So, here goes nothing…Hopefully this turns out to be a good idea.
Week 1: Approaching Religion Academically
Having read “Studying Religion: Laying the Groundwork” by Craig Martin, I want you to explain in mostly your own words the following: (1) Functionalism, (2) The hermeneutics of suspicion, (3) Methodological atheism, (4) The difference between methodological atheism and atheism, and (5) Martin’s reasons for promoting methodological atheism in the academic study of religion.
Week 2: Social Constructionism
Having read Craig Martin’s “How Society Works: Classification,” I want you (1) to explain social constructionism in mostly your own words (Hint: it’s a theory about the relationship between language and the social world; pay close attention to his discussion of classification/categorization), and (2) to explain why Martin treats religion as a social construct.
Week 3: Socialization, Naturalization, and Religion
Having read “How Society Works: Structure” by Craig Martin, I want you to explain in mostly your own words (1) the process of socialization, (2) the meaning of the word naturalization, and (3) the role religion plays in the naturalization of socially constructed realities (for example: social roles, norms of behavior, social orders/hierarchies).
Week 4: Habitus
Having read “How Society Works: Habitus” by Craig Martin, I want you to explain in mostly your own words (1) the concept of habitus, and (2) the relationship between habitus and religion.
(Think about these questions in formulating your response: What is the root word of habitus? How does habitus relate to socialization and naturalization? How does habitus function—that is, what does it do? How do we acquire habitus? What role does socioeconomic status play in the acquisition of habitus? Does religion provide its own unique habitus? Is religion just one ingredient in a habitus, broadly conceived?)
Week 5: Legitimation
Having read Craig Martin’s “How Religion Works: Legitimation,” I want you to explain in mostly your own words (1) the concept of legitimation and (2) the relationship between legitimation and religion.
(In formulating your response, it will be helpful to think about and use Martin’s discussion of cultural tools and toolboxes.)
Week 6: Authority and Projection
Having read Craig Martin’s “How Religion Works: Authority,” I want you to explain in mostly your own words (1) the concepts of authority and projection, and (2) the relationship between the two concepts and religion. (Hint: It will be helpful to explain the types of authority, as well as the circle diagram.)
Week 7: Authenticity
Having read Craig Martin’s “How Religion Works: Authenticity,” I want you to explain in mostly your own words (1) the concept of authenticity as it relates to religion, and (2) how Martin thinks scholars of religion should interpret authenticity claims (Two hints: (a) He does not argue that scholars should take all authenticity claims as true, and (b) His position has to do with the construction, maintenance, and modification of social groups.)
Week 8: Redescription and Social Formation (see note below)
Having read Russell McCutcheon’s “Redescribing ‘Religion’ as Social Formation: Toward a Social Theory of Religion,” I want you to explain in mostly your own words (1) the concept of redescription, (2) the concept of social formation, and (3) how religion can be redescribed as a social formation.
—
As you see, my students read Martin’s Critical Introduction almost in its entirety, and I have them finish up with the second chapter of McCutcheon’s Critics Not Caretakers. This is my first time using the McCutcheon piece, so who knows whether they’ll be able to dig into it. But I think after reading Martin for several weeks, they will hopefully find the piece accessible.
I am open to any comments, suggestions, criticism, or corrections. All I ask is that you keep in mind that this is an online course, and that it is only eight weeks long. My sincere thanks in advance to anyone who takes the time to read and share some thoughts.
—
A quick note as of 11 October:
This post initially appeared on 30 September, during the seventh week of my eight-week course. My term has since come to end, so I wanted to share a few words about how my students did with the McCutcheon reading/forum.
To put it very briefly, I’d say over half of my students had a very difficult time with it. Many of them found it to be way over their heads (a reaction I anticipated), but also had a hard time uncovering what McCutcheon meant by redescription and social formation (something I did not anticipate, at least not to this degree). That said, there were a handful of students who did pretty well, and an even smaller handful whose posts were truly impressive. Those who did well on this forum, however, were those who had done very well on all previous forums.
In the interest of some kind of fairness (and to alleviate my mild sense of guilt for making them my guinea pigs), I decided to give full credit to everyone who took a legitimate stab at responding to the prompt (making sure to privately recognize the excellent responses, of course).
I’m pretty sure I have to go back to the drawing board for my last week of class. At the moment, I plan to do what I’ve written about doing elsewhere (a post, I should note, written just before the beginning of the term in question here), and have them formulate a critique of Kessler’s Elephant Principle. But, with all that said, I’m still open to any suggestions regarding the Week 8 prompt given above.
It seems a pretty ambitious course for, I assume, an intro and online at that...? That they should have a touch time with my piece makes sense, I think, since it wasn't written for an intro audience and lots of water has to go under the bridge before the set of issues being addressed likely make sense, let alone whether one agrees with the suggestions I make for dealing with them. I find that--again, citing JZS--less is more in the intro course, for many of us have trouble remembering what it was like when we were 19 and none of these things were issues anywhere near our horizon. So the trick is how to interest undergrad students in the wider set of issues and not just present with all the issues.
ReplyDeleteThank you for taking time to read and provide feedback. Including your piece was definitely an experiment. But after Martin's Critical Introduction paid off so well--that too was initially a shot in the dark--I figured I'd give it a shot. One way I think I could get students more interested in (rather than merely presented with) the material is by having them analyze YouTube clips in light of the concepts. The task then becomes finding some of reasonable length, appropriate content, and so forth.
ReplyDeleteBecause my students have done so well with Martin's book, I hesitate to take it (or parts of it) out. But the point you made on Facebook about biting off less and chewing more is well-taken. My next term starts in a week, so it may be too late to make such an overhaul. That said, I'll be thinking of ways to pare down as this term proceeds.
Insanely difficult for undergrad students and they will not make an effort to do this work.
ReplyDeleteThe content you presented seems way above the heads of undergraduate students. I think it would be beneficial to incorporate the YouTube clips like you had said, and then I would recommend to take out a large portion of the reading. The book itself is a difficult read, and should probably not be used for an entry level class.
ReplyDeleteIn my reading, I guess I'm slow...I'm not connecting WHY Martin treats religion as a social construct.
ReplyDelete