Abstract
Teaching courses on religion and popular culture in a Canadian academic institution has provided me with significant challenges. According to Raymond Williams (1983), “popular” can have at least four meanings in common parlance. (1) It can mean that which is well-liked by a lot of people ( e.g., the top ten bestselling books); (2) it can mean that which is inferior to elite or high culture (e.g., pop music versus opera); (3) it can mean that which deliberately tries to win the favour of “the people” (e.g., political campaigns); or (4) it can mean that which is made by the people (e.g., youtube). Some of these definitions lead to an assumption that popular culture is not particularly “deep” or meaningful. For some people then, the question is, as David Chidester asks in his book Authentic Fakes, “[h]ow does the serious work of religion, which engages the transcendent, the sacred, and the ultimate meaning of human life in the face of death, relate to the comparatively frivolous play of popular culture?” The Journal of Religion and Popular Culture has consistently shown the multiple ways this serious work of religion relates to popular culture.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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.
