Abstract
AbstractLawson and McCauley (1993: 201) claim that "historians of religion and many anthropologists have adopted strategies in addressing their crisis of identity that lead to truncated views of religious phenomena... [and] that a less restricted view of religious phenomena will suggest an approach in the study of religion which neither ... have adequately explored". An examination of their theory shows that despite an insightful diagnosis of methodological disarray, their recommended palliative fails. Their approach is not even useful.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
