Undergraduate Teaching in the Study of Religion
This brief
article details some reflections of mine after having taught as a graduate
student on an undergraduate Religious Studies module for the last four years.
The views here are my own and do not reflect the institution where I taught.
Between
October 2018 and July 2019, I had the opportunity to teach full-time on an
undergraduate Religious Studies module at a university in the North West of
England. It was called: “The Study of Religion: An Introduction” and was
delivered to first-year Theology and Religious Studies students. For three
years before that, I had given occasional lectures and tutored during weekly
seminars for the same Religious Studies module and another titled “Global
Perspectives in Christianity”. The responsibilities that I had during my
teaching posts included weekly lectures, seminars, and tutorials, grading
assignments, delivering study-skills sessions, and administration. Moreover, I
was given the chance to adapt the Study of Religion module slightly in terms of
its design. This was a rather unusual freedom for a graduate student to have
and it worth stating that I was subject to the usual checks and balances of
British university education.
I
began by revising module content and structure. This included rearranging the
timetable to render the history and trajectory of the academic Study of
Religion as different, but at least related to, Theology and Biblical
Studies. New course content included
the following: Critics and Caretakers in the Study of Religion; Stereotyping
Religion; a Critical and Discursive Study of Religion; Social Theory and
Religious Experience; Religion, Culture and Identity; Religion and Politics;
Non-Religion.
Learning
objectives for the module were as follows:
Students will be assessed on their ability to
Students will be assessed on their ability to
- demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of the Study of Religion as an independent academic discipline, its history, development and multidisciplinary character
- evaluate and use relevant theories and methods in the Study of Religion, including technical terminology
- develop, sustain and evaluate a coherent argument with an awareness of the implications of divergent views
- communicate concepts with
clarity, accuracy and with appropriate reference to primary and secondary
sources.
I
wanted to downplay illustrating the Study of Religion as an enquiry defined only
by a range of multidisciplinary human-science theories and methods that specifically
examine “religion” and related classifications. While it is not necessarily
problematic to conceptualize the Study of Religion in this way, it can lead
undergraduates to think that what has been named “Religious Studies” is
ahistorical and apolitical. At the very least, I wanted to emphasize that the
Study of Religion has at least a degree of definition in its specific
focus on that category and the way in which it has absorbed and reacted against
certain ontologies and epistemologies during different time periods. For
instance, I started with the History and Phenomenology of Religion as found in
early Study of Religion departments in the 1950s and moved on to the impact of poststructuralism
and social theory that developed in the late-1970s.
Although this module introduced undergraduate students to the academic Study of Religion, more than half of the class were registered either for the Theology Bachelor’s (BA) or Theology and Religious Studies Combined BA degree. The remaining students were either taking the Single Honors Religious Studies BA or combining modules from Theology and Religious Studies with those of other departments including Sociology, Politics, and Counselling, but not limited to, Spanish and Theatre. One of the main difficulties was that of the extent to which necessary differences between Theology and Religious Studies were communicated to undergraduate students. Previously, the module had amplified these matters by having a team of teaching staff who approached the Study of Religion differently. This was not so much the case in terms of methodological or theoretical views (i.e. Qualitative or Quantitative; Durkheim or Marx), but rather, about the extent to which they demarcated the boundaries between Theology and the Study of Religion. While it seemed that these matters were more pronounced in Biblical Studies (i.e. theological or sociological; realist vs. anti-realist; embodied or discursive), it certainly played out in Study of Religion classes as well. My strategy was to focus specifically on social constructivism and discourse analysis and emphasize the Study of Religion as an effort to critically analyze claims of truth and meaning, not about seeking it for ourselves or on behalf of others.
It was exciting to see that the module had been well received by students. It was noted during evaluations that it was challenging in terms of both content and encouraging of critical thinking. Student expectations for this module were difficult to manage, especially, among those students following more of a Theology degree pathway. For instance, there were at least several blank faces when I mentioned Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud in our first seminar (why aren’t we talking about religions?). By its very nature, however, this course was demanding. Rather than studying “religions”, in the plural, and with the student expectation of descriptive course content, this module asked students to critically examine and deconstruct “religion” and related discursive classifications. These included: “East vs. West”, “economics”, “fundamentalism”, “Hinduism”, “Pagan”, “politics”, “secular”, and “spirituality”. For example, students were asked to demystify the alleged unique nature of the classification of religion in different case studies ranging from is religion in decline to whether Buddhism, Football, or a belief in Sasquatch can be classified as “religious” or not. The point of these activities, of course, was to examine the constructed boundaries of individual and group identity formation rather than to make truth claims for one position or another. These kinds of activities urged students to critically consider questions about identity, positionality, history, colonialism, discourse, power, and ideology. For instance, we examined why groups might maintain an identification with the category of religion, or consequently, define themselves against it. Furthermore, we investigated how political liberalism has shaped and naturalized discursive formations of religion, spiritual, science, and secular. Finally, we considered how to manage, or at least acknowledge, bias in the critical Study of Religion. As far as possible, I wanted our classes to be a mutually advantageous learning space for which I could inspire a corrective to what Jack Lewis Graham and I note is the “idea that Religious Studies is a bastion of Vicar training" … or a Mickey Mouse degree.
While many students found these critical questions exciting, others found them difficult, and in some cases, almost offensive to ask. When several students encountered the views of Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, and more contemporary critical and reductionist theoreticians such as Russell McCutcheon, Craig Martin, and Timothy Fitzgerald (not to mention Richard Dawkins and others), several found these ideas radical, distasteful, and dismissive of what many people consider truth. Interestingly, not all those students in the latter category identified as religious. In fact, several seemed frequently concerned with appreciating religious traditions in positive and affirmational terms. Many of these students would likely reject the label of Theologian, but often resorted to realist conceptualizations of religion; assuming that Christianity and Islam are obviously religions, and that the measuring stick for such a claim exists outside of the human mind, and therefore, the parameters of human language and social construction. This was not so surprising as even in the Sociology of Religion, scholars uncritically fall back on realist conceptualizations of religion while concurrently paying lip-service to the anti-realism of social constructivism, discourse analysis, and critical theory. Instead, these students often favored Phenomenology of Religion for its reactions against reductionism, privileging of participants’ language rather than using the vocabulary of the human-sciences, and bracketing claims about truth or falsity. There was of course no easy answer as to how best to manage such views during our classes. In these cases, it seemed advantageous to persuade students to avoid seeing critical thinking as emphasizing negative aspects, being totally dismissive, or ‘religion bashing’, but rather see it as deconstructing or unlearning assumptions about culture, language, and the world that we take for granted.
If I was to teach this module again, there are things that I would change. For instance, I would update the core textbooks and redesign the assignments. These are general things that all Module Leaders would likely cite as necessary amendments to their modules. If there was one thing that I would not change, however, it is pushing the critical Study of Religion as a timely endeavor. Earlier I cited the essay that Jack Lewis Graham and I published on Empty Voices called: There and Back Again? Religious Studies and the Shadow of Theology (2019). In that essay we quote Monica Miller (2015), who states that ‘Reified notions of culture … are often at the root of systems of violence and war’ (5). I tried not to put too fine a point on this when teaching but wanted my students to realize the global and political implications of the critical Study of Religion. During my first year classes as an undergraduate, the value of critical theory left its mark on me, to the extent that throughout the remainder of my undergraduate and graduate studies, my ideas and essays were shaped significantly by the works of Marx, Žižek, and the like. Furthermore, it inspired an impulse in me to want to deconstruct language, culture, and the world, not so much as to leave life as an uninhabitable and unbearable dark abyss, but rather to seek out justice for those whose lives suffer because of the naturalization and reification of claims about culture and a world that we cannot apparently change.
Although this module introduced undergraduate students to the academic Study of Religion, more than half of the class were registered either for the Theology Bachelor’s (BA) or Theology and Religious Studies Combined BA degree. The remaining students were either taking the Single Honors Religious Studies BA or combining modules from Theology and Religious Studies with those of other departments including Sociology, Politics, and Counselling, but not limited to, Spanish and Theatre. One of the main difficulties was that of the extent to which necessary differences between Theology and Religious Studies were communicated to undergraduate students. Previously, the module had amplified these matters by having a team of teaching staff who approached the Study of Religion differently. This was not so much the case in terms of methodological or theoretical views (i.e. Qualitative or Quantitative; Durkheim or Marx), but rather, about the extent to which they demarcated the boundaries between Theology and the Study of Religion. While it seemed that these matters were more pronounced in Biblical Studies (i.e. theological or sociological; realist vs. anti-realist; embodied or discursive), it certainly played out in Study of Religion classes as well. My strategy was to focus specifically on social constructivism and discourse analysis and emphasize the Study of Religion as an effort to critically analyze claims of truth and meaning, not about seeking it for ourselves or on behalf of others.
It was exciting to see that the module had been well received by students. It was noted during evaluations that it was challenging in terms of both content and encouraging of critical thinking. Student expectations for this module were difficult to manage, especially, among those students following more of a Theology degree pathway. For instance, there were at least several blank faces when I mentioned Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud in our first seminar (why aren’t we talking about religions?). By its very nature, however, this course was demanding. Rather than studying “religions”, in the plural, and with the student expectation of descriptive course content, this module asked students to critically examine and deconstruct “religion” and related discursive classifications. These included: “East vs. West”, “economics”, “fundamentalism”, “Hinduism”, “Pagan”, “politics”, “secular”, and “spirituality”. For example, students were asked to demystify the alleged unique nature of the classification of religion in different case studies ranging from is religion in decline to whether Buddhism, Football, or a belief in Sasquatch can be classified as “religious” or not. The point of these activities, of course, was to examine the constructed boundaries of individual and group identity formation rather than to make truth claims for one position or another. These kinds of activities urged students to critically consider questions about identity, positionality, history, colonialism, discourse, power, and ideology. For instance, we examined why groups might maintain an identification with the category of religion, or consequently, define themselves against it. Furthermore, we investigated how political liberalism has shaped and naturalized discursive formations of religion, spiritual, science, and secular. Finally, we considered how to manage, or at least acknowledge, bias in the critical Study of Religion. As far as possible, I wanted our classes to be a mutually advantageous learning space for which I could inspire a corrective to what Jack Lewis Graham and I note is the “idea that Religious Studies is a bastion of Vicar training" … or a Mickey Mouse degree.
While many students found these critical questions exciting, others found them difficult, and in some cases, almost offensive to ask. When several students encountered the views of Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, and more contemporary critical and reductionist theoreticians such as Russell McCutcheon, Craig Martin, and Timothy Fitzgerald (not to mention Richard Dawkins and others), several found these ideas radical, distasteful, and dismissive of what many people consider truth. Interestingly, not all those students in the latter category identified as religious. In fact, several seemed frequently concerned with appreciating religious traditions in positive and affirmational terms. Many of these students would likely reject the label of Theologian, but often resorted to realist conceptualizations of religion; assuming that Christianity and Islam are obviously religions, and that the measuring stick for such a claim exists outside of the human mind, and therefore, the parameters of human language and social construction. This was not so surprising as even in the Sociology of Religion, scholars uncritically fall back on realist conceptualizations of religion while concurrently paying lip-service to the anti-realism of social constructivism, discourse analysis, and critical theory. Instead, these students often favored Phenomenology of Religion for its reactions against reductionism, privileging of participants’ language rather than using the vocabulary of the human-sciences, and bracketing claims about truth or falsity. There was of course no easy answer as to how best to manage such views during our classes. In these cases, it seemed advantageous to persuade students to avoid seeing critical thinking as emphasizing negative aspects, being totally dismissive, or ‘religion bashing’, but rather see it as deconstructing or unlearning assumptions about culture, language, and the world that we take for granted.
If I was to teach this module again, there are things that I would change. For instance, I would update the core textbooks and redesign the assignments. These are general things that all Module Leaders would likely cite as necessary amendments to their modules. If there was one thing that I would not change, however, it is pushing the critical Study of Religion as a timely endeavor. Earlier I cited the essay that Jack Lewis Graham and I published on Empty Voices called: There and Back Again? Religious Studies and the Shadow of Theology (2019). In that essay we quote Monica Miller (2015), who states that ‘Reified notions of culture … are often at the root of systems of violence and war’ (5). I tried not to put too fine a point on this when teaching but wanted my students to realize the global and political implications of the critical Study of Religion. During my first year classes as an undergraduate, the value of critical theory left its mark on me, to the extent that throughout the remainder of my undergraduate and graduate studies, my ideas and essays were shaped significantly by the works of Marx, Žižek, and the like. Furthermore, it inspired an impulse in me to want to deconstruct language, culture, and the world, not so much as to leave life as an uninhabitable and unbearable dark abyss, but rather to seek out justice for those whose lives suffer because of the naturalization and reification of claims about culture and a world that we cannot apparently change.
Liam Metcalf-White
Comments
Post a Comment