What do you think?
Rate this book
Manufacturing Religion: The Discourse on Sui Generis Religion and the Politics of Nostalgia
In this new book, author Russell McCutcheon offers a powerful critique of traditional scholarship on religion, focusing on multiple interrelated targets. Most prominent among these are the History of Religions as a discipline; Mircea Eliade, one of the founders of the modern discipline; recent scholarship on Eliade's life and politics; contemporary textbooks on world religions; and the oft-repeated bromide that "religion" is a sui generis phenomenon. McCutcheon skillfully analyzes the ideological basis for and service of the sui generis argument, demonstrating that it has been used to constitute the field's object of study in a form that is ahistoric, apolitical, fetishized, and sacrosanct. As such, he charges, it has helped to create departments, jobs, and publication outlets for those who are comfortable with such a suspect construction, while establishing a disciplinary ethos of astounding theoretical naivete and a body of scholarship to match. Surveying the textbooks
available for introductory courses in comparative religion, the author finds that they uniformly adopt the sui generis line and all that comes with it. As a result, he argues, they are not just uncritical (which helps keep them popular among the audiences for which they are intended, but badly disserve), but actively inhibit the emergence of critical perspectives and capacities. And on the geo-political scale, he contends, the study of religion as an ahistorical category participates in a larger system of political domination and economic and cultural imperialism.
available for introductory courses in comparative religion, the author finds that they uniformly adopt the sui generis line and all that comes with it. As a result, he argues, they are not just uncritical (which helps keep them popular among the audiences for which they are intended, but badly disserve), but actively inhibit the emergence of critical perspectives and capacities. And on the geo-political scale, he contends, the study of religion as an ahistorical category participates in a larger system of political domination and economic and cultural imperialism.
- GenresReligionNonfiction
272 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1997
2 people are currently reading
79 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
June 8, 2012
A very interesting and thought-provoking work of scholarship. Dr. McCutcheon is certainly doing some provocative and cutting edge work in the area of religion and theory.
For some readers, it may be hard to distinguish between McCutcheon's critique - which only concerns the SCHOLARLY STUDY of religion, versus any critique of religion itself or religious people. McCutcheon's audience is solely his fellow scholars of religion. His book is a strong critique of the way the study of religion is usually done. He says that most modern scholarship on religion treats it as "sui generis," that is, self-caused and autonomous. He criticizes many of his colleagues for not treating religion the way any other subject in the humanities is treated. Religion, he says, should be explained naturalistically and with full view of its historical, social, and political contexts. Not doing so, he says, unjustifiably protects religion from critique and analysis, and amounts to a different kind of theology rather than the objective study of religious people and actions. Treating religion as "sui generis" only serves to enforce the imperialistic attitudes so prevelant today and makes it impossible to critique actions or beliefs if they are judged to be "religious." As he puts it, "scholars of religion should be its critics, not its caretakers."
Overall, I found McCutcheon's argument convincing, but his examples problematic. At some points in his book, his examples make it sound like he always expects religious beliefs and actions to somehow promulgate unjust power structures or oppressive values, and that if a work of scholarship doesn't find this, it's not valid. This, I believe, is just as unfounded. Also, in chapter 6, he examines the 1963 story of Thich Quang Duc, a Mahayana Buddhist monk who burned himself alive on a Saigon street in protest of Buddhist persecution. In McCutcheon's analysis of this, he comes close to saying that such an act should not be spoken of in religious terms, because doing so justifies the act. However, it is clear that such an action would not be carried out but for Quang Duc's Buddhist beliefs.
I think McCutcheon is mostly on target, but sometimes he seems so reductionistic about the study of religion that the very field that employs and pays him could go away if all his statements are taken to their logical conclusion.
For some readers, it may be hard to distinguish between McCutcheon's critique - which only concerns the SCHOLARLY STUDY of religion, versus any critique of religion itself or religious people. McCutcheon's audience is solely his fellow scholars of religion. His book is a strong critique of the way the study of religion is usually done. He says that most modern scholarship on religion treats it as "sui generis," that is, self-caused and autonomous. He criticizes many of his colleagues for not treating religion the way any other subject in the humanities is treated. Religion, he says, should be explained naturalistically and with full view of its historical, social, and political contexts. Not doing so, he says, unjustifiably protects religion from critique and analysis, and amounts to a different kind of theology rather than the objective study of religious people and actions. Treating religion as "sui generis" only serves to enforce the imperialistic attitudes so prevelant today and makes it impossible to critique actions or beliefs if they are judged to be "religious." As he puts it, "scholars of religion should be its critics, not its caretakers."
Overall, I found McCutcheon's argument convincing, but his examples problematic. At some points in his book, his examples make it sound like he always expects religious beliefs and actions to somehow promulgate unjust power structures or oppressive values, and that if a work of scholarship doesn't find this, it's not valid. This, I believe, is just as unfounded. Also, in chapter 6, he examines the 1963 story of Thich Quang Duc, a Mahayana Buddhist monk who burned himself alive on a Saigon street in protest of Buddhist persecution. In McCutcheon's analysis of this, he comes close to saying that such an act should not be spoken of in religious terms, because doing so justifies the act. However, it is clear that such an action would not be carried out but for Quang Duc's Buddhist beliefs.
I think McCutcheon is mostly on target, but sometimes he seems so reductionistic about the study of religion that the very field that employs and pays him could go away if all his statements are taken to their logical conclusion.
October 18, 2021
A detailed critique of sui generis religion, with a focus on Eliade but extending to much of the field of religious studies.
May 9, 2007
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews