Stausberg, Michael and Engler, Steven (eds) (2014) The Routledge Handbook of Research Methods in the Study of Religion. London and New York: Routledge. - 543 p.

This collection, according to its editors, is the first English-language textbook dedicated to-

page 323
methods of studying religion (p. XX). Its main purpose is to introduce students to a wide range of methods used and to promote the development of the ability to comprehend their own research activities. The second edition (identical, published three years after the first) indicates that the academic community generally received the book favorably.10
Michael Stausberg (p. 1966), a professor at the University of Bergen who began his career in academic religious studies with studies of Zoroastrianism, has in recent years been engaged in developing theoretical issues of religious studies. Earlier in this journal, a review of one of the collections published under his editorship was already published 11. In both volumes, Stausberg argues that questions of religious theory receive little attention from the academic community. Stephen Engler ( b. 1962) is a Calgary-based professor of religious studies, known for his research on religion in Brazil. His area of interest is the phenomenon of "tradition", including in relation to religious studies. 12 (Looking ahead, we note that the word "tradition" well reflects the unspoken methodological position of both authors: theory and method claim to describe reality and are intended for the conceptual consolidation of human society.)

This review focuses on the authors ' ideas about the role and significance of the method in modern religious studies. Its main purpose is to demonstrate the internal inconsistency of editors ' attitudes to the method, as well as to show that it negatively affects their chosen approach to presenting educational material. Ultimately, it will-

10. The authors of most of the reviewed reviews rate the collection highly, although they often focus on a detailed retelling of its content. See: Kocku von Stuckrad. Numen. Vol. 59, Fasc. 5/6 (2012). pp. 621 - 623; Cusack C.M. Journal of Religious History Vol. 38. Issue 1, 2014. p. 149 - 150; Trott G. Journal of Religious & Theological Information. Vol. 11, Issue 3 - 4, 2012. p. 174 - 175; Roland D. Theological Librarianship. Vol. 6, No. 2, 2013. p. 79 - 80.

11. Agadzhanyan A. S. Religion and Theory: Modern trends / / Gosudarstvo, religiya, tserkva v Rossii i za rubezhom [State, Religion, Church in Russia and abroad]. 2013. N3. pp. 7-31.

12. In their analysis of "tradition", the authors of the collection rely on E. Hobsbawm's text " The Invention of Tradition "(1983), arguing that not only is tradition "invented" by researchers, but research itself is gradually becoming "tradition". See Engler, S. and Grieve, G. P. (eds) (2005) Historicizing "Tradition" in the Study of Religion, p. 2. Walter de Gruyter.

page 324
apparent inconsistency is a characteristic feature not only of this manual, but also of most modern humanities research, which seeks to preserve differences and at the same time find a common conceptual framework for joint action.

To begin with, editors have repeatedly paid tribute to the conceptual critique of "great narratives", and above all, the scientific narrative. Thus, they recognize that religious studies as a research practice external to religion cannot claim epistemological superiority over religious self-description: the conceptual apparatus used by it is only one of the ways to assert the reality of certain phenomena (p. XXI). Moreover, when comparing research work with a game, they note that it is "often driven by external forces, improvisation, and bricolage rather than by a master plan" (p. 5). However, when reading their text, one feels that such a subjective interpretation of the method - as a way of constructing reality-comes into conflict with the idea of method as a means of understanding objective reality.

Having questioned the idea of modernity, which contrasted scientific and religious knowledge, the authors should also recognize that religious studies in its design is a specific conceptual system13, focused on the cosmopolitan ideal of the industrial era, which required a common cross-cultural conceptual framework for understanding reality. Religious studies is, on the one hand, a means of dialogue between different religious communities (a common "playing field", and sometimes "arbitration"), and on the other - a means of identifying the fundamental religious foundations of human community. In the search for a general definition of "religion", religious studies seeks to solve the central problem of "order" in the European cultural tradition - initially by taking it beyond the subjectively conceivable (a supra-individual rationalistic approach that presupposes the universality of the established "order"), and later by introducing it into the conceivable (or outgrowing it).-

13. The study of the Christian roots of the concept of "religion", starting with W. K. Smith's The Meaning and End of Religion (1962), is one of the areas of criticism of modern historiography. См. больше: Cho, F. and Squier, R. (2008) "He Blinded Me with Science': Science Chauvinism in the Study of Religion", Journal of the American Academy of Religion 76 (2): 420 - 448.

page 325
abstract and reflexive) and trying to determine its general patterns in the representations of religious subjects (phenomenological approach)14. The disintegration of this two - part system, accompanied by the redistribution of the centers of social forces and the creation of a global information field, is opposed by its two main foundations-theory and method.

According to Stausberg and Engler, a method is defined as a sequence of actions that occupies an intermediate position (p. XXI) between the empirical material with which the subject of research interacts and the theoretical construction with which he makes sense of the empirical material. The intermediate position of the method is explained by its pointlessness: it does not belong either to ideas that determine the vision of the material, or to ideas that arise directly from the material and correct the theory.15 One gets the impression that the authors recognize the method space as a space of freedom - until the method is applied to the subject. It is at the moment of linking method, material and theory that a stable conceptual structure emerges that integrates the scientific community.

At the same time, the editors recognize that the methods used allow us to create equal constructions of the phenomenon, which may not only not complement each other, but also compete with each other. The method is recognized as a means of asserting the researcher's freedom, and for the sake of this freedom, the idea of the method is sacrificed as a means of understanding the same reality for all: methods are intended not so much to identify new characteristics of one object, but to identify new characteristics of the objects being constructed. Thus, it turns out that "religion" under the magnifying glass of various methods acquires completely different features, contradictory characteristics that are not connected with each other in any way. This, in our opinion, is the main problem of the methodological position of editors who try to solve the following problems:,

14. Speaking about two consecutive approaches, we rely on the text of Krasnikov, who spoke about the "scientific" ("antitheological") and "phenomenological" stages of the development of religious studies. See: Krasnikov A. N. Methodological problems of Religious Studies, Moscow: Academic Project, 2007.

15. The only exception to this rule in the collection is the so-called "grounded theory", which is constructed directly on the site of the analysis of the material and, accordingly, does not imply any preliminary prediction of the research results.

page 326
on the one hand, to affirm the necessity of the method, condemning those who ignore it, and on the other - to maintain the position of methodological pluralism.16
It is characteristic that the scientific field - in this case, the study of religion - is considered by the editors of the collection as a set of heterogeneous studies, united not by content-subject, but by a formal feature: the implementation of the rules of the game established by the subject 17. The erosion of tradition, which is expressed in the neglect of the history and theory of religious studies, reduces research to the local level of specific religious studies communities that construct their own norms and form their own research identity.18 This process of fragmentation - both epistemological and social - directly depends on the shift of the starting point of research: from the subject of research (preliminary preparation of the properties of the "subject" to the "correct" perception of the subject) to its subject (an attempt to identify the unique properties of the subject, freeing itself from the theoretical "blinders"that distort it).

And yet, despite the methodological pluralism declared by the editors, they can be counted among the camp of "scientific conservatism". Method and theory are considered by them as certain disciplining tools that allow them to overcome differences of opinion and create a single conceptual space for researchers ' dialogue.

At the same time, when talking about conservatism, one should not consider the scientific preferences of editors as relics of the modern era. A significant difference is the following: from their point of view, social order arises as a consequence of the actions of subjects, while in the coordinates of modernity, order - both natural and social - exists initially and continuously

16. " It is absolutely wrong to assume that the problems of the method are unworthy of attention (because there is still no one correct method). In fact, as long as someone does not mistakenly define methodological pluralism (emphasis added by the authors) as methodological "everything is allowed", or as dilettantism, or as the belief that all methods are equally suitable for all purposes... " (p. 4).

17. "Methods are the rules of the game in research" (p. 4).

18. It is characteristic that editors readily admit this, pointing out as one of the reasons for the neglect of methods "the disparity of our research field, in which some researchers study methods of working with text, while others become familiar with quantitative sociological methods" (p. 4).

page 327
if the prepared subject's thinking coincides with the subject he is studying. Classical "Cartesian" modernity explains relativity and the possibility of developing theory by the shortcomings of the subject, and considers the variety of forms of reality as a test, and not as the starting point of research. Editors, on the contrary, tend to start from the subject, freeing the subject as much as possible from any theoretical dictate. At the same time, while condemning the "everything is allowed" threat in this case, they are concerned with establishing the "rules of the game", referring to the traditional modern categories of "theory" and"method". The method is considered by them as a kind of backbone of constructed "scientific traditions" that do not dare to claim a final solution to the question of what reality is.

These settings of the editors fully correspond to their plan, which involves the involvement of a wide range of specialists. Judging only by the composition of the authors of the collection, it is already possible to assume that they have a different understanding of what the scientific method is, how and why it should be used. If the editors planned to create an exhaustive map of religious studies methods, they did not succeed: each researcher makes his own contribution, but their work, not united by a common idea, resembles a patchwork rather than a whole canvas. Moreover, many authors are not religious scholars, but specialists in other scientific fields, which affects the educational and methodological quality of their materials. So, after reading some texts, it seems that the section on the use of a particular method in religious research was included in it post factum. On the contrary, the best articles in the collection should be recognized as texts written by practicing researchers of religion, in particular, by Michael Stausberg himself.19
It seems that the structure of the collection, which consists of three different sections, appeared after receiving the author's materials: "Methodology" (Methodological Issues), "Methods" and "Materials". By" methodology "the editors understand the universal aspects of the scientific method: "research design", "comparison"," epistemology"," research ethics","methodology of feminism". As the editors explain, the methodology of feminism turned out to be inclusive.-

19. Articles: "Comparison "(p. 21-39)," Free survey "(p. 245-255)," Structural observation " (p. 382-394).

page 328
This section is referred to for the reason that "feminism", not being an independent method, promotes a research position focused on clarifying the mechanisms of implementation and affirmation of power, including through an appeal to method 20.

The third section, "Materials", includes articles that reveal the specifics of the analysis of certain groups of data: "classroom materials" (analysis of audio materials), "Internet" (analysis of data posted on the Internet), "material culture" (analysis of evidence of material culture), "visual culture" (analysis built around the concept "visual perception"), " spatial methods "(analysis built around the concept of "space").

The twenty-two articles in the second section ("Methods") are arranged in alphabetical order: the editors emphasize that they have deliberately abandoned categorization and hierarchy of methods. These articles can be classified in different ways. For example, a separate distinguishable category is represented by text analysis methods: "content analysis", "conversation analysis", "discourse analysis", and "document analysis". A special place is occupied by methods of quantitative analysis and presentation of the studied material using modern graphical computer shells: "factor analysis", "network analysis", "grounded theory". Without listing the titles of individual articles, it is worth paying attention to the correlation between the editors ' scientific attitudes and their chosen educational approach.

The refusal to categorize methods is caused by the editors ' desire to create a textbook that is as free as possible from conceptual preferences, allowing the student to independently choose chapters for study and conduct their own categorization of methods. At the same time, as is usually the case, any attempt to avoid excessive conceptualization turns into another conceptualization: when compiling the collection, the editors proceeded from the concept of a kind of "menu", the choice of which is given to students or, at best, to teachers who create their own categorical framework.

As a result of applying this approach, the student does not develop an understanding of the fundamental differences between the-

20. The authors have devoted an entire paragraph in the Introduction to justifying the presence of "feminist methodologies" in this section, but they have not been able to make a convincing case for their position (p.12).

page 329
use the specified "methods". In the" menu "on the same level are "phenomenology" and "interviewing", "history" and "composing questionnaires", "philology" and "free recording" (free listing-an approximate ordering of a certain set of collected opinions). For example, despite the frequently used phrases" phenomenological method "or" historical method", the difference between them and the" interviewing " method is quite significant: the latter is applied to a certain category of subjects, the former are universal or relate to most subjects.

The educational approach chosen by the editors is quite consistent with the modern attitude to liberate the student's thinking, but along with this freedom, the student often learns a dismissive attitude towards theory as something artificial, as a "veil" that obscures the "subject". And here there is a tension between the educational concept focused on the "free" student and the conservative attitude of editors who seek to justify the "intellectual blinders "and" rules " necessary for any scientific research. The reviewed collection demonstrates such a variety of approaches that it can easily confuse an untrained student who needs (judging by the author's pedagogical experience) not only and not so much to liberate thinking, but also to organize his scientific work within the framework of a stable - although rather flexible - research program.

It seems that the ongoing discussion about the method in religious studies does not indicate its "extraordinary" nature, and religious studies is not in a situation of paradigm shift (according to T. Kuhn). In religious studies (as, indeed, in other humanities disciplines), there are two opposite fundamental positions: "analytical", focused on creating ideal models, and "descriptive", the purpose of which is to reproduce the subjects studied. Thus, discussions about the correct method and methodological pluralism are subject to the dialectic of the constructed model of reality and the attempt to understand it holistically.

This dialectic is responsible both for the instability and for the development of science, which creates and destroys the conceptual framework for understanding re-

page 330
These factors are usually influenced by external social and cultural factors. The tendency to fragmentation of reality, which developed after the Second World War and is aimed at the liberation and salvation of individual subjects of social interaction, opposes the modern attitude to integrity, which is served by its basic scientific constants-method, theory and experience. This dialectic allows religious studies to develop new theoretical models of understanding reality, opposing the extremes of solipsism and totalitarianism.

The collection under consideration contributes to the struggle between analytical and descriptive positions, stimulates discussions around the key problems of religious studies as an academic discipline. At the same time, its usefulness as a full-fledged teaching tool is questionable: as already mentioned, it lacks integrity to do this. In addition, this is hindered by the high price. At the same time, given the wide range of methods described in the collection, it can be recommended to libraries of religious studies centers.

page 331

Permanent link to this publication: