terminological shift implies above all that each religion and its ‘theology’ are
nothing more than data that should be scrutinized as cultural phenomena. It
means that the study of religions is affirmed as ‘the study of religions in cultural
studies’.
The subjects included within the study of religions expanded to a wide range
of cultural topics. The relation of religion and science was discussed from
various perspectives (Chung et al. 2000). Traditional concerns for myth and
mythology expanded to include issues related to current political discourse
(Special Issue 2002), the visual media (Cho 2003a; Lee C. 2002; Shin 2002),
and the internet (Special Issue 2004). Scholars interested in ritual examined
sports and mass behavior (Cho 2003b; Lee C. 2004; Lim 2003). A conspicuous
topic was the body. Scholars compared the pre-modern concept of the body,
disease, and healing with corresponding postmodern concepts. In this
comparison it was assumed that each concept, pre-modern and postmodern,
had its own ‘particular religiosity’ (Park S. 2003). Issues of gender, the
environment, and social minorities, among others, were also seriously raised
as central topics within the study of religions (Kim Y. 2002; Woo 2002; Yoo
2004).
Studies also focused on specific themes, such as a rite to pray for rain from
the Joseon dynasty (Choi 2002), the calendar of the pre- and post-modern eras
(Cho 1999; Lee Chang-yick 2005; Lim 2006), shamanism studied from the
client’s rather than the practitioner’s perspective (Cha 1997), the Korean view
of death studied holistically (Chung 2003a; Song 2006), regional religious
culture (Korea Institute 1997), and foreigners’ views of Korean religions from
the early nineteenth to the early twentieth centuries (Cho 2002; Kim Chong-
suh 2006). Two observations may be made about the new generation’s work.
First, it does not apply the concept of ‘religion’ unconditionally either to
‘religion before religion’ or to ‘religion after religion’. So far it has reached
a consensus about ‘religion’ by using a semantic approach which interprets
the meaning of ‘religion’ in the context of historical situations (Ha 2003;
Jang S. 1992; Kang 1992; Ko 2002; Yi 2001; Yoon S. 1997). Second, the new
generation has made a clean cut between the critical recognition of religious
phenomena and the self-interpretation of individual religions. The study of
religions is no longer confused with ‘theological work’ (Kim Y. 2003; Lee J.
1996; Lee W. 2000; Lee Y. 1999; Shin 1996).
The new generation has attempted a ‘new description’ of world religions
(Korea Institute 1991), characterized by trying to establish the subject of
description in a manner that is not biased by the Western perspective. Work
on the history of Korean religion is no exception (Hwang 1985, Ro 2001).
Method is emphasized more than subject. Therefore, their work is more a
pursuit of a stream of ‘religiosity’ than a chronological description of religion.
Traditional folk belief and newly arisen religions are also dealt with not as
peripheral but as central phenomena.
1111
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1011
1
2
3111
4 5 6 7 8 9
20111
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
30111
1
2
3
4
35
6
7
8
9
40111
42222
3
411
CONTINENTAL EAST ASIA
183
