This is what I think.
I've been grappling with a certain issue in the academy now since, probably, my first few weeks of grad school. It's an issue that I've really struggled to put words to, and something that I can't really express fully though I experience it saliently and often. It basically has to do with religion in the academy, more specifically the academy's failure to take religion seriously.
Last week, I sat in on a seminar that was being led by a Professor the in the Religious Studies department. He's a Muslim, and has been working on a book about the human rights debates in Islam and the difficulties of the seculars to engage the religious on this conversation. We read a paper in preparation for the seminar, in which Sachedina says this:
"The liberal, secular antagonism towards religion is not very conducive to this dialogue because, by its very definition, dialogue assumes conversation between equals, and religion is not valued by the secularists as an equal partner in resolving the legitimacy of universal human rights document across cultures."
Obviously, I don't deal with the issue of human rights debate in Muslim society, but this quote really hit home with me. I've been perpetually frustrated with "secular" academics who fail to engage religion and "religious" scholars on an equal footing. I came across an article in The Atlantic awhile back that was an economist's attempt to explain the effects of religion (things like community involvement, etc) by finding other explanatory variables that could perhaps correlate with religion. He tried things like "community solidarity" by studying ethnic enclaves. He tried using other "usual suspects" as well - class, income, political affiliation, etc. In the end, the effects of religion were left unexplained, and the author was searching for a different approach. I wanted to scream, "Have you ever thought that perhaps religion is completely and totally unique and has UNEXPLAINABLE effects on people's lives and behavior??? Have you ever thought that maybe there is something real, transcendent and powerful behind it all??!!"
There are so many studies of this sort - they are all the same. They try to give account for religion by any and every other means possible. Not only do they try to explain it away, but they are hostile to religion in general. I'll give you some examples. I'm a Christian, and I read Marx, Weber and Durkheim, all of whom are atheists who give some other account for religion. Marx: "It's the opiate of the masses!" Durkheim: "God is merely a symbol for Society." Weber: "It is formal rationality that will triumph!" And here's my response - great, wonderful, really freakin' intelligent sociology!!! I love all of these theories, but you know what, that doesn't mean I can't be a Christian. I don't think many people in the academy would have the opposite respect and appreciation for someone who is sincerely devout. It is frustrating.
I think this is a problem unique to sociology in a lot of ways. I mean, you have a whole school of people looking at the world through the lens of "social constructionism" and who (rightly so) think Durkheim is the best sociologist ever - and that his theory of religion just about hit the nail on the head. That being the case, it cannot be "true" or "real" in any objective sense.
In addition, sociologists, by and large, are bleeding heart liberals (not that that's a bad thing) who are champions of tolerance, cultural relativity, and "objective" interpretation of social facts without evaluative judgment. As my advisor says, "Sociologists can't be gamblers, because we want every horse to win!" So, sociologists can't be religious because we want every religion to win??? I don't think so. It seems like every value judgment that is in favor of the poor and the oppressed is an ok one. But, any value judgment that is grounded in a system of transcendent morality is not ok.
The reason this is a problem for me is, the main questions I'm interested in asking as a sociologist are completely meaningless outside of a moral framework (and in my case, one strongly rooted in the Judeo-Christian value system). It's not that I even want to make judgments, but I want to make statements. And my statements will be necessarily grounded in what I see as a right and true order for society. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, and I just want to know why other sociologists do.
disclaimer***: of course, this does not apply to everyone I know who is a sociologist, and not even to everyone I work with. But, I think it's a general trend in sociology...and maybe other disciplines, but I'm not sure.
7 comments:
Alright Mair!!!!!!!
It seems to me from afar off that your VISION is becoming crystal clear. It makes sense to me that you would champion this cause.
Great post - I think you're right on. I think this issue is probably pretty relevant to other sciences too, but like you said, much more so in sociology. Great work!
mair, i miss you.
This is a great post. See, I think that there is this view among “Conservatives” – particularly religious ones – that the secular academy is overtly and explicitly hostile to religion and religious people. While I am sure this is true in some cases, I think the bulk of what you find is exactly what you describe here: a toleration of religion as a private, devotional commitment on the part of some scholars, but as an illegitimate ideology from which to make value judgments. That ideology isn’t always attacked or critiques, but simply “written off” as irrelevant. I actually think that, in many respects, this is a more insidious type of exclusion. Thanks for drawing attention to it (and its flaws).
Mair - great job! I have experienced the same kind of disdain and lack of engagement with religion here at the theology faculty of Oxford, kind of gets to you after a while.
Seriously though there is a feeling that 'we' have to work extra hard to belong to the academic world or to have our voice heard because 'we' always have to convince other academics that 'we' aren't biased by our Christianity. As if! What a load of trash.
On a somewhat related note have you engaged at all with John Milbank and 'Theology and Social Theory'? I have been working through it but don't have nearly enough sociology theory (none in fact except a little Weber) to follow his arguments. It is supposed to be the 'most influential' book in the field in the last ten years though. Have you read or looked at it? I would be interested to hear your insights on it.
J - I think that for some sociologists, it actually does extend to a disdain for private devotion. An example, I've heard tell of people who've not gotten hired for jobs for which they were exceedingly qualified and the reason for the pass-over has been, "Well, we don't want another person who studies religion..." which roughly translated means, "We don't want another religious scholar."
I think the bulk of it in other disciplines is what you described - lack of appreciation for Christianity as a useful schema for interpreting and understanding of the world, while tolerating Christian, albeit perhaps keeping them at arms length. I think in sociology, it is a more visceral reaction to any hint of personal devotion. But, I'm probably over stating the case.
Uhle - thanks for the book recommend. I actually haven't read it but would love to. Is it a "read casually" sort of book, because I really struggle with tough reading in my free time! I'm curious to know which social theories/theorists he focuses on.
Bernie,
Thanks so much for joining the discussion. I sense a bit of misunderstanding of the nature of this post, so I thought I would try to clarify. In fact, you say very well yourself what is at issue here:
“Durkheim, Marx and Weber were not making claims on the ontological status of religion. Instead, they were giving a sociological account of religion. Indeed, their perspectives have certain presuppositions about religion. Still, it is possible to be religious and also subscribe to their sociological theories.”
Now, I don’t think anyone here would disagree with that. The observation I think Mair was making is that academic sociology tends to take the sociological account of religion as also an ontological account of religion. That is, for many sociologists, the sociological account of religion has eclipsed the ontological and, as a result, has obscured the possibility of the genuinely theological. As such, religiously informed claims and value judgments are rationalized away as either irrelevant to a sociological investigation or as part of what has been exposed as a fiction.
Now, I don’t know if Mair would agree with this or not, but it seems to me that there is a difference between giving a sociological account of religion (as Marx, Weber, Durkheim, and many others have done) and attempts at “explaining away” religion with sociological tools. I understand the latter to be what Mair was taking issue with in the Atlantic Monthly article. As a practicing Christian, I am inclined to think that the ontological nature of the divine is such that the divine itself intrudes into the social in ways that, due to the source, cannot be accounted for sociologically. As such, sociological accounts of religion – while helpful and important – are always insufficient to this exclusively theological task. The frustration comes when academic sociologists either refuses to acknowledge the limitations of their tools or recognize the possibility of the extra-social, but then rule it “out of bounds.”
A rich sociology of religion would probably be a humble one. With regard to accounts of religion, it would make room for the sociologically unexplainable (and genuinely so) and would allow that which is unexplained some explanatory power itself. With regard to claim making and value judgments on the part of other sociologists, it would at least limit criticism of religiously informed claims to the sociological and would leave the ontological question open but relevant.
Post a Comment