Public universities?

[RedPill]

Hi all,

 

I am not an applicant in this field. I am wondering if there are any good religion programs housed within public universities and if these universities offer funding? I would think public universities be more limited in religious studies do to their public status, not to mention budgets. I'm interested in knowing how some of the humanist of humanities like philosophy and religion fare in public Us

 

Thoughts? 

 

On a side note, which programs are considered top for this field? What do professors of religion do to "publish"? What are the Brookings Institute(Political Science), Lumina Foundation(Education), NIH(health med), NSF(STEM) and similar granting foundations for this field? Are there grants to be won at all? 

 

I'm an applicant in higher education, so naturally, I'm interested in studying the academy as a whole..from physics to philosophy! 

[Macrina]

This is a very incomplete answer (no time to respond fully now) but there is a difference between the academic study of religion and a confessional or faith-based study. Almost every university that offers humanities programs will have a department of religion. Divinity schools and seminaries will have more faith-based approaches. And some universities have both a center for the study of religion (academic) and a divinity school (confessional). A good public university program would be somewhere like UNC-CH. And a place like Duke has both a religion department and a divinity school.

As for publications, they're the same as in the rest of the humanities (periodicals, books, conference proceedings etc) and funding varies widely by program.

Edited February 1, 2014 by Macrina

[sacklunch]

There are plenty of fantastic public 'religious studies' departments, as Macrina mentioned CH, and as your avatar suggests, U Michigan. Though be aware schools like Michigan, as well as places like UCLA and Wisconsin-Madison, have departments named "Near Eastern Studies" and so on, but are often an amalgam of religious studies, ancient history, and classics. Not surprisingly the lines between these fields are usually misleading and depending on what public school you are looking at, the dept. name may mean something quite different vis-a-vis another. 

[ἠφανισμένος]

Minnesota's department of "Classical and Near Eastern Studies" is another such place, particularly strong in ancient religion.

[Lux Lex Pax]

There are plenty of fantastic public 'religious studies' departments, as Macrina mentioned CH, and as your avatar suggests, U Michigan. Though be aware schools like Michigan, as well as places like UCLA and Wisconsin-Madison, have departments named "Near Eastern Studies" and so on, but are often an amalgam of religious studies, ancient history, and classics. Not surprisingly the lines between these fields are usually misleading and depending on what public school you are looking at, the dept. name may mean something quite different vis-a-vis another.

Near Eastern Studies, NELC, and the like leave a lot out that would normally be covered by a religion department. Near Eastern Studies tends to be very text-focused and philologically-oriented, and not very interested in the more philosophical or theoretical issues involved in the study of religion. They're also mainly interested in Islam and Judaism, and less so in Christianity, which might matter for those interested in studying Christianity.

The biggest problem with religious studies is that it's united by subject matter, rather than a methodology, so that one could conceivably study religion in any of the humanities or social sciences without there being a specific department called religious studies. There are limitations to this approach, but that seems to be the way the UC system in general has take toward the study of religion -- only UCSB has a program worth mentioning and even it doesn't have very good coverage of the usual religious studies issues.

[RedPill]

Great insight everyone,

 

Keep posting! It's very interesting to me. I love history, but the humanities is one area of the university that i'm not familiar with. With budget issues of budget cuts many programs are looking to cut back on the humanities. UNC is one of the crunch systems. It's interesting. 

 

 

What are the possible career paths for a religion student apart from faculty? 

[marXian]

There are not too many folks who post on here who do what makes up a large portion of religious studies, i.e. ethnographic/anthropological/sociological approaches to contemporary religious populations and/or history of particular religious populations. You'll note that just about everyone who replied offered answers related to philological endeavors (ancient religions, NELC, etc.) Not that there's anything wrong with those fields! =)

 

Lux is exactly right. Departments at state schools typically focus on the "social science" approaches to "lived religion" and "embodied practice" and/or the philological approaches to historical religions and/or the historical approaches to the lived religion and embodied practices of historical groups. All of those things could be studied in other departments and sometimes are. The thing that is usually missing from state programs is theology (and for understandable reasons.) Miami Ohio is an example of a very strong master's program that focuses on ethnographic/anthropological methods. Florida State, the University of Florida, University of Iowa, Indiana-Bloomington also come to mind. There are departments that do actually have some kind of theology/philosophy of religion track, like at University of Virginia, but that's probably less common at state schools.

Edited February 1, 2014 by marXian

[Lux Lex Pax]

There are not too many folks who post on here who do what makes up a large portion of religious studies, i.e. ethnographic/anthropological/sociological approaches to contemporary religious populations and/or history of particular religious populations. You'll note that just about everyone who replied offered answers related to philological endeavors (ancient religions, NELC, etc.) Not that there's anything wrong with those fields! =)

 

Lux is exactly right. Departments at state schools typically focus on the "social science" approaches to "lived religion" and "embodied practice" and/or the philological approaches to historical religions and/or the historical approaches to the lived religion and embodied practices of historical groups. All of those things could be studied in other departments and sometimes are. The thing that is usually missing from state programs is theology (and for understandable reasons.) Miami Ohio is an example of a very strong master's program that focuses on ethnographic/anthropological methods. Florida State, the University of Florida, University of Iowa, Indiana-Bloomington also come to mind. There are departments that do actually have some kind of theology/philosophy of religion track, like at University of Virginia, but that's probably less common at state schools.

Exactly. The way I see it, given the existence of NELC, Jewish studies, Buddhist studies, etc, there are three main reasons for maintaining a religious studies department: 1) the theories and methods stuff that doesn't fit neatly into anthropology or sociology; 2) the study of Christianity because, as far as I can tell, there are no Christian studies programs at most of the schools that have Jewish studies, Islamic studies, Buddhist studies, etc.; 3) normative or constructive work in religion, by which I mean the kind of work that most characterizes subfields like religious ethics, philosophy of religion, and theology.

Beyond those three contributions by religious studies, I'm pretty certain most other subfields that usually constitute religious studies can be pursued elsewhere throughout the university. I will say, however, that I love the interdisciplinarity of a religion department. There's a synergy that probably can't be replicated when everyone in the room has had very similar methodological training.

[marXian]

 I will say, however, that I love the interdisciplinarity of a religion department. There's a synergy that probably can't be replicated when everyone in the room has had very similar methodological training.

 

Totally agree with this. My year and a half so far in an RS department has had a very positive impact on the way I approach theology.

[Joseph45]

To the "normative or constructive work in religion" I would add constructing religion as a category/discreet and/or disembedded thing. A lot of people studying in rels departments may not believe that, but the institutional structure supports the creation of that cultural category.

[Lux Lex Pax]

To the "normative or constructive work in religion" I would add constructing religion as a category/discreet and/or disembedded thing. A lot of people studying in rels departments may not believe that, but the institutional structure supports the creation of that cultural category.

I agree that "religion" is a socially constructed category -- theories of religion try to describe what it means and how it functions. In contemporary American society, religion is often taken to mean belief in God. The two assumptions are that religion is mainly concerned with belief and supernatural beings. But those of us who are religious or study religion know that religion is about much more than belief and often doesn't involve supernatural beings. What is problematic is that the concept of religion as belief in God is often the normative view. For instance, the U.S. Supreme Court has often assumed that religion is about belief, so belief is the only thing that is protected by the religion clauses of the First Amendment. Religion as belief is a pretty pervasive view, and that's because that's the position religion occupies in some people's perspective. But anyone who has studied pre-modern religion knows that that view of religion is preposterous. Sometimes, however, contemporary views of religion are read anachronistically onto the past. Thus, people pick and choose passages that seem to support their views of religion as belief but completely ignore, say, something like the Rule of St. Benedict. In my view, one of the most significant problems in the study of religion is that people often assume that the concept of religion occupies the same social role at all times, places, and cultures. But there are obviously going to be many differences given the variation in societal complexity, with some societies being much more differentiated and complex than others. So, in order to understand religion, one must in many ways understand the society in which the religion is embedded.

I disagree with your statement, however, to the effect that the problem is caused by religious studies departments. The problem runs much deeper in society at large, and the university merely reflects those divisions. So, I'd reverse the cause and effect.

Edited February 2, 2014 by Lux Lex Pax

[marXian]

So, in order to understand religion, one must in many ways understand the society in which the religion is embedded.

 

Very Troeltschian! My work is focused on the emergence of the non-reductive version of this view of religion (and theology) in the early 20th century (particularly in Troeltsch's work.)

 

With regard to your comments on the First Amendment, have you read The Impossibility of Religious Freedom by Winifred Sullivan? It's a pretty frustrating read, but only in that it speaks directly to the issue you point out.

[Joseph45]

"I disagree with your statement, however, to the effect that the problem is caused by religious studies departments. The problem runs much deeper in society at large, and the university merely reflects those divisions. So, I'd reverse the cause and effect."

 

I think it's ridiculous to think religious studies departments are either the cause or the effect. They're both.

 

Marxian, not that I want a long answer, but I'm curious to learn more about your project. I don't know what you mean by "My work is focused on the emergence of the non-reductive version of this view of religion (and theology) in the early 20th century (particularly in Troeltsch's work.)" Could you explain this in three sentences or less?
 

[Lux Lex Pax]

Very Troeltschian! My work is focused on the emergence of the non-reductive version of this view of religion (and theology) in the early 20th century (particularly in Troeltsch's work.)

 

With regard to your comments on the First Amendment, have you read The Impossibility of Religious Freedom by Winifred Sullivan? It's a pretty frustrating read, but only in that it speaks directly to the issue you point out.

I haven't read Troeltsch, though I'd like to get around to it, but I have read Hegel and Durkheim.

I'm familiar with Sullivan's work. She makes interesting points, though I'm not sure I agree with her on everything.

[Lux Lex Pax]

I think it's ridiculous to think religious studies departments are either the cause or the effect. They're both.

Ridicule isn't an argument.

The earliest religion departments weren't founded until the 1940s, well after this way of viewing religion became entrenched. I don't see, therefore, how religion departments were the cause of the problem.

[marXian]

Marxian, not that I want a long answer, but I'm curious to learn more about your project. I don't know what you mean by "My work is focused on the emergence of the non-reductive version of this view of religion (and theology) in the early 20th century (particularly in Troeltsch's work.)" Could you explain this in three sentences or less?

 

 

Sure. I'm going to use a lot of semicolons though.  

 

Troeltsch held the Neo-Kantian view that religion could not be reduced to anything else (e.g. "Society a la Durkheim); however, he also thought that religions couldn't be understood apart from the societies in which they are embedded. His approach to theological history was to understand the social factors that made possible particular articulations of doctrine at certain moments in the history of the church (heavily influenced by Heinrich Rickert's philosophy of history.) For Troeltsch, at the center of Christian social structure is a particular theory of human relationships that extends beyond the church (i.e. represents the universal character of Christianity) and there is a mutual influence between the church and the society in which it is embedded; Troeltsch's challenge was to avoid reducing all social forms to Christianity or Christianity to the social.

[marXian]

Sorry I didn't really say much about my project. Right now (for my "second year paper") I'm looking at how Troeltsch and Max Weber understand Christian asceticism as a social form.

[Joseph45]

Ridicule isn't an argument.

The earliest religion departments weren't founded until the 1940s, well after this way of viewing religion became entrenched. I don't see, therefore, how religion departments were the cause of the problem.

You're right, ridicule isn't an argument. I don't expect you to be persuaded by it. (I do expect others to see it though). 

 

However, you did severely misread my initial statement. It never suggested there is some sort of singular problem "the problem" and especially that "the cause" of "the problem" is religious studies departments.

 

Perhaps that misreading is my fault as the author, but I take it as prima facie ridiculous to think that there is some sort of singlular cause and effect issue here. And if you think religious studies departments suddenly appeared, and their appearance occured after "the problem" had come into existence, and therefore cannot participate in stabilizing, expanding, legitimizing, and spreading "the problem," you're so deeply misguided that I don't have the time to mount an argument. I will, however, refer you to McCutcheon's work, particularly Manufacturing Religion, as well as Masuzawa's The Invention of World Religions--maybe even Liz Clark's Founding the Fathers. There's arguments in those books if you want an argument.

 

At the end of the day though, if you want to think that religious studies departments can only either be the cause or the effect of the problem, I can't stop you.

[Lux Lex Pax]

The "problem" is the socially-constructed category of religion, which existed before religion departments.

 

To the "normative or constructive work in religion" I would add constructing religion as a category/discreet and/or disembedded thing. A lot of people studying in rels departments may not believe that, but the institutional structure supports the creation of that cultural category.

And if you think religious studies departments suddenly appeared, and their appearance occured after "the problem" had come into existence, and therefore cannot participate in stabilizing, expanding, legitimizing, and spreading "the problem," you're so deeply misguided that I don't have the time to mount an argument.

You began by discussing the "creation" of the category of religion. Now, you're talking about "stabilizing, expanding, legitimizing, and spreading" the problem. You don't get to switch the topic, and then condescendingly act as if I misread and misunderstood you. If you can't keep your points straight or maintain an argument, that's your problem, but don't project your issues onto me. Moreover, just because I argued that the category of religion preceded the creation of religion departments doesn't mean that I can't also affirm that religion departments also have a role in maintaining the category. But, as I've already argued, the problematic construction of the category of religion preceded the creation of religion departments, and it's "ridiculous" to claim otherwise.

Edited February 3, 2014 by Lux Lex Pax

[Joseph45]

So, when my opening statement is "To the "normative or constructive work in religion" I would add constructing religion as a category/discreet and/or disembedded thing. A lot of people studying in rels departments may not believe that, but the institutional structure supports the creation of that cultural category."

 

You replied: "I disagree with your statement, however, to the effect that the problem is caused by religious studies departments. The problem runs much deeper in society at large, and the university merely reflects those divisions. So, I'd reverse the cause and effect."

 

How do you get your summary of my statement from my actual statement? How could you even imagine this effect could go one way or the other so that the arrow needs to point one way instead of the other way? I clearly even use the word "support" to suggest that the work of creation is not singularly performed by religious studies departments.

 

So now you want to say that when I said ""To the "normative or constructive work in religion" I would add constructing religion as a category/discreet and/or disembedded thing. A lot of people studying in rels departments may not believe that, but the institutional structure supports the creation of that cultural category." I couldn't have possibly been talking about "stabilizing, expanding, legitimizing, and spreading "the problem"? Because construction and creation are one time events? A cultural category is created once, in one act in the past that isn't continual? That constructing a category necessarily can't involve stabilizing, expanding, legitimizing, and spreading the category? Are you so unimaginative that you could only think there would be one possible cause for a one time creation of a cultural category? Thence I couldn't think there are multiple causes or that the creation of cultural categories is a one time event?Hilarious.

 

And have you actually done any reading about the history of the study of religion and the institutional structures that surrounded it? It's very simplistic (and wrong) to think that RELS departments just appeared out of nowhere.

[Lux Lex Pax]

So, when my opening statement is "To the "normative or constructive work in religion" I would add constructing religion as a category/discreet and/or disembedded thing. A lot of people studying in rels departments may not believe that, but the institutional structure supports the creation of that cultural category."

 

You replied: "I disagree with your statement, however, to the effect that the problem is caused by religious studies departments. The problem runs much deeper in society at large, and the university merely reflects those divisions. So, I'd reverse the cause and effect."

 

How do you get your summary of my statement from my actual statement? How could you even imagine this effect could go one way or the other so that the arrow needs to point one way instead of the other way? I clearly even use the word "support" to suggest that the work of creation is not singularly performed by religious studies departments.

 

So now you want to say that when I said ""To the "normative or constructive work in religion" I would add constructing religion as a category/discreet and/or disembedded thing. A lot of people studying in rels departments may not believe that, but the institutional structure supports the creation of that cultural category." I couldn't have possibly been talking about "stabilizing, expanding, legitimizing, and spreading "the problem"? Because construction and creation are one time events? A cultural category is created once, in one act in the past that isn't continual? That constructing a category necessarily can't involve stabilizing, expanding, legitimizing, and spreading the category? Are you so unimaginative that you could only think there would be one possible cause for a one time creation of a cultural category? Thence I couldn't think there are multiple causes or that the creation of cultural categories is a one time event?Hilarious.

 

And have you actually done any reading about the history of the study of religion and the institutional structures that surrounded it? It's very simplistic (and wrong) to think that RELS departments just appeared out of nowhere.

At this point, we're talking past each other. Language and concepts are dynamic and always developing; I know that. But this way of thinking about a concept called "religion" began before it was institutionalized in something called a "religion department." That's my point. I never argued for most of what you attribute to me, and I certainly never said the definition of "religion" can't develop. In fact, most of what you said is flatly contradicted by my earlier post about the very difficult of applying the concept of religion to different times, places, and cultures. Moreover, I never asserted that religion departments appeared out of nowhere. They obviously had antecedents, and those antecedents had antecedents and so on. The point is that those antecedents had to originate somewhere, but it's most certainly not in something called a "religion department." What can't you understand about that?

[Joseph45]

At this point, we're talking past each other. Language and concepts are dynamic and always developing; I know that. But this way of thinking about a concept called "religion" began before it was institutionalized in something called a "religion department." That's my point. I never argued for most of what you attribute to me, and I certainly never said the definition of "religion" can't develop. In fact, most of what you said is flatly contradicted by my earlier post about the very difficult of applying the concept of religion to different times, places, and cultures. Moreover, I never asserted that religion departments appeared out of nowhere. They obviously had antecedents, and those antecedents had antecedents and so on. The point is that those antecedents had to originate somewhere, but it's most certainly not in something called a "religion department." What can't you understand about that?

So, basically to my point: "To the "normative or constructive work in religion" I would add constructing religion as a category/discreet and/or disembedded thing. A lot of people studying in rels departments may not believe that, but the institutional structure supports the creation of that cultural category."

 

You needed to say I was wrong because "this way of thinking about a concept called "religion" began before it was institutionalized in something called a "religion department."

 

So my statement said that there was no concept "religion" before there was a religion department?

 

And you needed to make sure nobody was mislead by me into thinking that *the* concept religion didn't exist before there were religious studies departments. And you argued this point by stating: "I disagree with your statement, however, to the effect that the problem is caused by religious studies departments. The problem runs much deeper in society at large, and the university merely reflects those divisions. So, I'd reverse the cause and effect."

 

Thanks for clearing that up for everyone.

Edited February 3, 2014 by Joseph45

[Lux Lex Pax]

So, basically to my point: "To the "normative or constructive work in religion" I would add constructing religion as a category/discreet and/or disembedded thing. A lot of people studying in rels departments may not believe that, but the institutional structure supports the creation of that cultural category."

 

You needed to say I was wrong because "this way of thinking about a concept called "religion" began before it was institutionalized in something called a "religion department."

 

So my statement said that there was no concept "religion" before there was a religion department?

 

And you needed to make sure nobody was mislead by me into thinking that *the* concept religion didn't exist before there were religious studies departments.

 

Thanks for clearing that up for everyone.

Your eisegetical skills are impressive.

[Joseph45]

speaking of not arguing

 

Your eisegetical skills are impressive.

[MBIGrad]

Lux Lex Pax is king (or queen) of GradCafe forum debates. Should be considered the authoritative voice on Ralph Waldo Emerson, University Religion Departments, et al.