Abstract
The apparatus theory is used to challenge the interpretation of religion and also to determine whether religion is a factor to contend with in modern society. Religion could be the element that keeps the city intact or could be the one element that is busy ruining our understanding of reality and the way this interacts with society in the urban environment. Paradigms determine our relationships. In this case, the apparatus theory would be a more precise way of describing not only our relationship towards the city but also the way in which we try to perceive our relationship with religion and the urban conditions we live in. This article gives theoretical background to the interpretation and understanding of the relationship between various entities within the city. The apparatus of the city creates space for religion to function as a binding form. Religion could bind different cultures, diverse backgrounds and create space for growth.
Highlights
The existence of cities and expressions of religion are here to stay
This study indicates how the apparatus theory of Foucault could be a way to see different religions working together and indicates how religion can still be an integral part of the urban space today
Religion is an undeniable part of the urban environment
Summary
The existence of cities and expressions of religion are here to stay. Religion and the urban context have interacted either positively and/or negatively since the inception of both realities. The development of cities over time stifled the existence and growth of religion in an urban environment. The nature and definitions of what constitutes urban existence and what is considered to be religion have varied over time Defining these two concepts cannot but be contextual. For Smith the inadequate existing multitude of definitions for ‘religion’ is an indication that the term should be discarded, as it has become obsolete. In order to set the parameters of our understanding of this theory, it is necessary to take note of the following passage by Agamben, as translated by Kishik and Pedatella (2009): If we try to examine the definition of ‘apparatus’ that can be found in common French dictionaries, we see that they distinguish between three meanings of the term: 1. In order to set the parameters of our understanding of this theory, it is necessary to take note of the following passage by Agamben, as translated by Kishik and Pedatella (2009): If we try to examine the definition of ‘apparatus’ that can be found in common French dictionaries, we see that they distinguish between three meanings of the term: 1. A strictly juridical sense: Apparatus is the part of a judgement that contains the decision separate from the opinion
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
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 call
