Assignments
Assignments for this seminar generally fell into two categories: responses to weekly reading sets, and a research paper/presentation. Each week had its own thematic area. Below, you will find the reading sets that I chose to respond to, as well as the responses that I wrote.
Theme: Boundaries
Readings:
Craig Martin: A Critical Introduction to the Study of Religion, Chapter 7: How Religion Works: Authenticity
Jeremy Menchik. 2014. "Productive Intolerance: Godly Nationalism in Indonesia". Comparative studies in society and history 56 (3), p. 591.
Pluralism Project case: “Branding a hero, Defining a message, A nomination to controversy”
Response to Readings:
I was very intrigued by the chapter from Craig Martin’s A Critical Introduction to the Study of Religion. Previously, we have discussed the growing population of “nones” throughout the world. According to what we have discussed, these individuals don’t fit any other religious category. To me, this complicates Martin’s writings on authenticity. One interesting application is the stipulative definition method. We see these all the time in textbooks (“For the purposes of this text,…”), but I don’t think we often apply them to religious affiliations. Even in the case of a stipulative definition, it’s all about perspective. How do we apply such a definition to the nones? CAN we apply such a definition to them? If the nones are a much more spiritual, individualistic religious category, then it stands to reason that a different definition would be needed for each person that identifies as a none. Even in regard to more traditional and established religious categorizations, we face the issue of individuality within the category.
Part of the danger in this, as I see it, lies in perspective. For example, in the wake of Patriot Day, recall the reaction to the majority of Muslims in the United States following the attacks of 9/11. By and large, the entire Islamic community around the world was colored by the actions of a select few extremists. If we apply a definition to an entire group based on an experience with one person, a few people, or even just the local population of the group, we risk restricting the entire group in what could be a false understanding.
Furthermore, to whom do we give the right to classify anyone into a category? This question may be a product of having been born in and lived in a country that has historically enjoyed more freedom for its citizens than many other countries around the world. But consider this: where should the power to define oneself come from? If varying groups within the categories of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. can exclude others by saying they are NOT like them, what have they done to earn that power? To me, it is very much like an absolute monarchy: because of some perceived superiority or authority, one person forces their own ideology on a mass population of people.
As someone who classifies himself as a Christian, my personal experience is thick in this area. There are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of Christian denominations in the United States alone. Who has the authority to tell me that I cannot be Methodist, or Lutheran, or Pentecostal, or Apostolic? I categorize myself as non-denominational, which is in essence a form of Christian none. I don’t identify with all of the teachings of any given denomination, and I find the amount of energy spent in arguments between factions to be totally unnecessary. Nonetheless, it seems that there is an overwhelming need to prove that one group is more right or true than the others, a theme that has been repeated across the spectrum of religions. The question is: do we have the right impose one view of set of views on everyone without their consent?
Theme: Memories
Readings:
Bruce Lincoln. 2003. “Thinking about religion after September 11.”
Pluralism Project case. “Center of Dispute.”
Response to Readings:
The piece by Lincoln brings several key points to mind. First and foremost, of course, is the struggle to define religion. We discussed this during our first class meeting when we attempted to better understand the religious “nones.” Religion is, in essence, a living, breathing thing that changes both with time and the individuals who rise to prominence within it. To a large extent, a cultural understanding must be accounted for as well. As such, it is nearly impossible to create a specific universal definition of religion. However, I think we need to be careful not to make too broad of a definition either; I can envision such definitions that would include Communism, capitalism, politics of all kinds, and even education as “religion” if they are not sufficiently narrowed down.
Even within a single religion (in this case, I am referring to “macro entities,” as Lincoln calls them), there is variability and strife. Lincoln acknowledges some of this when he uses the terms “maximalist” and “minimalist.” We personally heard some of this during out tour of the Skirball Museum last week. I think it’s also interesting to note that Lincoln ties this separation into historical events, such as the Enlightenment. Thinking of this, I realized that this application is very useful: at the beginning of our tour of the Skirball Museum, we discussed the Reform Movement in Judaism. In essence, this was given rise to by very similar circumstances that the religious ideal Kant espoused was: a period of social strife and difficulty, resulting in a more relaxed or limited idea of when and where religion should have influence.
The second piece for this week supports this idea of historic struggles and their effects on religion, as well as the complications that arise in creating a definition of religion following these events. On a personal note, I was somewhat perplexed years ago when I heard of the “Ground Zero Mosque.” However, especially after reading the piece, I think there was a lot of overreaction. The founders were simply trying to show that, just as in Christianity, there are different factions of Islam that do not support each other’s actions. Key to this discussion is that plans for the center began long before the attacks of 9/11 that resulted in the almost total demonization of Islamic culture in Western eyes.
However, the piece brings to light something that I feel most histories try to bury or conceal: the ability of individuals from different faiths to work together, as evidenced by the support they received from Rev. Dr. James Forbes. This example brings out the connections that this most recent upheaval has to the past, a past felt especially strongly in the United States: segregation and negative interaction based on race. In total, the situation created a very clear divide, with both sides of the debate waging a heated dispute.
Theme: Freedom
Readings:
Sabha Mahmood. 2001. “Feminist theory, embodiment, and the docile agent: Some reflections on the Egyptian Islamic revival.” Cultural
Anthropology, 6(2): 202-36.
David Foster Wallace “This is Water.” Transcription of 2005 Kenyon College Commencement Address
Response to Readings:
Wallace’s speech points out a key idea: perspective. Our perspective informs each and every one of our daily decisions. Wallace is trying to drive home the point that the purpose of our educations is to allow us to create a new perspective, one that is separated from the “default” setting that become so natural and automatic for us. I think that this creates an interesting paradox in how we, as a Western culture, view Islamic ideas of freedom.
As Wallace brings to our attention, we suffer from a tendency to see ourselves as the center of the universe. After a bit of thought, this makes some sense. Everything we perceive relies on our perception, which begins with our own persons. In simple terms, it is hard to understand, sometimes, that other entities besides ME exist. I think, in particular, that modern Western culture has fed this complex to varying degrees. Especially in the United States, even when we claim to be selfless and work for others, there is always a selfish element to what we do. It colors all of our perceptions.
Viewing our perception, and perspective, through this lens, you can begin to see where we might run into difficulties with Islamic perspectives. American culture, in particular, has shifted toward a largely liberal standing. We argue sometimes to the point of ridiculousness over obscure points of freedom. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. We are able to make the choice to have varying degrees of faith in a variety of institutions or ideas, not just religion. We can also choose to question, to discover, to learn, and to adapt. The greater question, however, is this: do we have the right to try to force this same freedom, this same ideology, on anyone else?
Even if we choose not to force this idea, or at the very least attempt to convince others of this idea’s correctness, we can stand by and observe what the Mahmood article discusses. Are Muslim women that teach and learn in mosques being truly subversive? In my opinion, no. Looking at many Christian denominations in the United States, it has become commonplace for women to take up positions as ministers and pastors and all other manner of religious leadership. From my understanding of the article, the Muslim women in question have not even gone that far. They merely endeavor to teach themselves, to learn more about the teachings of their own religion. In a Western mindset, we see very little wrong with this. We encourage our students to seek information for themselves and form their own conclusions, instead of just believing whatever someone else tells them is fact.
I think this can all be summed up in one strong word: adaptation. Islamic culture is adapting just as Christian culture has done and continues to do. Every religious culture in history has had to adapt with society. In all cases, some members of the religion have resisted the change and some ushered it onward, resulting in conflicting ideas. In all cases, new perspectives are created that result in exponentially more perceptions, each one unique and different from our own in some aspect. I think the most important thing we can do is to remember that everyone deserves equity, the opportunity to choose as they wish and the accept the consequences of those choices.
Theme: Freedom
Readings:
“Our journey: How we know caste” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JC3C2voZjrA
Film Showing at Taft Research Center by Pankaj Rishi Kumar, "In God's Land."
Response to Readings:
In my opinion, after viewing the Youtube video, I feel that the rigidity of the caste system mirrors the conditions of African slaves in the United States and their descendants. Obviously, conditions were closest to this caste ideology during the period of legal slavery, but I feel that similar conditions continued even through the civil rights activism that marked most of the 1960s and continues to be a focus today. Even today, I think you could find conditions that mirror those of the Dalits in modern America if you looked hard enough. As one of the interviewed men stated, we face discrimination everywhere and it is, really, unavoidable.
I really saw the connection between the film showing and the Youtube video in how resigned the villagers were to their fate. They really seemed to feel that nothing they could do would lead to a favorable, positive outcome for themselves. I truly don’t think even a mutually beneficial outcome could be reached at this point. The temple exhibits too much control and influence, and in typical bureaucratic fashion enjoys lording this power over others. I think, in the United States, that we have become complacent and turned a blind eye to such things on our own soil. We have become a “hub of freedom.” Unfortunately, we have so long known the freedoms we possess that we have begun to take them for granted. Often the only time we appreciate them is when they are in danger of being taken away and we have to fight to retain them.
I think this brings up interesting questions regarding freedom and choice. The United States, and Western culture in general, has an idea that freedom is only defined by how we ourselves view it. Do we have a right to judge other cultures or ideological systems simply because they possess or espouse a different idea of what freedom is? I think that this answer will never truly be answered, because there are simply too many warring viewpoints on the issue. However, I feel that a greater understanding of other cultures and cross-cultural collaboration would, at the very least, give everyone the power to choose their idea of freedom and respect the ideas that other choose to accept. I think that, perhaps, this may be the only way to achieve any kind of lasting peace anywhere in the world, though I admit that it poses difficulties of its own. On the whole, however, I think there is one question that remains to be answered: what is freedom?
Theme: Creation
Readings:
David R. Montgomery. 2012. The rocks don’t lie: A geologist investigates Noah’s Flood.
Response to Readings:
There is a definitely correlation between the Montgomery piece and some of the topics we have discussed thus far and visit we have made. Recalling the Skirball Museum, I am sure that they present aspects of their history that are mostly positive and meant to lower barriers against Judaic practices. This is likely very intentional. The downside is that critical aspects of history, aspects which may be perceived as negative, are either concealed cleverly or left out entirely. I think this is the point Montgomery was making during his critique of early creationist teachings and methodology.
However, I feel that Montgomery was unfair of his characterizations of fundamentalist Christians and creationists. As with any religion (we have discussed this largely regarding Islam), the most extreme and often irrational individuals/sects are the most outspoken. It is almost entirely with these entities that Montgomery deals, with only brief mentions and allusions toward more mainstream and common ideas. He almost gives a fairer treatment at the end of the chapter, but in my opinion he was not thorough enough. There is a great danger in painting such large movements with such broad, encompassing strokes. This methodology does not allow for the individualism that is expressed in all religions to be accounted for, and thus Montgomery falls prey to the very act he accused radicals like Price of committing.
The most interesting part of this piece, for me, was the discussion of varying interpretations of Scripture and the conflicts that have arisen among Christians because of them. You will find these same arguments over interpretations over sacred texts in Judaism, Islam, Hinduism…in fact, every religion that can be named and has a sacred text has probably experienced the same or similar conflict. Interpretation is human, and we have no real way of deciding whose interpretation is correct and whose is incorrect.
Reason is all too often colored by perception and interpretation, and as such is difficult to apply to interpretations. The best we can do is to strike a balance. No matter which side we support, or which part of the spectrum in between the radical views we place ourselves on, there will always be someone who feels they have successfully refuted our argument(s) and supported theirs. The danger, I feel, lies in becoming so close-minded that you fail see a key point that could potentially reconcile both points. We have become so embroiled in a battle to prove one side absolutely right and one side absolutely wrong that we fail to see the potential for a middle-ground. This lack of understanding, or at least willingness to attempt understanding, creates circular conflicts that never reach a definitive conclusion.
Theme: Boundaries
Readings:
Craig Martin: A Critical Introduction to the Study of Religion, Chapter 7: How Religion Works: Authenticity
Jeremy Menchik. 2014. "Productive Intolerance: Godly Nationalism in Indonesia". Comparative studies in society and history 56 (3), p. 591.
Pluralism Project case: “Branding a hero, Defining a message, A nomination to controversy”
Response to Readings:
I was very intrigued by the chapter from Craig Martin’s A Critical Introduction to the Study of Religion. Previously, we have discussed the growing population of “nones” throughout the world. According to what we have discussed, these individuals don’t fit any other religious category. To me, this complicates Martin’s writings on authenticity. One interesting application is the stipulative definition method. We see these all the time in textbooks (“For the purposes of this text,…”), but I don’t think we often apply them to religious affiliations. Even in the case of a stipulative definition, it’s all about perspective. How do we apply such a definition to the nones? CAN we apply such a definition to them? If the nones are a much more spiritual, individualistic religious category, then it stands to reason that a different definition would be needed for each person that identifies as a none. Even in regard to more traditional and established religious categorizations, we face the issue of individuality within the category.
Part of the danger in this, as I see it, lies in perspective. For example, in the wake of Patriot Day, recall the reaction to the majority of Muslims in the United States following the attacks of 9/11. By and large, the entire Islamic community around the world was colored by the actions of a select few extremists. If we apply a definition to an entire group based on an experience with one person, a few people, or even just the local population of the group, we risk restricting the entire group in what could be a false understanding.
Furthermore, to whom do we give the right to classify anyone into a category? This question may be a product of having been born in and lived in a country that has historically enjoyed more freedom for its citizens than many other countries around the world. But consider this: where should the power to define oneself come from? If varying groups within the categories of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. can exclude others by saying they are NOT like them, what have they done to earn that power? To me, it is very much like an absolute monarchy: because of some perceived superiority or authority, one person forces their own ideology on a mass population of people.
As someone who classifies himself as a Christian, my personal experience is thick in this area. There are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of Christian denominations in the United States alone. Who has the authority to tell me that I cannot be Methodist, or Lutheran, or Pentecostal, or Apostolic? I categorize myself as non-denominational, which is in essence a form of Christian none. I don’t identify with all of the teachings of any given denomination, and I find the amount of energy spent in arguments between factions to be totally unnecessary. Nonetheless, it seems that there is an overwhelming need to prove that one group is more right or true than the others, a theme that has been repeated across the spectrum of religions. The question is: do we have the right impose one view of set of views on everyone without their consent?
Theme: Memories
Readings:
Bruce Lincoln. 2003. “Thinking about religion after September 11.”
Pluralism Project case. “Center of Dispute.”
Response to Readings:
The piece by Lincoln brings several key points to mind. First and foremost, of course, is the struggle to define religion. We discussed this during our first class meeting when we attempted to better understand the religious “nones.” Religion is, in essence, a living, breathing thing that changes both with time and the individuals who rise to prominence within it. To a large extent, a cultural understanding must be accounted for as well. As such, it is nearly impossible to create a specific universal definition of religion. However, I think we need to be careful not to make too broad of a definition either; I can envision such definitions that would include Communism, capitalism, politics of all kinds, and even education as “religion” if they are not sufficiently narrowed down.
Even within a single religion (in this case, I am referring to “macro entities,” as Lincoln calls them), there is variability and strife. Lincoln acknowledges some of this when he uses the terms “maximalist” and “minimalist.” We personally heard some of this during out tour of the Skirball Museum last week. I think it’s also interesting to note that Lincoln ties this separation into historical events, such as the Enlightenment. Thinking of this, I realized that this application is very useful: at the beginning of our tour of the Skirball Museum, we discussed the Reform Movement in Judaism. In essence, this was given rise to by very similar circumstances that the religious ideal Kant espoused was: a period of social strife and difficulty, resulting in a more relaxed or limited idea of when and where religion should have influence.
The second piece for this week supports this idea of historic struggles and their effects on religion, as well as the complications that arise in creating a definition of religion following these events. On a personal note, I was somewhat perplexed years ago when I heard of the “Ground Zero Mosque.” However, especially after reading the piece, I think there was a lot of overreaction. The founders were simply trying to show that, just as in Christianity, there are different factions of Islam that do not support each other’s actions. Key to this discussion is that plans for the center began long before the attacks of 9/11 that resulted in the almost total demonization of Islamic culture in Western eyes.
However, the piece brings to light something that I feel most histories try to bury or conceal: the ability of individuals from different faiths to work together, as evidenced by the support they received from Rev. Dr. James Forbes. This example brings out the connections that this most recent upheaval has to the past, a past felt especially strongly in the United States: segregation and negative interaction based on race. In total, the situation created a very clear divide, with both sides of the debate waging a heated dispute.
Theme: Freedom
Readings:
Sabha Mahmood. 2001. “Feminist theory, embodiment, and the docile agent: Some reflections on the Egyptian Islamic revival.” Cultural
Anthropology, 6(2): 202-36.
David Foster Wallace “This is Water.” Transcription of 2005 Kenyon College Commencement Address
Response to Readings:
Wallace’s speech points out a key idea: perspective. Our perspective informs each and every one of our daily decisions. Wallace is trying to drive home the point that the purpose of our educations is to allow us to create a new perspective, one that is separated from the “default” setting that become so natural and automatic for us. I think that this creates an interesting paradox in how we, as a Western culture, view Islamic ideas of freedom.
As Wallace brings to our attention, we suffer from a tendency to see ourselves as the center of the universe. After a bit of thought, this makes some sense. Everything we perceive relies on our perception, which begins with our own persons. In simple terms, it is hard to understand, sometimes, that other entities besides ME exist. I think, in particular, that modern Western culture has fed this complex to varying degrees. Especially in the United States, even when we claim to be selfless and work for others, there is always a selfish element to what we do. It colors all of our perceptions.
Viewing our perception, and perspective, through this lens, you can begin to see where we might run into difficulties with Islamic perspectives. American culture, in particular, has shifted toward a largely liberal standing. We argue sometimes to the point of ridiculousness over obscure points of freedom. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. We are able to make the choice to have varying degrees of faith in a variety of institutions or ideas, not just religion. We can also choose to question, to discover, to learn, and to adapt. The greater question, however, is this: do we have the right to try to force this same freedom, this same ideology, on anyone else?
Even if we choose not to force this idea, or at the very least attempt to convince others of this idea’s correctness, we can stand by and observe what the Mahmood article discusses. Are Muslim women that teach and learn in mosques being truly subversive? In my opinion, no. Looking at many Christian denominations in the United States, it has become commonplace for women to take up positions as ministers and pastors and all other manner of religious leadership. From my understanding of the article, the Muslim women in question have not even gone that far. They merely endeavor to teach themselves, to learn more about the teachings of their own religion. In a Western mindset, we see very little wrong with this. We encourage our students to seek information for themselves and form their own conclusions, instead of just believing whatever someone else tells them is fact.
I think this can all be summed up in one strong word: adaptation. Islamic culture is adapting just as Christian culture has done and continues to do. Every religious culture in history has had to adapt with society. In all cases, some members of the religion have resisted the change and some ushered it onward, resulting in conflicting ideas. In all cases, new perspectives are created that result in exponentially more perceptions, each one unique and different from our own in some aspect. I think the most important thing we can do is to remember that everyone deserves equity, the opportunity to choose as they wish and the accept the consequences of those choices.
Theme: Freedom
Readings:
“Our journey: How we know caste” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JC3C2voZjrA
Film Showing at Taft Research Center by Pankaj Rishi Kumar, "In God's Land."
Response to Readings:
In my opinion, after viewing the Youtube video, I feel that the rigidity of the caste system mirrors the conditions of African slaves in the United States and their descendants. Obviously, conditions were closest to this caste ideology during the period of legal slavery, but I feel that similar conditions continued even through the civil rights activism that marked most of the 1960s and continues to be a focus today. Even today, I think you could find conditions that mirror those of the Dalits in modern America if you looked hard enough. As one of the interviewed men stated, we face discrimination everywhere and it is, really, unavoidable.
I really saw the connection between the film showing and the Youtube video in how resigned the villagers were to their fate. They really seemed to feel that nothing they could do would lead to a favorable, positive outcome for themselves. I truly don’t think even a mutually beneficial outcome could be reached at this point. The temple exhibits too much control and influence, and in typical bureaucratic fashion enjoys lording this power over others. I think, in the United States, that we have become complacent and turned a blind eye to such things on our own soil. We have become a “hub of freedom.” Unfortunately, we have so long known the freedoms we possess that we have begun to take them for granted. Often the only time we appreciate them is when they are in danger of being taken away and we have to fight to retain them.
I think this brings up interesting questions regarding freedom and choice. The United States, and Western culture in general, has an idea that freedom is only defined by how we ourselves view it. Do we have a right to judge other cultures or ideological systems simply because they possess or espouse a different idea of what freedom is? I think that this answer will never truly be answered, because there are simply too many warring viewpoints on the issue. However, I feel that a greater understanding of other cultures and cross-cultural collaboration would, at the very least, give everyone the power to choose their idea of freedom and respect the ideas that other choose to accept. I think that, perhaps, this may be the only way to achieve any kind of lasting peace anywhere in the world, though I admit that it poses difficulties of its own. On the whole, however, I think there is one question that remains to be answered: what is freedom?
Theme: Creation
Readings:
David R. Montgomery. 2012. The rocks don’t lie: A geologist investigates Noah’s Flood.
Response to Readings:
There is a definitely correlation between the Montgomery piece and some of the topics we have discussed thus far and visit we have made. Recalling the Skirball Museum, I am sure that they present aspects of their history that are mostly positive and meant to lower barriers against Judaic practices. This is likely very intentional. The downside is that critical aspects of history, aspects which may be perceived as negative, are either concealed cleverly or left out entirely. I think this is the point Montgomery was making during his critique of early creationist teachings and methodology.
However, I feel that Montgomery was unfair of his characterizations of fundamentalist Christians and creationists. As with any religion (we have discussed this largely regarding Islam), the most extreme and often irrational individuals/sects are the most outspoken. It is almost entirely with these entities that Montgomery deals, with only brief mentions and allusions toward more mainstream and common ideas. He almost gives a fairer treatment at the end of the chapter, but in my opinion he was not thorough enough. There is a great danger in painting such large movements with such broad, encompassing strokes. This methodology does not allow for the individualism that is expressed in all religions to be accounted for, and thus Montgomery falls prey to the very act he accused radicals like Price of committing.
The most interesting part of this piece, for me, was the discussion of varying interpretations of Scripture and the conflicts that have arisen among Christians because of them. You will find these same arguments over interpretations over sacred texts in Judaism, Islam, Hinduism…in fact, every religion that can be named and has a sacred text has probably experienced the same or similar conflict. Interpretation is human, and we have no real way of deciding whose interpretation is correct and whose is incorrect.
Reason is all too often colored by perception and interpretation, and as such is difficult to apply to interpretations. The best we can do is to strike a balance. No matter which side we support, or which part of the spectrum in between the radical views we place ourselves on, there will always be someone who feels they have successfully refuted our argument(s) and supported theirs. The danger, I feel, lies in becoming so close-minded that you fail see a key point that could potentially reconcile both points. We have become so embroiled in a battle to prove one side absolutely right and one side absolutely wrong that we fail to see the potential for a middle-ground. This lack of understanding, or at least willingness to attempt understanding, creates circular conflicts that never reach a definitive conclusion.
Research Paper
At the beginning of the seminar, each student selected a topic to explore and research throughout the course. The culmination of this research is a 10-page research paper and then a class presentation. Originally, I chose to explore the preference of young Americans for religions or religious sects with less organization and rigidity to their structures. However, as I researched and drafted the paper, it evolved slowly into an exploration of the motives behind young Americans choosing to identify as religious nones. Both my final paper and presentation were created with this as the final topic.
|
|