Methodology/theory

[Perytion]

I, along with many others here, am looking forward to starting a master's program in study of religion this fall.  Over the next few months, I was thinking that I might brush up on some of the literature pertaining to theory and method.  My area of focus will be Islamic studies, so the whole Orientalism debate is obviously going to be important.  But I'm also interested in more general approaches to the study of religion, or theory and method that is relevant to other fields such as Biblical studies, religions of Late Antiquity, etc.  I'm especially interested in an inter-disciplinary perspective, maybe looking at materiel from literary criticism and philosophy.

 

Anyone have any suggestions for further reading?  Articles, essays, books I should look into?

[marXian]

"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.

Edited March 21, 2014 by marXian

[Perytion]

Wow, thanks marXian.  That should give me plenty of materiel to occupy my time until I head to Cambridge in August.

[Paraclete]

marXian, I'm pretty sure you're the only person on here who consistently answers each person's question thoroughly and thoughtfully. I imagine it takes a great deal of time and effort. Just wanted to say "thanks" for benefiting all of us!

[Lux Lex Pax]

Check out the stuff by Daniel Pals. He has a reader and a primer on the subject that goes over all the people marXian named.

I'd also add Explaining Religion by J. Samuel Preus (1996). He provides a historical account of how religion went from being explained theologically to being explained naturalistically and how the naturalistic account became institutionalized. It's a fascinating story, and one that seldom gets told.

You should also check out some stuff on ritual theory, perhaps Catherine Bell, since it is so central to the study of religion.

An interesting recent publication is Believing and Acting by G. Scott Davis. It's a comparative framework for studying religion and ethics. Davis is indebted to pragmatism, C.S. Pierce in particular. It's worth a read.

[marXian]

marXian, I'm pretty sure you're the only person on here who consistently answers each person's question thoroughly and thoughtfully. I imagine it takes a great deal of time and effort. Just wanted to say "thanks" for benefiting all of us!

 

Not true, but thanks! I really appreciated when folks took time to help me out when I was applying.

 

Check out the stuff by Daniel Pals. He has a reader and a primer on the subject that goes over all the people marXian named.

I'd also add Explaining Religion by J. Samuel Preus (1996). He provides a historical account of how religion went from being explained theologically to being explained naturalistically and how the naturalistic account became institutionalized. It's a fascinating story, and one that seldom gets told.

You should also check out some stuff on ritual theory, perhaps Catherine Bell, since it is so central to the study of religion.

An interesting recent publication is Believing and Acting by G. Scott Davis. It's a comparative framework for studying religion and ethics. Davis is indebted to pragmatism, C.S. Pierce in particular. It's worth a read.

 

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.

[therealhogwarts]

These are excellent suggestions. Perhaps just a few more:

 

Tomoko Masuzawa's book The Invention of World Religions

 

Robert Orsi's Between Heaven and Earth (A controversial figure because he focuses on lived religion)

 

Russell McCutcheon's Manufacturing Religion (A lot of people seem tired of this guy as well)

 

Mark C Taylor's Critical Terms for Religious Studies

[Joseph45]

I would suggest starting with Theory for Religious Studies by William E. Deal and Timothy K. Beal. They discuss 29 figures, all of whom are big names and would be good to recognize. Then, pick 2-3 three of the people you found most interesting/potentially helpful and read their most influential works. (And just know going into them that they might be really hard to read by yourself before you're versed in the broader theory discussions, but you have to start somewhere).

 

You can't read everybody (and some of this stuff is slow going), but it is good to be familiar with the big names. Thus, the intro book. On the other hand, you shouldn't just be surface, and you really need to find 2-3ish people who you really know well and use, thus my recommendation for getting your hands dirty with a few thinkers that you found interesting in the book.

 

Alternately, if you want to get a sense of what's being taught in intro to religious theory and method courses, just do some google searches for such syllabi. The AAR and SBL both have syllabus projects, where professor share syllabi, so that might be the place to start. Some schools also post syllabi (e.g., Syracuse).

[AbrasaxEos]

The Deal/Beal suggestion is helpful at this point.  Depending on how far you want to go into all of this stuff it can be helpful to read through some of the classic works, as MarXian says, to get a feel for what they are doing.  For example, you don't need to read all 500 pages of Durkheim's "Elementary Forms..."  His aboriginal "ethnography" is ridiculous, and mostly wrong, but it is helpful to understand what he is actually saying about religion, and how he is using this information.  Moreso, it is helpful to be able to recall this information when someone write something like "despite Durkheim's insistence on the power of collective effervescence..." and assumes you know exactly what they mean.  Additionally, I tend to think that understanding poststructuralism (assuming you actually want to do so) requires some understanding of structuralism. 

 

At this point though, I don't think you need to go into this kind of depth.  Start with a survey, and as Joseph helpfully notes, choose a few folks that interest you, and read some longer works by them.  If you feel like you are having difficulty understanding them, pay close attention to those whom they are "conversing" with in their text and consider reading some of them as well.  I think it is good to at least get a "feel for the [theoretical] game" in your Masters program, with the expectation that you'll have a chance for further, more in-depth investigations as you enter a PhD.  Don't overburden yourself, and don't put undue pressure on yourself to "get" everything.  Find some professors who are willing to sit down and explain some of the more difficult works to you, and ask every question you can, however dumb it seems. 

[Perytion]

Thank you to everyone who has weighed in on this thread.  I knew I'd get some good suggestions. 

 

I like the idea of surveying the landscape before I get lost in the wilderness.  I think I'm going to start with the Deal + Beal book, and then move onto the Daniel Pals reader and overview.  Also, the Asad genealogy looks like fun.

 

Thanks again y'all.

[Kuriakos]

I still have nightmares about slogging through Mark Taylor's About Religion.