Steven W. Ramey

Keeping “critical” critical: A conversation from Culture on the Edge:

In early March 2014, some of the members of Culture on the Edge—a scholarly research collaboration of seven scholars of religion, interested in more theoretically sophisticated studies of identity, and all of whom are at different career stages and at a variety of North American institutions—had a conversation online on the use of the terms “critique” and “critical,” terms widely used in the field today but employed in such a variety of ways that the members of the group thought it worthwhile to focus some attention on them. What follows is the transcript of their conversation.

Challenging definitions : Human agency, diverse religious practices and the problems of boundaries

Much contemporary scholarship in Religious Studies emphasizes communities who contest the standard definitions of their religion. However, religious labels and terms such as syncretism often implicitly validate the dominant definitions that identify these diverse practices as peripheral. This essay explores the challenges that the dominant definitions present to such communities and suggests an emphasis on agency and the contestation surrounding any definition of a religion to avoid privileging one definition of a religion and, thereby, to facilitate a more balanced analysis. The example of Sindhi Hindus illustrates the value of this emphasis on agency. Sindhi Hindu communities and individuals construct and defend their own definitions of religions in environments where non-Sindhis challenge Sindhi practices, which do not necessarily correspond exactly to the definitions that the Sindhis construct for themselves. Adding Bells conception of ritual inscription to this discussion of agency further highlights how participation in practices commonly associated with different religions can foster internal tensions. Therefore, an emphasis on agency with its complexity and limitations enables scholars to recognize the internal pressures that exist in some constructions of religious practices without contributing to the external challenge from dominant definitions. This approach also enables a more nuanced analysis of processes of syncretism that are more complex than traditional applications of that term allow.

Sourcing stereotypes: constructing and challenging simplified knowledge

ABSTRACT The social media uproar in Fall 2017 over a nursing textbook chart that presented generalised characterisations of minority groups generated an assumption that medical training needs more Religious Studies expertise. Analysing the sources that the chart cited, we trace the authors’ assertions to studies of varying quality and identify several specific processes involved in simplifying knowledge for dissemination, as the authors disregarded the limits of each specific study and ignored counter-evidence or otherwise evaded critical scrutiny. Comparing this example to examples from world religions discourse illustrates both differences and similarities in the process of constructing simplified presentations. While both presumably developed out of good intentions, they generate significant problems in their effort to shape material to support larger arguments. Thus, scholars across disciplines should critique and complicate their own processes for generating simplified knowledge.

When Acceptance Reflects Disrespect: The Methodological Contradictions of Accepting Participant Statements

The late Hans Penner critiqued the Phenomenology of Religion 25 years ago for confusing the subject and its object. His critique remains relevant to contemporary methods that accept participant statements uncritically. Beginning with a detailed analysis of one lived religion article and expanding to a broader critique, this essay illustrates the contradictions that remain in lived religion methodologies and similar approaches to the study of religion. While reflecting respect for practitioners and expanding the concept of religion, these methods ignore the agency of participants to represent themselves strategically and reinforce common discourse on religion, only expanding the category at its safe margins. The agendas that drive various studies work at cross purposes because of the inherent contradictions, and the dichotomy between scholars (and people like scholars) and practitioners that often results contradicts the rhetoric of respect and treating everyone equally.

Textbooks, Assumptions, and Us: Commentary on Jimmy Emanuelsson’s “Islam and the Sui-generis Discourse: Representations of Islam in Textbooks Used in Introductory Courses of Religious Studies in Sweden”

AbstractCommenting on Jimmy Emanuelsson’s analysis of three Islam textbooks used in Sweden, this essay expands his critique of these textbooks to address the systemic issues in the assumptions about “religion” and world religions discourse. As Emanuelsson’s analysis focuses on the textbooks themselves, this essay considers the efforts that professors can take to contest the textbooks within a course.