Assessing a Key Term in David Chidesterâ€™s Analysis of Religion
The purpose of this article is to illustrate and assess Chidesterâ€™s use of the â€˜sensesâ€™ as an analytical term in his study of religion. Under â€˜sensesâ€™ Chidester includes not only the five conventional senses of Aristotle, but also analyzes metaphorical uses of the senses in religious discourse, the visions and dreams of mystics and shamans, and eventually new media as extensions of the human senses. Chidesterâ€™s analysis of the senses in European Christian discourses on the one hand, and in colonial and postcolonial African indigenous religion and imperial religious studies on the other hand, is compared and assessed. Although he does not offer a systematic comparison of these case studies, I argue that his analysis lends itself to an explicit comparison of the senses as material aspects of religion and show how his contextualized and historically nuanced analysis of the senses in religion and religious studies informs a critical study of religion. Since critical assumes judgment, values need to be explicated in terms of critical theories, which in my view need further elaboration.
Copyright (c) 2018 Association for the Study of Religion in Southern Africa (ASRSA)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.