Podcast

Routledge Podcast interview for Introducing World Religions with Victoria Kennick Urubshurow, October 26 2007.

Subscribe

  • XML
  • Subscribe to My Odeo Podcast

Listen

Transcript

Routledge Podcast interview for Introducing World Religions, Victoria Kennick Urubshurow 10-26-07

  1. Why did you write this book?
  2. Let's talk for a moment about the title of your book. In the preface you speak of the term ‘world religions’ versus ‘world's religions.’ What's that all about?
  3. Now, how about the ‘religion’? What makes that word a problem?
  4. If words are so important, tell us what terms and categories you used to organize your presentation on world religions.
  5. Could you give us some examples of what material is found in each of these parts on players, texts, and performance?
  6. Can you say more about the ‘expressive’ traditions, and why they require special treatment?
  7. I noticed that each chapter of Introducing World Religions has four ‘boxes’ as an added feature. Can you say a bit about those?
  8. Your first chapter, ‘Approaching Religions’ discusses a controversy in the field of religious studies between ‘religionists’ and ‘reductionists.’ Can you explain what this is all about?
  9. I notice that from time to time you challenge students to try seeing religion from different points of view. Can you explain what those exercises are all about?
  10. We are nearing the end of our time for this podcast. In closing, can you say something about the benefits that may come from studying world religions?
  1. Why did you write this book?

    I wrote the world religions textbook to give attention to material in a couple areas that I feel is too lighly covered in many books: (i) non-verbal expressive aspects of religion, such as dance, divination, gardening and art, and (ii) spiritual technologies, such as reciting the names of God, Tai-ji quan, yoga, and other forms of prayer or meditation. I also wanted to draw attention to ways that religion became a problem for people as a result of its misuse. For example, the book addresses the fallout of 400 years of European colonialism. From roughly 1500 to 1900 European — and by extension US — colonial powers with heavy Christian influences controlled many indigenous peoples around the world. This domination had a deep impact on the way religion is conceived as well as practiced to this very day. In fact, I begin the book with a discussion of its title in light of what has been called post-colonial discourse.

  2. Let's talk for a moment about the title of your book. In the preface you speak of the term ‘world religions’ versus ‘world's religions.’ What's that all about?

    The textbook title has a politically charged term in it — namely ‘world religions.’ Both ‘world’ and ‘religion’ are troublesome because they have a negative association with European colonialism. You see, as the study of comparative religions got underway in Europe during the 1800s lists of so-called ‘world religions’ included only politically powerful traditions with world missions. Colonialists considered a world religion as one that was based in the idea of salvation. (See Smith 1995:1140) Only Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism first qualified as ‘world religions’ because these three were geographically widespread, and each had a universal mission. Gradually the meaning of the term ‘world religions’ changed and other traditions were added to the list, such as Judaism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Daoism, and Shinto.

    Nowdays people often use the expression ‘religions of the world’ or ‘world's religions’ to avoid the sense that a religion has to be widespread, world domineering or universal in its outlook. But I use the simpler term ‘world religions’ because it allows for a wider range of meaning than the possessive expression. It may incorporate the possessive sense of ‘religions of the world.’ But beyond that I like to capture the sense that each religion has a world of meaning. I want readers to keep in mind that a world religion is a religion with a world of meaning. The world has religions, but religions also have worlds.

  3. Now, how about ‘religion’? What makes that word a problem?

    In his book Relating Religion J. Z. Smith said: “‘Religion’ is not a native category. It is not a first-person term of self-characterization. It is a category imposed from the outside on some aspect of native culture. It is the other, in these instances colonialists, who are solely responsible for the content of the term.” (Smith 2004:179)

    Russell T. McCutcheon, a contemporary theorist in religious studies, also draws attention to problems with the term ‘religion.’ In his book Critics Not Caretakers he points out that “many of the peoples that we study by means of this category [religion] have no equivalent term or concept whatsoever….”(McCutcheon 2001: 10)

    McCutcheon says that even the most sympathetic scholar who uses the Latin-based term religion becomes “deeply embedded in the act of intellectual, if not cultural imperialism or theoretical reduction.” (McCutcheon 2001: 10) By this he means that the term religion forces people to think of spiritual traditions in a western mold.

    In 1962 the late Wilfred Cantwell Smith suggested completely getting rid of terms such as ‘Buddhism,’ ‘Christianity,’ and even ‘religion.’ In The Meaning and End of Religion he argues that the world had Buddhists but not Buddhism, Christians but not Christianity, and so forth. He said that to use a term like ‘Hinduism’ amounted to a “gross oversimplification.” He said that the word did not refer to an entity, but was “a name that the West has given to a prodigiously variegated series of facts.” (Smith 1962; 1991:144)

    Keeping in mind problems such as those named by McCutcheon and the two Smiths, I generally did away with references to religions as ‘-isms.’ I named the chapters ‘Shinto tradition,’ ‘Judaic tradition,’ and so forth. I did not even say ‘The Shinto tradition.’ This was to avoid speaking as through there were something one could point to and call ‘THE X RELIGION.’ By chapter titles such as ‘Baha'i tradition’ I meant to convey that religions are complex, alive — and continually challenged in the course of history.

    I like the term ‘tradition’ because it carries a holistic sense that religions are ongoing with multiple strands that intertwine with many aspects of people's lives. Religious tradition can be thought of as a dynamic, ever evolving cultural heritage. Our English language does not yet have the vocabulary to speak sensitively about religions in all their nuanced complexity. So obviously … there's much work to be done in the field of religious studies.

  4. If words are so important, tell us what terms and categories you use to organize your presentation on world religions.

    It is easy to feel overwhelmed by the diversity of religions in this world. The Romanian historian of religions, Mircea Eliade (1907-1986), noted how hard it is to narrow the field down to what he called “a manageable number of expressions of religion.” He said: “If it starts by being difficult, the diversity of those expressions becomes gradually paralyzing.” (Eliade 1958:1) This means the more you look around the more you find!

    So I asked myself, “What categories can I use to bring out the most important aspects of the world religions?” Then I thought about William Shakespeare's observation that “All the world's a stage.”

    Taking this cue, I decided to use the root metaphor of a drama to organize the book. Dramatists portray their ideas by creating impressions with people that are seen and with words that are spoken. In this way they bring history and abstract issues to life. Likewise, I wanted to present what I call an ‘embodied history’ in which events are connected to specific players, and shown through specific words and actions. I wanted to keep in mind that something happened to somebody who said something to somebody else. So, I divided each core chapter into three parts: The first presents the players in the drama of world religions. The second presents the texts — that is, the main ideas or ‘script’ of the players, you might say. And the third gives a detailed account of what I call a meaningful ‘performance.’

  5. Could you give us some examples of what material is found in each of these parts on players, texts, and performance?
    1. The portion on players treats both non-human and human figures. It starts with a description of the ultimate principle of the universe, and moves on to imaginal beings, exceptional people and key historical people. The most unusual of these four categories is ‘imaginal players.’ I included it because it seems that all religions acknowledge subtle entities or imaginal beings in the universe — even though some religions reject them. These imaginal beings may be symbolic, mythical, spiritual or mind-based entities such as: angels, gods, goddesses, demons, and so forth. Of course, the textbook does not make a judgment about the ‘reality’ of such beings. Rather, it describes the imaginal beings that are part of the worldview of each religion.
    2. Part two of each core chapter is about the religious literature of the tradition at hand, including scriptures, commentaries, poems, stories and autobiographical accounts. It always begins with foundational works (normally key scriptures) and then presents texts that support them. To complete the literature review I always selected one or two pieces that bridge the tradition to alternative perspectives, including science, other religions, folk traditions or marginal social views such as feminism.
    3. Part three is about ‘meaningful performance.’ It explores a custom, ritual or artistic form that shaped the non-verbal backdrop of the tradition. Examples are: the cycle of prayers and holidays in Judaic tradition; the Christian ritual of icon painting; the Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca, the Jain ritual of holy death; four kinds of Buddhist meditation, and Shinto rituals of purification.

    Now, it is important to remember that some world religions are predominately involved with ‘performance.’ These are ‘expressive’ traditions. Chapter two is devoted to expressive traditions and does not contain the three parts on players, text, and performance that I just outlined.

  6. Can you say more about the ‘expressive’ traditions, and why they require special treatment?

    Expressive traditions tend to be small-scale traditions with no body of written literature. They rely on oral transmission and many elements of ‘performance’ to convey religious meaning. There are hundreds of such traditions. Now, in the first chapter of the textbook I define what I call the Ten Elements of Performance to help deal with the expressive aspects of religion. Then in Chapter 2, I illustrate each of the Ten Elements through examples from Oceania, America and Africa, including: (i) ceremonical gardening among the Trobriand Islanders of Papua New Guniea, (ii) tatooing among the Maori of New Zealand, and (iii) dance in the Afro-Brazilian tradition of Candomblé. Because the traditions of indigenous peoples in many parts of the world were affected by European colonialism, I also discuss (for example) the views of Octavio Paz on the formation of Mexican identity in the face of the Spanish conquest.

  7. I noticed that each chapter of Introducing World Religions has four ‘boxes’ as an added feature. Can you say a bit about those?

    Yes. All but the introductory and concluding chapters have four ‘boxes.’ One box is devoted to key religious symbols. A second box outlines a spiritual path — such as the Buddhist Eightfold Path or Christian sacraments. A third box highlights similarities and differences of a theme across cultures. And a fourth box considers how something like a text or symbol is interpreted within in each tradition. For example there are ‘interpretation’ boxes dealing with: problems of dating Zarathushtra's life, principles of Biblical criticism, categories for understanding extrasensory perception in Jain meditation, and the place of the imaginal world in Islamic cosmology. Readers can apply ideas from boxes in one chapter to material in other chapters. In other words, thinking about the problems of dating Zarathushtra's life can also help students appreciate difficulties in dating the lives of other ancient figures. And the questions asked by scholars of Biblical texts can be kept in mind while encountering Buddhist or Baha'i texts.

  8. Your first chapter, ‘Approaching Religions’ discusses a controversy in the field of religious studies between ‘religionists’ and ‘reductionists.’ Can you explain what this is all about?

    Yes. This question is very important. Nowadays among scholars of religions there are two basic camps that theorist Robert Alan Segal likes to call “religionists” and “reductionists.” (op. cit. Segal 1992) The two groups of scholars are distinguished by how they respond to this key question: Can ‘religion’ be understood purely as a social phenomenon without reference to any form of deity or transcendent principle?

    Reductionists say, “Yes, religion can be boiled down to social phenomena.” They view religion as a thoroughly human creation. To a reductionist nothing is inherently religious, and thus ‘religion’ can be reduced to social, biological, political, economic, historical and other components.

    On the other side of the coin are religionists, who claim that religion is something unique. Religionists say, “No, religion cannot be understood purely as a social phenomenon.” They say that religion is sui generis — in a class by itself. They contend that experience of the sacred makes religion unique. And they insist that religion must be studied as religion by way of a distinct methodology. Religionists argue that one cannot really understand religion without taking into account the meaning that the transcendent has in people's lives.

    Religionists do speak of the divine as if it exists if and when the tradition they are describing assumes that the divine does exists. By contrast, reductionists tend to talk in a materialistic way. But this does not mean that religionists are believers and reductionists are atheists. Ideally the research should be independent of personal religious belief, just as a judge's ruling should be based on the merits of a case and not personal bias. As a matter of principle, scholars of religions do not ally their work with the truth claims of any religious tradition. They follow the discipline of history of religions and do not make a judgment about the existence or the non-existence of God, and so forth. Scholars in the history of religions leave such issues of ultimate truth to the theologians. … Now, what I have said goes for the ideal. In practice, of course, there is no such thing as a completely objective scholar. And readers should always be on the lookout for how researchers’ biases may be influencing their work.

    Chapter 1 of my textbook presents both religionist and reductionist perspectives on religion, and defines a set of key ideas from each camp. The section called ‘A religionist primer’ introduces terms central to religionist research, such as ‘hierophany,’ ‘mysterium tremendum and fascinans,’ religious symbols, and so forth. The chapter goes on to identify the functions of religion in terms of three reductionist categories noted by historian of religions Bruce Lincoln, namely: (i) religions of the status quo, (ii) religions of resistance, and (iii) religions of revolution. These sets of ideas give readers tools for analyzing religions during discussions and in written assignments.

  9. I notice that from time to time you challenge students to try seeing religion from different points of view. Can you explain what those exercises are all about?

    Yes. Sometimes in the book I ask readers to take what scholars call “inside and outside positions.” It is helpful to experiment and see how things look from inside someone else's worldview. The saying, “Walk a mile in her shoes” captures what it means to take an inside position. On the other hand, seeing what kind of shoes she's wearing, considering how and where they were made and so forth could reflect an outside position. It is helpful to analyze matters from an outsider's perspective to get ideas about how different religions compare to each other, or to see how religions function in society, and so forth. But without an appreciation of religion from the point of view of the practitioner many mistakes in outsider analysis can happen. In fact, seeing from both inside and outside provides complementary views that enhance a person's comprehension of religious matters. Taking the insider-outsider challenge brings depth to our understanding of religious symbols, ideas, historical movements and so forth. The inside position gives empathy, while the outside position gives cross-cultural perspective, for example.

    Religious misunderstandings that lead to ill will can result from a failure to move appropriately between inside and outside positions. Everyday in the media we can find examples of the failure to meet this insider-outsider challenge. The other day I saw a newspaper photograph of Hindus carrying a statue of the goddess Durga during a religious celebration. From a Hindu insider point of view the Durga celebration marked a time of blessing and inspiration. But the caption said in bold letters, “Idol worship.”Now, the term ‘idol worship’ was written from an outside position — but very inappropriate because the word ‘idol’ has negative connotations in our culture. The caption title did not take into account a Hindu insider's view — and also did not present a well-informed outside perspective. The Hindu philosophy of sacred art is very subtle, and the Hindu use of statues is misrepresented by the caption, “Idol worship.” To be appropriate and well-informed, comments from both inside and outside perspectives should be as accurate as possible. So even the two words ‘idol worship’ under a photograph might stir up a negative attitude toward Hindus. The rest of the caption did explain that according to Hindu tradition, Durga comes into the world for five days each year. …So why did not caption title not say: ‘Five days of blessing’ or something like that?

    If we as students of religions take up the insider-outsider challenge we can become more sensitive as to when taking an inside or outside position is more productive. Thus we can appreciate and understand other religions better. Doing this does not mean we have to agree with various inside positions — it just means we can reduce chances of misrepresenting others.

  10. We are nearing the end of our time for this podcast. In closing, can you say something about the benefits that may come from studying world religions?

    I think the study of world religions helps people develop a secure knowledge base. Learning about world religions gives people cultural literacy, and provides them with a kind of ‘cosmopolitan’ identity. A ‘cosmopolitan’ is someone who takes the cosmos or the whole world as his or her ‘polis’ or place of residence. So, I hope that Introducing World Religions will encourage readers to feel more comfortable in this world, and confident in striking up conversations with people of all religions — or people of no religion.

    Finally, I simply urge students of world religions to go ever deeper in their research. Clearly, religion is misused in the world today, and appears to be responsible for numerous atrocities throughout history. The professed atheist Richard Dawkins in his book The God Delusion says:

    “Imagine, with John Lennon, a world with no religion. Imagine no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no Gunpowder Plot, no Indian partition, no Israeli/Palestinian wars, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres …” (Dawkins 2006:1)

    And he goes on. Yet while all these atrocities are in name associated with religion, we can keep in mind that religion is only a tool used and misused by people. The deeper cause of troubles in our world may be things like lack of hope, unhappiness, greed, and so forth. There are many impulses at work in the minds and hearts of people that are molded by religious worldviews. These impulses can be expressed through so-called religious action in many ways. But could it be that things would be even worse without religion? I do not know, but I simply urge people to exercise intellectual courage and always keep thinking more deeply.

References

Dawkins, Richard (2006) The God Delusion, Boston, New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.

McCutcheon, Russell (2001) Critics Not Caretakers, Redescribing the Public Study of Religion, New York: State University of New York Press.

Segal, Robert Alan (1992) Explaining and Interpreting Religion: Essays on the Issue, New York: P. Lang.

Smith, Jonathan Z. (gen. ed.) (1995) The HarperCollins Dictionary of Religion, San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.

Smith, Jonathan Z. (2004) Relating Religion: Essays in the Study of Religion, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Smith, Wilfred Cantwell (1962, 1991) The Meaning and End of Religion, Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.