BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//ceres.rub.de//events//
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-WR-TIMEZONE:UTC
BEGIN:VEVENT
SUMMARY:The Making of Religion in Modern Societies
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20110209
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20110212
DTSTAMP:20260526T155106Z
UID:Maing-religion-en-64@ceres.rub.de
CATEGORIES:
DESCRIPTION:Location: Veranstaltungszentrum room 3\nFlyer\nDialectics Betw
 een Language and Institutionalization \n \nConference of the Käte-Hambu
 rger-Kolleg\,\nto be held in February 2011 at Bochum-University\n \nThe e
 mergence of the modern notion of religion is part of the transformation of
  religions in modern societies. Due to the claim of the modern state – s
 ince the French Revolution – to be sovereign over the whole of society a
 nd all its citizens\, religions had to reinvent themselves as institutions
  within society. Some religious groups did this by resisting and rejecting
  the state’s claims\, while others presented themselves as the avant-gar
 de of this evolution\, and as models of moral communities.\nToday\, people
 \, especially those familiar with religious studies\, find ‘religion’ 
 and ‘religions’ all over the world and everywhere in history. Even tho
 se who would reject such an identification\, such as Confucianists or Soci
 alists\, are included into the big family of religions by others. The same
  mechanism works for ‘religious’ concepts: despite their multivalent s
 emantics they are usually subsumed within a religious vocabulary\, which i
 s supposed to be coherent and conceptually independent. Take for instance 
 the concepts of ‘piety’ and ‘fate’\, which have – despite of the
 ir “secular” usage – been incorporated in religious discourses\, as 
 referring to ‘religious’ practices\, rituals and conceptions.\nActuall
 y\, the concept of religion in this general\, globally and historically wi
 de-extended sense\, is pretty young and regionally limited: it is\, basica
 lly\, an offspring of certain strands within the West-European Enlightenme
 nt of the 18th century. It was – and is – not a neutral analytical cat
 egory\, but also a linguistic instrument for classifying\, subsuming\, com
 paring and regulating various social\, political and intellectual phenomen
 a. Looked at from a pragmatic understanding of language the concept may be
  taken as an argument or weapon in cultural dialogues\, social conflicts\,
  or political struggles. This is how we take it in this conference.\nHowev
 er\, if religions cannot be simply identified\, are not simply ‘out ther
 e’\, but have to be perceived and identified by contemporary agents\, th
 e question arises how this was done in the first place: how where phenomen
 a perceived and labelled as being ‘religious’? A second question immed
 iately follows: what consequences did this labelling have for the institut
 ionalisation of religion within societies? Labelling directs the perceptio
 n of people\, gives coherence to social actions\, prepares the ground for 
 rules and laws\, opens up fields of action and makes possible new practice
 s. In short\, it redefines the social practice of religion.\nFollowing the
  scope and program of our research group we study the linguistic formation
  and institutionalisation of religions in modern societies. Our efforts co
 ncentrate on European and Asian societies from the 18th to the 20th centur
 ies\, the diffusion of religious concepts within and between them\, with a
  special focus on the concept religion itself. Under the conditions of the
  discursive and legal separation of political and religious power religiou
 s communities in modern societies were increasingly obliged to legitimize 
 their own traditions\, practices and conceptions in terms that non-believe
 rs could understand and accept.\nWe have chosen four fields of study:\n- 
          Religious Membership and Statistics: What did membership 
 mean to different religious groups? How were membership and other forms of
  belonging defined\, both from within the group and from without? Which ef
 forts were undertaken by state authorities to count religious membership a
 nd bring the results together in national statistics? Who started to count
  religious groups and for what purposes? How was the concept of ‘religio
 n’ used and made applicable in these statistics? What consequences did t
 his counting and the resulting numerical self-awareness have for the self-
 understanding\, practices and policies of the various religious groups?\n-
           Teaching Religion at School: Modern states made an enor
 mous effort to educate their subjects and turn them into moral citizens. H
 ow was this instruction conceptualized\, and how was ‘religion’ distin
 guished from\, or integrated within\, this project of moral transformation
 ? Did the state use\, co-opt\, regulate or exclude particular religious gr
 oups or concepts in building up this moral economy of public education? Di
 d religious groups oppose or support this attempt to turn ‘religious’ 
 subjects into loyal\, committed and disciplined citizens?\n-       
    The Scientification of Religious Language and Religious Concepts:  H
 ow were religious concepts/religious languages defined in relation to non-
 religious languages and concepts? The new or re-defined ‘religious’ co
 ncepts transcended traditional specific religious discourses\, and could t
 hus be used by secular people as well. This could lead religious groups to
  a critical self-reflection by means of discussions with the sciences (Wes
 tern religion in the 19th century is the prime example). Is this the gener
 al trend? Or are there other ways in which religious groups could either a
 ppropriate or radically reject the new discourse on ‘religion’?\n-  
         Religious Freedom: The establishment of modern states goes 
 together with a constitutional definition of the place - rights and restri
 ctions - of religion within society. By this means traditional ‘religiou
 s’ beliefs\, holidays\, associations\, institutions\, properties and man
 y other things were either regulated and protected\, or forbidden\, suppre
 ssed or destroyed. A new configuration of possible fields of action for re
 ligious groups emerged. Has the spread of constitutions and legal systems 
 of a Western type\, defining religion as a separate sphere\, transferred t
 he Western definition of religion all over the world as well?
URL:https://ceres.rub.de/en/events/Maing-religion-en/
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR