Last updated 20/06/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 June 2011
Understanding the role played by emotion in relation to culture and nature is relevant to theories of religion and to issues of theological method. The extent to which one grants emotion independence from cognition may well determine whether one views religious experience as an avenue available to free one from culture or simply as the product of culture. In theories of religion the role played by emotion may determine both the integrity granted the subject's account of her or his experience and the appropriate methods for interpreting the general significance of the account. In regard to theological methodology, the role played by emotion will likely indicate whether experience is viewed as a relative consequence of construction and critique or the authoritative starting point for construction and critique.
1 Davaney, Sheila Greeve, “Problems with Feminist Theory: Historicity and the Search for Sure Foundations,” in Paula M. Cooey, Sharon A. Farmer, and Mary Ellen Ross, eds., Embodied Love: Sensuality and Relationship as Feminist Values (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988) 79–86.Google Scholar
2 See, e.g., Smith, Wilfred Cantwell, Faith and Belief (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979).Google Scholar
3 Kant, Immanuel, Critique of Pure Reason (New York: Saint Martin's, 1965) 549–70.Google Scholar
4 Proudfoot, Wayne, Religious Experience (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985) 190–227.Google Scholar
5 James, William, The Varieties of Religious Experience (New York: Penguin, 1982) 449–501.Google Scholar
6 See, e.g., Schleiermacher, Friedrich, On Religion: Speeches to Its Cultured Despisers (New York: Harper & Row, 1958)Google Scholar esp. “The Nature of Religion,” 26–118, and idem, The Christian Faith (New York: Harper & Row, 1963) 3–93Google Scholar. See also Smith, Faith and Belief.
7 An example of this kind of argument can be found in Heimart, Alan, Religion and the American Mind: From the Great Awakening to the Revolution (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966).Google Scholar
8 See respectively Rosemary Radford Ruether, Women-Church: Theology and Practice of Feminist Liturgical Communities (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985); Starhawk, , “Witchcraft and Women's Culture,” in Carol P. Christ and Judith Plaskow, eds., Womanspirit Rising: A Feminist Reader in Religion (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1979) 273–87Google Scholar; Daly, Mary, Gynlecology: The Metaethics of Radical Feminism (Boston: Beacon, 1978).Google Scholar
9 Schleiermacher, Speeches, 36, 43; idem, Christian Faith, 5–26.
10 Cooey, Paula, “The Power of Transformation and the Transformation of Power,” Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 1 (1985) 24–36.Google Scholar
11 Freud, Sigmund, The Future of an Illusion (New York: Norton, 1961)Google Scholar; Marx, Karl, “Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of the Right,” in Reinhold Niebuhr, ed., Marx and Engels on Religion (New York: Schocken, 1964) 42.Google Scholar
12 See James, Varieties, 379–429; Proudfoot, Religious Experience, 124–48.
13 See, e.g., Bem, Daryl J., “Self-Perception Theory,” in L. Berkowitz, ed., Advances in Experimental and Social Psychology (New York: Academic Press, 1972) 1–61Google Scholar; Shaver, Kelly G., An Introduction to Attribution Theory (Cambridge: Winthrop, 1975).Google Scholar
14 The chief participants included Zajonc, R. B., “Feeling and Thinking: Preferences Need No Inferences,” American Psychologist 35 (1980) 151–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Lazarus, Richard S., “A Cognitivist's Reply to Zajonc on Emotion and Cognition,” American Psychologist 36 (1981) 222–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15 Zajonc, “Feeling and Thinking,” 154.
16 Geertz, Clifford, “Religion as a Cultural System,” in idem. The Interpretation of Cultures (New York: Basic Books, 1973) 87–125.Google Scholar
17 Kiecolt, Jill K. and Nelsen, Hart M., “Political Attitudes among Liberal and Conservative Protestants,” JSSR 27 (1988) 48–59.Google Scholar
18 Frijda, Nico H., “The Laws of Emotion,” American Psychologist 43 (1988) 349–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19 Ibid., 353.
20 Ibid.
21 Cady, Linell E., “Theories of Religion in Feminist Theologies” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Religion, Boston, December 1987).Google Scholar
22 For a classic example of this position see Foucault, Michel, The History of Sexuality, vol. 1: An Introduction (New York: Random House, 1980).Google Scholar
23 See respectively Firestone, Shulamith, The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution (New York: Bantam, 1971)Google Scholar, and Irigaray, Luce, Ce sexe qui n'en est pas un (Paris: Minuit, 1977).Google Scholar
24 Christ argues explicitly from a cultural-linguistic model in “Why Women Need the Goddess: Phenomenological, Psychological, and Political Reflections,” in idem and Plaskow, eds., Womanspirit Rising, 273–87.
25 Morton, Nelle, The Journey Is Home (Boston: Beacon, 1985) 123.Google Scholar
26 Ibid., 125, 127; emphasis in original.
27 Ibid., 129.
28 Ibid., 155–57.
29 Davaney, “Problems with Feminist Theory,” 93–94, and Cady, “Theories of Religion.”
30 Scarry, Elaine, The Body in Pain: The Making and Unmaking of the World (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985).Google Scholar
31 Ibid., 27–59.
32 Proudfoot, Religious Experience, 127–31.
33 Scarry, Body in Pain, 181–243.
