By Tommy Carrico
“The division of labor in class society separates manual
from mental (intellectual) workers and largely reserves intellectual functions
– which are functions of power – to specific social groups who reproduce
themselves through the education system.” – Antonio Gramsci
An undergraduate
religious studies class is a social group that examines and critiques other
social groups. A critical-theory-minded
undergraduate religious studies class is one that takes this fact as part and
parcel of its scholarly work. Attention
to this fact raises questions about what type of knowledge is being produced,
why it is being produced, under what conditions it is being produced, and how it
is quantifiably different than the knowledge produced by the groups being
studied. I say “how” rather than
“whether” very intentionally: the goal of scholars in the field of religious
studies is not to merely repeat (or teach our students to repeat) the mantras,
texts, and histories produced by our subject matter. To re-appropriate Bruce Lincoln’s
terminology, as instructors, we are not training amanuenses, collectors,
friends, advocates, cheerleaders, voyeurs, or retailers of import goods – we
are attempting to train producers of scholarship and/or critics. The goal of the classroom, then, ought to be
producing knowledge about social groups without getting ahead of ourselves –
without taking our positions or the positions of our subject matter (along with
the material processes that render them possible) as natural or given.
While
teaching, I have found the process of self-reflection to be a helpful way to
illustrate many of the theoretical claims that I make over the course of a
semester – from the arbitrariness of social norms and their enforcement (why do
I take off participation points for arriving 15 minutes late rather than 14
minutes? 13?) to the material production of specific types of knowledge (and
the processes by which actors designate some knowledge as scholarly, some as
scientific, some as religious, and some still as secular). However, a consistently self-critical
perspective can lead to conceptual difficulties – how do we go about producing
critical scholarship about social groups while keeping in mind our status as
members of a social group? What sort of
balance can we strike between analysis of course material and analysis of
course structure/function? In order to
avoid leading a course on navel-gazing, the reflective process needs to
complement or explain the analyses at hand rather than act as stand-alone
sections of the class. In a course
called “Religious Ethics and Moral Dilemmas,” I devote the first lecture solely
to addressing the labor and space of the classroom using a couple of Antonio
Gramsci’s essays on “The Intellectuals and Education.” These essays helpfully provide a vocabulary
and orientation for returning to “the classroom” as exemplum throughout the
semester in order to complement rather than distract from other course material.
Gramsci’s
essays set the tone for the rest of the semester. If we, as a class (in both senses of the
term), take as our first object of analysis the class differences stabilized
under the labels of “intellectual” and “manual” labor/space then we are
critiquing familiar ground. From here,
we can look at the various methods by which this time and place are set apart
(printed course schedules highlighting “class time”, syllabi that describe
“knowledge goals”, or references to out-of-classroom assignments as home “work”
juxtaposed with in-class “lectures”, “discussions”, or “activities”). This will serve us well as a reference point
when we examine the maintenance of various other binaries in ethical discourse
(law of God/laws of man; sacred/profane; terrorist/soldier) later in the
semester. Gramsci’s essay has the
further benefit of emphasizing the social consequences of classroom activity,
noting that the students aren’t simply learning information, but are learning a
specific mode of doing so. For instance, what are the social consequences of being trained
to listen to lectures and complete readings in order to recall bits of
information in multiple choice format? This reading/discussion/lecture begins the
semester by situating the classroom firmly within the social world by challenging
students and lecturer to examine and critique the discursive practices in which
we are participants.
We
return to these themes several times in the semester (particularly when
discussing the role of academic ethicists in public policy making and whether
there ought to be a difference between an “ethicist” and a “scholar of ethics) and use the categories of class, labor, and intellectual to help make sense
of in-group/out-group moralizing. It
takes work, labor, to perpetuate and enforce a certain vision of the good
within any given social group. This labor requires classes of people: those
who repress dissidents; those who choose, celebrate, and extol exemplars; those
who are disciplined; and those whose challenges to the moral status quo are
eventually accepted (among many others).
I address the scholar’s role in these class struggles at the beginning
of the semester in order to avoid naturalizing the scholastic point of view and
challenge the idea that what we do in the classroom is somehow disconnected
with the social world being analyzed. If
the religious studies instructor’s job is to problematize discourses that
assume an apolitical space, asocial labor, or universalize a set of contingent
behaviors or structures by labelling them “good”, “just”, or “sacred”, we would
do well to begin by theorizing our classrooms.
References
Gramsci, Antonio. “The Intellectuals and Education.” The
Antonio Gramsci Reader: Selected Writings 1916-1935. Ed. David Forgacs. NYU
Press: New York, 2000. Pages 300-322.
Lincoln, Bruce.
“Theses on Method.” The
Insider/Outsider Problem in the Study of Religion. Ed. Russell McCutcheon. Cassell: London, 1999. Pages 395-398.
About the Author
Tommy Carrico is a doctoral student at Florida State University where he studies comparative religious ethics, political economy, and theory and method in the study of religion.
No comments:
Post a Comment