behavior in the same manner that we understand all other forms of human
thought and behavior. This orientation does not necessarily make it a secular,
anti-religious pursuit,^10 nor does it require scholars of religions to be outsiders,
as Miles seems to suggest in the passage quoted. (It may well be, however,
that far from having the privileged position often ascribed to them [e.g.
Hinnells 2005: 15], insiders have a harder time recognizing the questionability
of their religious claims.) I am a scholar of religions by profession; I also happen
to be a religious insider, at least in one tradition. I neither know nor care
whether the contributors to this volume consider themselves insiders or
outsiders. What the study of religions requires is not that those who practice
it be outsiders to religion but that they take the most rigorous, critical stance
to what counts as knowledge that human beings are capable of taking. What
they make of their religious convictions after that is their own business.
The focus of this volume is the study of religions, not theology or its
equivalents. That statement necessitates a brief comment about terminology.
In composition, the phrase ‘the study of religions’ can be ambiguous. For
example, ‘the study of religions in Japan’ can mean either the study of religions
by Japanese scholars or the study of Japanese religions by scholars anywhere
in the world. In this respect, ‘religious studies in Japan’ works better. It clearly
refers to the work of Japanese scholars. As Miles notes in the quote above,
however, the phrase ‘religious studies’ has its own ambiguity. (For several
meanings, see Wiebe 2005). The adjective may refer to the study of religious
objects, but it may also refer to studies that are themselves religious in character.
In this volume ‘religious studies’ is generally a synonym for a non-theological
study of religions. As several contributors note, however, in some regions of
the world the study of religions is not always sharply distinguished from
theology or its counterparts.
Organization
The plan of the volume is as follows. It begins with a division of the world
into ten regions. This division makes some sense in terms of linguistic, cultural,
political, and academic identities. It also responds to pragmatic demands. For
example, now that the Cold War is over, it is debatable how distinct Eastern
Europe is from Western Europe. Nevertheless, if the two regions did not receive
separate treatment, it seems likely that currently prevailing cultural and political
weight would result in Eastern European scholars getting less attention than
they deserve. But while the division into regions is practical, it is also artificial.
What Michael Stausberg pointedly notes for Western Europe is true virtually
everywhere. None of the regions is a complete unity. North America may come
closest, but to say that runs the risk of overlooking the distinctive characteristics
of Anglophone and Francophone Canada. In the preparation of this volume
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
INTRODUCTION
7
