Naming or defining? On the necessity of reduction in religious studies

Abstract

Although debate continues over the place of reductionist and non‐reductionist approaches within the academic study of religion, much of the debate falters due to a failure to appreciate the necessity of ‘understanding’ for the effectiveness of ‘explaining’ cultural phenomena. This article addresses this very problem, reassessing the role of the insider within a methodological reductionist approach within religious studies. Assessing the delimitation of critical analysis to ‘knowable knowledge’ construction, teasing out theoretical problems with verification, and recognising the role of data construction in first‐order description prior to second‐order theorisation, this article will argue that the insider’s perspective is indeed an essential aspect of the critical analytical approach. Unlike phenomenological or irreductive approaches, however, the insider's perspective is limited to the stage of data construction (‘understanding’). At the secondary level of theorisation, the relative relations bringing together data within an analytical study takes precedence (‘explanation’). Thus, within a methodological reductionist approach (distinguished from ontological reductionism), there can be no explanation without understanding.