|
[1] There is no Archimedean Point to
serve as the unquestionable or perfectly privileged position from which
to begin the practice of academic study of religion (aka Religious
Studies). All starting points are open to discussion and debate. This may
be a good thing, but the lack of an
Archimedean Point does put the Religious Studies practitioner at risk.
[2] Although there is no point
that everyone will agree is obviously the right one from which to start
out and to sustain practice of academic study of religion, some starting
points, perspectives, and practices turn out to be more (or less)
popular, and some turn out to be more (or less) defensible when
challenged, than others. Sorting and selecting from among them is a
practical matter because all kinds of religious believers, anti-religious
activists, and academicians will attempt to inform, to influence, and to
reform your version.
[3] An example of a protocol for beginning the practice of Religious Studies is found in
the work of
Wayne L. Proudfoot. I call it the Proudfoot
Two-Step. If you practice the Two-Step when studying or discussing a
religious phenomenon, whether you begin with Step-One or Step-Two is
likely to make little difference in the long run. Here's why. If an
"insider" says that you "do not understand" or have "misrepresented" it,
then you can respond by practicing Step-One. If an "outsider" tells you
that there seems to be little or no difference between you and some kind
of true-believer, then
you can respond by sharing with them a version of Step-Two that you find
suitable to the situation and phenomenon.
[4] Step-One in the Proudfoot Two-Step is the effort to describe a
religious phenomenon as fairly as possible – in the sense of
neutrally, receptively, or empathetically. In short, you attempt to
achieve a description containing as little revision or "translation," as
possible - that is, description without descriptive reduction.
|
[5] Step-Two in the Proudfoot Two-Step is the freedom to interpret a
religious phenomenon in a way that you (and your reference group among
fellow practitioners of academic study of religion) regard as worthy and
timely - in the sense of creative, insightful, illuminating, interesting,
or appropriately provocative, analytical, critical. There can be an open
field of possibilities based on your choice of some form of interpretive
re-framing
or "translation" - that is, some form of explanatory reduction.
[6] When engaging in the
practice of academic study of religion, what one "privileges"
and what one "problematizes"
ought to be openly acknowledged with peers. What you
privilege or problematize may be correlated with (a)your own whim or
will, (b) your faith orientation, (c) your formal starting point or
perspective; and these in turn may be (d) a function of your (community)
membership and allegiance, (e) your life-history and sense of identity,
(f) your assumptions about what "works" or what
is appropriate, or
even (g) outcomes of dialogues
or arguments with others whose starting points and perspectives differ
from yours.
[7] Some assumptions that are implicit in the Proudfoot Two-Step
protocol invite further examination, for instance: (a) it is possible,
meaningful, and useful to distinguish between description and
interpretation; (b) statements can be classified within hierarchies
or matrices from 1st- to nth-order propositions according to levels
of abstraction; (c) it
is important to become aware of the power and pervasiveness of attribution
as a component of knowledge-acquisition; and (d) attention to reflexivity and recursiveness entailed
in study of religious phenomena could provide new opportunities for
cultivating well-considered modes of interaction with other people and
institutions.
|