Religieus pluralisme als politiek probleem

Recente ontwikkelingen binnen pluralismeonderzoek

Auteurs

  • Leonard van 't Hul Universiteit van Amsterdam

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54195/RS.12196

Samenvatting

In the last two decades, academic interest in the role of religious pluralism in developments within the religious landscapes of Western society expanded profoundly. This growing interest has crystallized into two distinct, albeit closely related lines of research. On the one hand, scholars tend to delve into the question of how the experience of religious pluralism reshapes individual religious identities and self-identification. On the other hand, scholars return to the question of how the state should deal with the growing variety of (non-institutional) faith-based identities. By taking three recent scholarly publications as a point of departure, this article provides a critical assessment of the dominant research outcomes in these two lines of research on religious pluralism. The central argument of the article is that current analyses on religious pluralism suffer from an ideological applauding of individual dynamics: scholars not only observe but also welcome the patterns of relativization and revitalization of individual identities. This is unfortunate from an analytical and normative-political point of view, for such applauding disregards processes of fundamentalization, and neglects the continued role that faith-based organizations play – for good or bad – in the religious landscape, and society writ large.

Biografie auteur

  • Leonard van 't Hul, Universiteit van Amsterdam

    Leonard van ’t Hul is cultuursocioloog en werkt als promovendus bij de afdeling geschiedenis van de Universiteit van Amsterdam aan een proefschrift over politieke besluitvormingsprocessen rond kerk­staatverhoudingen in Nederland sinds 1945.

Downloads

Gepubliceerd

01-05-2016

Nummer

Sectie

Artikel

Citeerhulp

Religieus pluralisme als politiek probleem: Recente ontwikkelingen binnen pluralismeonderzoek. (2016). Religie & Samenleving, 11(1), 57-67. https://doi.org/10.54195/RS.12196