<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Publishing DTD v1.3 20210610//EN" "JATS-journalpublishing1-3.dtd">
<article article-type="research-article" dtd-version="1.3" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xml:lang="ru"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">philosophy</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title xml:lang="ru">Вестник РГГУ Серия «Философия. Социология. Искусствоведение»</journal-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="en"><trans-title>RSUH/RGGU BULLETIN. Series Philosophy. Social Studies. Art Studies</trans-title></trans-title-group></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="ppub">2073-6401</issn><issn pub-type="epub">2073-6401</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Russian State University for the Humanities (RSUH)</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id custom-type="elpub" pub-id-type="custom">philosophy-70</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Research Article</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="section-heading" xml:lang="ru"><subject>СТАТЬИ И ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯ</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="section-heading" xml:lang="en"><subject>ARTICLES AND STUDIES</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>Рецепция взглядов Эмиля Дюркгейма в современной философии: Чарльз Тейлор, Джон Милбанк, Талал Асад</article-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="en"><trans-title>Emile Durkheim views perception in modern philosophy. Charles Taylor, John Milbank, Talal Asad</trans-title></trans-title-group></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes"><name-alternatives><name name-style="eastern" xml:lang="ru"><surname>Переславцев</surname><given-names>Максим Игоревич</given-names></name><name name-style="western" xml:lang="en"><surname>Pereslavtsev</surname><given-names>Maxim</given-names></name></name-alternatives><email xlink:type="simple">mpereslavcev@gmail.com</email><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff-1"/></contrib></contrib-group><aff-alternatives id="aff-1"><aff xml:lang="ru"><institution>Российский государственный гуманитарный университет</institution><country>Россия</country></aff><aff xml:lang="en"><institution>Russian State University for the Humanities</institution><country>Russian Federation</country></aff></aff-alternatives><pub-date pub-type="collection"><year>2016</year></pub-date><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>14</day><month>03</month><year>2018</year></pub-date><volume>0</volume><issue>3</issue><fpage>88</fpage><lpage>98</lpage><permissions><copyright-statement>Copyright &amp;#x00A9; Переславцев М.И., 2018</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2018</copyright-year><copyright-holder xml:lang="ru">Переславцев М.И.</copyright-holder><copyright-holder xml:lang="en">Pereslavtsev M.</copyright-holder><license xml:lang="ru" license-type="creative-commons-attribution" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" xlink:type="simple"><license-p>Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.</license-p></license><license xml:lang="en" license-type="creative-commons-attribution" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" xlink:type="simple"><license-p>This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.</license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://philosophy.rsuh.ru/jour/article/view/70">https://philosophy.rsuh.ru/jour/article/view/70</self-uri><abstract><p>В статье рассматриваются основные положении социологии религии Эмиля Дюркгейма в контексте современных стратегий переосмысления секулярного. Цель статьи - не только обозначить критические замечания авторов в адрес теории религии Дюркгейма, но и показать, как последняя может оказаться полезной для возникновения нового понимания секулярного и религиозного, в том числе Милбанком, Асадом и Тейлором.</p></abstract><trans-abstract xml:lang="en"><p>In this article author examines main theses of Emile Durkheim’s sociology of religion in the context of modern strategies for rethinking of secularization. The purpose of the article is not only to emphasize critical remarks by main authors against Durkheim’s theory of religion, but also to demonstrate how the latter may turn out to be useful for the beginnings of new understanding of the secular and religious, by Mil-bank, Asad and Taylor including.</p></trans-abstract><kwd-group xml:lang="ru"><kwd>социология</kwd><kwd>религия</kwd><kwd>общество</kwd><kwd>современная философия</kwd><kwd>Дюркгейм</kwd><kwd>Милбанк</kwd><kwd>Асад</kwd><kwd>Тейлор</kwd><kwd>секуляризм</kwd><kwd>sociology</kwd><kwd>religion</kwd><kwd>society</kwd><kwd>modern philosophy</kwd><kwd>Durkheim</kwd><kwd>Milbank</kwd><kwd>Asad</kwd><kwd>Taylor</kwd><kwd>secularism</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="cit1"><label>1</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Дюркгейм Э. Метод социологии. М., 1995. С. 39.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Дюркгейм Э. Метод социологии. М., 1995. С. 39.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit2"><label>2</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Durkheim E. Elementary forms of religious life. L.: Allen&amp;Unwin, 1982. Р. 206.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Durkheim E. Elementary forms of religious life. L.: Allen&amp;Unwin, 1982. Р. 206.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit3"><label>3</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Parsons T. Action theory and human condition. N. Y.: The Free press, 1978. Р. 203.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Parsons T. Action theory and human condition. N. Y.: The Free press, 1978. Р. 203.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit4"><label>4</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Асад Т. Что могла бы представлять собой антропология секуляризма? // Логос. 2011. № 3 (82). С. 56-99.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Асад Т. Что могла бы представлять собой антропология секуляризма? // Логос. 2011. № 3 (82). С. 56-99.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit5"><label>5</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Milbank J. Theology and social theory. Oxford: Blackwell publishing, 2006.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Milbank J. Theology and social theory. Oxford: Blackwell publishing, 2006.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit6"><label>6</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Дюркгейм Э. О разделении общественного труда. М., 1995. С. 176-178.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Дюркгейм Э. О разделении общественного труда. М., 1995. С. 176-178.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit7"><label>7</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Милбанк Дж. Надзор за возвышенным: Критика социологии религии // Государство, религия, церковь. 2013. № 3 (31). С. 221.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Милбанк Дж. Надзор за возвышенным: Критика социологии религии // Государство, религия, церковь. 2013. № 3 (31). С. 221.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit8"><label>8</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Taylor Ch. A secular age. Cambridge; L.: Belknap press of Harvard university press, 2007.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Taylor Ch. A secular age. Cambridge; L.: Belknap press of Harvard university press, 2007.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref></ref-list><fn-group><fn fn-type="conflict"><p>The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.</p></fn></fn-group></back></article>
