George A. Kourvetaris

Studies on Greek Americans

This reader combines theory and research in the study of Greek-American ethnicity and identity. It includes chapters on the histories of early and late immigrants, first- and second-generation Greeks in Chicago, Greek Orthodox and Greek American identity, and Greek-American entrepreneurs. It also discusses continuity and change in the Greek American experience and examines the past, present and future of Greek American ethnicity within the larger framework of multiculturalism.

Classical HorizonsClassical Horizons: The Origins of Sociology in Ancient Greece, by McCarthyGeorge E.. Albany: The State University of New York Press, 2003. 202 pp.

at its best, moving us forward by assimilating ideas and developing original insights. Substantively, Beckford examines a diverse range of topics such as secularization, pluralism, globalization, and religious movements. As a scholar of religion and law I was especially interested in his insights on pluralism, a term that he is careful to define, distinguishing it from both diversity and acceptance of various faiths, and identifying it normatively as “the moral or political value of widening public acceptance of religions” (p. 74). He examines some of the mechanisms for facilitating pluralism, including law and policy. On this topic Beckford recognizes the complexity of rights regimes that incorporate religious freedom. He notes that these cannot be taken as guarantees of anything, and in fact may actually exacerbate disputes about the meaning of religion. In short, what counts as religion, and what is protected under human rights regimes under religious freedom, is highly contested terrain. Beckford identifies the problematic tendency of theorists to essentialize religion, ignoring its complexity both conceptually and practically. Beckford highlights the importance of examining nuance or, in postmodern lingo, of looking at the local, the specific, and the particular, while attending to patterns in social life. As he puts it, “the exercise of power is at issue in each case.” Beckford argues that religion as a concept must be considered in context, and that social scientists should maintain an attitude of openness toward the boundaries between religion and, to use his example, politics and ideology. Beckford encourages us to embrace uncertainty and the messiness of religion as a lived phenomenon and as a theoretical construct, a point that reminded me of Robert Orsi’s work on lived religion. The insistence on examining lived religion stands in sharp contrast to the almost giddy building of categorical imperatives (and academic empires) that seek to explain religion with minimal attention to the fuzzy boundaries acknowledged by Beckford, who essentially encourages us to get comfortable with uncertainty or, put another way, to get comfortable with being uncomfortable. The strength of Beckford’s work is also its limitation. Theoretical pluralism is laudable, and indeed is the only approach that has the potential to allow social scientists to gain any hope of understanding the complexity of social life. However, such theoretical pluralism can sometimes result in a bit of a breathtaking jumble of perspectives that leaves us feeling a bit disoriented. But disorientation can help us to see with fresh eyes, and to put together ideas that might seem to be at odds with each other at first glance. Further, while Beckford’s own works serve as an excellent model, a “how to” as it were, for openness to theoretical possibilities, I wonder how many of us are actually capable of this sort of boundless intellectual curiosity. Much academic work seems to be about defending terrain rather than about extending insight. Beckford makes this point himself in his gentle criticism of the rational choice battles taking place primarily in the United States. Finally, Beckford reminds us that organized religion, while an important area for exploration, should not be the only focus of our research energies. This might seem to be a tired point that does not bear repeating. However, I invite you to examine the literature and paper presentations at scholarly meetings on the topic of religion and then ask yourself: To what extent are scholars of religion examining religious phenomena outside of organized religion and to what extent are we attending to the messy uncertainty of religion in society? The answer would suggest that Beckford’s point bears repeating.