“We’re here to talk about religion”: A Few Examples for Teaching Classification

By Charles McCrary

*This post originally appeared on the Bulletin for the Study of Religion's blog.

This post’s titular sentence was spoken Friday morning by a student during first lecture of the semester. It was a protest, playful but betraying frustration. She was sitting in the front row of a packed classroom, spending fifty minutes of her day on a class called “Religion in America.” But, ten minutes into class, she and her classmates were working to come to a collective decision as to whether or not a platypus is mammal. The main point of the lecture, like the point of most first-day religious studies lectures, I assume, is to argue that classification is not inherent. Nothing is intrinsically “sacred” or “secular.” Acts of classification are political acts, etc., etc. This point isn’t new, of course; it’s the cornerstone of religious studies, or at least a certain kind of religious studies. I think students can grasp it pretty easily. Many of them believe “religion” is so personal and individual that a sort of relativism about it doesn’t bother them. In the lecture, though, I did not talk much about things normally called “religious,” lest they think the point applies only or especially to “religion.” So, instead, I used a few examples from that supposedly unconstructed realm, “science.”

The first exercise was to place animals into categories. I showed a list of animals—alligator, marlin, box turtle, gray whale, sperm whale, platypus, jellyfish, fur seal—and asked for classification suggestions. The first was “land” and “sea,” so I made a T-chart on the board and we divided them up thusly, with alligator and fur seal triggering some ambivalence. The next suggestion was “mammal,” “fish,” and “reptile,” which raised not only the exasperating platypus question but also highlighted the curiosity of the jellyfish, whose name makes an unfulfilled promise of easy classification. The final suggestion was “big” and “small,” which is a fascinating choice since they’re thoroughly comparative categories, dependent entirely on the data in the larger set. I followed this exercise by describing the 1818 case Maurice v. Judd, drawing from D. Graham Burnett’s entertaining and excellent book Trying Leviathan. The trial hinged on the classification of whale oil as fish oil and, thus, the question, “Is a whale a fish?” The judge, after hearing a variety of testimony from naturalists and other experts, sided with common sense and popular opinion that the whale was indeed a fish. Some of the students seemed disconcerted by the notion that Jesus seems to have classified whales as fish (see Matthew 12:40).

The last anecdote I used is about James Dwight Dana and nineteenth-century American geology. I became aware of Dana only recently (my main sources here are Nathaniel Philbrick’s Sea of Glory and the sixth chapter of David Igler’s recent book, The Great Ocean, both of which I read over winter break), so the example is a new one, but I will use it again. Dana was a scientist on the United States Exploring Expedition (1838–1842), and he was particularly interested in volcanic activity and erosion in the Pacific. He wrote a number of books based on his research on the Expedition, including Geology (1849).

In his work, he relied on an oceanic-centric geology and discussed California as a part of the Pacific. By the 1850s, American geologists, including Dana, were much more interested in continental geology, situating California as part of the North American land mass. Why? What changed? For one, California became a U.S. state. During the Expedition it was part of Mexico. But why did it become a state? The answer, of course, is gold. Dana’s works from the 1840s never mention gold, nor do they show much interest in North America. By 1855, though, Dana gushed over the North American continent. He lauded its remarkable simplicity and symmetry, contrasting it with Europe, “a world of complexities,” “one corner of the Oriental Continent—which includes Europe, Asia, and Africa,” mapping geology and patriotism onto each other seamlessly.

“What is California?” The land itself was mostly unchanged—at least in geological terms—between the 1840s and 1850s, but the way geologists studied it changed dramatically. The question “What is California?”, like the question “What is religion?”, is not a question worth asking in a history course. We’ll do better to ask what’s at stake in a definition of California or religion or America or the good life, how those definitions have changed over time, who gets to decide, and so on. It is in this way that we study verbs, not nouns.

The lecture’s final PowerPoint slide, titled “religious things and secular things,” is just a list of things—Morality, Incense, George Washington, Crying, Cows, The Book of James, Oprah Winfrey, A Christmas Tree, Science. By the time we get to this slide, students (are supposed to) see the potential of studying acts of classification, as well as the lack of self-evidence for those categories themselves. Thus, “We’re here to talk about religion” is exactly the sort of claim whose employments we’ll be studying, because, well, that’s what we’re here to talk about.

Interview with the Author: From Yoga to Kabbalah: Religious Exoticism and the Logics of Bricolage, by Véronique Altglas

1. What is the main argument of your book?

This book is about religious exoticism. Surprisingly it is a theme that has not, as yet, been investigated by the sociology of religion. Yet, the popularisation of yoga and meditation, the curiosity for shamanism and the recent craze for kabbalah all demonstrate the appeal of these religious resources in western contemporary societies. It is in part their perceived otherness that lends them authenticity and nourishes hope for the discovery of mysteries and hidden truths. However, such popularisation has not led to mass conversions to Buddhism, Hinduism or Judaism. Indeed, religious exoticism implies a deeply ambivalent relationship to otherness and to religion itself: traditional religious teachings are uprooted and fragmented in order to be appropriated as practical methods for personal growth. As a consequence, religious exoticism tells us as much about the ways in which religious resources are disseminated globally as it does about the construction of the self in contemporary societies. How these ‘exotic’ religious resources cross cultural boundaries and become global, what makes them appealing in western societies, how they are instrumentalised and for what purposes, are the questions that this book addresses, by drawing on cross-national research about ‘neo-Hindu’ religions in the West since the 1960s and the recent interest for kabbalah. While it is often written that individuals increasingly craft their religious life and identity by picking and mixing from a wide range of religious traditions, this book by contrast insists on the fact that bricolage is neither personal, playful nor eclectic. It shows that in bricolage, otherness matters tremendously and arouses ambivalent feelings. It also identifies the historical and socio-cultural logics that shape social practices of bricolage.

2. What motivated your work?

The desire to define a common framework allowing us to understand ‘religious exoticism’ (the fascination for the religion of others), and hence the features of the popularization of Hinduism, Buddhism, shamanism, Sufism, or kabbalah. In addition, I wanted to contribute to sociological debates about bricolage and religious individualism: the sociology of religion has often approached the exploration of foreign religious traditions as a characteristic of a social world which has broken with tradition and historicity. In such a world, emancipated individuals are believed to choose, consume and combine religious resources of all kind in unique assortments, thereby elaborating personal, hence unique, religious identities and systems. This book aimed to demonstrate that this understanding of bricolage with foreign religions largely over-estimates its eclecticism, takes for granted the availability of religious resources, misunderstands religious individualism. Overall, inflating the eclectic and personal nature of practices of bricolage has led to a neglect of their social and cultural logics. Ultimately, beyond an understanding of religious exoticism and the logics of bricolage, this study is inscribed inside a larger effort to address important weaknesses of today’s sociology of religion, in particular what we could call the ‘the demise of the social’. Indeed, the sociology of religion often remains isolated from wider sociological debates; it privileges the detailed descriptions of religious experiences and beliefs to the detriment of consideration of social class, family organization, power and authority. The current tendency to over-estimate personal subjectivity, “choice” and “freedom” in the making of bricolage, or in the study of “spirituality”, makes these flaws of the sociology of religion even more acute.

3. What theory or theorists inform your methodology?

The book argues for the need for the sociology of religion to reintegrate issues of power, class formation, social interactions, and practice, and to renew the understanding of religious individualism. Accordingly, it draws on the sociology of religion, but also on mainstream sociology dealing with class (ie. Bourdieu, Skeggs), neoliberalism (Castel, Rose, Ehrenberg) as well as work, gender, consumption, therapies and wellbeing etc.

4. How might the book be used or how has it been used in a classroom?

While covering popular and topical issues such as kabbalah, the ‘mystical East’, and celebrities’ engagement with religious exoticism, this book enhances our understanding of the globalisation of religion (how religions are disseminated transnationally), syncretism and bricolage (how religions are modified through cultural encounters) and of religious life in neoliberal societies (how contemporary forms of religiosity reflects core features of contemporary social life). An in-depth investigation of ‘religious exoticism’ is in itself innovative and fills a void, but the book’s strength is also that it engages equally with French-speaking and English-speaking academic works that are rarely combined and confronted in today’s sociology of religion. This allows English-speaking students to access debates within the subfield which are not published in English.

5. How do you think students would most benefit from your book?

Drawing on research I have undertaken among Hindu-based movements in France and Britain since the mid-1990s, and more recently on the Kabbalah Centre in France, Britain, Brazil and Israel, this book offers an example of how one can undertake qualitative and cross-cultural empirical investigations and of the benefits of such approach. Ultimately, this book suggests an agenda for the future sociology of religion; it is hoped it will inspire future scholars to adopt a more critical approach and to reintegrate the social in their understanding of religion.

Way of the Road

By Adam T. Miller

*This post originally appeared on the author's blog.

With two exceptions–Outline of a Theory of Practice and “The Forms of Capital”–I have others to thank for my exposure to Pierre Bourdieu’s thought. In some ways, I count this as a good thing–after all, Bourdieu is not exactly famous for clarity of expression. Consider this definition of habitus:

The conditionings associated with a particular class of conditions of existence produce habitus, systems of durable, transposable dispositions, structured structures predisposed to function as structuring structures, that is, as principles which generate and organize practices and representations that can be objectively adapted to their outcomes without presupposing conscious aiming at ends or an express mastery of the operations necessary in order to attain them.

With this theory of habitus, Bourdieu was trying to explain how/why social groups tend to reproduce themselves through individuals without appealing to notions of pure freedom or hard determinism. The basic idea is this: the self is a result of socialization, and what the process of socialization looks like varies among social classes; therefore, by just “being oneself,” an individual tends to reproduce the social group in which she was raised.

After unpacking Bourdieu’s theory of habitus in the fourth chapter of A Critical Introduction to the Study of Religion, Craig Martin draws our attention to the fact that societies are rarely homogenous and, therefore, often contain multiple social groups, each with its own class habitus. He writes:

 

Much like so-called “common sense,” what is taken to be “normal” (or a normal habitus) varies from community to community and from society to society–in which case these things are not, in fact “common” or universally “normal.” Even within the same society, different subgroups have variable ideas about what is “normal.” What we have are societies where there are dominant and subordinate groups, and where each subgroup has its own idea of what is normal.

 

I happened upon one particularly humorous example of this idea on an episode of Trailer Park Boys titled “Way of the Road.” Watch the clip below. (Fair warning: strong language abounds; those of a certain habitus–that is, those with certain ideas about when it is [and is not] acceptable to use swear words–may find it offensive.)

Although he hasn’t driven a rig for twenty years, Ray continues to urinate into gallon jugs and toss them into the street (a practice apparently common among truckers, at least in the world of the show). On one hand, Ray’s son Ricky does not see this practice as odd; in fact, he gladly supplies his father with new jugs. Bubbles, on the other hand, thinks Ray ought to abandon the practice–it’s been twenty years after all. If anything, habitus is durable

Interview with the Author: Righteous Rhetoric: Sex, Speech, and the Politics of Concerned Women for America, by Leslie Dorrough Smith

Interview with Leslie Dorrough Smith.

1. What is the main argument of your book?

The gist of Righteous Rhetoric is that scholars have generally overlooked the source of the Christian Right’s social clout by focusing mainly on its member groups’ beliefs or rigid moral rules.  Instead, I’m convinced that the greatest asset of the Christian Right is quite mundane:  it’s the way that they speak.  

The bulk of the book examines the speech of one prominent Christian Right group, called Concerned Women for America (CWA), and demonstrates that the group is persuasive because it employs a rhetorical technique that I call chaos rhetoric.  Chaos rhetoric is a type of speech that invokes widespread public appeal through its deployment of specific symbols designed to create a heightened sense of social chaos and threat (rather than the order and security that scholars often tout when describing the Christian Right).  By carefully manufacturing these negative emotions, the group is in a prime position to offer its own political platforms as the resolution to the threats that they construct. 

One could simply call chaos rhetoric a fear tactic, but I thought this was too simplistic, since I was more interested in looking at how, when, and under what circumstances CWA chose to portray certain things as chaotic or fearful rather than presuming that those emotions were self-evident or natural.  In other words, what is deemed frightening or threatening at one moment is often a non-event several years, or even months, later – it all depends on how the political and cultural winds are blowing. 

If chaos rhetoric is a technique of persuasion, it is also one of masquerade.  In the book I detail how chaos rhetoric serves four critical functions, two of which – creating urgency and inciting activism – are fairly predictable persuasive techniques.  But CWA’s chaos rhetoric also performs the dual functions of defensive argumentation and rationale-deflection, which are processes by which attention is shifted away from CWA and its perhaps less popular rationales for advocacy and onto more emotion-evoking platforms.  These are both really effective ways for the group to change more imperceptibly simply by convincing the audience to concentrate its attention elsewhere.

For example, CWA has frequently attempted to portray homosexuality as a public health threat, which it has done through studies that show things like an elevated risk for domestic violence among gay couples, or that pinpoint higher rates of suicide among gay teens.  Rather than describe the more subjective discomfort that characterize its members’ homophobia, or talk about anti-gay theologies (neither of which is a particularly persuasive tactic if the point is to attract a diverse audience), CWA persuades best by portraying homosexuality as a threat to something that virtually everyone values – their health.  Perhaps it goes without saying that if CWA were really concerned with public health issues, then they’d be discussing more than just the health risks associated with homosexuality (and ironically, the studies show that these risks are actually generated by an unaccepting culture rather than anything intrinsic to sexual orientation).  Nevertheless, deflecting the rationale from religious particulars or gut feelings onto what is perceived to be a more “legitimate” concern helps to make the message sound relevant.

This technique is also useful over time.  Focusing attention on its opponents (but less on itself) allows CWA to shift its own agendas more imperceptibly.  As the message about gay rights as a health threat grows stale, loses public appeal, or is otherwise debunked, it is abandoned for a new one that accomplishes a similar effect.  But once the similar effect is no longer possible to maintain, the group will be pushed to rework its stance on homosexuality, even if incrementally, so as to preserve its public relevancy.  For instance, this might involve the shift from seeing homosexual identity as a sin to regarding the practice of homosexuality as a sin; that nuance, however slight, provides some wiggle room that gives the group material to work with in crafting new rhetoric.  What this shows, then, is that the real persuasive force of chaos rhetoric lies in knowing how to repeatedly rework an opponent’s identity so that they remain perpetually threatening, and crafting one’s own rationale so that it always seems relevant.

2. What motivated your work?

Generally speaking, I was dissatisfied with the models and presumptions scholars were using to study the Christian Right, and, in turn, I was interested in asking a different set of questions about how social groups work.  I’ll elaborate a bit more:

First off, I was stumped by the way some scholars criticize the Christian Right for their persuasive tactics but then fail to notice that they are using virtually identical tactics in their own analyses.  Although there are many examples of this, I’m referring here to the fact that such scholars often describe the rhetoric of the Christian Right as a brand of fear-mongering, but then impart a similar message of fear when talking about why one should politically oppose them.  This common approach to the Christian Right was what actually inspired the last chapter of Righteous Rhetoric, wherein I provide examples of how chaos rhetoric is used by progressive groups just as easily (and frequently) as it is by conservatives.  That chapter’s function is not only to argue the normalcy of chaos rhetoric as an act ubiquitous to almost all groups trying to persuade, but also to interrogate the manner in which scholars have often treated the Christian Right as some sort of religio-political aberration rather just a common interest group doing what all other interest groups do.

On that same note, scholars also tend to describe the Christian Right as something unusual when they offer psychological explanations for its existence.  Many such models describe the movement as one embraced primarily by psychologically fearful people who need order and absolutism in order to function in the world.   I don’t doubt that this is the case with many conservatives, but I also think it applies to loads of other people, too, so these particular analytical frames that emphasize some sort of radical distinction have never much appealed to me.

I was also inspired to write this book because I found it interesting how frequently scholars point to theology as the key to a specific religious group’s allure.  That’s not to say, of course, that the attractiveness of this or that theology has nothing to do with it, but it overlooks the large number of social factors at play in the persuasion process, and it also glosses over the glaring reality that social groups are comprised of incredibly diverse populations of people who are members of the group for just as many different reasons.

This is why I was drawn, methodologically, to a rhetorical study, since no matter the smattering of beliefs that are out there (not to mention people’s relative lack of adherence to many of their stated beliefs), it’s very difficult to live in American culture without having some interface with these sorts of openly political messages. I think it’s a popular explanatory scheme to point to theologies or beliefs because it’s a frequent insider claim – that is, religious people often think that their theological positions are what make them attractive, true, or distinct – but I have never been particularly satisfied with the explanatory potential of that position. 

My motivations, then, were fueled in large part by the sense that scholars’ own biases (not only about the Christian Right, but religion in general) were causing them to overlook other, perhaps more fundamental, phenomena.

3. What theory or theorists inform your methodology?

For this particular project (and many others, besides), I relied heavily on Roland Barthes, Michel Foucault, Judith Butler, Susan Friend Harding, and Pierre Bourdieu (among countless others I could probably name).  While they individually contribute to my methodology in a variety of ways, what they all share is the notion that social phenomena should not be gauged as things in themselves, but as a reflection of certain power dynamics that are naturalized through language.  Since Foucault and Bourdieu’s contributions on discourse, sexuality, and habitus (respectively) are probably quite well known, it might be helpful if I illuminate something more specific about how the other figures helped me to take a theoretical position and use it to influence my methodological approach:

Roland Barthes was the first scholar I encountered who actively provided an explanation on how persuasion (as it occurs in naturalization discourses) happens.  Methodologically speaking, he helped me to stop thinking about a group’s claims as “worldviews,” insomuch as this term implies a relatively neutral description of reality.  Rather, his model of mythmaking asserts that the claims groups make often involve the fusion of a specifically chosen set of symbols that perform an equally specific sort of task upon which the group depends in order to fulfill its goals.  The more that the public sees these issues being presented together, the more they will believe that those things are connected. This different perspective allowed me to see “beliefs” as specific descriptive strategies that, if adopted by others and systematized in a larger sense, have enormous potential to transform social groups, even apart from whether the individual members of those groups buy into these notions. 

I also relied quite heavily on Butler’s concept of the signifying chain, which is a term she employs to describe the way that groups assign authority to a particular idea.  To illustrate this, Butler draws on the figure of a judge, whose legal power doesn’t come from any sort of specific quality of that individual judge per se, but only from the judge’s ability to refer to past precedent.  The past precedent to which that judge refers is also the result of another judge’s ruling (based, again, on that judge’s reference to past precedent, and so on).  Butler’s point here is that so many of the most enduring ideas that frame our social norms are authoritative because they have been around for so long, and yet no one can point to an actual reason for their authority apart from “the last generation did it.”  The usefulness of this concept, to me, is that it permits scholars to get outside of the contest surrounding the truth of a particular idea, and to focus, instead, on what dynamics, symbols, and often implicit rhetorics made possible the construction of that idea in the first place.

Finally, I need to give a large amount of credit to one of Susan Friend Harding’s works, entitled The Book of Jerry Falwell.  There are some really key concepts that Harding uses that have influenced my own analysis quite heavily.  For instance, she talks about flexible absolutism as a type of speech that argues for the enduring or eternal value of a particular position, but then changes as that idea becomes less popular.  Many scholars might argue that this is simple hypocrisy (particularly if it’s being used by a group that they don’t like), but Harding’s treatment of it as a rhetorical phenomenon (rather than moral failure) helped me to also reframe this apart from the hierarchical positioning that goes along with that common moral tone. 

But perhaps more than anything else, I’m really struck by Harding’s description of language as the instrument of conversion.  She notes that conversion is often something that we associate with a “change of heart” when it’s really a process of adopting a new type of speech.  If we can understand that our words directly shape the concepts that subsequently frame reality, then our choice of new words to describe the world – an important part of what happens when we persuade or are persuaded – forefronts rhetoric as a critical component of understanding social politics.

4. How might the book be used or how has it been used in a classroom?

I wrote the book to have specific applicability across a lot of fields.  It would be at home just as readily in a sociology, anthropology, political science, or rhetoric course as it would in the more obvious religious studies or gender studies setting.  I also structured it so that each chapter has the capacity to stand alone or perform a specific function, so there are lots of possibilities on how to use it. 

For instance, on a very simple level, I’ve used portions of chapter 1 to demonstrate that certain concepts have a history.  Chapter 1 provides an overview of conservative American attitudes towards sex, gender, and reproduction, so this is a great way for students to see that the current rhetoric on things like abortion and sexuality are not new, but have had a very long lifespan, indeed, and one often couched in racism and other unbalanced power relationships.

I also know of several others who have used the conclusion as a stand-alone essay to introduce/discuss methodological issues with upper level undergrads and early graduate students.  As I mentioned earlier, the conclusion questions the notion that chaos rhetoric is unique to the Christian Right, demonstrates that various other diverse groups use the same techniques, and then holds scholars to task for the manner in which they have treated otherwise similar groups much differently based on their own political commitments.

The chapters in between, while dealing more specifically with CWA as a group, also have a lot of usefulness outside of their specific inclusion in the book.  The more theoretically-focused chapter (chapter 2) provides an introduction to the way that ideas are naturalized in a culture through a discussion of rhetoric, discourse, and mythmaking.  While I end up tying this naturalization discussion directly into the normalization of sexual and gendered identities, these principles remain helpful to discuss almost any social norm formation.  Chapter 3 deals with CWA’s portrayal of itself as an expression of “true” feminism and women’s rights (a move being seen more and more by conservative women’s groups), and chapter 4 addresses the ways in which CWA manages to frame sexual issues as national issues.  So as you might guess, although I’m examining this through the lens of CWA’s rhetoric, there are many avenues, disciplines, and topics that might be mined from that material.

5. How do you think students would most benefit from your book?

Topically speaking, there are some more obvious benefits in the sense that CWA is a relatively understudied group, and the Christian Right is an enormously powerful force in American politics.  But one of the greatest benefits of the book, in my mind, is more methodological, because my hope is that this book normalizes the social process.  Put differently, it provides some overarching principles for understanding how many, if not most, groups work.  I think that many students (undergrads, in particular), are accustomed to learning about various phenomena by focusing on distinction (“this group is different from that one in this way”, etc.).  to the detriment of situating this group or that event as just one example of a much larger phenomenon.  I hope that this book can, at least to some degree, trouble that trend.

Interview with the Author: Before Religion: A History of a Modern Concept, by Brent Nongbri

1. What is the main argument in this book?

The main argument of the book is that the idea of religion as a sphere of life distinct from other areas (like politics, economics, or science) is a recent development in European history—a development that has been projected outward in space and backward in time with the result that religion now appears to be a completely natural part of the world. This line of argumentation has been developed considerably in the last forty years (the names Jonathan Z. Smith, Russell McCutcheon, Tomoko Masuzawa, and Peter Harrison--among others--come to mind). What Before Religion attempts to do is synthesize a lot of this work and provide a genealogy of the concept of religion--a narrative of how we came to see the world in this peculiar way, while at the same time showing how the ongoing discourse in "ancient religions" helps religion keep up this appearance of being universal, natural, and necessary.

2. What motivated your work?

The main motivation for the book came out of my struggle to work through scholarship on the apostle Paul.  My background is in the study of early Christians and Jews, and I found it curious that biblical scholars were happy to declare that Paul was Jewish, but often in the same breath they would then compare "Paul" or "Paul's religion" with Judaism.  This struck me as strange, and I came to see that one of the problems I was facing was the usefulness of the concept of religion for talking about ancient evidence.  As I got deeper into the considerable amount of literature working to historicize the concept of religion, I thought it would be a useful exercise to try to produce a reading of Paul's letters that just didn't invoke the category of religion at all. To justify this move, I needed to produce a coherent genealogy of religion, and that ended up being nearly half of my doctoral dissertation.  Readers of the dissertation thought that material would work well as a stand-alone book, and so that formed the core of what became Before Religion.

3. What theory or theorists inform your methodology?

It's hard to single out all the theorists that have influenced me.  The names mentioned in number 1 above have all been influential to me.  Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations always looms over my thinking. Although they are not cited in the book, two writers whose works have challenged me are Frederic Jameson ("Always historicize!") and Michel Foucault.  Foucault's writings especially have been formative for me.  My dissertation ended with what I think is the sharpest formulation of what genealogy helps us do: the object is "to learn to what extent the effort to think one's own history can free thought from what it silently thinks, and so enable it to think differently" (The Use of Pleasure, p. 9).

4. How might the book be used or how has it been used in a classroom?

For undergraduates, I think the book works either at the introductory level or in more advanced "Approaches to Religion" class.  For the former, Before Religion can serve as a nice counterpoint to traditional World Religions textbooks since it contains material that corresponds to most of the geographic areas or "faith traditions" one encounters in the textbooks.  The book can call into question a number of the assumptions about authenticity and universality that one usually finds in such textbooks.  For advanced undergraduates and graduate students, I think the book could function well in a methods class as an example of an approach that tries to take seriously Wittgenstein's thoughts on language (an interesting pairing I haven't tried is reading the book along with Benson Saler's Conceptualizing Religion [1999], which takes Wittgenstein in another direction).

5. How do you think students would most benefit from your book?

I would hope that students would find the book to be a stimulating read that challenges some of their assumptions. The notes are pretty thorough, so I would also be happy if book is able to help them find further more in depth reading in the topics that interest them.

Syllabus Project: Myth, Ritual and Symbolism

By Brian Collins
 

Myth, Ritual and Symbolism

Generally students come to the class thinking of myths either as stories about toga-clad gods and goddesses or ignorant superstitions that can be dispelled with a few simple science experiments. My goal for this course is help students develop a broader and more nuanced view of myth that will inspire them to develop broader and more nuanced views of other terms that seem so transparent and obvious at first glance. This is a fun class to teach, partly because it attracts students of an intellectual or curious bent. When designing it, I find myself torn between the desire to frustrate their expectations and the desire to hold their attention. I find that I can sometimes fulfill both desires by presenting material that is infrequently taught AND interesting to students (and perhaps it is the one because it is the other) like demonology.

 

The course is a challenge with regard to determining the reading list. I generally try to tackle the terms in the titular triad in order and so I begin with Obeyesekere, whose study of the practices surrounding the Sri Lankan shrine of Kataragama builds on my psychoanalytic introduction, presents some interesting case material, and provides a bridge between Freud’s analysis of the Schreber case (discussion of which recurs frequently throughout the course, to my surprise) and the debate with Marshall Sahlins over the death of Captain Cook, which I love to teach. For ritual I have twice used Bell’s book. But Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice, seminal as it is, is generally a failure when it comes to teaching. The references to theorists are too many, the style is too dry, and the argument takes too long to build. I have decided to replace it with (parts I and II of) Ronald Grimes’ The Craft of Ritual Studies next year, which is linked to a selection of videos on Vimeo for the students to watch as they read. When it comes to myth, the students generally enjoy and engage Eliade (the choice of which book to read was something of a toss-up) and I like to contrast his notion of the sacred with that of René Girard. For the latter theorist (who gets short shrift, I am sorry to say) we read Sacrifice because it is short and because the myths it engages are ones we have usually already encountered.

 

For this class, I consider the theoretical materials to be primary sources since we are studying mythology (which, as someone whose name I can’t recall once pointed out on a Great Courses tape on Greek myth, refers simultaneously to the thing and the study of the thing). But there is still the matter of which myths to read. This class, I tell them, is not a literature class. So we do not read any myths except to explore or try out some way of thinking about myths. As an example of this principle, I had the students break up into small groups and pick out a flood myth from those collected online (thanks to Michael Witzel for pointing this out in The Origin of the World’s Mythologies), break it down into Levi-Straussian mythemes, write each on a notecard, and then use the cards to build a giant comparative chart a la Bruce Lincoln on the classroom floor. I used to have the students do group presentations, but I was not pleased with them on the whole and they were difficult to evaluate so this year I had them turn in discussion questions every class. This has been a great success since I used the questions to guide the lecture-discussion nearly every class meeting and greatly increased participation on the part of the students.

Finally, a word about videos. I use Altar of Fire here for ritual, but this may change when I incorporate Grimes’ study of the Santa Fe Fiesta into the syllabus. But I also incorporate Kenneth Anger and Matthew Barney’s ritualistic movies into the course, which generally elicit bemused responses but which, I think, stick with them and have a delayed effect. I also like to compare two US exorcism videos, one made before and one after the 1973 blockbuster The Exorcist. The influence of the film is striking. See for yourself: here and here. The study of Internet myths is new to me and to the class and was a great success, inspiring several students to explore the subject and greater length in their research papers.

SYLLABUS

 CLWR 4810/5810: Myth, Ritual and Symbolism

Fall 2014

10:30-11:50 Tuesday/Thursday

I. Purpose: This course aims to explore the overlapping categories of myth, ritual and symbol and understand their role in creating systems of meaning, both local and cross-cultural. We will ask questions about the ways these categories function to integrate or disintegrate individual personalities, authorize and undermine social hierarchies, and shape the way we think and act in ways that are often hidden. Along the way we will examine approaches to these issues from the fields of anthropology, history of religions, philosophy, psychoanalysis and sociology. We will also be looking at examples from all over the world, especially South and Southeast Asia, the islands of the Pacific and the indigenous cultures of the Americas. Above all, we will try to comprehend the ways in which myth, ritual and symbol do not belong solely to ancient or non-industrial cultures but are present and active in almost every aspect of our world today. 

II. Outcome Goals: 

1.      To become familiar with a variety of myths, symbols and rituals from the students’ own and others’ cultures

2.      To develop a cultural sensitivity that allows students to understand unfamiliar data in their unique contexts

3.      To improve the students’ critical thinking and reading skills through reading assignments and weekly quizzes

      4.      To improve their written and oral communication skills through class presentations
 

III. Required Texts: 

1.      Catherine Bell, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009 [1982])

2.      Mircea Eliade, Myth and Reality (Long Grove, IL: Waveland, 1998 [1963])

3.      René Girard, Sacrifice (East Lansing: MSU Press, 2011)

4.      Gananath Obeyesekere, Medusa's Hair (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981)

5.      Additional readings available on Blackboard.

IV. Expectations:

A. Yours: As students in a 4000-level course (the most advanced available to undergraduates), you should expect to do quite a bit of reading—usually around 80-100 pages a week, sometimes less, sometimes more, depending on print size, illustrations, difficulty of material, etc. Part of what you will be learning is how to read texts like a historian of religions, which is different from how you read a novel, a newspaper or a blog post. I suggest you read (or watch or listen to) the assigned material in the order in which it appears in the syllabus. Please begin your reading with the following tips based on those found in Study Guides and Strategies.

• Get a grasp of how the material is organized: Scan the section for titles, headings, sub-headings, and topic sentences to get its general idea; pay attention to graphs, charts, and diagrams.
• Read first for what you do understand, and to determine difficulty.
• Mark what you do not understand to review later.
• As you read, practice the look-away method: Periodically look away from the text and ask yourself a stimulus question relating to the text. [THESE MAY OR MAY NOT BE THE SAME QUESTIONS YOU TURN IN AS DISCUSSION QUESTIONS]

·         Phrase the question positively!

·         Respond, or restate, in your own words.

·         Make connections and associations, but don't use this exercise to memorize—but rather understand.

• Look up words: Look up words whose meanings are important to your understanding of the material, but which you cannot discern from the context. [KEEP A HARD COPY OF THIS LIST AND BRING IT TO CLASS WITH YOU. IF YOU ARE HAVING A HARD TIME WITH THE MATERIAL I WILL WANT TO SEE THIS LIST]
• Read to the end: Do not get discouraged and stop reading. Ideas can become clearer the more you read. When you finish reading, review to see what you have learned, and reread those ideas that are not clear.
• Organize your notes by connecting ideas you choose into an outline or concept map. [SEE LINK ON BLACKBOARD PAGE]
• Pay attention to relationships between ideas.
• Do not confine yourself to words! Use representations, graphics, pictures, colors, even movement to visualize and connect ideas. Use whatever techniques work to help you understand.
• At this point, if you do not understand your reading, do not panic! Set it aside, and read it again the next day. If necessary, repeat. This allows your brain to process the material, even while you sleep. This is referred to as distributed reading.
• Re-read the section you have chosen with the framework (outline or concept map) you have constructed in mind. Separate out what you do understand from what you do not.
• If the reading is still a challenge, consult with your teacher.

With that said, I expect you to come to every class well prepared and ready to participate. Since we are a relatively small group, I am looking forward to a lot of spirited discussion of this fascinating, challenging and provocative material. With respect to quizzes, exams, discussion questions and the research paper I expect you to do your own work turn in your assignments on time.  

Since the material we will be reading and discussing is so inherently fascinating and provocative, I know there won’t be any napping, texting, tweeting, facebooking or any of the other things first-year students may tend to do in a big boring lecture course like Geology 101.   

B. Mine: I will return emails promptly (within 3 hours if they are sent between 9 AM and 5 PM Monday-Thursday and with 12 hours if they are sent any other time). I will be in my office between 1:30 PM and 3:00 PM on Tuesdays and Thursdays unless otherwise announced but if you really need to see me, please make an appointment so I can set aside time for you. And if you are in class or otherwise unable to make my regular hours, I will be glad to schedule an appointment at another time when we can both make it. 

V. Assignments:

1.      Discussion questions for each class meeting

2.      Ten Blackboard quizzes

3.      Midterm exam

4.      Final exam

5.      Research paper 

VI. Basis of Grades:

A. Attendance (10%): I will calculate attendance as a percentage. There are 29 classes, so if you attend 20, you will get a 69 as 10% of your grade. If you attend all 29, you will get a 100, and so on.

B. Weekly Blackboard quizzes (15%): Quizzes are due 30 minutes before class begins on Thursday and will cover the material for that week.

C. Discussion questions (15%): Three discussion questions from the reading will be due on Blackboard at 5pm each evening before class. I will use these questions to guide our class discussion, so be sure you are prepared to answer your own questions (and hopefully one or more of your classmates’).

D. Midterm exam (15%): This will be due on Blackboard October 2^nd 30 minutes before class starts. You may use your books and your notes, but do not cut and paste anything off the Internet or anywhere else because Turnitin will return it to you as “plagiarized” and you will not be given extra time to retake the exam.

E. Final exam (15%): The final exam will be cumulative and due on Blackboard Tuesday, December 9^th at 12:10 pm.

F. 3000-word research paper (30%): Due on December 4th, this assignment allows you to choose, in consultation with me and World Religions librarian Tim SMith, whatever creative topic you wish to explore that relates to myth, ritual and symbolism. The only requirement is that you use at least three scholarly sources that have not been assigned for class. The entire paper will be worth 200 points, divided up below. Please note that there are three separate components to this paper, each with its own due date.

1.      50 points: An annotated bibliography of at least three scholarly sources due on Blackboard on November 13^th.

2.      50 points: A clearly stated thesis due in the form a250-wrod paper proposal on Blackboard on November 20th.  

3.      100 points: Paper. I will grade the paper itself according to a rubric (available on Blackboard) adapted from Marie Norman of Carnegie Mellon University.

 

G. Extra Credit: From time to time there will be opportunities for extra credit work that will allow students to replace a low or missed quiz grade. Throughout the semester I will announce opportunities for extra credit either in class or on the Ohio University Comparative Religion Club Facebook page.

VII. Attendance Policy:

Attendance is mandatory and crucial to getting anything out of this course. My policies regarding attendance and your grade are explained above.

VIII. Academic Misconduct:
I am required by Ohio University to inform you that academic integrity and honesty are basic values of Ohio University.  Students are expected to follow standards of academic integrity and honesty.  Academic misconduct implies dishonesty or deception in fulfilling academic requirements.  It includes, but is not limited to cheating, plagiarism, un-permitted collaboration, forged attendance (when attendance is required), fabrication (e.g., use of invented information or falsification of research or other findings), using advantages not approved by the instructor (e.g., unauthorized review of a copy of an exam ahead of time), knowingly permitting another student to plagiarize or cheat from one's work, or submitting the same assignment in different courses without consent of the instructor.

 

If you cheat, you will fail the assignment and may face additional sanctions from the university. Don’t do it. There is no need. If you are having trouble with an assignment, talk to me about it and we will address whatever problem you are having together.

IX. Intellectual Property: The lectures, classroom activities, and all materials associated with this class and developed by the instructor are copyrighted in the name of Brian Collins on August 23, 2014.

X. Student Accessibility:

Any student who suspects s/he may need an accommodation based on the impact of a disability should contact the class instructor privately to discuss the student’s specific needs and provide written documentation from the Office of Student Accessibility Services. If the student is not yet registered as a student with a disability, s/he should contact the Office of Student Accessibility Services. 

XI. Schedule:

 

WEEK ONE: READING MYTHOLOGY, A HIGH-STAKES GAME

 

T 8/26: Myths Matter!
Agenda:
1. Introductions
2. The Da Vinci Code; or, Why There’s No Such Thing as a “Symbologist”
3. Ayodhya 1992: The Myth Vs. the Mosque

 

Th 8/28: Psychoanalysis, Sex and Symbols
Reading (47 pages):
1. Freud, Three Case Histories 87-134 on BB

Assignment:
1. First set of discussion questions due at 8pm the night before class
2. Quiz #1 due at 10am on BB

Agenda:
1. The case of Daniel Paul Schreber
2. What is a fetish?
3. Freud v. Jung: Private or collective unconscious?

 

WEEK TWO: SYMBOLS AS THE LINK BETWEEN THE SOCIAL AND THE UNCONSCIOUS

 

T 9/2: Weber on the social
Reading (45 pages):
1. Medusa’s Hair, 1-11
2. Weber, “The Social Psychology of World Religions” 267-301 on BB

Assignment:
1. Second set of discussion questions due at 8pm the night before class

Agenda:
1. The religious virtuoso
2. Power and charisma
3. The business of making meaning

 

Th 9/4: Interpreting dreadlocks
Reading (38 pages):
1. Medusa’s Hair 13-51

Watch:
1. “Fakir Musafar” video on BB

Agenda:
1. Symbols of asceticism and ecstasy
2. Becoming a monk and a hero
3. The “pool of signifiers”

Assignment:
1. Third set of discussion questions due at 8pm the night before class
2. Quiz #2 due at 10am on BB

 

WEEK THREE: SELF, CULTURE AND RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE; OR, BETTER LIVING THROUGH PIERCING

 

T 9/9: The case of Premavati Vitarana
Reading (37 pages):
1. Medusa’s Hair 53-90
Assignment:
1. Fourth set of discussion questions due at 8pm the night before class

Agenda:
1. Personal symbols and psychic conflict; or, Schreber in Sri Lanka
2. Expressing guilt in symbols, dreams and visions
3. Pain and religious experience

 

Th 9/11: Possession and self-possession
Reading (53 pages):
1. Medusa’s Hair 91-122
2. Ariel Glucklich, “Ghost Trauma” 106-128 on BB
3. Glance over “Rite of Exorcism” on BB

Watch:
1. “Exorcism in India” video on BB

Assignment:
1. Fifth set of discussion questions due at 8pm the night before class
2. Quiz #3 due at 10am on BB

Agenda:
1. Possession and exorcism in South Asia and the Catholic Church
2. Karma and meaning
3. Repression and ghosts

WEEK FOUR: GHOSTS, DEMONS AND SYMBOLIC NETWORKS

 

T 9/16: Hook-swinging
Reading (44 pages):
1. Medusa’s Hair 123-167

Assignment:
1. Sixth set of discussion questions due at 8pm the night before class

Agenda:
1. Religion and obsession
2. Attitudes toward sex and violence in South Asia
3. Kali’s tongue

 

T 9/18: Hypnomantic states and personal symbols
Reading (35 pages):
1. Medusa’s Hair 168-192
2. Carlo Ginzburg, “Freud, the Wolf-man, and the Werewolves” 146-156 on BB

Assignment:
1. Seventh set of discussion questions due at 8pm the night before class
2. Quiz #4 due at 10am on BB

Agenda:
1. Dreams and visions
2. Modern images and ancient icons
3. To dream of wolves; or, Do we think myths or do myths think us?

 

WEEK FIVE: HOW GREEKS AND HAWAIIANS THINK

 

T 9/23: Symbolism and ritual in Greek “Mystery Religions”
Reading (28 pages):
1. Walter Burkert, “Mysteries and Asceticism” 276-304 on BB

Assignment:
1. Eighth set of discussion questions due at 8pm the night before class

Agenda:
1. Guest Lecture by Prof. Thomas Carpenter

 

Th 9/25: Meaning and culture
Watch (Before Reading):
1. “The Amazing Life and Strange Death of Captain Cook: Crash Course World History #27” video on BB

Reading (27 pages):
1. Robert Borofsky, “Cook, Lono, Obeyesekere, and Sahlins,” Current Anthropology 38:2 (April 1997), pp. 255-282

Assignment:
1. Ninth set of discussion questions due at 8pm the night before class
2. Quiz #5 due at 10am on BB

Agenda:
1. Classroom debate on the death of Captain Cook

 

WEEK SIX: IMAGE AND SYMBOL

 

T 9/30: The work of Clifford Geertz
Reading (45 pages):
1. Daniel L. Pals, Eight Theories of Religion 260-291 on BB
2. Clifford Geertz, “Ethos, Worldview, and the Analysis of Sacred Symbols” 126-141 on BB

Assignment:
1. Tenth set of discussion questions due at 8pm the night before class

Agenda:
1. Watch “Wayang Mahabharata”
2. The signs of nobility
3. The function of symbol’s in Geertz’s definition of religion

 

Th 10/2: The divine image in India
Reading (21 pages):
1. James J. Preston, “Creation of the Sacred Image” 9-30 on BB

Watch:
1. “Clay Sculpting of Lord Ganesh” on BB

Assignment:
1. ***MIDTERM EXAM DUE AT 10AM ON BB***

Agenda:
1. Introducing the concept of darshan
2. What is present in the icon?
3. Group activity on murtis

 

WEEK SEVEN: HOW DOES RITUAL WORK?

 

T 10/7: Theories of ritual
Reading (41 pages):
1. Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice 13-54

Assignment:
1. Eleventh set of discussion questions due at 8pm the night before class

Agenda:
1. Unpacking the concept of discourse
2. Understanding Bell’s critique of Geertz
3. Ritual as text, ritual as performance

 

Th 10/9: Ritual as social action
Reading (26 pages):
1. Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice 67-93

Assignment:
1. Twelfth set of discussion questions due at 8pm the night before class
2. Quiz #6 due at 10am on BB

Agenda:
1. What is “cultural logic”?
2. Meaning and deconstruction
3. Relating ritual to form and routine

 

WEEK EIGHT: RITUAL, SELF AND SOCIETY

 

T 10/14: Ritual and the body
Reading (42 pages):
1. Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice 94-117
2. Sarah Iles Johnston, “Fiat Lux, Fiat Ritus” 5-24 on BB

Assignment:
1. Thirteenth set of discussion questions due at 8pm the night before class

Agenda:
1. Blindness and misrecognition
2. Unpacking the concept of embodiment
3. The presence of light

 

Th 10/16: Continuity and Change
Reading (24 pages):
1. Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice 118-142

Assignment:
1. Fourteenth set of discussion questions due at 8pm the night before class
2. Quiz #7 due at 10am on BB

Agenda:
1. Watch Altar of Fire in class

 

WEEK NINE: RITUAL AND POWER

 

T 10/21: Ritual as social control
Reading (51 pages):
1. Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice 169-196
2. Talal Asad, “Toward a Genealogy of the Concept of Ritual” 55-79 on BB

Assignment:
1. Fifteenth set of discussion questions due at 8pm the night before class

Agenda:
1. What does ritual say it does?
2. How does ideology work?
3. Christianity and the internalization of religion

 

Th 10/23: “Ritualization”
Reading (50 pages):
1. Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice 197-223
2.  Maurice Bloch, “The Royal Bath in Madagascar” 187-211 on BB

Assignment:
1. Sixteenth set of discussion questions due at 8pm the night before class
2. Quiz #8 due at 10am on BB

Agenda:
1. What do we mean when we say “power”?
2. The rites of the sovereign
3. Watch “The Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II”

 

WEEK TEN: MYTH BETWEEN RELIGION AND CULTURE

 

T 10/28: Myth, ritual and structure
Reading (36 pages):
1. Lord Raglan, “Myth and Ritual” 122-134 on BB
2. Edmund R. Leach, “Genesis as Myth” 1-13
3. Claude Lévi-Strauss, “Four Winnebago Myths” 15-26 on BB (NB- Last two readings are together under the title “Myth and Cosmos”)

Assignment:
1. Seventeenth set of discussion questions due at 8pm the night before class

Agenda:
1. The myth-ritual school
2. A very complicated way to read the Bible
3. Introducing “structure”

 

Th 10/30: Making up Myths: Slenderman, Annabelle and the Satanic Panic
Reading (about 22 pages):
1. Goode and Ben-Yehuda, “A Representative Moral Panic: Satanic Ritual Abuse,” Moral Panics 57-65 on BB
2. Frankfurter, “The Satanic Ritual Abuse Panic as Religious-Studies Data,” Numen 50 109-117 on BB
3. Laycock, “The Paranormal to Pop Culture Pipeline,” Religion Dispatches on BB
4. “The Slenderman Wiki: Original Mythos” on BB
5. Laycock, “‘Slender Man’ Murder Attempt Wasn’t Media or Madness,” Religion Dispatches on BB
6. Laycock, “‘Another Slender Man Attack?” Religion Dispatches on BB

Listen:
1. Goldman, “Managing a Monster” TLDR on BB

Watch:
1. “Ed and Lorraine Warren: The Occult Museum” on BB

Assignment:
1. Eighteenth set of discussion questions due at 8pm the night before class
2. Quiz #9 due at 10am on BB

Agenda:
1. Watch in class 20/20: The Devil Worshippers
2. What is a moral panic?
3. Myths vs. Urban Legends

 

WEEK ELEVEN: MYTHOLOGY AND THE SACRED

 

T 11/4: Imagining the end
Reading (93 pages):
1. Myth and Reality 1-74
2. David Adams Leeming, “The Apocalypse” 78-89 on BB
3. Alan Weisman, “Earth without People” 28-36 on BB

Assignment:
3. Nineteenth set of discussion questions due at 8pm the night before class

Agenda:
1. The eternal return
2. Understanding apocalyptic themes
3. “The World without Us” as the primal scene

 

Th 11/6: Myth, memory and time
Reading (74 pages):
1. Myth and Reality 75-138
2. Wendy Doniger, “Minimyths and Maximyths and Political Points of View” 109-126 on BB

Assignment:
1. Twentieth set of discussion questions due at 8pm the night before class
2. Quiz #10 due at 10am on BB

Agenda:
1. Hegel, briefly
2. What do we mean we say “difference”?
3. Synchronic or diachronic readings?

 

WEEK TWELVE: MYTH AND MODERNITY

 

T 11/11: The end of myth?
Reading (64 pages):
1. Myth and Reality 139-193
2. “Mircea Eliade” in Encyclopedia of Religion 2753-2763 on BB

Assignment:
1. Twenty-first set of discussion questions due at 8pm the night before class

Agenda:
1. Considering Eliade
2. Myths and fascist fantasies
2. Romantic nostalgia

 

Th 11/13: Religious evolution and typology
Reading (43 pages):
1. Robert Bellah, “Religious Evolution” 20-45
2. Paul Bloom, “Is God an Accident?” 272-290 on BB

Assignment:
1. Twenty-second set of discussion questions due at 8pm the night before class
2. Annotated bibliography due at 10am on BB

Agenda:
1. Unpacking the categories of “primitive,” “archaic” and “historical”
2. Symbolism vs. literalism
3. The “universality” of myths; or, What kind of thing is the Milky Way?

 

WEEK THIRTEEN: LOOKING CLOSELY AT MYTHS

 

T 11/18: Tricksters and gurus
Reading (48 pages):
1. Jon Engle, “Guru Nanak” 15-46 on BB
2. Martha Beckwith, “Trickster Stories” 430-447 on BB

Assignment:
1. Twenty-third set of discussion questions due at 8pm the night before class

Agenda:
1. Hagiography and mythology
2. Animals and spirits in Hawaii
3. Introducing the “Indo-European”

 

Th 11/20: Cosmogony and politics
Reading (44 pages):
1. Bruce Lincoln, “The Politics of Myth” 27-37 on BB
2. M. L. West, “Cosmos and Canon” 340-374 on BB

Assignment:
1. Twenty-fourth set of discussion questions due at 8pm the night before class
2. A clearly stated thesis due in the form of a 250-word paper proposal due at 10am on BB

Agenda:
1. Ireland, Iran, Aryan
2. How the past shapes the present
3. Turning myths on their heads

 

WEEK FOURTEEN: RITUAL, SYMBOL AND FILM

 

T 11/25: Is a film a ritual?
Reading (23 pages):
1. Lyn Brunet, “Homage to Freemasonry or Indictment?” 98-112 on BB
2. Carel Rowe, “Illuminating Lucifer” 24-33 on BB

Agenda:
1. Watch Matthew Barney’s Cremaster 3
2. Watch Kenneth Anger’s Lucifer Rising

Assignment:
1. In-class exercise

 

Th 11/27: THANKSGIVING-NO CLASS

 

WEEK FIFTEEN: SCAPEGOATING, MYTH AND SACRIFICE IN INDIA AND MESOAMERICA

 

T 12/2: René Girard and the GMSM
Reading (127 pages):
1. Robert Hamerton-Kelly, “The Generative Mimetic Scapegoating Mechanism” 129-152 on BB
2. Sacrifice (in its entirety)

Assignment:
1. Twenty-fifth set of discussion questions due at 8pm the night before class

Agenda:
1. How to read a myth (according to Girard)
2. The gospels and the scapegoat
3. The crumbling edifice

 

Th 12/4: The Aztec Sacrifice
Reading (58 pages):
1. Roberta H. and Peter T. Markman, “Flayed Gods, Snake-Women, and Were-Jaguars” 174-225 on BB
2. Vincent Stanzione, “The Sacrifice of MaNawal JesuKristo” 146-155 on BB

Assignment:
1. ***RESEARCH PAPER DUE***

Agenda:
1. Beyond Apocalypto
2. Feeding the sun, building the empire
3. Jesus comes to Tenochtitlan