Postcolonialism and the Study of Religion: Dissecting Orientalism, Nationalism, and Gender Using Postcolonial Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Postcolonialism in relation to the study of religion is most greatly informed by the development of postcolonial theory. While postcolonial theory is diverse in its methodological approach and content, the overarching concern is identifying colonialist constructions of knowledge (what Edward Said refers to as, ‘orientalism’) as they were used to justify and maintain the subordination of colonized groups. In particular, colonialist assumptions about religion as rooted in Judeo‐Christian morality are challenged by postcolonial theory, giving rise to new understandings of religious responses to the Empire. Postcolonial theorists have, in different ways, called to question these constructions of knowledge by critically evaluating the impact of these formulations as they pertain to religious ideologies and institutions. Further, by questioning key categories such as ‘religion’ and ‘the sacred’, as well as identifying responses to colonial rule in the form of nationalism, theorists have noted the ways in which women and the lower classes in particular have been impacted.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".