TRADUÇÃO: RECONHECENDO O PROBLEMA DO DESENCANTO

Bruna David de Carvalho, Ann Taves

Resumo


Seguindo o que foi retratado no livro de Asprem nos termos da Problemgeschichte, podemos nos perguntar o que significa “problema”. Problemas, como ele os usa, são baseados em experiências humanas, o que significa que para problemas serem problemas as pessoas precisam percebê-los como tal. O problema do desencanto, portanto, implica em (1) a percepção do problema e (2) várias respostas ao problema. Asprem foca, primeiramente, em como as pessoas respondem ao problema. Mas nós podemos perguntar como, quando e porque, afinal, as pessoas percebem o problema. Se reconhecermos que um problema pode ser construído em termos da “percepção do evento” nós podemos então ver Problemgeschichte como envolvendo a percepção dos problemas em vários níveis de nossa percepção do passado histórico, nosso passado pessoal, os eventos imediatos e, portanto, permitindo uma integração maior entre sociologia e psicologia.

Palavras-chave


religião; experiências religiosas; fenomenologia da religião.

Texto completo:

PDF

Referências


ASPREM, Egil. 2016. “Reverse-Engineering ‘Esotericism’: How to Prepare a Complex Cultural Concept for the Cognitive Science of Religion.” Religion 46/2, 158-175.

BARRETT, Nathaniel F. 2014. “The Perception of Religious Meaning and Value: An Ecological Approach.” Religion, Brain, and Behavior 4, no. 2: 127-146.

BLOCH, Maurice. 2008. “Why religion is nothing special but is central.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 363: 2055-2061.

BLOCH, Maurice. 2010. “Bloch on Bloch on ‘Religion.’” Religion and Society: Advances in Research 1: 4–28.

BOYER, Pascal, and B. Bergstrom. 2008. “Evolutionary perspectives on religion.” Annual Review of Anthropology 37:111–130.

BRETT, C.M.C. et. al. 2007. “Appraisals of Anomalous Experiences Interview (AANEX): A Multidimensional Measure of Psychological Responses to Anomalies Associated with Psychosis.” The British Journal of Psychiatry 191, no. 51: s23-s30.

BRETT, C.M.C. et. al. 2009. “The Role of Metacognitive Beliefs in Determining the Impact of Anomalous Experiences: A Comparison of Help- seeking and Non-help-seeking Groups of People Experiencing Psychotic-like Anomalies.” Psychological Medicine 39, no. 6: 939-950.

DISSANAYAKE, Ellen. 1990. What is Art for? Seattle: University of Washington Press.

GOFFMAN, Erving. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Harper & Row.

INSEL, Thomas. 2013. “Director’s blog: Transforming diagnosis.” http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-diagnosis.shtml (accessed 13 March 2015).

JOHNSTON, Hank and NOAKES, John A. eds. 2005. Frames of Protest: Social Movements and the Framing Perspective. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

KAPFERER, Bruce. 2013. “Ritual Practice and Anthropological Theory.” Religion and Society: Advances in Research 4: 3–40.

LEWIS, James R. 2003. Legitimating New Religions. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

MALLE, Bertram. 2004. How the Mind Explains Behavior: Folk Explanations, Meaning, and Social Interaction. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

RADVANSKY, Gabriel A., and Jeffrey M. Zacks. 2011. “Event perception.” WIREs Cognitive Science, 2: 608-620.

RADAVANSKY, Gabriel A., and Jeffrey M. Zacks. 2014. Event Cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

SPERBER, Dan. 1996. Explaining Culture: A Naturalistic Approach. Oxford: Blackwell.

SPILKA, Bernard, Philip Shaver, and Lee A. Kirkpatrick. 1985. “A General Attribution Theory for the Psychology of Religion.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 24, no. 1: 1-20.

TAVES, Ann. 1999. Fits, Trances, and Visions: Experiencing Religion and Explaining Experience from Wesley to James. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

TAVES, Ann. 2005. “Religious Experience.” Pp. 7736-7750 in The Encyclopedia of Religion, 2nd edition, ed. L. Jones. New York: Macmillan.

TAVES, Ann. 2006. “Where (Fragmented) Selves Meet Cultures: Theorising Spirit Possession.” Culture and Religion 7, no. 2: 123-138.

TAVES, Ann. 2009. Religious Experience Reconsidered: A Building Block Approach to the Study of Religion and Other Special Things. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

TAVES, Ann. 2010a. “No Field Is an Island: Fostering Collaboration between the Academic Study of Religion and the Sciences.” Method and Theory in the Study of Religion 22: 170-188.

TAVES, Ann. 2010b. “Experience as a Site of Contested Meaning and Value: The Attributional Dog and Its Special Tail.” Religion 40: 317-323.

TAVES, Ann. 2013a. “Building Blocks of Sacralities: A New Basis for Comparison across Cultures and Religions.” Pp. 138-161 in Handbook of the Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, ed. R. F. Paloutzian and C. L. Park. New York: Guilford.

TAVES, Ann. 2013b. “Non-Ordinary Powers: Charisma, Special Affordances and the Study of Religion.” Pp. 80-97 in Mental Culture: Classical Theory and the Cognitive Science of Religion, ed. D. Xygalatas and W.W. McCorkle, Jr. Bristol, CT: Acumen.

TAVES, Ann. 2014. “Parsing Meaning and Value in Relation to Experience.” Religion, Brain, and Behavior 4, no. 2: 161-166, DOI: 10.1080/2153599X.2013.816344

TAVES, Ann. 2015. “Reverse Engineering Complex Cultural Concepts: Identifying Building Blocks of ‘Religion.’” Journal of Cognition and Culture 15: 197-221.

TAVES, Ann. 2016. Revelatory Events: Unusual Experiences and the Emergence of New Spiritual Paths. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

TAVES, Ann, and Egil Asprem. 2017. “Experience as Event: Event Cognition and the Study of (Religious) Experiences.” Religion, Brain and Behavior 7/1, 43-62.

TAVES, Ann, and Stephen C. Harper. 2016. “Joseph Smith’s First Vision: New Methods for the Analysis of Experience-Related Texts.” Mormon Studies Review 3, 53-84.

WHITEHOUSE, Harvey, and Jonathan A. Lanman. 2014. “The Ties That Bind Us: Ritual, Fusion, and Identification.” Current Anthropology 55, no. 6: 674-695.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.23925/1980-8305.2019.i1p166-185

Métricas do artigo

Carregando Métricas ...

Metrics powered by PLOS ALM

Apontamentos

  • Não há apontamentos.




Licença Creative Commons
Esta obra está licenciada sob uma licença Creative Commons Atribuição - NãoComercial 4.0 Internacional.