April DeConick at Forbidden Gospels has a practice of posting "Apocryphotes" or quotes from Christian "apocrypha" (ancient Christian writings that were not including in the later orthodox canon/s). I thought I would post some quotes from time to time (not nearly as regularly as she does) from the much more random sources of lines here and there that strike me as interesting (thus, not nearly as coherent of a group of sources that she is drawing from).
So...here we go:
"Only fools have made up their minds and are certain."
"If you want it to be so, history can be a waste of time: it can also be, if you want it to be so, a study bearing fruit beyond price...."
Michel de Montaigne, On Educating Children
For a follow-up on that first quote:
"For doubting pleases me as much as knowing."
Dante, Inferno 11.93
Monday, June 9, 2008
Friday, June 6, 2008
The Naughty Bible
The following was in USA Today (and I found out about it from Paleojudaica):
By Cathy Lynn Grossman, USA TODAY
"Examine Bible stories top to bottom — particularly the "bottoms" — and you will find a blue vein of sexual and scatological humor not-so-hidden in the verses, say two scholars of Hebrew Scriptures and an evangelical satire writer.
"Their new book, The Uncensored Bible: The Bawdy and Naughty Bits of the Good Book, in stores Monday, raises such questions as "Which 'bone' was Eve made from?"
"Or whether, in the Book of Judges, a king's assassin escapes through a latrine in a tale laden with euphemisms for feces."
That last bit is the story of Ehud, the left-handed judge (Judges 3:12-30). It is not a story you hear in church or synagogue very often, but, if you read carefully, it is funny. And, uh, the key to the Genesis story is that the "bone" may be something other than Adam's "rib."
How might this be, though? The Bible clearly states that Eve was made from one of Adam's "ribs" (Tsela'). Perhaps the next verse, "Bone (etzem) of my bones," is the relevant portion here... If you point Tsela' with a patakh instead of a kametz, however, it can mean "limping" (or "stumbling"). I hope for Adam's sake, the authors of this new book are referring to the "bone of my bones" verse, rather than Eve being made out of Adam's "limp thing."
The Bible truly is such a bawdy book! (shock to many of you, to be sure, but others, not so much)
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Vatican Statement on Women Priests
The following article was in the NY Times and can be found in most newspapers (through the AP). The Vatican has reaffirmed the ban on women becoming priests to the point of excommunicating any woman who undergoes ordination and any clergy who ordain women. Part of the reason given is that Jesus only had male apostles. This conveniently ignores ancient traditions that calls Mary Magdalene the Apostle to the Apostles and in Orthodox tradition as "equal to the apostles" (see the comments by Shades of Gray and Black). Although Orthodox traditions, too, do not ordain women. This also ignores the prominent role women played in the early Christian movement, being leaders in the community, especially in association with and evidenced by Paul (figures such as Priscilla, Lydia, Euodia, Syntyche, Phoebe, who was a deacon, etc.), before their leadership roles were curtailed in later centuries.
The other reason that is often offered is that God is male and, therefore, can only be represented by men. There are many ways to discuss this in the tradition. Firstly, there is now evidence that in the pre-exilic period, the Israelites worshiped YHWH and the Queen of Heaven, or the goddess, Asherah, who was considered YHWH's consort. The opposition to and repression of this tradition was by those few men who controlled and tried to centralize the cult to YHWH to only Jerusalem (prominently the Deuteronomic School and its successors and the prophet Jeremiah)--this is now very clear. Secondly, the books that became the Bible (and that excised many of these earlier traditions or polemicized against them) were written by men and reflect a male-centric worldview. These men made God in their own image. Yet, evcen so, God as "father" is probably meant to be as literal as God as a "shepherd" or whatever. Thirdly, even the canonical texts use feminine imagery with God, such as God's "compassion" which is cognate with "womb"--it is literally God's "womb love" (see Jer. 49:15). For other feminine imagery applied to God, see Deut. 32:11, Ps. 17:8, 22:9-10, 36:7, 91:4, Hos. 13:8. Especially prominent here is the imagery of God as a mother hen who gathers her chicks under her wings. Interestingly enough, Jesus also uses this imagery to regard himself as a mother hen and the children of Jerusalem as the chicks (Luke 13:34-5). In the books of Sirach and the Wisdom of Solomon, especially the latter (which, one might emphasize, the Catholic Church takes as canonical, whereas Protestants do not), portray a feminine aspect of God; namely, God's Wisdom (Sophia). In Jewish traditions, moreover, the "presence" of God is the feminine Shekhinah.
Similarly, one argument is that Jesus was male and, therefore, only a male can handle the Eucharist and effect the transformation (transubstantiation) of wine and bread into the blood and flesh of Christ--although, it does not seem that based upon Jesus' interactions with women or even Paul's that they thought so (see first paragraph above). This argument seems like a stretch. One could just as easily argue that since Jesus had brown hair (or likely had brown or black hair) that no blond haired person should be allowed to perform the Eucharist--for how could a blond priest possibly represent a dark-haired Jesus? Or perhaps that since Jesus was Jewish, only a Jew can effect transubstantiation (that will definitely make things difficult indeed). I personally do not know any ancient traditions that actually exclude women in this way for this reason. This explicit reasoning seems to be a much more recent innovation, a post-facto rationalization of previous practice mixed with suppression of the earlier traditions mentioned above (both canonical and non-canonical).
Vatican Asserts Rule That Bars Female Priests
ROME — The Vatican on Friday reaffirmed a ban on ordaining women as priests, warning that the consequences of any such ordination would be the automatic excommunication of anyone involved.
The decree was a reaction to specific episodes of “so-called ordinations in various parts of the world,” according to Msgr. Angelo Amato, the secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which issued the decree. In recent years, dozens of women have been ordained by individuals acting outside of the church’s authority.
The document was also drafted to give bishops uniform guidelines on an increasingly contentious matter, as a growing number of Catholics contest the church’s position that only men can be ordained as priests.
In an interview for Vatican Radio, Monsignor Amato reiterated that the church did “not feel authorized to change the will of its founder, Jesus Christ.” The Vatican, he added, felt “in good company” because the Orthodox and ancient Eastern churches have also preserved what he said was a 2,000-year-old tradition.
The decree went into effect on Thursday, after it was published in the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano.
Last March, the archbishop of St. Louis, Raymond L. Burke, excommunicated two women in his diocese and another living in Germany after they were ordained as priests as part of the Roman Catholic Womenpriests organization.
In the past six years, the organization says it has ordained more than 50 women and some men as priests and deacons in North America and Europe. In 2002, the Vatican excommunicated the first seven women shortly after the organization designated them priests.
On Friday, Bridget Mary Meehan, a spokeswoman for the group, said the excommunication, which extends to both the women and the bishops ordaining them, was a positive sign “that the Vatican is taking us seriously.”
Excommunicated Catholics cannot participate in the sacraments or public ceremonies or hold any ecclesiastical position.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Polymorphic or Polydoxic Christianity? Perhaps Neither.
April DeConick, in the comments of her posts, has expressed some concerns with the term "polymorphic." Firstly, she notes that she had considered it before coming up with "polydoxy," and her reasons for rejecting it are:
1. Primarily, it is the same problem with "Christianities"--it just denotes varieties, but does not give any hints pertaining how these groups interact with one another or how they understand themselves. Although, I should note, "polymorphic" is not as grammatically jarring as "Christianities" or "Judaisms."
2. There is nothing particularly Christian about polymorphic--something I consider in its favor, but if one is trying to capture the interactions exclusively between Christians rather than Christians and other groups or just all groups in antiquity, then something with a more Christian ring, with "doxy" or "praxy" would be preferable.
I consider the first point the real potential problem with "polymorphic," and I would be willing to relinquish it for that purpose--its lack of teeth.
In contrast, "polydoxy" indicates a particular character of these groups--they are all claiming to be Christian and the "correct" Christianity against other forms. In this sense, if I have read April's blog entries correctly, this term denotes the specific interaction of jostling for primacy or the polemics of various groups claiming to have the correct understanding of rites and beliefs against the others. "Christianities" and "polymorphic," therefore, appear too benign to capture such polemical interactions, ranging from subtle to intense.
My question as a novice in this field to a seasoned scholar such as April would be this: does "polydoxy" conceal as much as it reveals? Meaning, is the Hobbesian "all against all" or polemical jostling various orthodoxies the only type of interaction that the sources reveal? Or does it capture just a portion of 2nd and 3rd century forms of Christian interactions?
But if this IS the case, perhaps the term "polyorthic" more correctly captures the interactions--it does not impose a false division between belief and practice, and it focuses on various groups claiming they're "right." And it is odd enough to catch people's attention!
It is an interesting topic to brainstorm.
1. Primarily, it is the same problem with "Christianities"--it just denotes varieties, but does not give any hints pertaining how these groups interact with one another or how they understand themselves. Although, I should note, "polymorphic" is not as grammatically jarring as "Christianities" or "Judaisms."
2. There is nothing particularly Christian about polymorphic--something I consider in its favor, but if one is trying to capture the interactions exclusively between Christians rather than Christians and other groups or just all groups in antiquity, then something with a more Christian ring, with "doxy" or "praxy" would be preferable.
I consider the first point the real potential problem with "polymorphic," and I would be willing to relinquish it for that purpose--its lack of teeth.
In contrast, "polydoxy" indicates a particular character of these groups--they are all claiming to be Christian and the "correct" Christianity against other forms. In this sense, if I have read April's blog entries correctly, this term denotes the specific interaction of jostling for primacy or the polemics of various groups claiming to have the correct understanding of rites and beliefs against the others. "Christianities" and "polymorphic," therefore, appear too benign to capture such polemical interactions, ranging from subtle to intense.
My question as a novice in this field to a seasoned scholar such as April would be this: does "polydoxy" conceal as much as it reveals? Meaning, is the Hobbesian "all against all" or polemical jostling various orthodoxies the only type of interaction that the sources reveal? Or does it capture just a portion of 2nd and 3rd century forms of Christian interactions?
But if this IS the case, perhaps the term "polyorthic" more correctly captures the interactions--it does not impose a false division between belief and practice, and it focuses on various groups claiming they're "right." And it is odd enough to catch people's attention!
It is an interesting topic to brainstorm.
Plurodoxy, Polydoxy, Polypraxy...
April DeConick, on Forbidden Gospels, has opened up an issue of how to refer to primarily 2nd and 3rd century Christianity, saying that we need a new term. She writes, and I quote at length:
"Orthodoxy did not exist as a totalitarian entity, although each type of Christianity may have thought of itself as orthodox while everyone else were heretics. So the discussion of heresiology is important to maintain, as long as one understands that the heretic is so only from the point of view of one party. An orthodox Christianity doesn't emerge until the fourth century. Even then, it struggles through council after council, swinging from Arian to anti-Arian for over fifty years. Not until the fifth century are the major lines put into place that will determine the shape of "orthodox" Christianity for the centuries to come.
"Heterodoxy is not any better because it describes religions that deviate from the orthodox. Since we don't have orthodoxy yet, we can't have heterodoxy either.
"Sectarian and cult language don't work either, because sectarian requires that there is some parental tradition that is being deviated from. Cult also suggests deviance along with innovation.
"So what do we have? Multiple forms of Christianity, although this isn't quite right either, because many of these forms are competing with each other and some forms of Christianity are stronger and more dominant in certain geographical locales. So what we have is plurodoxy. That is multiple forms of Christianity that are competing for the orthodox position and/or that consider themselves to be the orthodox position. From this vantage point I think we can better narrative Christian origins and the standardization of Christianity that eventually comes to dominate as orthodoxy in the fourth and fifth centuries."
Basically, as DeConick points out, 2nd and 3rd century Christianity is very messy. To study it, one has to navigate a variety of beliefs, practices, and groups who combine them and interpret them in ever-changing ways. And, as she also points out, the groups are of different size, strength, and shift across the geography and time. She offers the term "plurodoxy," although right now, on her blog, "polydoxy" is winning out, it seems, since plurodoxy combines the Latin (plural) and Greek (doxa), whereas polydoxy is all Greek. I tentatively suggested the inclusion of "polypraxy" alongside of this term, since "polydoxy" tends to privilege doctrine and beliefs, even if it does not necessarily exclude practice. But I fear that the focus on "doxy" and "praxy" imposes a false division between them that did not exist in antiquity, since, for example, our earliest Christian creeds derive from the ritual of Baptism, and DeConick notes that the Christological debates are as much about the Eucharist as anything.
Although she claims that "multiple forms" is not quite right (and I do not see why "multiple forms" cannot capture issues that she refers to, such as different power bases and geographical dispersions), I prefer the term "polymorphic." It does not have the specific religious reference that "doxy" and "praxy" has, but it does get across the "many forms" that Christianity takes in this period, and what is more, since "morph" has accrued a sense of change, it potentially connotes the fluidity of groups as they interact, change through their interactions, as they write their polemics, and jostle against one another, some emerging stronger in some areas and others coming out on top in others, but it is a process.
Moreover, the generic aspect of "polymorphic" has the benefit of being applicable not only to polymorphic Christianity, but also can capture the interactive developments within 2nd temple Judaism and beyond. If, indeed, one can speak of a Mediterranean religiosity or perhaps some larger patterns that find various expressions in Christian, Jewish, Egyptian, Syrian, Greek, and Roman religious "forms" as they interact, imprint themselves on one another, jostle, and reformulate each other (which is how I have been increasingly seeing things as of late), it could be more beneficial that doxy and praxy.
But that is just my two cents.
"Orthodoxy did not exist as a totalitarian entity, although each type of Christianity may have thought of itself as orthodox while everyone else were heretics. So the discussion of heresiology is important to maintain, as long as one understands that the heretic is so only from the point of view of one party. An orthodox Christianity doesn't emerge until the fourth century. Even then, it struggles through council after council, swinging from Arian to anti-Arian for over fifty years. Not until the fifth century are the major lines put into place that will determine the shape of "orthodox" Christianity for the centuries to come.
"Heterodoxy is not any better because it describes religions that deviate from the orthodox. Since we don't have orthodoxy yet, we can't have heterodoxy either.
"Sectarian and cult language don't work either, because sectarian requires that there is some parental tradition that is being deviated from. Cult also suggests deviance along with innovation.
"So what do we have? Multiple forms of Christianity, although this isn't quite right either, because many of these forms are competing with each other and some forms of Christianity are stronger and more dominant in certain geographical locales. So what we have is plurodoxy. That is multiple forms of Christianity that are competing for the orthodox position and/or that consider themselves to be the orthodox position. From this vantage point I think we can better narrative Christian origins and the standardization of Christianity that eventually comes to dominate as orthodoxy in the fourth and fifth centuries."
Basically, as DeConick points out, 2nd and 3rd century Christianity is very messy. To study it, one has to navigate a variety of beliefs, practices, and groups who combine them and interpret them in ever-changing ways. And, as she also points out, the groups are of different size, strength, and shift across the geography and time. She offers the term "plurodoxy," although right now, on her blog, "polydoxy" is winning out, it seems, since plurodoxy combines the Latin (plural) and Greek (doxa), whereas polydoxy is all Greek. I tentatively suggested the inclusion of "polypraxy" alongside of this term, since "polydoxy" tends to privilege doctrine and beliefs, even if it does not necessarily exclude practice. But I fear that the focus on "doxy" and "praxy" imposes a false division between them that did not exist in antiquity, since, for example, our earliest Christian creeds derive from the ritual of Baptism, and DeConick notes that the Christological debates are as much about the Eucharist as anything.
Although she claims that "multiple forms" is not quite right (and I do not see why "multiple forms" cannot capture issues that she refers to, such as different power bases and geographical dispersions), I prefer the term "polymorphic." It does not have the specific religious reference that "doxy" and "praxy" has, but it does get across the "many forms" that Christianity takes in this period, and what is more, since "morph" has accrued a sense of change, it potentially connotes the fluidity of groups as they interact, change through their interactions, as they write their polemics, and jostle against one another, some emerging stronger in some areas and others coming out on top in others, but it is a process.
Moreover, the generic aspect of "polymorphic" has the benefit of being applicable not only to polymorphic Christianity, but also can capture the interactive developments within 2nd temple Judaism and beyond. If, indeed, one can speak of a Mediterranean religiosity or perhaps some larger patterns that find various expressions in Christian, Jewish, Egyptian, Syrian, Greek, and Roman religious "forms" as they interact, imprint themselves on one another, jostle, and reformulate each other (which is how I have been increasingly seeing things as of late), it could be more beneficial that doxy and praxy.
But that is just my two cents.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Catholics and Evangelics for McCain
In the previous post, I noted the disenchantment of many evangelical voters with the GOP, many leaving to become Democrats and others Independents. In this post, one sees the persistence of GOP loyalty among both conservative Evangelicals and conservative Catholics.
Anyone who knows anything about the past 500 years of history realizes that Catholics and Protestants haven't always gotten along very well (again, I like to understate things). But the politics of the past two and a half decades has shown a rapprochement not necessarily in terms of ecumenical understanding (which usually occurs among more liberal-leaning believers, although not exclusively so), but in terms of political expediency.
Thus, Texan Evangelical leader, John Hagee, has recently made anti-Catholic remarks and has recently endorsed John McCain. Prominent Catholic figures on the conservative side have pushed McCain to reject Hagee's endorsement. McCain, however, needing Evangelical voters (who have generally looked askance at McCain), has accepted the endorsement while noting that he does not support everything Hagee says and does.
Hagee, though, has issued a formal apology to William Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights, saying: "Out of a desire to advance a greater unity among Catholics and evangelicals in promoting the common good, I want to express my deep regret for any comments that Catholics have found hurtful." The "common good" they are promoting is, in fact, the Republican party. Donohue has accepted the apology, saying that in conversation with Hagee, he thinks Hagee "has seen the light." Thus, while tension remains between the "papists" and the "schismatics," they put aside their differences with each other and even with McCain in order to have a united political front, all the while the Democratic party is torn in two with its extended Primary season.
For more on this story, see this article from Yahoo.
Anyone who knows anything about the past 500 years of history realizes that Catholics and Protestants haven't always gotten along very well (again, I like to understate things). But the politics of the past two and a half decades has shown a rapprochement not necessarily in terms of ecumenical understanding (which usually occurs among more liberal-leaning believers, although not exclusively so), but in terms of political expediency.
Thus, Texan Evangelical leader, John Hagee, has recently made anti-Catholic remarks and has recently endorsed John McCain. Prominent Catholic figures on the conservative side have pushed McCain to reject Hagee's endorsement. McCain, however, needing Evangelical voters (who have generally looked askance at McCain), has accepted the endorsement while noting that he does not support everything Hagee says and does.
Hagee, though, has issued a formal apology to William Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights, saying: "Out of a desire to advance a greater unity among Catholics and evangelicals in promoting the common good, I want to express my deep regret for any comments that Catholics have found hurtful." The "common good" they are promoting is, in fact, the Republican party. Donohue has accepted the apology, saying that in conversation with Hagee, he thinks Hagee "has seen the light." Thus, while tension remains between the "papists" and the "schismatics," they put aside their differences with each other and even with McCain in order to have a united political front, all the while the Democratic party is torn in two with its extended Primary season.
For more on this story, see this article from Yahoo.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Evangelicals for Obama
In recent years there have been growing fissures between Evangelical Christians and the GOP, an association that has been rather strong since about 1980. These fissures are evident especially (but not exclusively) among younger Evangelicals. They still dislike abortion (understatement of the year), but they seem to balance it with other issues that are more characteristic of Democratic concerns: poverty, environment, social justice, and immigration. In addition, a growing number oppose the war in Iraq. They are also sick of people like James Dobson, founder of "Focus on the Family," supposedly being considered a representative voice.
While there are fissures and many Evangelicals are leaving the GOP, not all are joining the Democratic party. Many seem to be caught in the middle and see no party that really aligns with their mixture of concerns. Yet, come November, there may be many Evangelical votes going for Obama. Moreover, more conservative Evangelicals, like Dobson, have had a difficult relationship with the GOP nominee, McCain, and Dobson has even claimed that "if" McCain is the nominee, he's sitting this election out--thank God!
For more, see this article from the Seattle Times.
While there are fissures and many Evangelicals are leaving the GOP, not all are joining the Democratic party. Many seem to be caught in the middle and see no party that really aligns with their mixture of concerns. Yet, come November, there may be many Evangelical votes going for Obama. Moreover, more conservative Evangelicals, like Dobson, have had a difficult relationship with the GOP nominee, McCain, and Dobson has even claimed that "if" McCain is the nominee, he's sitting this election out--thank God!
For more, see this article from the Seattle Times.
Monday, May 5, 2008
Cinco de Mayo
By the way, I almost forgot, but today is the Mexican Independence Day! Happy Cinco de Mayo! As someone in my class said today, there should be a huge party on the U.S./Mexican border, perhaps around the wall on the Rio Grande! In any case, it is a good excuse for a party!
Teaching and Funding
In the previous post, I pasted my closing comments to the "Instituting Religion" conference from April 10, and my friend Jodi raised some issues in the relationship between funding (and academic advancement) and teaching, noting that as long as research is the primary means of advancement within academe that teaching will get the short end of the stick. She also raises several important issues of the relationship between pedagogy and theory (bringing theoretical savvy to teaching and practical teaching experience to theory), between research and teaching (bringing research into teaching and teaching issues into research), and speaking in general about the contingency of context for these issues (concerning the type of school, its funding structures, and so on).
Given all of these interrelationships, I thought it would be appropriate to announce to my blog-reading public my situation next year: I will be teaching Literature of the Humanities next year at Columbia, which, according to most people I have known who have taught it, is an intensive teaching load (at least for the first-year teachers in the program). Yet, this program will fund me to finish my dissertation (although the teaching load will put me behind my original research schedule). I am very excited for the opportunity to teach in Columbia's Core next year! I do hear that it is great teaching experience and a great overall experience. In fact, some of the people I have spoken to have said that the way they teach Lit Hum, forcing people to slow down and do very close readings of texts from Homer to Virginia Woolf, has forced them to reconsider their own reading practices for their dissertations--forcing them to be much more careful readers in their own fields based upon their situations in the classroom. I do hope to be able to bring insights from my own work (at least from a standpoint of reading practices or ways of organizing large blocks of texts) into conversation with the texts I'll be teaching. Since I work on the interrelationship between the Sabbath and the Sanctuary in ancient Jewish and Christian literature, I'm sure I'll be able to find a time/space bridge (via Bakhtin's Chronotope perhaps).
Given all of these interrelationships, I thought it would be appropriate to announce to my blog-reading public my situation next year: I will be teaching Literature of the Humanities next year at Columbia, which, according to most people I have known who have taught it, is an intensive teaching load (at least for the first-year teachers in the program). Yet, this program will fund me to finish my dissertation (although the teaching load will put me behind my original research schedule). I am very excited for the opportunity to teach in Columbia's Core next year! I do hear that it is great teaching experience and a great overall experience. In fact, some of the people I have spoken to have said that the way they teach Lit Hum, forcing people to slow down and do very close readings of texts from Homer to Virginia Woolf, has forced them to reconsider their own reading practices for their dissertations--forcing them to be much more careful readers in their own fields based upon their situations in the classroom. I do hope to be able to bring insights from my own work (at least from a standpoint of reading practices or ways of organizing large blocks of texts) into conversation with the texts I'll be teaching. Since I work on the interrelationship between the Sabbath and the Sanctuary in ancient Jewish and Christian literature, I'm sure I'll be able to find a time/space bridge (via Bakhtin's Chronotope perhaps).
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Instituting Religion: Closing Remarks
Finally, here are my closing remarks that I gave during the closing round-table discussion:
I originally envisioned this conference as an ongoing dialogue. And I attempted to implement this in the very organization of the panels. The panels, in some ways, can be seen as interactive, with later panels commenting on the topics of earlier panels. With this in mind, I created the closing discussion as a “respondents’ panel,” in which the respondents could take the insights from their panels and put them directly into dialogue with one another in order to identify cross-panel themes as well as identify a few gaps in the conference, providing fertile directions for further inquiry. (Unfortunately, our third respondent, Jack Hawley, could not be with us, and so I am going to fill in for him, but by no means are my comments or interests reflective of his.)
Bracketing issues suggested in the call for papers but not really discussed today, one key aspect of the institutional shaping of religion that has briefly emerged in this conference and should receive serious sustained interrogation as we move on from this setting is pedagogy. In fact, I was discussing this with Adam Lobel, and told him if I were to organize this conference all over again, I would have called for a panel on pedagogy. Indeed, we are primarily hired as professors in order to teach. And so how we teach what we teach and navigate the vagaries of funding, student interest in particular subjects, student expectations of certain topics, and institutional habits of course development (even how course titles are negotiated between student interests and “inherited” courses) will shape how religion is understood as we present it primarily to our undergraduate students.
When it comes down to it, who reads our research? How many people will read my dissertation and our scholarly monographs? Versus how many people will we teach? And, in this instance, how textbooks for such courses are used (or ignored) and how those books present “religion/s” to students, whether upheld or deconstructed by the instructor, have great impact, in my opinion, for the dissemination of our understandings or misunderstandings of what we study. We should think of how we communicate (or do not communicate) with our students engaging both their and our assumptions (Luke’s discussion of competitive economies of knowledge may be helpful here). Thus, in teaching, how we do what we do develops in interaction with institutional habitus (so to speak) as well as student interest and expectation. The exact analysis of these interactions at various institutions would be an important contribution to the concerns we have investigated today. (Adam’s analogy [given in the discussion period of the first panel] of seminar reading practices versus Buddhist monastic reading practices of the same text producing different forms of knowledge illustrates this point quite well.)
Instituting Religion: Introductory Remarks
As noted in my previous post, I decided to post my introductory remarks to the "Instituting Religion" conference:
Good morning and welcome to “Instituting Religion: Investigating Trajectories of the Study of Religion in Institutions of Higher Education.”
This is the Columbia Religion Graduate Students Association’s fourth interdisciplinary conference. This year we are sponsored by the Department of Religion and the Graduate Student Activities Council.
Our first two conferences focused primarily upon theoretical and methodological issues regarding the study of religion within and without religious studies. Last year our theme turned to a more thematic discussion of Religion and Popular Culture. This year, returning to earlier concerns, we hope to take the institutional setting and shaping of the categories, theories, methods, general approaches, and assumptions we use in the study of religion/s (including the concept of religion itself). Therefore, instead of trying to define what religion is, per se, we hope to investigate disciplinary and departmental divisions and interrelationships. As such, throughout the day, one will find many of the papers peppered with references to such figures as Talal Asad, especially his Genealogies of Religion, Timothy Fitzgerald, and especially Russell McCutcheon, who are in their own ways interested in the genealogical, social, political, or ideological aspects of “religion” and religious studies. These developments will be discussed in conjunction with the rise of particular sub-fields in religious studies, often coinciding with constructions of traditions, such as Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.
This conference strongly focuses upon the interrelations between Religious Studies departments and departments of history, anthropology, sociology, philosophy, area studies departments, and so on. In this way, the two afternoon panels are partially inverse images of each other. Thus, “Religion Outside Religion” investigates where and how religion, or particular religious traditions such as Islam and Buddhism, is studied in such departments and places, as well as the historical, conceptual, institutional, and ideological implications of this. In converse, “the interdisciplinary study of religion” discusses how the theories and methods developed in departments of sociology, anthropology, and history among others have been used and combined in religious studies, looking toward the implications and emerging possibilities of their interactions in religious studies.
To discuss these broad-brushed issues in particular instantiations, we are pleased to have participating students and faculty from the Departments of Religion and Socio-Cultural Anthropology at
I would like to thank all of our presenters for their participation. I’d like to thank Terry Todd, Jack Hawley, and Rosemary Hicks for responding to today’s panels and for agreeing to form a “respondents’ panel” as our closing discussants, providing general reflections on today’s events and productive possibilities for further inquiry. Thanks to the Religion Department and the Graduate Student Activities Council for sponsoring this event. In this connection, thanks to Jon Keune who acts as our department’s representative to GSAC. This event would have never gotten off the ground without the help of Rick Moore, off of whom I bounced ideas many months ago as this conference was still being conceptualized, and who sent out the call for papers and conference announcements to institutions throughout
We have a busy day ahead of us; one that I hope you will all find intellectually rewarding. I especially hope that the discussions extend beyond the panels themselves, whether during our breaks or over a glass of wine at our evening reception (please do join us for some wine, food, and conversation this evening). And from there, may ongoing conversation and dialogue spill out beyond these walls and this campus.
And so, without further ado, let the investigation of the institutional settings of religion begin, as I now turn things over to our first panel, “The Production of Religion/s,” and its moderator, Todd French.
Instituting Religion Conference Results
It has now been a few weeks since my little conference, "Instituting Religion" at Columbia on April 10. I think I have finally recovered! And so I'll just give a few observations.
Firstly, the conference went rather well. I enjoyed the presentations, the questions, and the discussion. I almost wish I could have recorded some of the Q & A times. As usual with such conferences, there just never is enough time for discussion early on, and by the end of the day everyone is a bit too tired to discuss too much.
There were some very solid papers. Given that I was the conference organizer, I was in and out much of the day, and so I missed a few of the papers. But I was able to stay in the room for the entire first panel and response, and it was definitely very solid: Luke Moorhead (Yale) gave a theoretical discussion of Bourdieu with regard to the field, capital, and habitus of Religious Studies as it is negotiated with the competing capital of other fields of study in the university and funding structures within and without the university (such as the government); Adam Seth Lobel (Harvard) provided some possibilities for the method of phenomenology through an analysis of persistent misunderstandings of phenomenology, especially with regard to "experience," and, I must say, I was disappointed (as Adam seemed to be) that he had to drop his discussion of pedagogy in terms of how the institutional structures of the academy (versus others, such as monasteries, for example) produce different types of knowledge even though people may be studying the same texts within those different institutional frameworks; and Greg Scott (Columbia) provided a detailed discussion of of the revival of the "Weishi" school, giving the various competing institutional factors in this background. In some senses, it would have been interesting to see Luke's method applied to Greg's evidence. And in another way, one can see the overlap between Adam's concerns about "experience" and the "Weishi" school's emphasis on "consciousness." As I fully expected, J. Terry Todd's (Drew) response was fantastic, drawing together a lot of the themes and gaps of analysis, especially drawing attention to the important themes of pedagogy, and the trinity of race, class, and gender.
What I heard of the later papers was also very good and much of it provocative, bringing up institutional interrelationships between departments, such as how religion is studied outside of religion departments and how other departmental methodologies (such as history and anthropology, to name just representative examples) find their ways in eclectic fashion in religion departments. John Kinsey (University of Colorado at Boulder) drew attention to the formation of philosophy curricula and its almost exclusive focus on Euro-American analytic thought and its neglect of other philosophies, particularly Buddhist thought. Martyn Oliver (Boston University), in a provocative paper, analyzed various institutional departmental arrangements from around the U.S. in how various universities configure (or fail to do so in a coherent manner) the study of Islam. And, although I missed it, I understand that Jack Hawley (Barnard) gave a good, thorough critique of both of these papers.
Our final panel ended up focusing upon anthropology/ethnography in various ways, although this was not necessarily the original intention of the organizer (oh well). Lauren Gray (Florida State University) discussed the benefits and pitfalls of historical and anthropological methods and how those pitfalls can be avoided through the use of "postmodern" critique and methodological fusion. Lori McCullough (Brown) provided a critique of J.Z. Smith in order to open discussion of the use of comparison, especially with the inclusion of anthropological models. Uma Bhrugubanda (Columbia), actually a student in the anthropology department, discussed her research in South Asian popular cinema, which, unfortunately, I missed much of as well as the response by Rosemary Hicks (Columbia), although I do understand that her response was thorough.
Afterward, we had a nice, semi-formal discussion, in which Terry, Rosemary, and I discussed some larger trajectories within the conference as well as some of the possibilities for further inquiry. And, come to think of it, perhaps I should post my opening remarks and my closing discussion remarks as well.
In short, it was a very productive conference and I hope its conversations continue beyond the four walls of the conference room! In fact, I have been discussing publishing the proceedings, and I hope that will spark a wider conversation of these issues.
Firstly, the conference went rather well. I enjoyed the presentations, the questions, and the discussion. I almost wish I could have recorded some of the Q & A times. As usual with such conferences, there just never is enough time for discussion early on, and by the end of the day everyone is a bit too tired to discuss too much.
There were some very solid papers. Given that I was the conference organizer, I was in and out much of the day, and so I missed a few of the papers. But I was able to stay in the room for the entire first panel and response, and it was definitely very solid: Luke Moorhead (Yale) gave a theoretical discussion of Bourdieu with regard to the field, capital, and habitus of Religious Studies as it is negotiated with the competing capital of other fields of study in the university and funding structures within and without the university (such as the government); Adam Seth Lobel (Harvard) provided some possibilities for the method of phenomenology through an analysis of persistent misunderstandings of phenomenology, especially with regard to "experience," and, I must say, I was disappointed (as Adam seemed to be) that he had to drop his discussion of pedagogy in terms of how the institutional structures of the academy (versus others, such as monasteries, for example) produce different types of knowledge even though people may be studying the same texts within those different institutional frameworks; and Greg Scott (Columbia) provided a detailed discussion of of the revival of the "Weishi" school, giving the various competing institutional factors in this background. In some senses, it would have been interesting to see Luke's method applied to Greg's evidence. And in another way, one can see the overlap between Adam's concerns about "experience" and the "Weishi" school's emphasis on "consciousness." As I fully expected, J. Terry Todd's (Drew) response was fantastic, drawing together a lot of the themes and gaps of analysis, especially drawing attention to the important themes of pedagogy, and the trinity of race, class, and gender.
What I heard of the later papers was also very good and much of it provocative, bringing up institutional interrelationships between departments, such as how religion is studied outside of religion departments and how other departmental methodologies (such as history and anthropology, to name just representative examples) find their ways in eclectic fashion in religion departments. John Kinsey (University of Colorado at Boulder) drew attention to the formation of philosophy curricula and its almost exclusive focus on Euro-American analytic thought and its neglect of other philosophies, particularly Buddhist thought. Martyn Oliver (Boston University), in a provocative paper, analyzed various institutional departmental arrangements from around the U.S. in how various universities configure (or fail to do so in a coherent manner) the study of Islam. And, although I missed it, I understand that Jack Hawley (Barnard) gave a good, thorough critique of both of these papers.
Our final panel ended up focusing upon anthropology/ethnography in various ways, although this was not necessarily the original intention of the organizer (oh well). Lauren Gray (Florida State University) discussed the benefits and pitfalls of historical and anthropological methods and how those pitfalls can be avoided through the use of "postmodern" critique and methodological fusion. Lori McCullough (Brown) provided a critique of J.Z. Smith in order to open discussion of the use of comparison, especially with the inclusion of anthropological models. Uma Bhrugubanda (Columbia), actually a student in the anthropology department, discussed her research in South Asian popular cinema, which, unfortunately, I missed much of as well as the response by Rosemary Hicks (Columbia), although I do understand that her response was thorough.
Afterward, we had a nice, semi-formal discussion, in which Terry, Rosemary, and I discussed some larger trajectories within the conference as well as some of the possibilities for further inquiry. And, come to think of it, perhaps I should post my opening remarks and my closing discussion remarks as well.
In short, it was a very productive conference and I hope its conversations continue beyond the four walls of the conference room! In fact, I have been discussing publishing the proceedings, and I hope that will spark a wider conversation of these issues.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Recent Readings: Hegel
I usually read a variety of things at the same time--I often have stacks of books that I have started. So, today I am reading some good old Ugaritic texts (though not in Ugaritic--alas, that is a language I have not picked up) while reading Hegel's Introduction to the Philosophy of History. Here are some excerpts from Hegel that have so far caught my eye, and maybe someone would like to comment on:
"When we are occupied with a remote world of the past, that world becomes present to the mind through the mind's own activity--and that recaptured world is the mind's reward for its labor. The events vary, but they are connected into one pattern in their universal and inner meaning. This is what negates the event as past, and makes it present. Pragmatic reflections, abstract though they might be are thus what is in fact present, and they bring the accounts of the past to life in our present-day world. But whether reflections of this kind are really filled with interest and vitality depends on the mind of the author."
"Rulers, statesmen, and nations are told that they ought to learn from the experience of history. Yet what experience and history teach us is this, that nations and governments have never learned anything from history, nor acted in accordance with the lessons to be derived from it. Each era has such particular circumstances, such individual situations, that decisions can only be made from within the era itself. In the press of world events, there is no help to be had from general principles, nor from the memory of similar conditions in former times--for a pale memory has no force against he vitality and freedom of the present. In this respect, nothing is more trite than the repeated appeal to Greek and Roman examples, which was so commonplace at the time of the French Revolution. No difference could be greater than that between the nature of those ancient peoples and our own time."
Contrast this last statement with that of Hume in Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding VIII, I: "Would you know the sentiments, inclinations, and course of life of the Greeks and Romans? Study well the temper and actions of the French and the English.... Mankind are so much the same, in all times and places, that history informs us of nothing new or strange int his particular."
Then, especially for people who study religion or have an interest in religion, check out this final, short quotation from Hegel: "...in modern times we have come to the point where philosophy has to take up the defense of religious truths against many types of theological doctrine."
And, I guess so people can grasp the contrast in my readings, here is something from the Canaanite epic, Aqhat:
"When we are occupied with a remote world of the past, that world becomes present to the mind through the mind's own activity--and that recaptured world is the mind's reward for its labor. The events vary, but they are connected into one pattern in their universal and inner meaning. This is what negates the event as past, and makes it present. Pragmatic reflections, abstract though they might be are thus what is in fact present, and they bring the accounts of the past to life in our present-day world. But whether reflections of this kind are really filled with interest and vitality depends on the mind of the author."
"Rulers, statesmen, and nations are told that they ought to learn from the experience of history. Yet what experience and history teach us is this, that nations and governments have never learned anything from history, nor acted in accordance with the lessons to be derived from it. Each era has such particular circumstances, such individual situations, that decisions can only be made from within the era itself. In the press of world events, there is no help to be had from general principles, nor from the memory of similar conditions in former times--for a pale memory has no force against he vitality and freedom of the present. In this respect, nothing is more trite than the repeated appeal to Greek and Roman examples, which was so commonplace at the time of the French Revolution. No difference could be greater than that between the nature of those ancient peoples and our own time."
Contrast this last statement with that of Hume in Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding VIII, I: "Would you know the sentiments, inclinations, and course of life of the Greeks and Romans? Study well the temper and actions of the French and the English.... Mankind are so much the same, in all times and places, that history informs us of nothing new or strange int his particular."
Then, especially for people who study religion or have an interest in religion, check out this final, short quotation from Hegel: "...in modern times we have come to the point where philosophy has to take up the defense of religious truths against many types of theological doctrine."
And, I guess so people can grasp the contrast in my readings, here is something from the Canaanite epic, Aqhat:
"She [Anat] stamped her feet and left the earth;
then she headed toward El,
at the source of the two rivers,
in the midst of the two seas' pools;
she opened El's tent and entered
the shrine of the King, the Father of Time."
then she headed toward El,
at the source of the two rivers,
in the midst of the two seas' pools;
she opened El's tent and entered
the shrine of the King, the Father of Time."
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Smelly Books!!!
I have always liked the smell of old books. I am the guy who prefers to walk the stacks at the library rather than check the online catalogue. I would take having a book physically in my hands rather than reading it online any day. So, on the note of the wondrous musty smell of old books, the following was in the Chronicle today (and click here or on the link below for a longer version from Glasgow's website)...
Investigating the Smell of Old Books
Researchers at Glasgow’s University of Strathclyde are studying the smell of old books to “sniff” out the chemical signs of aging.
Books are placed for 24 to 48 hours in a sealed chamber, where “material and compounds responsible for the odour from the books” will be extracted and analyzed, according to a university press release. Findings from the analysis will be used to determine the best practices for storing old books—and may also explain where that musty old-book smell comes from.
The study is being conducted by the university’s Department of Pure and Applied Chemistry in partnership with the British Library, on a grant from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.—Catherine Rampell
Friday, April 4, 2008
Some New Page Elements
Please note the extra page elements I have placed on the right hand side. Firstly, I have posted a link to my newly written online academic bio on the Columbia Religion Department website. Secondly, I have posted the flyer for the "Instituting Religion" conference occurring this Thursday! Be sure to come if you are around! Soon, I hope to add a slideshow as well that will show some of my pics from my travels around the Mediterranean.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Instituting Religion Conference
The Columbia Religion Graduate Students Association's conference, "Instituting Religion," is merely a week away now.
If you are going to be in the New York City area on April 10, please feel free to stop by and hear some up and coming graduate students speak.
For a schedule and to register (for free), check out our website: www.columbia.edu/cu/religion-gsa
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Columbia University Religion Graduate Student Conference: "Instituting Religion"
If you are interested in religion, and you will be in the NYC area on April 10, do not miss the following conference, chaired by yours truly. Check out our website to see our schedule, abstracts, etc (either by the full link below, or click HERE). I hope to see as many bloggers there as possible!
The Religion Graduate Students Association of
is accepting registration now through
“Instituting Religion: Investigating Trajectories of the Study of Religion in Institutions of Higher Education
301 Philosophy Hall
Featuring:
Presentations by Graduate Students from throughout
Description:
This conference will examine how religion has been and continues to be produced and studied in institutions of higher learning, paying particular attention to the rise of religion departments, religion programs, seminaries, and divinity schools as well as their interrelationships with one another. Also under consideration is how religion departments and programs interrelate with other departments in which religion is studied. Finally, this conference will investigate how particular institutional contexts have created different schools of thought, contributing to the development of theories, methods, and general approaches to the study of religion (e.g. comparative approaches).
Sponsored by the Department of Religion of
To register and to see schedules, panel information, and abstracts, please visit our website:
www.columbia.edu/cu/religion-gsa
For any additional inquiries, please contact Jared Calaway (jcc2102@columbia.edu).
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Online Resources for Antiquity
For those who are interested, I have greatly enlarged the number of my hyperlinks in my "Online Resources for Antiquity" section. If you know of others, please send me the links and I will add those as well. Otherwise, enjoy the sources!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)