World religions
Template:About Template:Short description
World religions is a socially-constructed category in the study of religion that demarcates religions deemed to have been especially large, internationally widespread, or influential in the development of human societies. It typically consists of the "big five" religions: Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism. These are often juxtaposed against categories such as folk religions, Indigenous religions, and new religious movements (NRMs).
The "world religions" paradigm was developed in the United Kingdom during the 1960s, pioneered by scholars of religion such as Ninian Smart. It was intended to broaden the study of religion beyond its focus on Christianity by including other large religious traditions. The paradigm is often used for undergraduate study of religion. The emphasis on viewing these religious movements as distinct and mutually exclusive has also had a wider impact on the categorisation of religion—for instance in censuses.
Since the late 20th century, the paradigm has faced critique by scholars of religion such as Jonathan Z. Smith, who have argued that the world religions paradigm is inappropriate because it takes the Protestant branch of Nicene Christianity as the model for "religion"; that it is encumbered by discourses on modernity, including power relations in modern society; that it encourages an uncritical understanding of religion; and that it judges what religions should be considered "major". Others have argued that it remains useful in the classroom, so long as students are made aware that it is a socially-constructed category.
Definition
The scholars of religion Christopher R. Cotter and David G. Robertson described the "World Religions paradigm" as "a particular way of thinking about religions which organizes them into a set of discrete traditions with a supposedly 'global' import."Template:Sfn It typically consists of the "Big Five" religions: Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism.Template:Sfnm As noted by Cotter and Robertson, the "Big Five" religions are often listed in an "Abrahamocentric order" which places the largest three Abrahamic religions—Christianity, Judaism, and Islam—before the Dhārmic, non-Abrahamic religions Hinduism and Buddhism.Template:Sfn The category is sometimes also extended to include other major religious groups, namely the Baháʼí Faith, Sikhism, and/or Zoroastrianism.Template:Sfn
.jpg)
The inclusion of Judaism in the "Big Five" raises some issues; it is included in the list because of its influence on Christianity and Islam and because of its relevance to traditional Eurocentric understandings of Western history.Template:Sfn On demographic grounds, it does not fit into the list, for there are far fewer Jews in the world than there are Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists.Template:Sfn Similarly, it does not fit into the list if the groups are defined by a desire to spread internationally, because Judaism historically has been a non-proselytizing religion.Template:Sfn
Many scholars have utilised the "world religions" category alongside other "catch-all" categories such as "new religious movements" and "Indigenous religions".Template:Sfn The scholar of religion Steven J. Sutcliffe compared the relationship between the three categories to the English football league system, with the "world" religions forming a Premier League, the "new" religions forming a Championship, and "Indigenous" religions a First Division.Template:Sfn That groups that get placed in categories like "Indigenous religions" get treated less seriously than the "world religions" by many scholars was noted by the scholar of religion Graham Harvey, who maintained that "indigenous religions should receive similarly respectful treatment to that considered appropriate to the larger 'World Religions'."Template:Sfn
History
Cornelis Tiele proposed that religions develop in phases, from being nature religions, to becoming mythological religions, then doctrinal religions, and ultimately as world or universal religions. The last stage, qualitatively different in kind, aspiring to be accepted by all men, and based upon abstract principles and maxims. In these categories, Tiele in 1877 placed Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam as universal religions.<ref name="Tiele1877p4">Template:Cite book</ref>
Cotter and Robertson noted that the history of the World Religions paradigm is "intimately tied up" with the history of the study of religion as an academic discipline.Template:Sfn It emerged from within the phenomenology of religion approach which placed an emphasis on description rather than critical analysis.Template:Sfn
The paradigm was integrated throughout the education system through work of scholars like Ninian Smart, who formed the Shap Working Party on World Religions in Education in 1969.Template:Sfn It was introduced with the intent of moving Western education away from its focus on Christianity.Template:Sfn However, it took liberal Western Protestantism as its baseline and interpreted these different religious traditions through the framework of liberal Protestant norms and values.Template:Sfn This included an emphasis on theology as being central to a given religion.Template:Sfn It also reflects the post-Enlightenment Christian approach of treating different religious groups as distinct, mutually exclusive categories.Template:Sfn It thus reflects the socio-political concerns of 1960s Britain, the environment in which it was devised.Template:Sfn
The paradigm has since gone beyond this academic discipline, and "informs the perception" of many members of different religious groups.Template:Sfn The paradigm for instance frames the teaching about religion in the British education system; at all three Key Stages, British teachers are instructed to teach about Christianity, while by the end of key Stage 3 they are also supposed to teach about the other "five principal religions": Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and Sikhism.Template:Sfn Similarly, the censuses of many countries for instance reflect the influence of the world religion paradigm by only permitting respondents to describe themselves as adhering to one particular religious tradition, whereas in reality many individuals identify themselves with various different traditions at the same time.Template:Sfn
This idea of mutually exclusive religious identities is not only a Western phenomenon, but can also be found in other socio-cultural contexts; Hindu nationalists for instance often endorse the idea that Hinduism and Buddhism are mutually exclusive categories despite the fact that many people in South Asia mix Hindu and Buddhist practices.Template:Sfn Scholars of religion Tara Baldrick-Morrone, Michael Graziano, and Brad Stoddard stated that "the WRP is neither neutral nor natural, but its social authority derives from appearing as both."Template:Sfn
Criticism
The utility of the World Religions paradigm has experienced a sustained and rigorous critique from many scholars of religion.Template:Sfn The scholar of religion Graham Harvey for instance noted that many scholars "object strongly" to the paradigm.Template:Sfn In 1978, the scholar of religion Jonathan Z. Smith called it a "dubious category".Template:Sfn
One of the major criticisms of the framework is that it is based on a model of "religion" that relies on the Protestant branch of Nicene Christianity as its base example.Template:Sfn A second criticism is that it is rooted in the discourses of modernity, including the power relations present in modern society.Template:Sfn Smith observed that it was constructed by Western scholars from a Western perspective. He noted that the only religions that get included in it are those which have "achieved sufficient power and numbers to enter our [i.e. Western] history, either to form it, interact with it, or to thwart it" and represent "important geo-political entities with which we must deal."Template:Sfn
The framework also includes privileging the literate elites active in particular religious movements by presenting their interpretations of particular traditions as being authoritative, eclipsing alternative interpretations presented by non-literate, marginalised, and localized practitioners.Template:Sfnm For instance, as noted by the scholar of religion Suzanne Owen, "Hinduism as a World Religion does not include Hinduism as a village religion".Template:Sfn
A third criticism of the World Religions paradigm is that it encourages an uncritical and sui generis model of "religion".Template:Sfn It presents each of the "world religions" in an abstracted and essentialised form, failing to take account of hybridization.Template:Sfn For instance, in teaching about Christianity it does not refer to reincarnation, because this is not typically regarded as a Christian doctrine, and yet there are Christians who profess a belief in reincarnation.Template:Sfn A fourth criticism is that in choosing to focus attention on the "major religions", it makes a value judgement as to what constitutes "major" and what does not.Template:Sfn
Paradigm in pedagogy
Many scholars of religion have resisted efforts to challenge the World Religions paradigm,Template:Sfn and as of 2016 was reported as still being widespread in university introductory courses to the study of religion.Template:Sfn Many instructors feel that explaining the critique of the world religions paradigm to undergraduate students would be difficult, as the critique would be too complex for many of them to understand.Template:Sfn Its continued use has also been defended by the claim that it is what undergraduate students expect and that it mirrors what they will have been taught at school.Template:Sfn
Some scholars have argued for the rejection of the World Religions paradigm altogether; for instance, Cotter and Robertson presented the argument that "the continued uncritical use of the WRP fosters a breeding ground for relativistic navel-gazing which has no place in the contemporary research university".Template:Sfn Owen was of the view that "as long as it continues to employ the World Religions paradigm as a default approach (even after deconstructing it), religious studies will fail in its humanistic task" because it will simply be engaging in "knowledge transfer" and not "critically engaging" with "culture and knowledge".Template:Sfn
One alternative framework that some scholars use to teach about religion is the "lived religion" paradigm, which places emphasis not on distinct religious traditions but on individual experiences and practices.Template:Sfn Another alternative is the "material religion" framework which focuses on examining religion through material culture and physical objects.Template:Sfn Owen noted that, in her experience, many students display an "initial resistance to alternatives" as they are expecting the World Religions paradigm. She cited the example of her introductory course at Leeds Trinity University College, which was constructed on thematic lines rather than according to the world religions paradigm, and which induced feelings of panic among many undergraduates.Template:Sfn
Many scholars who are critical of the World Religions paradigm find themselves having to teach it as part of introductory courses for undergraduate students.Template:Sfn Some spent much of a course teaching the concept and then several sessions after this deconstructing it.Template:Sfn Some scholars have suggested that even when students are taught using the World Religions paradigm, it could be a good means of encouraging them to think critically about category formation.Template:Sfn The scholar Steven W. Ramey for instance advocated teaching the paradigm in a manner that makes it clear that it is a "constructed discourse".Template:Sfn
Similarly, Baldrick-Morrone, Graziano, and Stoddard suggested that teaching undergraduates about the world religious paradigm helps to explain to students how "classification is a social act".Template:Sfn They noted that students could leave such a course not only knowing more about the specific religious traditions included in the World Religions paradigm, but that they would also leave "knowing how to better interrogate the world around them".Template:Sfn To avoid promoting the paradigm's portrayal of different religious traditions as rigid, homogenous categories, the scholar Teemu Taira suggested introducing ethnographic case studies into the class to better explain the realities of people's lives and uses of religious traditions.Template:Sfn
See also
- Comparative religion
- List of religious populations
- Religious pluralism
- Religious war
- Sociology of religion
- Three Persian religions
References
Citations
Bibliography
- Template:Cite contribution
- Template:Cite contribution
- Template:Cite contribution
- Template:Cite contribution
- Template:Cite contribution
- Template:Cite contribution
- Template:Cite contribution
- Template:Cite encyclopedia
- Template:Cite contribution
- Template:Cite contribution
- Template:Cite contribution
- Template:Cite contribution
- Template:Cite journal
- Template:Cite contribution
- Template:Cite book
- Template:Cite contribution
- Template:Cite contribution
Further reading
- Reference
- Bane, Theresa, ed. Encyclopedia of demons in world religions and cultures. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland & Co., 2012.
- Bowker, John. World Religions: The Great Faiths Explored and Explained, rev. edn. London: Dorling Kindersley, 2006 (repr. 2021).
- Bowker, John, ed. The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.
- Breuilly, Elizabeth et al. Religions of the world: the illustrated guide to origins, beliefs, traditions & festivals, rev. edn. NY: Checkmark Books/Facts On File, 2005.
- Cooke, Tim, ed. National Geographic concise history of world religions: an illustrated time line. Washington, D.C.: National Geographic, 2011.
- De Gaia, Susan J., ed. Encyclopedia of women in world religions: faith and culture across history. Santa Barbara, Cal.: ABC-CLIO, 2019.
- Template:Cite encyclopedia
- Ellwood, Robert S. & Gregory D. Alles, eds. The Encyclopedia of World Religions, rev. edn. NY: Facts On File, 2007.
- Fieldhouse, Paul, ed. Food, feasts, and faith: an encyclopedia of food culture in world religions. 2 vols. Santa Barbara, Cal.: ABC-CLIO, 2017.
- Johnson, Wendell G., ed. End of days: an encyclopedia of the Apocalypse in world religions. Santa Barbara, Cal.: ABC-CLIO, 2017.
- Template:Cite encyclopedia
- Langley, Myrtle. Eyewitness Religion, rev. edn. London/NY: DK, 2005.
- Template:Cite encyclopedia
- Sutherland, Stewart et al., eds. The World's Religions. Abingdon: Routledge, 1988.
- General surveys
- Carmody, Denise Lardner & T.L. Brink. Ways to the Center: An Introduction to World Religions, 7th edn. Belmont, Cal.: Thomson Wadsworth, 2014.
- Earhart, H. Byron, ed. Religious Traditions of the World: A Journey Through Africa, Mesoamerica, North America, Judaism, Christianity, Islam. San Francisco, Cal.: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993.
- Ellwood, Robert S. & Barbara A. McGraw. Many Peoples, Many Faiths: Women and Men in the World Religions, 11th edn. NY: Routledge, 2023.
- Fisher, Mary Pat. Living Religions, 10th edn. Boston: Pearson, 2017.
- Hopfe, Lewis M., Mark R. Woodward, & Brett Hendrickson. Religions of the World, 13th edn. Boston: Pearson, 2016.
- Ludwig, Theodore M. The Sacred Paths: Understanding the Religions of the World, 4th edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2006.
- Molloy, Michael. Experiencing the World’s Religions: Tradition, Challenge, and Change, 8th edn. NY: McGraw-Hill Education, 2020.
- Nigosian, Solomon A. World Religions: A Historical Approach, 4th edn. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s Press, 2008.
- Palmer, Martin J. World religions. London: Times Books, 2002.
- Partridge, Christopher H., ed. Introduction to World Religions, 3rd edn. Revised by Tim Dowley. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 2018.
- Sharma, Arvind, ed. Our Religions. San Francisco, Cal.: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993.
- Smart, Ninian. The World's Religions, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
- Young, William A. The World’s Religions: Worldviews and Contemporary Issues, 4th edn. Boston: Pearson, 2013.
- History
- Noss, David S. A History of the World's Religions, 14th edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2017.
- Specific studies
- Template:Cite journal
- Template:Cite book
- Parrinder, Geoffrey. Mysticism in the World's Religions. London: Sheldon, 1976 (repr. 1995).
- Parrinder, Geoffrey. Sexual morality in the world's religions, rev. edn. Oxford: Oneworld, 1996.
- Template:Cite journal
- Template:Cite journal