By Matt Sheedy
Like many PhD students, adjuncts, and even the
occasional tenured professor, I inherited a course some years back, textbook, and all, called Ethics and World Religions. The
course was designed to provide students with a general introduction to “world
religions” with an emphasis on the ethical systems of Judaism, Jainism, Hinduism,
“Indigenous religions,” etc. Over the years, on average, over half of the
students have come from my university’s business school, which requires their
graduates to obtain one half credit in a course on ethics. These are but a few
examples of the practical constraints that religion scholars face in the classroom,
especially in first year introductory courses.
After my first semester of teaching this class in an
online format, where the texts and on-line lectures cannot be changed due to
copyright restrictions, I quickly moved to supplement this material with a
number of theoretical essays for the classroom version of the course. In recent
years, I’ve set things up so that the textbook, The World’s Religions by William A. Young, is not just a resource,
but the primary object of study.
Some essays that I’ve found useful for this task
include J.Z Smith’s “Religion,
Religions, Religious” and the chapters on “Authority” and “Habitus” from
Craig Martin’s A Critical Introduction to the Study of Religion.
Martin’s text has been particularly helpful in calling attention to how
authorizing strategies function in the discourse of the world religions
paradigm. For example, his suggestion in the chapter on “Habitus” that we begin
our investigations by paying attention to the form (e.g., language-use, diction, performance, etc.) rather than
leading with the presumed content
(e.g., axioms about Islam, such as the “5 Pillars” or passages from the Qur’an)
helps students to see that religious identities can be more productively
explained by showing how particular habits, tastes and preferences shape the
ways in which theological ideas are embodied and practiced in the everyday
world. Many Muslims, for example, might adhere to some version of the “5
Pillars,” though simply stating this as fact (as Young’s textbook does) tells
us next to nothing about the ways that it is authorized, modified, selectively
privileged or ignored and, most importantly, for what reasons?
Beginning the class with these essays (along with a
case study or two) also makes it easier for students to see how the
phenomenological approach that is presented in the textbook is trying to square
a highly fractured circle by lumping large groups under a particular cluster of
shared beliefs and practices, thereby authorizing certain norms and principles
over others. It is precisely for this reason, however, that the textbook is useful
since it reproduces a variation of a generic liberal approach to comparing
religions common in the Euro-West.
Turning to the question of ethics, I get students to
read Seyla Benhabib’s essay, “The
Generalized and the Concrete Other,” where she demonstrates
that while social norms in Western liberal democracies are based upon
generalized principles, such as equality and fairness, they tend to tilt in the
favor of dominant groups. In her analysis, Benhabib traces representations of women
in Western political theory since Thomas Hobbes in order to show how such
principles reflect a patriarchal bias. Like Martin, she also recommends that
scholars start from particular contexts in their investigations and not some
generalized map that claims to represent the whole.
I’ve found this combination of essays (though I always
test out new essays each year) in a course on ethics and world religions helps
students to see the relationship between general principles and concrete group
identities, and helps to make it apparent how the textbook works as a
comparative strategy rather than a
definitive representation.
Instead of presenting what is “ethical” according to
certain insiders’ self-descriptions or, as Young puts it, of aiming “to
understand religion from the perspective of religious persons themselves,”
(which begs the question, which insiders, and which representations?)
my aim is to point out the always existing tension between generalized norms
and how they are interpreted by various groups, especially those on the margins
who do not fit the “official” mold.
By the course’s end, my
hope is that students not only understand something about how religious
insiders describe themselves, but that the explanations of those insiders
(whether coming from priests, scholars or sworn enemies) are best understood by
applying theory in an attempt to
explain how they work in the social world. Far
from neglecting those sticky questions of evaluation and judgment common to
most classes on ethics, this approach also demonstrates some of the main
challenges to addressing the problem of ethics in the first place.
No comments:
Post a Comment