CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 18Study and Philosophy of ReligionPhilosophy, History, and HistoriographyQualitative Comparative Analysis Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Making a Place To Take a Stand: Jonathan Z. Smith and the Politics and Poetics of Comparison'

Urban, Hugh B.·2000·Method & Theory in the Study of Religion
DOI 10.1163/157006800x00247
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The work of Jonathan Z. Smith represents perhaps the most intelligent and persuasive approach to the problem of comparison in the history of religions; yet it is also one that remains surprisingly undeveloped, leaving many troubling unanswered problems. The first problem is that one of Smith's finest insights is also one of the most theoretically confused-namely, his insight that comparison works essentially like a metaphor. Comparison, for Smith, does not tell us "how things are"; rather, it playfully juxtaposes two different things, manipulating their similarity and difference in order to open up fresh insights into both. Yet rather strangely, Smith's notion of metaphor relies on a problematic model. The second, more troubling, problem is Smith's central idea that the historian "has no place to stand"-that is to say, scholars have no fixed, normative position in relation to their data. Yet any reader of Smith's work quickly realizes that Smith does in fact have a real normative and interested "place to stand." Instead of a "placeless comparison," this paper argues for an interested and placed comparison one that renders the scholar's own political interests as explicit as possible from the outset, while at same time submitting them to scrutiny, critique and the Possibility of change.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1163/157006800x00247

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The act of comparison is never disinterested; it is a technique of persuasion, a rhetorical device or discursive strategy intended to move an audience in a particular direction, and a political act informed by ideological interests.

    “Here it is also important to keep in mind that the act of comparison is never disinterested; it is a ' technique of persuasion, ' a rhetorical device or discursive strategy intended to move an audience in a particular direction (Urban 2000: 372), a political act informed by ideological interests (Lincoln 1991: 244).”

    From Jesus in India? Transgressing Social and Religious Boundaries (2012) · cites this paper as Urban 2000: 372

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 42 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Urban, H. B.
Corresponding author
Urban, Hugh B.
ORCID
Urban, Hugh B.
Venue
Method & Theory in the Study of Religion
Publisher
Walter de Gruyter GmbH
Published
2000
Volume
12
Issue
1-4
Pages
339-378
ISSN
  • 0943-3058 (ISSN-L)
  • 1570-0682
DOI
10.1163/157006800x00247
OpenAlex
W2020009584
Cited by
17
References
42
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
5.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Method & Theory in the Study of Religion (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Study and Philosophy of Religion
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › Philosophy, History, and Historiography
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Comparative Analysis Research
Keywords
Jonathan Z. Smith, comparative religion, metaphor, historiography of religion

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review