5 ms·

I wasn't aware of that. It was so drummed into me at university (Religious Studies) to avoid the word that I'm intrigued as to why another academic field would

by tombh 4y ago

I wasn't aware of that. It was so drummed into me at university (Religious Studies) to avoid the word that I'm intrigued as to why another academic field would uses it seriously. Do you have any reading recommendations that might give an insight into its technical usage?

kortilla 4y ago
>It was so drummed into me at university (Religious Studies) to avoid the word that I'm intrigued as to why another academic field would uses it seriously. Because there would be very little feedback from Religious Studies into other fields on what words are acceptable. There are disagreements on terminology within academia in the same sub-field (I saw this in even programming language research).
Amezarak 4y ago
The Latin word cultus had no negative connotation and described this activity. Anything classicist and classicist-adjacent continues to use the word "cult" because that's how it was used in Latin and in English. The negative connotation did not arise until much later, probably in the mid-20th century. The "technical" usage is simply the normal usage of the word for anyone who mostly reads books published prior to the 1960s.
jccooper 4y ago
I went looking into it, but haven't found a good capsule reference. It's a pretty strong cultural practice (and an old one; references to Classical practices like "the cult of Dionysis" are well-worn) and isn't always specified. This article "“Cult” in the Study of Religion and Archaeology" in ASMA (https://www.academia.edu/5061036/Cult_in_the_Study_of_Religion_and_Archaeology https://www.academia.edu/5061036/Cult_in_the_Study_of_Religi...) has a pretty good discussion. Here's an article from a text book on "Archaeology of Cult and Religion": (https://www.academia.edu/13590600/2005._Archaeology_of_Cult_and_Religion._In_Renfrew_C._and_Bahn_P._eds._Archaeology_The_Key_Concepts._London_Routledge_pp._45-49 https://www.academia.edu/13590600/2005._Archaeology_of_Cult_...) You can see a working usage in "A Problem Oof Definition: “Cultic” and “Comestic” Contexts in Philistia" (https://www.academia.edu/1868319/A_Problem_of_Definition_Cultic_and_Domestic_Contexts_in_Iron_Age_Philistia https://www.academia.edu/1868319/A_Problem_of_Definition_Cul...) I haven't read the books, but there's a couple books covered in this review from AJA on the topic: https://www.ajaonline.org/book-review/619 https://www.ajaonline.org/book-review/619 Modern archaeology makes some odd-seeming linguistic choices to try to avoid implying more than they actually know; part of that is avoiding "religion" in favor of "ritual" and "cultic practices", because "religion" implies a whole lot of stuff that artifacts just can't see.

by tombh 4y ago

kortilla 4y ago

>It was so drummed into me at university (Religious Studies) to avoid the word that I'm intrigued as to why another academic field would uses it seriously. Because there would be very little feedback from Religious Studies into other fields on what words are acceptable. There are disagreements on terminology within academia in the same sub-field (I saw this in even programming language research).

Amezarak 4y ago

The Latin word cultus had no negative connotation and described this activity. Anything classicist and classicist-adjacent continues to use the word "cult" because that's how it was used in Latin and in English. The negative connotation did not arise until much later, probably in the mid-20th century. The "technical" usage is simply the normal usage of the word for anyone who mostly reads books published prior to the 1960s.

jccooper 4y ago

I went looking into it, but haven't found a good capsule reference. It's a pretty strong cultural practice (and an old one; references to Classical practices like "the cult of Dionysis" are well-worn) and isn't always specified. This article "“Cult” in the Study of Religion and Archaeology" in ASMA (https://www.academia.edu/5061036/Cult_in_the_Study_of_Religion_and_Archaeology https://www.academia.edu/5061036/Cult_in_the_Study_of_Religi...) has a pretty good discussion. Here's an article from a text book on "Archaeology of Cult and Religion": (https://www.academia.edu/13590600/2005._Archaeology_of_Cult_and_Religion._In_Renfrew_C._and_Bahn_P._eds._Archaeology_The_Key_Concepts._London_Routledge_pp._45-49 https://www.academia.edu/13590600/2005._Archaeology_of_Cult_...) You can see a working usage in "A Problem Oof Definition: “Cultic” and “Comestic” Contexts in Philistia" (https://www.academia.edu/1868319/A_Problem_of_Definition_Cultic_and_Domestic_Contexts_in_Iron_Age_Philistia https://www.academia.edu/1868319/A_Problem_of_Definition_Cul...) I haven't read the books, but there's a couple books covered in this review from AJA on the topic: https://www.ajaonline.org/book-review/619 https://www.ajaonline.org/book-review/619 Modern archaeology makes some odd-seeming linguistic choices to try to avoid implying more than they actually know; part of that is avoiding "religion" in favor of "ritual" and "cultic practices", because "religion" implies a whole lot of stuff that artifacts just can't see.