marXian

Friends, my department hosts a graduate student conference every other year. Below is the CFP for next school year's conference. The conference is intended for any current graduate students at either the masters or Ph.D levels. We are also a department open to a wide range of approaches and methodologies in religious studies (as the CFP hopefully makes clear.) It has been planned and will be hosted by a committee of graduate students from the department (myself included), and is a great opportunity for those looking for conference experience in a friendly, supportive environment. I hope that you will submit an abstract for consideration! I'm happy to answer questions, but as I am on the committee, they can't be about your specific abstract. Please feel free to share with friends and colleagues! RELIGION AND THE NATURAL ELEMENTS Northwestern University Department of Religious Studies Graduate Conference October 24-26, 2014 Keynote Speakers Leigh Schmidt (WUSTL) Marilyn McCord Adams (Rutgers) Dyan Elliott (Northwestern) CALL FOR PAPERS The Religious Studies Department of Northwestern University invites graduate papers for a conference on “Religion and the Natural Elements,” to be held in Evanston, Illinois on October 24-26, 2014. We request abstracts by May 16, 2014. Through this conference, we aim to cultivate new ways of thinking about religion and the natural world. We focus on religion’s intersections with aspects of nature, from the environment, climate, flora, and fauna, to human interactions with the natural, in the form of spirits, gods and goddesses, and miracles. This conference will explore the relationships among ecosystems, religious practice, and religious thought. Conference participants will examine how people experience religion in and through nature, and they will reflect on the modes by which humans interact with the natural world, in ritual practice, in religious text, and in theological inquiry. For example, papers might engage with pressing issues of the 21st century, such as the financial and theological responses of international religious organizations to the devastation of Typhoon Hayian in the Philippines in 2013. Papers might also address contemporary and/or historical issues of environmental change, cosmology, bioethics, evolution, or natural symbolism, among other topics that contemplate the natural environment, lived religion, and religious reflection. All of these topics deserve thorough exploration in an interdisciplinary setting, and thus the Northwestern University Religious Studies Department seeks papers from across the humanities and social sciences. The intersections of religion and the natural world offer rich points of discussion for graduate students who approach religion from a number of different fields, including religious studies, theology, philosophy, anthropology, history, gender studies, political science, sociology, and psychology. Papers should not exceed fifteen minutes in length and may approach the topic from any discipline or methodology. Please send a 500-word abstract, along with your name, institution, and year of study to nureligiousstudiesconference@gmail.com by May 16, 2014. Decisions will be communicated by the end of June.

Glad I could help. Here's a bit of unsolicited advice to keep in mind as you're going through your program and begin to think about Ph.D programs (I'm assuming that's what you're goal is.) A lot of people are interested in the sort of thing Roberts engages with (i.e. "radical theology" and/or the work of Zizek, Derrida, Deleuze and other continental thinkers as they apply to religion). As someone with a background in literary criticism (MA in English), it was exciting for me to read Roberts' book as well and to read it in contemporary theories and methods course in religious studies taught by a scholar who is primarily a historian (Orsi.) Theory seems to be experiencing a bit of a resurgence in religious studies (it was certainly around in the 80s and very contentious) and there are segments of theology where it is widely accepted (Chicago Divinity comes to mind as a place where theory is highly valued.) But the reality is that there are not too many theology or religious studies programs (in the states at least) where you'd be able to study theology/religion and 20th century continental thought as your primary focus. Chicago is one. UVA and Drew also come to mind for theology/phil of religion. Perhaps Marquette (D. Stephen Long is there.) Abroad, Nottingham is probably one of the best schools for that kind of work. But of that list, Chicago and UVA are the only schools I'd consider to be top 15 programs. There may be others as well, but it's a very limited pool. There are other ways though to work on the sorts of things Roberts is doing in that book, especially in a religious studies program. "Theories and methods" is a research interest that you'll see on some RS profs' profiles as you look at programs (including Roberts'.) You'll notice that it's never their primary interest though. They are always specialists in something else (e.g. Southeast Asian religions, American religious history, etc.) So theory and method is something they do "on the side." It's something that anyone who works in the field can do, really. And, in my experience, "theory and method" is basically the wild west in religious studies. You have people doing work in "theories and methods" who emphasize cognitive science, ethnography, sociology, media studies, political science, and, as Roberts does, revisiting continental philosophy as providing the field with an array of theoretical tools. Roberts' book is about theory and method in religious studies--a quintessential religious studies text in my mind. My point is that you can be in a religious studies program, working on a dissertation in your specific field, and still be doing work in theories and methods that engage the continental stuff. To use myself as an example, I work on early 20th century theology and social thought. I've written papers for the theories and methods courses that have attempted to clarify the role and limits of theory in religious studies (which have engaged some combination of Derrida, Agamben, Foucault, Deleuze, and Adorno depending on the aim of the paper.) I'm in the critical theory program at Northwestern and engage with theory on a regular basis in reading groups, colloquia, etc. I'm presenting a paper at AAR in November that will discuss the relationship between Weber's thought and The Frankfurt School. But my area, officially, is early 20th century theology and social thought, which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with critical theory and continental philosophy of the late 20th century. It's just more marketable for jobs in theology/RS to have something historical as a primary field. I can justify some of my work on critical theory through my work on Weber, and the later stuff I just call my work on "theory and method in religious studies." Anyway, it's certainly possible to work in those interests in other ways even as your primary area. Just throwing this out there since you mentioned your interest in what Roberts is doing in his book. Roberts, if I remember correctly, did his dissertation on Nietzsche and religion.

I'm not sure I know of a text that attempts to cover philosophy of religion in general, theology, jewish philosophy, and philosophical theology in one cohesive narrative. There may be a text that satisfies what you're looking for, but that seems to be too broad a project for anyone to take on. You're probably better off tracking down "Companion" texts for each of those honestly. I read Reason & Religious Belief by William Peterson, et. al. when I took philosophy of religion in seminary. It's certainly more friendly to religion than other similar texts might be, but I think it gives a good overview of the central questions in the discipline. Maybe someone else has other or better suggestions. The classic text in the relationship between theology and sociology is probably Max Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Ernst Troeltsch's lengthy The Social Teachings of the Christian Church is also important. Weber utilizes theology for sociological purposes and Troeltsch sociology for theological purposes. There is a quite contentious relationship between theology and religious studies (which can include some types of anthropology, sociology of religion, etc.) in the contemporary academy. Tomoko Masuzawa's 2005 text The Invention of the World's Religions is an argument for why the two should be kept separate and that religious studies still has a poisonous theological kernel that needs to be expelled. She is quite polemical against Troeltsch especially toward the end of her book. Tyler Roberts' Encountering Religion is a very recent text that argues for a renewed relationship between the two. Robert Orsi's Between Heaven and Earth is slightly different but emphasizes a focus on "lived religion" which includes an understanding of theological ideas as religious people/communities encounter and utilize them in their everyday practice. Be aware that there are some pretty bad texts in this vein as well. For example, though it's received a lot of praise, Tanya Luhrmann's When God Talks Back, from a theological point of view, is lacking quite a bit. It's painfully obvious Luhrmann, who is engaging not only practices but ideas about those practices, has never cracked a theological text to see what might be informing the ideas her interlocutors espouse. Honestly, I still find Weber's work to be one of the best examples of how theology can be used to make claims about social facts. Though his account of Reformed theology is often refuted, it's clear he's no theological slouch.

Beginning with any "Companion" text is a good place to start (e.g. Blackwell's Companion to Philosophy of Religion) One of the things you'll instantly see is that it's really going to be impossible for you (or anyone) to read everything--even to read the important texts from every tradition, period, etc. would be a significant undertaking. So I'm going to suggest some texts that I think are maybe some of the most important for contemporary Western philosophy of religion and/or philosophical theology. Other people here would probably add or subtract from this list, so it's by no means definitive. "Classic" Philosophy of Religion: Hume - Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion; Natural History of Religion Kant - Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone Hegel - Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion; On Art, Religion, and the History of Philosophy Schleiermacher - On Religion: Speeches to its Cultured Despisers Feuerbach - The Essence of Religion Marx and Engels - On Religion Nietzsche - Beyond Good and Evil; On the Genealogy of Morals Freud - The Future of an Illusion Troeltsch - The Absoluteness of Christianity Otto - The Idea of the Holy Jewish (and secular-Jewish) philosophy of religion: Maimonides - The Guide of the Perplexed Spinoza - Tractatus Theologico-Politicus Mendelssohn - Jerusalem: Or on Religious Power and Judaism Cohen - Religion of Reason: Out of the Sources of Judaism Rosenzweig - The Star of Redemption Bloch - The Spirit of Utopia, The Principle of Hope Benjamin - "The Critique of Violence;" "On the Concept of History;" "Capitalism as Religion" Buber - I and Thou; On Judaism I started writing a much longer list going into the 20th century, but it was getting out of control, so I'll leave it at this. There are some really significant strands that develop in the second half of the 20th century (existentialism (Heidegger, Sartre, Camus, etc.,) the linguistic turn (i.e. logical positivism, Wittgenstein's rejection of positivism, ordinary language philosophy, neopragmatism), death-of-God theology (sometimes called radical theology, e.g. Altizer, etc.), process philosophy/theology (Whitehead), continental thought broadly conceived (Derrida, Levinas, Lacan, Deleuze, etc.)) It also gets really difficult at that point because many texts utilized from these traditions in the philosophy of religion are not necessarily explicitly about religion. Wittgenstein, for example, doesn't really write anything explicitly about religion (he does, but it's not what philosophers/theologians typically draw upon.) There's also everything that comes before the early modern period in the Christian tradition. I didn't include anything from the medieval or Patristic eras (or from the ancient world) because those are way outside my area. I'm sure someone else here could add some things from there if you needed them though. Something you might find helpful in that regard is as podcast called "The History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps." On the website (historyofphilosophy.net) you can find the episodes that the host (Peter Adamson) has done on religion, God, etc. He's covered [almost] all of the philosophy of the ancient world (only the West), the Hellenistic period, and late antiquity to John Philoponus. He has a whole set of episodes on ancient Christianity from the Greek fathers to Boethius. Most recently, he has been working his way through the philosophy of the Islamic world, including philosophy in Andalusia (which includes medieval Jewish philosophy of that region, e.g. Maimonides.) All of that to say, you may find some helpful primers on very early "philosophy of religion" from a wider variety of traditions than what I've listed. There are also other podcasts (Philosophy Bytes, In Our Time) which quite often tackle issues or figures in philosophy of religion and their archives are extensive. One last thing: I don't know that I would actually attempt Hegel, Schleiermacher, or Rosenzweig (or Whitehead for that matter) on my own particularly if you've never studied any of them with an expert. You may know that already, but it's worth saying: they're incredibly difficult.

It really depends on both the school and the department. At Northwestern, if a department has a language requirement, competency is always via exam. Some departments have their own. I had to go to UofC to do mine... So you should check with whatever schools you end up getting in to.

Ah I see what you're saying. I think that you're right in thinking it wise to pursue a Ph.D in a "traditional" discipline (e.g. philosophy, comp lit, RS, etc.) rather than a Ph.D in social thought or whatever highly specialized titles schools come up with. With regard to Hölderlin, the reality is that a person wanting to study Hölderlin primarily is probably only going to be able to do that in a comp lit or German department just because that's where the majority of people who do work on him teach. And people pursuing that kind of work at the Ph.D level expect to find a job in either a comp lit or German department. I could imagine someone in a philosophy department incorporating some study of literature, but that probably wouldn't be your primary focus. Figuring out what you want your primary focus to be and in what kind of department you'd be interested in teaching is obviously important. Also, I could be wrong, but it seems as though philosophy is a discipline whose departments will probably only hire people with a Ph.D in philosophy (when those people are trying to get a job right out of their program.) That is, although I'm doing a lot of work in philosophy, will take an exam in philosophy of history or social thought, my Ph.D will be in religious studies, and I won't be applying for philosophy jobs. Religious studies is not like that at all though; they make hires from other disciplines. There are plenty of faculty with Ph.Ds in history, philosophy, theology, southeast Asian literature and culture, etc. who get their first jobs in religious studies departments if they do work on religion. Some people actually have Ph.Ds in religious studies, but unlike many of the other humanities disciplines, religious studies is open to hiring people who have Ph.Ds in something else right out of their programs. So maybe a Ph.D in philosophy might actually be the best option for you after all.

Applying for an MA you don't need to worry about mentioning specific faculty. spellbanisher is right; people applying to Ph.D programs absolutely should mention specific faculty. You need to demonstrate your fit with the department and that you're interested in working with particular faculty (with whom you will be working for a long time.)

I'm currently a Northwestern student (in religious studies) and I'd definitely suggest taking a look at the philosophy, RS, German departments and the comp lit program at NU. Peter Fenves (German), Sam Weber (German), Mark Alznauer (philosophy), Rachel Zuckert (philosophy), Christine Helmer (religious studies) might all be people of interest for you. I do work on Weber and the theologian Ernst Troeltsch. The thing to remember is that you can (and will) still study philosophy without being in a philosophy department, especially with what you're interested in. The hardcore analytics on this board might absolutely hate that, but people in the German department do work on Hölderlin and philosophy (e.g. Schelling or Nietzsche, etc.), or Kafka and philosophy, etc. Schleiermacher obviously requires a very strong background in Kant and responses to Kant as well as Spinoza and Leibniz. A couple of my colleagues in religious studies study Schleiermacher, and have done a lot of work with faculty in the philosophy and German departments. As for myself, I've been doing a lot of work recently in neo-Kantian philosophy of history. I'm doing a directed reading this quarter on Dilthey, Windelband, and Rickert--all really important background for Weber and Troeltsch. I'm also going to present a paper in November at the national AAR (American Academy of Religion) conference on Weber and the Frankfurt School. I don't consider myself a philosopher, but philosophy is indispensable for my work. Even though my focus is on Weber and Troeltsch, I can connect those interests to other things I'm interested in even if they don't become a part of my dissertation in the end. Still, what you suggest in your last paragraph isn't just more pragmatic--it really is what you have to do. That is, you have to have areas of competence, and they really can't be all that broad. And for your dissertation, you have to "officially" focus on not just a period, not just one person (maybe two) in that period, but a very narrow idea/concept/contention/etc. But, as I've said, you can still have interdisciplinary interests. Those interests can become areas of competence (i.e. you can take an exam in one of those areas.) You just need to find schools that really value interdisciplinary work. Northwestern, for example, has a program called "The Interdisciplinary Cluster Initiative" in which Ph.D students have the option to join a "cluster" with students from other departments that are centered around an interdisciplinary subject (critical theory, gender studies, Jewish studies, medieval studies, African American studies, etc.) Most clusters have a certificate option in which you take certain courses to earn a certificate in the subject which then goes on your transcript. I'm part of the critical theory cluster. My department and adviser love that I'm involved in the cluster and that I work very closely with faculty from the philosophy and German departments. Finding a school and program that value interdisciplinary work will allow you to go in the directions you're thinking about now.

If you're talking about the title "chaplain," I very much doubt this, since full-time healthcare chaplaincy requires board certification (4 CPE units, which is 1600 hours) in addition to an MDiv. If you're talking about being a "reverend," I don't see what that has to do with the OP's question. Anyone can become "ordained" online and perform legal weddings. That doesn't fly for chaplaincy though.

I would go with what the faculty are telling you as well. There are certainly "safe" things to publish which vary from field to field and your faculty/advisers will know that and (hopefully) not steer you wrong. My advice was more for those who actively seeking publication without that kind of support since "A paper" does not equal publishable paper.

I agree with both Body Politics and Joseph45. Masters students should not be worried about publishing. People think that if they can just get something published somewhere it will up their chances for acceptance into a PhD program. I'd say that unless the journal is widely known, a publication in a random journal is not going to help much if at all. Furthermore, chances are your work as a masters student is not going to be as good as it will be when you're a PhD candidate--you should hope it's not! Publishing something officially is a "forever" move. Whatever you publish is going to be out there in databases for anyone to find. You may publish something that ends up coming back to bite you later in your career. That's not to say that people don't change their minds over their careers--they do. But usually their thought as a masters has not matured, making the chances of publishing something regrettable much higher.

I don't know anything about Union's program, so I could be totally wrong here, but it sounds like their focus is more psychoanalysis and religion, rather than psychology. There is a very big difference between what we would today call "psychology" and "psychoanalysis." While Freud and Jung are certainly a part of the history of psychology as a field, today, I think they largely fall under the latter category. It sounds like what Union is doing is talking about psychoanalytic theory as a type of "critical theory." Psychoanalysis is one of the main "branches" of critical theory broadly defined. It's a more philosophically oriented discipline (that includes Lacan as well) that uses the "psychological" categories from these figures to talk about other things (literature, religion, etc.) In English departments, theology/religion departments, art/art history departments, etc. that are very theory-oriented, these guys, though old, figure in prominently. Folks working in those sorts of departments are interested in creating contemporary constructive "readings" of literature/art/religion out of these resources. Lacan/Freud/Jung are essentially treated the same way one would Derrida, Wittgenstein, etc. Contemporary psychology, however, does not, to my knowledge, deal much with those guys, especially in practice. They may pop up as important historical figures, but they don't figure in prominently to the contemporary scene, which is probably the disconnect you're sensing. If the OP is interested in the intersection of contemporary psychology and religion, I would be wary of this distinction.

I'm in my seventh year of graduate study (two MAs, second year PhD), and I found this to be so incredibly spot on. Even this far along in my graduate work, I'm still discovering some of this. Thanks for distilling it so well. It's always comforting to know that others are going through the same thing!

Some people thrive in that atmosphere and so, to them, it's not cutthroat at all. As I said in my comment, the atmosphere was generally good natured; all the UofC people seemed to be in the know that this was just how things are done.

Someone who attends UofC full time might be able to do better than this, but I took a seminar there in my first quarter at Northwestern. It was one of the "famous" theology seminars that UofC offers. I was one of maybe 5 PhD students (2 from Chicago, 2 from Wheaton, and myself) and the rest, 10 or 12, were MA or MDiv students. If I had one word to describe the course, it would be "cutthroat." While the atmosphere was generally good natured, it did feel at times like the M* students were clamoring for the professor's attention; every single person was interested in pursuing a PhD a UofC. It seemed to be understood that this was just how things worked, and the professor actually seemed to revel in it a little bit. I did really like the prof and the course overall, but I felt like I never had a chance to speak, and when I did it was just exhausting being cross-examined sometimes (not all the time) by M* students on what was ultimately minutia (i.e. "Why did you use this word and not this one?") I'm all for precision in one's thinking, but it got a little silly. This could have been an exceptional case given the reputation of the seminar (the prof. said more publishable papers were produced from that seminar than any other in the div school--or something like that) and the popularity of the prof, but whatever it was, it was rough.

I'd could've been not all the academic advisers knew about it (I had LeAnn Aldirch.) Also Murphy was my faculty adviser, so she mentioned it to me as well. Yeah, definitely adjustments should be made depending on the type of student one is, how good a test taker one is, etc.

Sure. I added a link to it for download on my old blog here. I guess some folks maybe would've found that helpful about 9 months ago...

Dabaliga, I don't know what the results were for you this year in applying to programs, but have you considered religious studies programs? Of the RS departments that are friendly to theological projects, one could probably be admitted with an MA in philosophy and a desire to do a theological/philosophical project. One does not need a PhD in theology in order to teach theology. For example, theologians who have earned their PhDs at Yale in recent years technically have a PhD in religious studies (as Yale Divinity does not confer PhDs.) Same goes for those doing theological projects at Syracuse, UVA, Northwestern, etc. If an RS department has a theology track, the aim is for those students to be able to teach theology. As you might imagine, there are far more opportunities for people with a PhD in religious studies with an emphasis in theology from any of these schools than there are for people who have a PhD in theology from a denominational seminary (with the exception maybe of Princeton.) Most RS departments are wary of PhDs in theology earned at seminaries, for better or for worse. But the opposite does not seem to be true; that is, many religiously affiliated schools, both colleges and seminaries, would be very interested in hiring someone with a PhD from said schools. Of course, that's probably not true for more conservative institutions. But with a degree in religious studies, one could potentially teach at a religiously affiliated school or a "secular" religious studies department interested in having someone who does theology.

Okay that makes more sense now. Thanks for the charitable response. Someone else very recently started a thread with the same assumptions about divinity schools/seminaries. There are definitely some places you do not want to go as an atheist or agnostic. But the big name programs will be totally fine. In addition to what Lux mentioned, Boston College and Duke would probably be fine as well. Those are the sorts of programs that will have the greatest recognition among the best PhD programs in biblical studies.

Lots of people have thrown out some great advice already, but I just wanted to add something else. I'm going to be a bummer and bring a little bit of negativity... ...but hopefully it can become positivity! Please do not take this the wrong way, since all I know about you is from your story that you've posted. Think of this as some "tough love" I guess: You seem like you're in an idealistic phase right now, and you need to get through it as soon as possible if you want to get real about a PhD program. Three things tell me that. 1)Yes, your story and this thread demonstrate that you know you need to do something about your undergraduate career. But you set up your story as "Look I'm not after that idyllic job--I want this one which is way more realistic!" It's really not though. Any of us, even those of us already in programs, would be crazy to just assume we're definitely going to get a job at an Ivy League school when we're done. The vast majority of us will not. But the jobs you're talking about are negligibly easier to obtain than a job at a tier 1 university. So in a sense, we're equally crazy if we think we're just going to waltz into even a community college with our PhD in hand, slap it down and say, "Now where's my office?" I know--you don't want to hear about the job market. But that tells me you maybe don't want to hear about other potential obstacles as well. Your response to Kuriakos' question about the SBL Facebook page seems to confirm that. You have to be realistic about the job market because that's going to help you figure out what programs you should be aiming for and thus what your preparation now should be. 2) People are going to tell you things you don't want to hear, and they're going to do it in a not nice way. It's not because they think you're a bad person for wanting a PhD (well, maybe some do) but it's because when a person comes on to a page like that or a board like this leading with dreams of a cozy little office at a liberal arts college or whatever and what is to me sort of an odd instance on an interdisciplinary studies program, a red flag immediately goes up signaling that maybe this person has some blinders on that need to be removed. Be open to the possibility that you do have some blinders on right now. So instead of saying, "I don't like that answer," take those responses very very seriously. If you want to make this happen, you need to take every step you possibly can toward the goal of just getting into a PhD program without already deciding on what sort of job you're going to have when you're done. 3) Lastly, it's confusing why you would shy away from one of the major div schools or seminaries in favor of an IS program. I would very seriously take into consideration the level of language prep that derewigestudent is suggesting. I would also take seriously the suggestion that an IS program may not be the best prep for a PhD in New Testament. At the very least, it will close some doors for you that an MDiv, MAT, MTS, etc. from a well known div school or seminary would not. Why do you have your heart set on an interdisciplinary studies program aside from the fact that it combines religious studies and classics? If you went to Harvard, Duke, Yale, etc., you could easily take courses in classics, religious studies, languages and you'd be earning a degree that would be far, far more competitive than the Oregon program. Again, I'm not trying to discourage you. The sooner you really face the reality of your situation, however, the easier it's going to be for you to really figure out what it is you need to do to get into a good program. I think all of us at one point or another went through a phase like this. And as I said at the beginning, you're obviously on the right track in owning up to the fact that your current preparation just isn't going to cut it. Recognizing these other things will go a long way in being able to properly assess your situation and prepare accordingly.

Not true, but thanks! I really appreciated when folks took time to help me out when I was applying. Yes these are good suggestions. I also wanted to add J.Z. Smith as someone with whom everyone should probably get acquainted--though like Asad, some seem to be getting tired of him.

Did she give him the "Sooo....You Want to Get a PhD?" handout that Thompson (John) and Murphy put together? I think they made it for academic advisers to give out to all students who came by asking for PhD advice to try to deter those students from coming to them. I think I still have my copy saved in my email somewhere...

"Theory and method" in religious studies is pretty contentious as you will learn especially once you start a PhD program. There are some figures though that I think everyone has to contend with at least in the beginning. Even if you're a theologian, a biblical scholar, historian, etc. in a religious studies department, everyone has to grapple with these texts. Though it seems like this might be on its way out the door (at least in my mind and from the more recent texts I've read), you need to know Talal Asad. He's probably the most important "contemporary" figure. The field has been wrestling with his work for the last 20 years or so, but his claims about the secular, his understanding of Foucault and discourses of power--these are things that someone entering a PhD program in the next 2-5 years, maybe longer, will need to be well versed in at least by the time comprehensive exams roll around. You might want to take a peak at Genealogies of Religion. In addition to Asad, you should probably be familiar with Clifford Geertz whose legacy still exists in contemporary religious studies. He and Asad had a famous debate about the relationship of religious ideas to practice, specifically the meaning of objects and rituals as being important to their actual practice. Geertz's book you need to know is The Interpretation of Cultures. Any classical theories course is going to have you read some combination of Kant, Schleiermacher, Feuerbach, Marx, Freud, Nietzsche, E.B. Tylor, William Robertson Smith, Weber, Durkheim, Otto, and Eliade. These are all old, dead, white dudes. I really wouldn't bother spending a significant amount of time in any one of these texts (especially the Victorians) but getting a good sense of what their projects are will give you some insight into the theoretical legacy of the discipline. In terms of the more contemporary scene, there are so many ways one could go. The majority of religious studies texts written today are still ethnographies. But a lot of money also gets thrown at cognitive science of religion. Those are just two totally different worlds in my mind--yet they're both in the realm of religious studies. Some books I've enjoyed that have been published in the last few years: The Invention of Religion in Japan (Jason Josephson, 2012) Encountering Religion (Tyler Roberts, 2013) Dreams That Matter: Egyptian Landscapes of the Imagination (Amira Mittermaier, 2010) The Burden of Black Religion (Curtis Evans, 2008) There are, of course, other trends in the field (e.g. phenomenology of religion) but to me, the texts above represent, in general, a fairly broad introduction to the field. Many contemporary texts do try to construct theoretical frameworks that move away a bit from what is now no doubt the beaten-to-death Asadian-Foucaultian genealogical method utilizing other continental philosophy that has been in vogue in literary theory--most of which saw its heyday in that field in the 80s. As a former literature person, I find this annoying. Mostly because often times the framework becomes a mash-up of various concepts. In Roberts' case, for example (even though I did like the book overall) it seems as though he wants to namedrop every person with a "theory" that he's ever read in order to make the case that he wants to. In other cases, the framework tends to be too universalizing for ethnographic work, forcing the author to obviously omit aspects of his or her "thick description" that don't fit the framework. Jarrett Zigon's HIV is God's Blessing which is about the Russian Orthodox Church, recovering drug addicts, and neoliberalism, is a good example of this (his theoretical frame is Agamben's concept of "bare life.") I say all that because like you, I have a deep interest in philosophy and especially critical theory. I'm just skeptical about viewing theory as a supremely effective tool in religious studies. EDIT: I should make it clear that, with the exception of Asad and some of the classical people, these were not texts that I read on my own or before I started my PhD. I've taken two seminars and two directed studies in theories and methods, and much of what I've read in the field was in those.

This is an excellent way of thinking about it.

It's always hard to know exactly what the letters say since we don't ever see them (at least, we're not supposed to.) You're definitely on the right track in terms of your thinking. You want your recommenders to know who you are beyond just what grade you got in their class. I suggest trying to meet with the profs you want to solicit letters from during their office hours to talk about PhD programs, your interests, etc. Above all you want your letters to be able to speak to your potential as a future scholar in a very detailed and expansive way. The more it seems like the prof really knows you, the better. When I was applying, I was able to set up two letters at my seminary, but I had a lot of trouble tracking down a third. I ended up going with a prof from my English MA who sat on my thesis committee. He and I had a really good professional relationship, so I knew he'd write a great letter. Since he was outside of the field, I asked him to speak to my writing abilities and my ability to analyze texts. I don't know if that letter hurt me anywhere--maybe it did. But I was admitted to two programs, so in some ways it seems to have been the right choice. As long as you make the effort to secure letters from profs who know you beyond just how much you said in their class and the 'A' that you earned, I think you can feel pretty confident.