Can a Critic Be a Caretaker too? Religion, Conflict, and Conflict Transformation

Abstract

This article argues that Russell McCutcheon's notion of the religion scholar as a critic is crucial for envisioning a distinct relevance to the academic study of religion in multidisciplinary conversations concerning questions of religion and conflict. However, McCutcheon's critical approach is insufficient for thinking about transforming conflicts and underlying structures of injustice. To actively conceptualize processes of conflict transformation, the religion scholar needs to assume the role of a caretaker and a critic and thus overcome McCutcheon's binary construal of these two approaches. The religion scholar as a critic and a caretaker may offer not only a second-order re-description of religion as a social construct but also a problem-oriented constructive engagement with histories, memories, and theological resources. The cultivation of a uniquely religious studies approach would depend on the ability of the religion scholar to become such a "critical caretaker."

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 35 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.