IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/socres/v13y2008i3p48-61.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Death Metaphors and the Secularisation Debate: Towards Criteria for Successful Social Scientific Analogies

Author

Listed:
  • Ed Dutton

Abstract

The aim of this article is to examine the successfulness of death metaphors in the contemporary debate over the Secularisation Theory. Through doing so, the article will propose criteria by which the success of a metaphor – in the sociology of religion and in social science more broadly – can be assessed. It will examine metaphors employed by Stark, Bruce and Callum Brown. It will firstly discuss the nature of the Secularisation debate, metaphor and metaphor in sociology and science more broadly. Then, drawing upon previous research in this area, it will discuss the use of metaphor and analogy in academic discourse and examine criteria by which the success of scientific metaphors might be assessed. Thereafter, it will look at the successfulness of the main recent metaphors employed by proponents and critics of secularisation in terms of these criteria.

Suggested Citation

  • Ed Dutton, 2008. "Death Metaphors and the Secularisation Debate: Towards Criteria for Successful Social Scientific Analogies," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 13(3), pages 48-61, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:socres:v:13:y:2008:i:3:p:48-61
    DOI: 10.5153/sro.1709
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.5153/sro.1709
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.5153/sro.1709?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Raf Vanderstraeten, 2009. "Modes of Individualisation at Cemeteries," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 14(4), pages 37-49, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:socres:v:13:y:2008:i:3:p:48-61. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.