the very outset. Consequently, higher level education about religion runs the risk of presenting religion in terms of flawed stereotypes. In this article, Daniel Enstedt addresses these two interrelated and subject-specific problems by examining them through the lens of Gert J. J. Biesta's educational philosophy, and in particular in relation to his discussion about the three domains of education: qualification, socialization, and subjectification. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2024/1/01