Chronicle Careers: 01/07/2005: "Announce a course with 'religion' in the title, and you will have an overflow population. Announce a lecture or panel on 'religion in our time' and you will have to hire a larger hall.
And those who come will not only be seeking knowledge; they will be seeking guidance and inspiration, and many of them will believe that religion -- one religion, many religions, religion in general -- will provide them.
Are we ready?
We had better be, because that is now where the action is. When Jacques Derrida died I was called by a reporter who wanted know what would succeed high theory and the triumvirate of race, gender, and class as the center of intellectual energy in the academy. I answered like a shot: religion."
I'm a bit chagrined by this piece, but also intrigued. Fish began his career as a Milton scholar, of course, and if no one else in English departments takes religion seriously, Milton scholars should. So perhaps this isn't surprising coming from him. But it's a bit surprising to me, because I find myself about to be "in" on the next big thing, apparently. I've never been there before, but my interests are increasingly taking me in the directions Fish suggests: taking religion seriously as "a candidate for the truth." Specifically, I'm trying to look at the ways in which children's literature tackles theological issues, and especially how children's literature and feminist theology may be mutually informing.
My best students over the past few years have been moving in the direction Fish outlines here, as have I. What's curious to me is why we're all here at once. Is cultural determinism true after all?
Friday, January 07, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
My degree is in religious studies. It was the common notice at the beginning of every class -- do not cite religious sources to substantiate facts. This includes the Hebrew bible and New Testament but also the Bhagavad Gita, the Koran, etc etc etc. Too many students are inclined to argue for the truth of something because the bible says so.
As one professor put it:
If you want knowledge, you've come to the right place.
If you want truth, go to divinity school.
A, that sounds completely right to me. That is, I'm not surprised. On the one hand we want objectivity in the academy, and we especially don't want to argue with our students about their beliefs, especially since so many academics are secular humanists who don't want to humiliate their students (or perhaps be humiliated by them) by engaging in religious debate. Better just to avoid the subject. I think a lot of academics don't think 18-year-olds can handle real debate, and would rather avoid it. It's condescending, yes. But perhaps self-protective? I'm uncomfortable forbidding any topic a priori, but I can imagine someone who's been burned wanting just to avoid the whole issue.
On the other hand, the serious study of religion is--I have to agree with Fish--taking off in the academy right now. And increasingly I think it will be hard for academics to do what Linda's profs did and try to bracket any "truth claims"--or, at least, they'll have to be willing to examine the ways in which people make and develop those claims. Some of my religious studies classes in college seemed to take religion as a quaint relic--an interesting thing that people used to do. I just don't see how that can continue to fly when we see throughout the world the evidence of the power of religious faith to motivate people, whether we agree with it or not.
Post a Comment