APSA has a politics and religion subfield journal - any good?
Pretty new, so just establishing itself.
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion is a top subfield journal. Sociology of Religion is solid as well.
Religion and Politics scholars
-
Quality is code for methods. Study of religion so much more interesting than social psych experiments BS.
^ not saying he is not the 'best' religion and politics scholar, but as someone that does research in an overlapping area, I have not been impressed with the quality of work in the field. I'm more of a political psychology person.
-
It's not the methods that turn me off. It's the buried assumption that religion and religious beliefs are 'special' versus other group based identities. Call it religious exceptionalism. Many of these scholars, including Campbell, hold religious identities in very high regard, and it comes off that way in their scholarship. When it comes to truly understanding religion and politics, they purposely ignore the nasty underbelly of religion, or whitewash it in their research. For instance, the psychological bases of religiosity in authoritarianism, (lack of) need for cognition, and social identities, and the obvious history origins of dogma in the power politics of different time periods.
I will admit, I did enjoy Layman's book. I do not get the impression from his work that this is the case with him.
-
What you are saying is maybe true of DC and some others. Far from universally true. And it's not like the people who study race or gender don't have any politics!
It's not the methods that turn me off. It's the buried assumption that religion and religious beliefs are 'special' versus other group based identities. Call it religious exceptionalism. Many of these scholars, including Campbell, hold religious identities in very high regard, and it comes off that way in their scholarship. When it comes to truly understanding religion and politics, they purposely ignore the nasty underbelly of religion, or whitewash it in their research. For instance, the psychological bases of religiosity in authoritarianism, (lack of) need for cognition, and social identities, and the obvious history origins of dogma in the power politics of different time periods.
I will admit, I did enjoy Layman's book. I do not get the impression from his work that this is the case with him. -
I'll admit, you're right Ermenegilde. Not all religion and politics scholars are like that. But I think that attitude is less prevalent in other demographic-based subfields as compared to religion and politics. Most race, gender, and sexuality scholars (or even party scholars) believe their identities can socially constructed and not intrinsically exceptional, but accidents of history and politics. Very rarely do you find social scientists in these other areas that believe that their identity of study is chauvinistically better than the others (despite what the trolls on this board say.)
-
Comparative: Daniel Philpott. Jose Casanova. Monica Duffy Toft. Mirjam Kunkler is great too. I have some love for Kalyvas and like Ahmet Kuru and Elizabeth Shakman Hurd. Al Stepan isn't too shabby.
Best American article (but not widely acknowledged in poli sci): Hout and Fischer,"Why More Americans Have No Religious Preference: Politics and Generations" 2002 . Updated in 2014 as "Explaining Why More Americans Have No Religious Preference: Political Backlash and Generational Succession, 1987-2012".
Under loved book: The Impossibility of Religious Freedom by Winifred Sullivan.