This essay was part of a final assessment that was submitted on April 28, 2022 for my Theories of Religion course.
The perspectives of Sheila Davaney, Paula Cooey, Jim Kanaris, and Ivan Strenski point out blind spots in Russell McCutcheon’s critique of phenomenology of religion and theology by emphasizing the essential role of normative engagement in the university. In its struggle to distinguish itself as a proper academic discipline, religious studies has historically distanced itself from theological conceptions and assumed a sui generis understanding of religion. Theologians, as classic insiders of a particular religious tradition, are assumed to provide reason with the goal of strengthening the ideologies of their tradition and not to contribute to current academic discourses (Davaney 146). It is assumed that a theologian is working through the lens of their personal beliefs and devotions, thus carrying out their tasks with biases that favour their religious doctrine over other ideologies (145). As a result, religious studies turned towards more objective and scientific approaches, bringing in the issue of reductionism as the phenomena of religion became understood as a function of other disciplines (anthropology, sociology, philosophy, psychology, etc) that were already established in academia. Phenomenological perspectives of religion sought to set religion apart from other disciplines in order to assert its place in scholarship, curating the religion as sui generis—a unique phenomenon that can and should be understood without the interference of other academic disciplines. McCutcheon argues that scholars of religion embody the pretensions of theology in their pursuit of asserting religion as sui generis, dismissing its role in the distribution of power and knowledge as it pertains to history, culture, and politics (Davaney 141; Kanaris 176). Attempting to rectify this issue, McCutcheon seems to revert back to earlier notions in religious studies by contending that religion can be understood thoroughly through observable human activity (Strensky 329-340).
While McCutcheon provides a sound critique to the current standing of religious studies, his solutions do not contribute to the overall advancement of the discipline. Other scholars alternatively assert the importance of normative engagement in the university in light of McCutcheon’s contentions. Religious studies retain its distinction as an academic discipline in its attribution of transcendence to its symbol systems (Cooey 174), however scholars of religion no longer concern themselves with gaining objective knowledge about the religious world because its transcendent nature necessarily falls outside the realm of human understanding (Strenski 340). Religious studies alternatively focus on the observable aspects of human life, in its entanglement with culture and its interactions with other facets of culture (Cooey 174-175). As a cultural artifact, the knowledge of religion is equally conditioned by history and power as much as it influences history and power (Cooey 176; Davaney 148). In its multidisciplinary nature, the study of religion requires engagement from scholars who vary in expertise and perspective in order to generate fresh theories and methodologies (Cooey 175).
Normative engagement is thus imperative to religious studies because it is through these kinds of discourses that adequately enact the critical evaluation and construction that is needed to push the academic understanding of religion forward. Religion must be conceptualized in a comparative manner in order to reflect the variety of ways humans live in comparatively “religious” ways, and to reflect the variety of ways in which religion is intertwined with politics, history, anthropology, sociology, literature, and the numerous other aspects of culture. Integral to this is the (re)integration of theology into the academic study of religion because it brings to the table a deeper understanding of human identity and values as it pertains to a particular religious tradition’s symbol system and governing ideas (Cooey 178). Moreover, theology serves as a counterbalance to the inherently secularized, and often antireligious, perspective of academia (Davaney 145). In balancing between an overtly essential approach to religion and an overtly reductionist approach to religion, scholars must cultivate a critical and reflective attitude towards both their personal assumptions and biases and to the discourses they engage in. Kanaris’ philosophy of enecstasis sums up the necessary retention of tension between religion and power needed in normative engagement (Kanaris 185). In a university setting where students are taught objective ideas of religion, enecstasis allows for students and scholars to engage with the content through subjective interpretation. This practice creates a space for personal negotiation while retaining the integrity of scholarship (184).
Work Cited
Cooey, Paula M. "The Place of Academic Theology in the Study of Religion from the Perspective of Liberal Education." In Religious Studies, Theology, and the University: Conflicting Maps, Changing Terrain. Ed. Linell E. Cady and Delwin Brown. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2002, 172–186.
Davaney, Sheila Greeve. "Rethinking Theology and Religious Studies." In Religious Studies, Theology, and the University: Conflicting Maps, Changing Terrain. Ed. Linell E. Cady and Delwin Brown. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2002, 140–154.
Kanaris, Jim. "The Enecstatic Jig: Personalizing Philosophy and Religion" In Reconfigurations of Philosophy of Religion: a Possible Future. State University of New York, 2018, 173–188.
Strenski, Ivan. "Conclusion: Science of Religion, the Bible, and Prince Charming." In Thinking about Religion: An Historical Introduction to Theories of Religion. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2006, 337–345.
Comments