| Summary: | There is a basic tension within the idea of Comparative Hagiology, because the two terms that constitute its name are incongruous. To formulate a comparative hagiological project, we must choose at the outset which term will take priority. Prioritizing the <i>comparative</i> in comparative hagiology orients us to focus more on the basic disciplinary approaches to gather compare-able data, leaving <i>hagiology</i> as a placeholder whose content will be defined by the results of the comparison. Prioritizing <i>hagiology</i> requires first defining <i>hagio-</i> and reckoning with the European and Christian baggage that it brings to cross-cultural and inter-religious comparison. Holding that definition in mind, we then locate examples to compare by whatever approach seems fruitful in that case. Different choices of priorities lead to potentially different results. I argue that a path that prioritizes <i>comparative</i> is more likely to inspire experimental and innovative groupings, unconventional definitions of hagiology, and new perspectives in the cross-cultural study of religion. An approach that prioritizes <i>hagiology</i> runs a greater risk of repeating the same provincial and conceptual biases that doomed much of 20th-century comparative religion scholarship.
|
|---|