Death by Area Studies

OrteliusWorldMap1570

by Aaron W. Hughes and Randi R. Warne

A worrying trend is gaining momentum in the academic study of religion.  There appears to us to be an increasing tendency toward filling professorial vacancies with individuals with PhDs in area studies (e.g., Jewish Studies, Islamic Studies, East Asian Studies, South Asian Studies).  We say “worrying” due to the changes in academic climate and intellectual agenda this development potentially carries with it.  Specifically, we are concerned that the focus on textual and largely premodern forms of “religious tradition” that characterizes area studies means that individuals within departments, and increasingly departments writ large, will boundary their data in such a way that the “meta-questions” and critical discourses that characterize much of current intellectual discussion, intentionally or not, will be discouraged or overshadowed, much as Christian studies (theology) overshadowed the field in years past.

The result, we fear, will be the gradual diminution and eventual death of the field of Religious Studies. Please be assured that we do not advocate a return to the heyday of phenomenology with its concomitant claims of the “irreducibility of the sacred.”  We are deeply concerned, however, with the history and problematics underlying the creation of “Religious Studies” itself.  Rather than defer to the false inclusivity of area studies, we would like to encourage a collective rethinking of what the discipline of Religious Studies is and, by extension, what its future should be.

To examine some of these issues, let us begin with a couple of anecdotes that we believe are illustrative of the problem.

When Hughes was hired at the University of Calgary in 2001 he was expected, even though he had a PhD in Religious Studies with a specialty in Islam, to be the exact replacement of his predecessor who had a PhD in Islamic Studies (i.e, area studies, not religious studies) from McGill.  Although he knew enough Arabic to read texts (slowly!), he was expected to teach a four-semester sequence in classical Arabic.  He found this very difficult for a number of reasons – he was not an Arabist (nor had he ever, despite the later claims of his colleagues, styled himself as one); and he had many native speakers in his class who knew Arabic much, much better than he did but claimed that they had very little knowledge of classical grammar, though he suspected that they just wanted an easy A.  One thing he was not expected to teach, or supposed to even be interested in, was theory and method in the field.  An Islamicist interested in theory and method – heaven forbid!  He envisaged himself as a religionist, yet his colleagues in the department saw him as an Arabist or as an Islamicist.  These radically divergent expectations – on how he was to succeed personally amongst his coworkers in a department (who would vote on his tenure case) and professionally amongst his colleagues in the larger field (with whom he would establish his bona fides and reputation) – on a young, pre-tenure faculty member were extremely difficult.  Of about 15 or so faculty members in that department (he no longer works there), roughly half received doctorates from fields outside of Religious Studies.  And, despite the fact that the department has seen some turnover in recent years, that percentage of non-religious studies doctorates to religious studies doctorates among the full-time faculty remains.

Warne’s challenges as a graduate student at the University of Toronto’s Centre for the Study of Religion in its inaugural year were somewhat different, though with similar practical results. In keeping with the times, she brought to Toronto a thorough exposure to Neo-orthodox theology, psychology of religion a la Alan Watts and Esalen, and a complete drenching in Eliade.  That her primary interests were counter/sub cultures and 19th c. questions of faith and atheism was indicative of the composition of Religious Studies departments at the time.  Toronto was not an improvement. Eager to prove its scholarly seriousness to a skeptical Dean, the program emphasized languages and conventional configurations of “traditions.” Much could be said about those years, but two anecdotes will have to suffice: wanting to study Marxism as a religion, she was shuffled off to a few of the theological colleges to do the Social Gospel and Liberation Theology.

Her graduate comprehensive exams reflected the suspicion in which her analytical interests were held: five four hour exams in History of Christianity; Judaism since the Enlightenment; Philosophy of Religion; Social-Scientific Studies of Religion; and Religion in Canada. The Centre’s coordinator helpfully offered the option of doing a comp. in the social sciences (Freud, Jung, Erikson, Weber, Durkheim and Marx) as a substitute for the language exams in Latin, Hebrew and Greek that might be reasonably expected of a student of Christian tradition. The end result of three degrees in Religious Studies (BA Religion and Literature; MA Philosophy of Religion; Ph.D. Religion and Culture) was a candidate allegedly unemployable in Religious Studies due to being a “generalist.”

Tales of woe abound, and we will not belabor them here.  Our concern with the constitution of authorities (i.e. tenured faculty) in Religious Studies is nonetheless genuine. Religionists cannot just write the turn to Area Studies as the idiosyncracies of a particular department or departments. A quick examination of, for example, those departments in Canada with PhD programs in Religious Studies – at the University of British Columbia, the University of Alberta, the University of Manitoba, McGill University, the University of Toronto, and the University of Waterloo/Wilfrid Laurier University – reveals something remarkably similar.  This will have, if it has not had already, major repercussions on how Religious Studies is thought about and taught on Canadian campuses.  It will, moreover, have major effects on the makeup of graduate education in the discipline, and hence the character of its continuation.

We would like to raise some questions for reflection and further conversation. First, why have departments of Religious Studies if they are to function solely as an institutional canopy for disciplines in which the category of “religion” is NOT rigorously interrogated?  Presumably, that highly contested subject matter is still of some interest and worth. (As an aside, it is useful to note a veritable explosion of North American scholarly interest in Religion and Culture, evident in conferences, scholarly literature and popular culture venues.)  Yet, despite this growing interest, Religious Studies will frequently hire someone with a PhD in area studies (because it is wrongly assumed that they must know the “area” in question better than someone trained in Religious Studies). The opposite scenario – an area studies department hiring someone with a doctorate in Religious Studies – is rare indeed.

Why should we hire a historian as opposed to a religionist to fill a vacant position?  Why should we hire someone with a PhD in Islamic Studies in a position for a specialist in Islam in a department of Religious Studies?  We might well ask how such individuals will contribute to the general intellectual vigour and identity of the field at the department level, and to the international conversation about the academic study of religion.  If there is to be a serious engagement with religion as a social and cultural construction, what is the point in hiring those whose training is primarily textual and philological, and who have had very little if no exposure to the critical theories and methods associated with the academic study of religion?  We submit that if we are to engage primarily the problematic of “religion” as our object of study we collectively need to rethink our hiring priorities.

Second, if we insist on training graduate students in our departments of religious studies, but then when it comes to hiring decisions choose to hire someone from area studies, what kind of message does this send?  One practical effect is to train a permanent underclass to teach introductory and other widely subscribed undergraduate classes, while reserving secure positions for persons with training in another discipline altogether. Another is to require graduate students engaged in critical discourses in religion to choose perforce their advisor and examining committee from a pool of area studies specialists. If, and when, this is the case, such specialists may well see theoretical questions as actually getting in the way of textual analysis.

The conservative treatment of “traditions” thus comes in the back door and reasserts its pre-eminence. We need to look closely at the politics and processes by and through which a new generation of scholars is being prepared. We are not doing our graduate students any favors if they wish to be employable as full and respected participants in Religious Studies if the departments in which they are supposedly receiving their training neither values it nor teaches it.

Aaron Hughes is professor of Religion, Jewish Studies, Islam, and Method and Theory in the department of Religion and Classics at the University of Rochester. Professor Hughes’s books include:  The Texture of the Divine (Indiana University Press, 2003), Jewish Philosophy A-Z (Palgrave, 2006), The Art of Dialogue in Jewish Philosophy (Indiana University Press, 2007), Situating Islam (Equinox Publishing, 2007), The Invention of Jewish Identity (Indiana University Press, 2010), Defining Judaism: A Reader (Equinox Publishing, 2010), Abrahamic Religions: On the Uses and Abuses of History (Oxford UP, 2012), and the forthcoming The Study of Judaism: Identity, Authenticity, Scholarship (SUNY Press, 2013), and Rethinking Jewish Philosophy: Beyond Particularity and Universality (Oxford UP, 2014).

Randi R. Warne Randi R. Warne is a professor of Religion and Culture in the Department of Philosphy/Religious Studies At Mount St. Vincent University, Halifax. She is also a founding member of MSVU’s Cultural Studies program, one of the three free-standing Cultural Studies programs in Canada. Her research interests include religion and culture, gender theory, and the politics of knowledge. Recent publications include “‘Gender’; Making the Gender-Critical Turn” and a two volume co-edited work New Approaches to the Study of Religion (with Armin Geertz and Peter Antes), published by Walter deGruyter.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 12 Comments

“We are there to be there”: More Reflections from Sullivan’s A Ministry of Presence

9780226779751

by Charles McCrary

This post’s titular sentence, quoted in Winnifred Sullivan’s new book A Ministry of Presence, is how a hospice chaplain summarized the purpose of his job (185). Sullivan brilliantly explains how, through legal and cultural history, simply “to be there”—not to convert or preach or even to dole out advice—came to be what is required of chaplains. Kolby Knight has already written an excellent and helpful review for the Bulletin, so I won’t recap Sullivan’s argument or talk much about the book’s contents here. Instead, I offer some brief reflections that I had from the book, and how chaplaincy might help us think about the place of religion in American society in the twenty-first century.

The case that sets the stage for the book is Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Nicholson (2008), wherein the FFRF challenged a VA hospital program that measured individuals’ “spiritual fitness.” As Sullivan points out, seeing spirituality as integral to a person—even at the measurable, material level—is not new. She cites, for example, John Modern’s discussion of phrenologists’ invention/discovery of the faculty of spirituality. What is new, however, is the legal context. This type of essentialized spirituality[1] gets around the “high wall of separation” of mid-twentieth-century jurisprudence. If spirituality is natural and part of the human, the state ought to help care for it.

I read A Ministry of Presence in the context of a class I’m co-teaching with Mike Graziano on religion and American law (for more on that course see here and here.) Before this book we read Hugh Urban’s The Church of Scientology. One of the things that stuck out to me in Urban’s book was that L. Ron Hubbard’s initial attempts to play up, as he put it, “the religion angle” (i.e., self-consciously rebranding their organization as a religion) was not in order to receive tax exempt status. Later, of course, that would be the point, and it led to a decades-long feud between the Church and the IRS, culminating with the Church winning the status (although paying their back taxes) in 1993. At first, though, in the early 1950s, the religion angle was about the FDA, with whom Scientologists were in hot water for using their e-meters to do what was legally the realm of medicine and, thus, subject to credentialing, certification, and so on. If an auditing session were a religious exercise, these restrictions and standards would not apply.

I’m reminded of the recent case in Encinitas, California in which the court’s question was, “Is yoga religious?” The court determined that it is in fact religious but nevertheless legal, since “a reasonable student” wouldn’t perceive it as evincing a “message of eastern or anti-western religion.” So, indeed it is religious, but it is not, to use the language of nineteenth-century school debates, sectarian. In the same way, the chaplain must be religious only in the most general, widely applicable sense. It is not a coincidence, either, that these three examples (“spiritual fitness,” e-meters, and yoga) all have to do with bodily health, which I suspect is due to their supposed pre-discursiveness and universality.

“Religion” in America is in the odd position of being at once eminently special and necessarily ineffectual. It is protected, privileged, and even encouraged by the state. Nevertheless, it is relegated to a place from which it cannot make medical claims or be too particular or proselytizing. This is what it means to be have a “ministry of presence.” Sullivan writes,

It is religion stripped to the basics. Religion naturalized. Religion without code, cult, or community. Religion without metaphysics. It is religion for a state of uncertainty (174).

The chaplain, who is the incarnation of this religion, is “there to be there.” But they also don’t do much other than be there. American religion—supporting some secularization theses and upending others—just hangs around.

[1]: Bulletin readers likely will be interested to know that Sullivan sees religious studies as implicated in this type of “new establishment.” She writes, “The peculiar educational formation and credentialing of chaplains is not driven just by the force of law, the needs of government, and the social facts of religious diversity. That training is also enabled by the success of religious studies in naturalizing its own religious practices. The work done by the religious studies department in many colleges and universities in the United States reflects a broadly irenic and inclusive voice on behalf of Homo religiosus in all his guises” (137–138).

Posted in Charles McCrary, Politics and Religion, Religion and Society, Religion and Theory, Theory and Method, Theory in the Real World, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Theory & Religion Series: Reflections on Fieldwork in Morocco by Paul Rabinow

1000x1000
by Travis Cooper

Paul Rabinow’s Reflections on Fieldwork in Morocco (1977) was a game changer. As a novice anthropologist of religion, picking my way slowly through the history of American anthropology—and conducting fieldwork at the same time—encountering Rabinow was nothing less than an emancipating experience. The book extended my critical aptitudes and altered the way I think about (and do) fieldwork.

Reflections was, in its day, quite controversial. Rabinow’s advisor, Clifford Geertz, cautioned against publishing. And Pierre Bourdieu, who contributed the afterword to the 2007 edition, expressed some ambivalence (xv-xvi). Rabinow himself calls it “a studied condensation of a swirl of people, places, and feelings” that might have been “half as long, or twice as long, or ten times as long” (6). Suffice it to say, the book is difficult to classify. It has a literary texture to it and reads like mixture of travelogue, diary, theory of ethnography, and critique of anthropology.

Reflections is worth reading if only for the ethnographically rich, novel-like details of the anthropologist’s relations with informants. Rabinow’s accounts, after all, involve adventure, social awkwardness, sexuality, and religious and political conflict. The book’s greatest value, however, are the concise musings on ethnographic method and cultural theory (i.e., the reflections in Reflections).

I’d recommend the book for use in religious studies classes, especially courses geared toward or framed with method and theory. Undergraduates will appreciate Rabinow’s narrative prose and scandalous content; advanced graduate students will value his consistent methodological considerations.

Ultimately, Reflections underscores a number of (now) axiomatic themes in the academy and accomplishes several important tasks.

(1) Rabinow demystifies fieldwork. “Fieldwork is a dialectic between reflection and [ethnographic] immediacy,” Rabinow writes. “Both are cultural constructs” (38). The book is one of the first serious accounts on the doing and entailing of the ethnographic method.

(2) Rabinow deconstructs “the field” and expands the ethnographer’s purview. Fieldwork, he argues, is tantamount to an anthropological rite-of-passage. “At the risk of violating the [anthropologist’s] clan taboos,” he provokes, “I argue that all cultural activity is experiential, [and] that fieldwork is a distinctive type of cultural activity” (5). His hyper-reflexivity finds scholarly elaboration in religious studies currents such as Russell McCutcheon’s recent self-characterization as “carrying out a detailed ethnography of scholarly practice for the past twenty years” (2014, xi).

(3) Rabinow dispels the misguided notion of the pristine, exotic other. He submits that “the view of the ‘primitive’ as a creature living by rigid rules, in total harmony with his environment, and essentially not cursed with a glimmer of self-consciousness, is a set of complex cultural projections. There is no ‘primitive.’ There are other men, living other lives” (151).

(4) Lastly, Rabinow diminishes the purity of ethnographic data. The anthropologist “trains people to objectify their life-world for him. Within all cultures, of course, there is already objectification and self-reflection. But this explicit self-conscious translation into an external medium is rare. The anthropologist creates a doubling of consciousness” (119), thus demonstrating the complex mediations of data at all levels.

Reflections will remain a valuable work for those interested in the method and theory of ethnography for some time to come.

Posted in Theory & Religion Series, Theory and Method, Travis Cooper, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

SBL – Metacriticism of Biblical Scholarship: November 21-25, 2014, San Diego, CA

hero-image-San-Diego-skyline-dusk

SBL – Metacriticism of Biblical Scholarship

November 21-25, 2014, San Diego, CA

Metacriticism of Biblical Scholarship critically evaluates suppositions in and underlying biblical scholarship, including how an explicitly non-religious approach differs from what is even now represented as historical-critical scholarship, especially when compared to other secular disciplines within the Humanities (history, classical studies) and the Social Sciences (e.g., anthropology, sociology).  This year Metacriticism of Biblical Scholarship is sponsoring or co-sponsoring three sessions at the San Diego AAR, with a workshop on the role of comparison in research on religion and panels on among other things textual and ideological criticism and academic freedom and Biblical Studies.

SORAAAD       

Friday, November 21, 2014

Comparison and the Analytical Study of Religion     Program PDF

Location disclosed to those registered. To register place “SORAAAD – 2014 – Registration” in the subject line of an email addressed to ctdr.group@gmail.com.

 

S22-131  Metacriticism of Biblical Scholarship

November 22, 2014,  9:00 AM to 11:30 AM

Room: 300 B (Level 3 (Aqua)) – Hilton Bayfront (HB)

Randall Reed, Appalachian State University, Presiding

Paul Michael Kurtz, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen

A Rock in the Tides of History: Julius Wellhausen, Hermann Gunkel, and the Academic Enterprise (25 min)

Brooke Sherrard, Iowa State University

Biblical Archaeology as Biblical Theology: G. Ernest Wright’s Construction of Rigid Ethnic Boundaries in the Ancient Past and the Mid-Twentieth Century (25 min)

Gwynned de Looijer, University of Durham

The Scholarly ‘Construction of the Qumran Sect’ (25 min)

Bryan Bibb, Furman University

Ideological Constraints and “Literal” Translation of the Bible (25 min)

Ron Hendel, University of California-Berkeley

Biblical Inerrancy and Textual Criticism: A Curious History (25 min)

Discussion (25 min)

 

S24-234   Academic Freedom and Biblical Studies

November 24, 2014,   1:00 PM to 3:30 PM

Room: 410 A (Level 4 (Sapphire)) – Hilton Bayfront (HB)

Rebecca Raphael, Texas State University–San Marcos, Presiding

Jim Linville, University of Lethbridge

In Search of the Biblical Flintstones? Some Thoughts on Creationism, Academic Freedom, and Scholarly Obligation(30 min)

Hector Avalos, Iowa State University

Academic Freedom and Creationism in Public Universities (30 min)

James F. McGrath, Butler University

Can University Walls Keep Out the Internet? (30 min)

Christopher Rollston, George Washington University

Freedom of Religion and Academic Freedom: Symphony and Cacophony in Confessional Higher Education (30 min)

Discussion (30 min)

Unit Chairs

James Linville        james.linville@ule.ca

Rebecca Raphael    raphael@txstate.edu

Posted in Announcements, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

AAR Cultural History of the Study of Religion Group: November 21-25, 2014, San Diego, CA

San-Diego-skyline

AAR Cultural History of the Study of Religion Group 

November 21-25, 2014, San Diego, CA

The Cultural History of the Study of Religion group is devoted to historical inquiry into the social and cultural contexts of the study of religion and into the constructions of ‘religion’ as an object of scholarly inquiry.” This year CHSR is sponsoring or co-sponsoring four sessions at the San Diego AAR, with a workshop on the role of comparison in research on religion and panels on the study of religion in distinctive institutional settings the impacts of this on constructions of difference, French Feminisms and  an author-meets-critics panel on Brent Nongbri’s Before Religion.

SORAAAD       

Friday, November 21, 2014

Comparison and the Analytical Study of Religion     Program PDF

Location disclosed to those registered. To register place “SORAAAD – 2014 – Registration” in the subject line of an email addressed to ctdr.group@gmail.com.

A22-121   Local Accents: The Study of Religion in Distinctive Institutional Settings

Saturday – 9:00 AM-11:30 AM

Hilton Bayfront- 410A

This session explores how the category of “religion” gets constructed on the ground in specific academic institutions. Each paper explores a detailed case study: the American University in Beirut; Ursula Niebuhr at Barnard College; and the Center for the Study of World Religions at Harvard Divinity School. Taken together, the papers form a springboard for a critical discussion of the role of “difference” in the formation of religion as an object and discourse of study in the American academy.

Diane Segroves, Ball State University, Presiding

Caleb McCarthy, University of California, Santa Barbara

Rethinking the Teaching of Religion at the American University of Beirut, 1900-1930

Leslie Ribovich, Princeton University

A Woman’s Religious Work, Protestant Privilege, and Interfaith Ideals: The Story of Ursula Niebuhr and the Barnard and Columbia Religion Departments

Lucia Hulsether, Harvard University

Residual Battle Fatigue: Racial Formations and the Discourse of Religious Pluralism at Harvard Divinity School, 1960-1975

Eugene V. Gallagher, Connecticut College, Responding

Business Meeting:

Ann M. Burlein, Hofstra University

Randall Styers, University of North Carolina

 

A24-209 Feminism and Subjectivity in the Study of Religion

Monday – 1:00 PM-3:30 PM                               

Convention Center-9

Co-sponsored by Sociology of Religion Group,

Critical Theories and Discourses on Religion Group and

Cultural History of the Study of Religion Group,

or STAR (the Social Theory and Religion Cluster).

STAR Business Meeting, 3:20 pm

2014 marks the thirty- and forty-year anniversaries of key works in French social theory, including Julia Kristeva’s Revolution in Poetic Language (40th anniversary) and Luce Irigaray’s Speculum of the Other Woman (40th) and An Ethics of Sexual Difference (30th). In honor of their legacies, the panelists in this session explore related questions of feminism and subjectivity in the study of religion. With reference not only to Irigaray and Kristeva, but also to Michel Foucault, Judith Butler, and Saba Mahmood, they treat critical turns in affect theory and speech act theory, the ethics of alterity, and the discursive formation of subjectivity as a crucial category in the study of religion.

Morny Joy, University of Calgary, Respondent

Abigail Kluchin, Ursinus College

An Alternative Lineage for Affect Theory: Returning to Irigaray’s Speculum de l’Autre Femme and Kristeva’s Revolution du Langage Poétique

Wesley Barker, Mercer University

Signifying Flesh: The Ambiguity of Desire and the Possibility of Alterity in Irigaray’s Ethics of Sexual Difference

Samantha Langsdale, University of London

Framing Historical Women’s Agency: A Critical Reading of Speech Act Theories

Constance Furey, Indiana University

Hermeneutics of Intersubjectivity: Foucault, Butler, and Limit Experiences

Business Meeting:

William E. Arnal, University of Regina;

Randall Styers, University of North Carolina;

Ipsita Chatterjea, Vanderbilt University

 

A24-319  Brent Nongbri’s Before Religion: A History of a Modern Concept (Yale University Press, 2013): Critical Engagement

Monday – 4:00 PM-6:30 PM

Convention Center-25C

Co-sponsored by Cultural History of the Study of Religion Group and SBL Religious World of Late Antiquity Section

This session will include four responses to Brent Nongbri’s Before Religion: A History of a Modern Concept. Cosponsored by the AAR’s Cultural History of the Study of Religion Group and the SBL’s Religious World of Late Antiquity Group, the panelists will consider both Nongbri’s account of the pre-history of the concept of “religion” and the implications of Nongbri’s work for future scholarship.

Cynthia M. Baker, Bates College, Presiding

Andrew Durdin, University of Chicago

Religio without Religion: Reflections on Recent Debates in Roman Religion and Religious Studies

James Broucek, Iowa State University

Historicizing the Concept of Religion: A Prerequisite to Critical Research, or an Intrinsically Interesting Subject?

Kathleen M. Sands, University of Hawai’i

The “Religious” and “Secular” Meanings of “Playing Indian”: An Assessment of Brent Nongbri’s Before Religion

Nathan Rein, Ursinus College

Beyond Religion: Directions for Research Following Nongbri’s Before Religion

Brent Nongbri, Macquarie University, Responding

Posted in Announcements | Tagged , | Leave a comment

SBL – Re-describing Early Christianity: San Diego, November 21-25, 2014, San Diego, CA

hero-image-San-Diego-skyline-dusk

RE-DESCRIBING EARLY CHRISTIANITY

The Redescribing Early Christianity Seminar contributes to the study of early Christian history by problematizing current consensus views, unexamined assumptions, and categories; recontextualizing and redescribing the key data through comparative analysis; and accounting for the configurations of texts under view in terms of social theory. Redescribing Early Christianity  is sponsoring or co-sponsoring  four sessions at the San Diego AAR, with a workshop on the role of comparison in research on religion and panels on Greco-Roman Religion, Evolutionary and Cognitive Approaches to Early Christianity and  Social and Practice Theory in the Redescription of Early Christianity.

Program Unit Chairs

William Arnal       william.arnal@uregina.ca

Erin Roberts             erinroberts@sc.edu

SORAAAD       
Friday, November 21, 2014
Location disclosed to those registered. To register place “SORAAAD – 2014 – Registration” in the subject line of an email addressed to ctdr.group@gmail.com.

S22-320

Greco-Roman Religion

11/22/2014

4:00 PM to 6:30 PM

Room: D (Level 3 (Aqua)) – Hilton Bayfront (HB)

Theme: Redescribing Greco-Roman Antiquity: Somatizing Practices

James Hanges, Miami University, Presiding (5 min)

Chris de Wet, University of South Africa

Breaking Bodies and Building Theologies: The Discourse of the Suffering Slave in Early Christianity (25 min)

Pieter J.J. Botha, University of South Africa

“On Their Way to Nowhere?” Exploring Body, Identity, and Place in the Jesus Movement (25 min)

Michael Pope, Brigham Young University

Blood, Sweat, and Smears: Bodies Portentous, Bodies Politic (25 min)

Gerhard van den Heever, University of South Africa

“Somaticising Practices”: Relocating Epiphany in the Making of Early Christianity (25 min)

Discussion (30 min)

S23-139

Redescribing Early Christianity

11/23/2014

9:00 AM to 11:30 AM

Room: Indigo Ballroom D (Level 2 (Indigo)) – Hilton Bayfront (HB)

Theme: Evolutionary and Cognitive Approaches to Early Christianity

Erin Roberts, University of South Carolina, Presiding

Risto Uro, University of Helsinki

Explicit and Implicit Religious Knowledge in the Study of Early Christianity (10 min)

Discussion (15 min)

Istvan Czachesz, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg

Cognitive Science and Network Theory in the Study of Early Christian Origins(10 min)

Discussion (15 min)

Anders Klostergaard Petersen, University of Aarhus

The Early Christ-Movement from a Cultural Evolutionary Perspective (10 min)

Discussion (15 min)

Petri Luomanen, University of Helsinki

Towards an Evolutionary Account of the Formation of Christian Identity (10 min)

Discussion (15 min)

Break (10 min)

Discussion (40 min)

S23-243

Redescribing Early Christianity

11/23/2014

1:00 PM to 3:30 PM

Room: 300 B (Level 3 (Aqua)) – Hilton Bayfront (HB)

Theme: Social and Practice Theory in the Redescription of Early Christianity

William E. Arnal, University of Regina, Presiding

Willi Braun, University of Alberta

Toward a Theory of the Social: An Assessment of the Work of Theodore Schatzki (10 min)

Discussion (15 min)

Maia Kotrosits, Denison University

Diaspora Theory and the End of “Early Christianity” and “Early Christian Identity” (10 min)

Discussion (15 min) 

Heidi Wendt, Wright State University Main Campus

Not Twelve, But Five: Theorizing Christian Practice in the Second Century (10 min)

Discussion (15 min)

Gerhard van den Heever, University of South Africa

New Arrivistes in the Context of Older Traditions: New Religious Movements and the Weaving of Christ Cult Groups into a New Religion (10 min)

Discussion (15 min)

Break (10 min)

Discussion (40 min)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Call for Papers: The Psychology of Religion/The Religion of Psychology, The University of Chicago, March 6, 2015

university

The Psychology of Religion/The Religion of Psychology

The University of Chicago

Friday March 6, 2015

Both to the discomfort and excitement of psychologists, scholars of religion, and religious practitioners, the overlap between the histories of psychology and religion is rather significant. Like philosophy, psychology was once pegged, in the words of Frank E. Manuel, as the “newest handmaiden of true religion.” However, with the emergence of new experimental methods in the late nineteenth century and of psychoanalysis (an inherently anti-religious discipline, according to its founder) in the early twentieth, psychology attempted to distance itself from religion, though with mixed results. Although psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals today understand their respective disciplines to have grown increasingly scientific and thus less “religious,” the various ways in which psychology and religion were interrelated in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries could be used to tell a different story.

On Friday, March 6th, 2015, the University of Chicago Divinity School and the Martin Marty Center will host The Psychology of Religion/The Religion of Psychology, a conference exploring the relation between two problem children of modernity.  We welcome contributions from scholars in any discipline whose research is concerned with the relationship between religion and psychology, from both an historical and a contemporary perspective.  Possible topics include (but are not limited to):

*            The ways in which the boundaries of and between psychology and religion are erected and blurred;

*            The relation between modern clinical categories like anxiety and depression and their theological counterparts;

*            Religiously-inspired quasi-psychologies, psychologically-inflected quasi-religions, and other spiritual hybrids;

*            Religion and the dynamics of family life;

*            Therapeutic techniques drawn from religious or spiritual practices;

*            The psychology of religion, pastoral psychology, and other fields that integrate psychology and religion;

*            The rise of the psycho-pharmaceutical approach to mental life and its effect on traditional therapeutic and pastoral counseling;

*            Religion and psychology as anchors of disciplinary power.

The conference will be keynoted by a roundtable discussion between:

Tanya Luhrmann

Watkins University Professor in the Anthropology Department at Stanford University, and author of Of Two Minds (2000) and When God Talks Back (2012)

Jonathan Lear

John U. Nef Distinguished Service Professor at the Committee on Social Thought at the University of Chicago, and author of Freud (2005), Radical Hope (2006), and A Case for Irony (2011)

Jeffrey Kripal

J. Newton Rayzor Chair in Philosophy and Religious Studies at Rice University, and author of Authors of the Impossible (2010), Mutants and Mystics (2011), and Comparing Religions (2013)

Please send 300 word proposals for 20-minute papers to the conference organizer, Benjamin Y. Fong, atbfong@uchicago.edu, by January 5th, 2015. Paper presentations may come from any discipline and address any topic but should seek to offer general conclusions about the relation between psychology and religion (a request to which the keynote panelists have already agreed).  Submissions should also include a separate document with the author’s name, contact information, and institutional affiliation.  Participants will be notified by January 20th.

Posted in Announcements | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment