The Role of “Cultural Turns” in the Study of the History of Religion and Church History

Abstract

The relevance of this study is grounded in the need to regularly revise and update the methodological tools of the humanities, including those of history. The object of the philosophical and methodological analysis undertaken by the author is the so-called “cultural” turns in the humanities of the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. The object of the philosophical and methodological analysis undertaken by the author is the so-called “cultural” turns in the humanities of the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, and the subject is their significance for the improvement of historical methodology applied to the study of the history of religion and the Christian Church. The aim of the study is to explicate the “cultural turns” that are most heuristically relevant for the history of religion and the Church, and thus the following objectives have been set and accomplished: 1) to briefly review the history of the emergence of “cultural turns”, drawing on the achievements of international scholars (Doris Bachmann-Medick, Clifford J. Girtz, James Clifford, Jörg Doering, Tristan Thielmann, Henri Lefebvre, William John T. Mitchell, Victor Turner, Edward Said, Max Imdahl, Natalija Potapova); 2) to explore the directions of evolution of historical scholarship in the paradigmatic perspective of philosophy of science (taking into account the theoretical works of Giorgio Agamben, Michel Foucault, Marina Rumyantseva and Lorina Repina); 3) to compare the chronological framework and methodological “reference points” of the five currently coexisting and competing paradigms and at least ten “cultural turns” in the field of the humanities, which is the novelty of the study undertaken. Major conclusions: The “modernist” (non-classical) paradigm of the mid-twentieth century corresponds to the “start” of the performative and iconic turns, but the most fruitful was the time of the post-non-classical paradigm (1960s — 1980s), within the chronological framework of which a range of epistemological “turns” (such as interpretive, reflective, postcolonial, translational and spatial) emerged. The neo-historical turn marked the beginning of the neoclassical paradigm, while the pragmatic, “theatrical” and “corporeal” ones marked the beginning of the post-post-non-classical paradigm. The latest post-neoclassical turn may entail a return of interest in religion (“religious studies turn”). The neo-historical turn marked the beginning of the neoclassical paradigm, while the pragmatic, “theatrical” and “body” turn marked the beginning of the post-post-non-classical paradigm. The latest post-neoclassical turn may entail a return of interest in religion (“religious studies turn”).