Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article argues that the post-secular conceptual framework of religious discourse values secular priorities such as rationality, marginalising the role of lived religious experiences in relation to interreligious dialogue and reflections on religious identities. The article discusses the AMIR project, through which 70 immigrants interacted with religious artworks in Italy, and presents the results of interviews and observations of performances. It concludes that such face-to-face interactions with others provide a more valuable vehicle for exploring concepts of otherness and religious freedom within religious identities.

I have a number of overarching concerns about the presentation and conclusions of the research. Though it contains interesting content with implications for understanding individual religious perspectives, the article overall does not always duly connect its theoretical position with the participant data presented.

The post-secular theoretical position the research critiques is western-centric, but this cultural specificity is not acknowledged. Even though the participants cited are primarily of Abrahamic faiths, it should not be assumed that the post-secular approach universally reflects their lived cultural experiences. This assumption would be even more unsafe for other religious, spiritual and non-religious individuals. Overall, there seems to be a disconnect between the theoretical challenging of post-secular religious discourses presented in the introduction and conclusion, and the discussions which form the core arguments of the article. The discussion about ‘otherness’ (lines 570-580), for example, is not grounded in any previously discussed performances and therefore lacks weight, risking presenting lofty but ultimately empty statements. The conclusions more generally about approaches to religious identities seem similarly unjustified by the participants’ comments on the artworks. No participant’s religious identity is presented as noticeably changing as an outcome of giving/observing/discussing the performances, nor are the post-secular principles of religious freedom and universal human rights which the theoretical discussions centre upon featured in the discussed presentations.

The methodology is presented at the end of the article and would be more useful at the beginning and expanded upon. It is unclear, for example, which quotations from participants have come from observation of ‘performances’ and which from interviews. For the interviews, there is no reference to what prompts/questions have been asked to elicit the responses, or to their context/setting. The ‘performances’ referenced throughout, though perhaps suggested in lines 144-145 to be what might otherwise be termed guided tours, remain unclear, as do the audiences receiving them. This has implications for the reader trying to understanding the discussions and conclusions presented.

The backgrounds and demographics of the AMIR participants are not presented and it is therefore unclear methodologically why and how the small number of individuals represented in this research were selected and how reflective they were of the group. The participants cited in the discussion of the paintings of Mary, for example, come from Abrahamic traditions (a Catholic, a Protestant and a Muslim), where Mary is acknowledged as an important figure. Three individuals presenting their thoughts on a significant figure in their own faiths feels unsatisfying for exploring how religious identities change or are challenged through interreligious dialogue stimulated by artworks. How might non-religious participants (whether lifelong or deconverted) or those of non-Abrahamic faith backgrounds have engaged differently? Were such individuals represented in the AMIR group but omitted from the research? The lack of a clear methodology here could imply that the presented data is very selective.

The research is predicated on exploring interreligious conversations, but no direct dialogue between participants is presented. The quotations almost entirely represent individuals reflecting on their own faith positions. Even when conflict is discussed (for example the Angolan participant angry at Angolan Catholics) only individual opinions are expressed, rather than external dialogue with another viewpoint. Connected to the points above, it is unclear how this comment relates to the 'performances' of these individuals (or others), and whether or not their comments were in reaction to artworks or other stimuli (e.g. interview questions).

The ‘inclusion to relationship’ section makes the interesting observation that ‘foreigners’ (though this is not defined) are usually only asked for emotional and subjective responses rather than trusted to provide technical information. Despite seeming to argue that a change to this perspective has been achieved by the research, the article seems to present equally subjective and sometimes emotive responses by participants to the artworks.

The painting of ‘La Virgen del Cerro’ is described as having a narrative framework ‘not obscured by esoteric symbols imperceptible to the untrained observer; rather, it is explicit and accessible to all viewers’. However, shortly before this its layered structure is related to both Tridentine theology and the symbolic meaning of metallic elements relevant to the Andean cosmos – both aspects requiring specific cultural and religious knowledge.

Images of all of the artworks discussed would help the discussions surrounding them.

Line 555 – the ‘performer’ here is not explained so their comments and the conclusions drawn from them are lacking in context

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language is often very dense, making arguments difficult to follow and potentially preventing readers from engaging with the core arguments. Some choices of words and phrases are strange, and in others I was unable to decipher the full intended nuances of sentences. It feels as if the language is attempting to be unnecessarily complex.

Some examples include:

Line 66-68 – ‘The project of the democratisation of religions takes to screwing on itself because the results of the present – which are there - never reach the desired magnitude of the idealised goal: the whole of society’

Line 261-264 – ‘The emphasis on the biographical and subjective dimensions redefines the work as a relational device and simultaneously directs its appreciation toward an experience in which subjectivity acts as the medium for the symbolic, affective, and evocative activation of the work.’

Line 274-275 – ‘The resulting movement is dialogic and intentionally oriented toward a relationship with religious otherness, avoiding exclusion or denial of it.’

Line 623-625 – ‘At the same time, such expressions seem to exceed tolerance itself, signalling a shift toward a normative and cultural framework more clearly oriented by the paradigm of religious freedom, here at once an individual right and a resource in face-to-face interactions.’

The use of ‘register’ rather than, for example, ‘theme’ to consider the shared aspects of reactions to artworks is an example of unnecessarily complicated language

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find our detailed responses in the attached file, and the corresponding revisions/corrections are highlighted in yellow in the resubmitted file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, while it might have benefited from a more detailed discussion of the methods employed, this seems to me to be a piece of innovative work in relation to which any feedback of requirement for minor revisions prior to publication is unnecessary. But if requirement for resubmission might arise from another review/s, or the opportunity otherwise arises, I think that the following formulation of: "The project of the democratisation of religions takes to screwing on itself (see p. 22, line 66) would benefit from rethinking and re-expressing in a more appropriate way.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in yellow in the resubmitted files.

Comment 1: I think that the following formulation of: "The project of the democratisation of religions takes to screwing on itself (see p. 22, line 66) would benefit from rethinking and re-expressing in a more appropriate way.

Response1: Thank you for your appreciation and for pointing this out. I have revised the sentence for improved clarity and readability (lines 66–70).

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article "Interreligious Conversations: A Sociological Analysis of Practices of Otherness and Identity in a Museum of Sacred Art" presents a critique of the "post-secular" paradigm of interreligious dialogue, arguing that its overemphasis on abstract rationality neglects the lived, situated, and performative nature of religious identity formation. Through an ethnographic study of the AMIR project in a Tuscan sacred art museum, the paper demonstrates how face-to-face interactions, personal narratives, and engagement with artwork facilitate dynamic processes of identification, differentiation, and identity redefinition. It argues that transformations in religious identity and interreligious relations emerge not from universal rational deliberation, but from concrete discursive and performative practices that allow for multiple interpretations and unexpected forms of recognition, fostering new commonalities that extend beyond universal rights or mere tolerance.

While the article makes a theoretical and empirical contribution, some aspects could be further developed. The critique of the "post-secular" paradigm is well-articulated, but a deeper engagement with its nuances, rather than a broad generalization, could strengthen the argument. For instance, acknowledging variations within Habermasian thought or other post-secular approaches might provide a more balanced critique. Additionally, while the ethnographic data is rich, the selection of only four performer interviews and one director interview might limit the generalizability of some claims regarding audience perceptions and broader impacts. Expanding on the methodological details, such as the duration of the ethnographic observation and the precise nature of the "specific categories" used in analysis, would enhance transparency and reproducibility.

To further enrich the theoretical and empirical grounding of this article, it is essential to critically engage with the following studies, which offer diverse perspectives on interreligious encounter and the governance of religious diversity in Europe:

Everett, S. S. (2018). "Interfaith Dialogue and Faith-Based Social Activism in a State of Emergency: Laïcité and the Crisis of Religion in France." International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 31(4), 437–454. This article's focus on interfaith dialogue within a specific national context (France's laïcité) and its connection to social activism in times of crisis would offer a valuable comparative lens. How do the "performative practices" observed in the Italian museum context compare to, or differ from, the strategic and often politicized nature of interfaith dialogue in a "state of emergency" as described by Everett?

Gidley, B., Everett, S. S., Druez, E., Ebbiary, A., Emmerich, A., Peretz, D., et al. (2025). "Off and on stage interactions: Muslim-Jewish encounter in urban Europe." Ethnicities, 25(2), 235-254. This multi-sited study’s exploration of Muslim-Jewish encounters in urban Europe, distinguishing between formal ("on stage") and informal ("off stage") interactions, directly relates to the paper's emphasis on "situated" practices. The paper could benefit by drawing on this distinction to further refine its analysis of the museum performances: Are these performances more akin to "on stage" interactions, and how do they potentially facilitate (or constrain) "off stage" recognition and relationship-building?

* Emmerich, A. (2022). "Negotiating Germany’s first Muslim–Christian kindergarten: Temporalities, multiplicities, and processes in interreligious dialogue." Social Compass, 69(4), 578–595. This article examines how interreligious dialogue manifests in a concrete, institutional project. A critical engagement could compare the "situated dynamism" and performative aspects of dialogue in the museum with the negotiations and compromises inherent in establishing a shared social service like a kindergarten. How might the successes and challenges in Germany's educational setting illuminate the "transformation of identities" and "redefinition of boundaries" observed in the Tuscan museum?

*Emmerich, A. (2023). "Provincializing Dialogue: Post-secular Governance Networks and the Brokerage of Religious Diversity in a North German Town." In J. Winkler, L. Haddad, J. Martínez-Ariño, & G. Mezzetti (Eds.), Interreligious Encounters in Europe. Sites, Materialities and Practices (pp. 71–94). London New York: Routledge. This piece delves into the brokerage of religious diversity within local governance networks, shifting focus from grand theories to "provincial" realities. The current paper could benefit from considering how the "interreligious conversations" in the museum intersect with, or stand apart from, broader governance networks and policy-making in Italy. Does the museum project operate independently, or does it contribute to a larger "brokerage" of religious diversity within Italian society?

Griera M, Nagel AK (2018) "Interreligious relations and governance of religion in Europe: Introduction." Social Compass, 65(3), 301–311. This introductory piece provides a broad overview of interreligious relations and the governance of religion in Europe. The paper could use this as a foundational text to explicitly position its unique contribution within the wider academic discourse, highlighting how its ethnographic, micro-level analysis of museum encounters either supports, challenges, or offers a new dimension to existing macro-level understandings of religious governance and interfaith relations across the continent.

Overall, this is a promising contribution to the sociology of religion and interreligious studies. The ethnographic approach combined with a theoretical argument provides insights into the complex dynamics of religious identity and difference. Addressing the suggested points of critical engagement will enhance the article's scholarly depth, broaden its comparative scope, and solidify its position as a significant voice in ongoing debates about religion in the public sphere.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in yellow in the resubmitted files.

Comment 1: While the article makes a theoretical and empirical contribution, some aspects could be further developed. The critique of the "post-secular" paradigm is well-articulated, but a deeper engagement with its nuances, rather than a broad generalization, could strengthen the argument. For instance, acknowledging variations within Habermasian thought or other post-secular approaches might provide a more balanced critique. 

Response 1: I have reconsidered and completely rewritten the section on the post-secular paradigm, with greater attention to a deeper engagement with a particular aspect of Post-Secular Society Theory that I consider important for the overall framework of my work. Paragraph 1.1 has therefore been entirely revised with this purpose in mind.

Comment 2:  Additionally, while the ethnographic data is rich, the selection of only four performer interviews and one director interview might limit the generalizability of some claims regarding audience perceptions and broader impacts. Expanding on the methodological details, such as the duration of the ethnographic observation and the precise nature of the "specific categories" used in analysis, would enhance transparency and reproducibility.

Response 2: Thank you for this suggestion. I have moved the Methods section forward to lines 293–336. I have also developed the methodological details within this section, aiming to illustrate the analytical categories elaborated for the analysis of the interviews.

Comment 3: To further enrich the theoretical and empirical grounding of this article, it is essential to critically engage with the following studies, which offer diverse perspectives on interreligious encounter and the governance of religious diversity in Europe

Response 3: I am very grateful for these observations and for the suggestion to anchor my research more firmly in the sociological debate on the governance of religious differences. The recommended readings were extremely helpful in sharpening the focus on the sociologically significant aspects of the AMIR performance and, more broadly, on the hybrid characteristics of AMIR performances in relation to the sociological literature on forms of interreligious activity. To give concrete application to these insights, I have written three new paragraphs, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4 (lines 98–291). In the last of these paragraphs, I have attempted to situate the AMIR performances in relation to the classifications proposed in the suggested literature and in other studies.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am grateful to the author for their thoughtful and comprehensive responses to my original comments. These have helped contextualise the research immensely.

The changes made to the article's language, structure and discussions have been extremely successful in transmitting the theoretical context of the research and clarifying the methodology employed. I find it now a much more compelling article to read, and a valuable report on a very interesting area of research.

I feel that my original comments have been diligently addressed and I have no further comments to make. I am delighted to recommend the article for publication with many congratulations to the author.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

N/A