Jeremy F. Walton

We Need to Change. Ideas of Growth and Development in a Time of Crisis of Fossil Energy and Capitalism

The purpose of this paper is to lay the groundwork, and provoke others to dig it up, for the holistic understanding of the economic hopes and geophysical drivers behind the themes of green economy and degrowth. It first fights for the voice in which to frame the warning of global civilizational collapse, its physical and historic drivers and experiential instantiations. The paper surveys the opinions of scholars from environmental science, biology, history, leftist social theory and economics addressing the notion that the global civilisation as we know it is facing a collapse of human societies and practices sustaining it1. Whilst there are historical narratives that evoke hope for a technological overcoming of this problem, in the text I endeavour to show how such a gamble is based on ontological confusion about the fundamental elements of the modern developmental success. The paper elucidates how the key collapse-mitigating model is not a matter of small life-style changes reliant on technological transcence of physical constraints, but a matter of serious social restructuring that would replace the missing technological fix. But for that to become democratically acceptable, the societies must renegotiate the indicators and definitions of what wellbeing consists in, whilst humanity must redefine what its endurance is to consist of, not hope for the miracle of green economy.

Religious criticism, secular critique, and the “critical study of religion”: lessons from the study of Islam

Over the past several years, a number of scholars have diagnosed a crisis in the field of the study of religion. Unlike previous debates within religious studies, this recent crisis has focused not so much on the object of study but on both the relationship of the researcher to his or her subject and the nature of research we as “critical scholars of religion” should conduct. Institutional and professional anxieties over the legitimacy of the field of religious studies within the broader academy have intensified the urgency of this debate. Above all, the dividing line between scientific scholarship and metaphysical speculation is increasingly drawn around the ill-defined notion of critique. As Jose Cabezon has cogently observed, “It is our commitment to a project defined … in terms of criticism, methodological rigor, theory, self-awareness and so forth – that we believe gives us … the wherewithal to clarify the opacities and to unmask the misrecognitions that are [supposedly] endemic to the first-order discourses and practices of religion that are constitutive of both our object and our Other.” The establishment of something called the critical study of religion, as opposed to theological assertion or parochial apologetics, has become the primary justification for the place of scholars of religion within the academy.