 previous article in this issue | next article in this issue  |
|
Document Details : Title: Storende subjectiviteit? Subtitle: Over insiders en outsiders in de studie van religie Author(s): KOSTER, Edwin Journal: Tijdschrift voor Theologie Volume: 48 Issue: 2 Date: 2008 Pages: 135-163 DOI: 10.2143/TVT.48.2.3203492 Abstract : The debate on the insider/outsider problem can be seen as one of the most persistent and important discussions within the Study of Religion. At present the outsider approach is dominant. Yet there are alternative approaches that stress the importance of an insider perspective. This article describes and assesses several arguments for the insider approaches. They are a range of ideas developed by three Dutch anthropologists of religion, Jan van Baal, Hans Tennekes and André Droogers. Several questions, based on their publications, are posed regarding the view of religion as a socio-cultural phenomenon approached from an outsider position: Can such a view approach the core of religion? For whom is social scientific research relevant when it ignores what the proponents consider essential? Is this approach able to explain religious practices and convictions adequately? A thorough analysis and critical assessment of the work of these anthropologists shows the need for an alternative approach with room for insider perspectives. That is the article’s first conclusion. However, Van Baal, Tennekes and Droogers ignore the religious changes that have taken place in recent years. They founded their ideas about the insiders’ role on the secularisation thesis. Adjustment of their ideas to religion’s current role in society requires a revision of the concepts insider and outsider. That is the second conclusion. This revision leads to the articulation of an alternative approach that provides room for various insider and outsider perspectives and that disengages from the idealised objectivity associated with the dominant outsider approach. Finally, the article poses the question of the scientific value of an alternative approach that has room for an insider perspective. Is this not a case of disruptive subjectivity? Do the researcher’s personal experiences and views not impede an adequate description of a religious tradition? Is the insider perspective an ‘indispensable access route’? Can religious insight only be mapped out meaningfully and completely when an insider perspective is included? |
|
