Critical, Objective, and Emancipatory
The Relevance of Roy Bhaskar’s Critical Realism for Religious Studies
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33550/sd.v13i1.563Keywords:
critical realism, Roy Bhaskar, Study of Religion, value-ladennes, objectivity, emancipatoryAbstract
This article is grounded in the debate over the role of values in the study of religion. Should religious studies be value-free, as argued by McCutcheon, or is value-neutrality impossible, as Goldstein contends? This research departs from that tension and aims to explore how Roy Bhaskar’s critical realism offers a coherent middle path for the discipline. Employing a qualitative literature-based method, the study examines Bhaskar’s works alongside key texts in critical religious studies. The findings show that identifying the colonial, patriarchal, or class-based contexts in which doctrines or rituals emerged is not a moral or political act, but a scientific consequence of causal investigation. Within a Bhaskarian framework, objectivity does not mean value-neutrality; rather, it is an epistemic process aimed at uncovering the mechanisms that shape religious phenomena. Thus, critique of religion is not moralistic but constitutes a component of scientific objectivation. The study finds that the emancipatory dimension of religious studies arises inherently from successful scientific analysis. When mechanisms of oppression, power relations, or ideological structures are revealed, such knowledge becomes emancipatory by virtue of its explanatory power. These insights demonstrate that religious studies can remain critical and objective without slipping into activism or the illusion of pure neutrality.
Downloads
References
Bhaskar, Roy. Dialectic: The Pulse of Freedom. Abingdon: Routledge, 2008.
_____. Scientific Realism and Human Emancipation (Second Edition). London: Routledge, 2009.
_____. The Possibility of Naturalism: A Philosophical Critique of the Contemporary Human Sciences (Third Edition). London: Routledge, 1998.
Fitzgerald, Timothy. “Critical religion and critical research on religion: A response to the April 2016 editorial.” Critical Research on Religion 4, no. 3 (2016): 307–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050303216676524.
Goldstein, Warren S. “What makes Critical Religion critical? A response to Russell McCutcheon.” Critical Research on Religion 8, no. 1 (2020): 73–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050303220911149.
Goldstein, Warren S., Jonathan Boyarin, dan Roland Boer. “Can a religious approach be critical?” Critical Research on Religion 2, no. 1 (2014): 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050303214520934.
Goldstein, Warren S., Rebekka King, dan Jonathan Boyarin. “Critical theory of religion vs. critical religion.” Critical Research on Religion 4, no. 1 (2016): 3–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050303216630077.
_____. “On a balanced critique: (or on the limits of critique).” Critical Research on Religion 5, no. 1 (2017): 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050303217690902.
Hunt, Stephen J, peny. Handbook of Global Contemporary Christianity: Movements, Institutions, and Allegiance. Leiden: Brill, 2016.
Knox, James W. “Numinous Fear: How Rudolf Otto Altered the Way We Think About the ‘Fear of God’.” Biblical Theology Bulletin: Journal of Bible and Culture 54, no. 1 (2024): 26–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461079241230136.
Marty, M. E. “American Studies: Religion.” Dalam International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, disunting oleh Neil J. Smelser dan Paul B. Baltes, 451–54. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2001. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/03317-9.
Maxwell, Joseph A., Kavita Mittapalli, dan J. A. Maxwell. “Explanatory Research.” Dalam The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods, disunting oleh Lisa Given. Thousand Oaks: SAGE, 2008.
McCutcheon, Russell T. Fabricating Religion: Fanfare for the Common e.g. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2018.
Miller, Richard B. “Critical Humanism and the Study of Religion: A Statement and Defense.” Method & Theory in the Study of Religion 36, no. 2 (2023): 206–18. https://doi.org/10.1163/15700682-bja10120.
Müller, Friedrich Max. The Sacred Books of the East. Oxford: Clarendon, 1879.
Payne, Brendan Jones. “Kate Bowler: Blessed: A History of the American Prosperity Gospel. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013; pp. xi + 337.” Journal of Religious History 43, no. 4 (2019): 557–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9809.12622.
Rassiller, Markus. “Bewerten und Beurteilen. Dimensionen religionskundlicher Urteilsbildung.” Zeitschrift für Religionskunde 10 (2022): 81–103. https://doi.org/10.26034/fr.zfrk.2022.110.
Schwöbel, Christoph. “The History of Religions and the Study of Religions: A Response to Hans Kippenberg.” In The Future of the Study of Religion, disunting oleh Slavica Jakelic dan Lori Pearson, 65–75. Leiden: Brill, 2004.
Széll, György. “Positivismusstreit (The Positivist Dispute).” Dalam Encyclopedia of Social Theory, disunting oleh George Ritzer. Thousand Oaks : SAGE, 2005.
Taves, Ann, Wesley J. Wildman, F. LeRon Shults, dan Raymond F. Paloutzian. “Scholarly Values, Methods, and Evidence in the Academic Study of Religion.” Method & Theory in the Study of Religion 34, no. 4 (2022): 378–406. https://doi.org/10.1163/15700682-bja10073.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Reformed Center for Religion and Society

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.