The Study of Religion and its Theoretical Future

Within the study of religion in recent years, there has been a growing interest in what is meant by ‘theory’. The rise of this interest can partially be attributed to the critical turn, starting in earnest in the 1990s. The critical study of religion is largely concerned with the role of definition and classification and how ‘religion’, ‘world religions’, etc. are not neutral objects which exist in the world ‘out there’, but instead are social constructions operating according to the agendas of the definer or classifier. The role of the critical scholar, therefore, is to deploy theory in order to get behind descriptive presentations of religion and world religions – to get to the ideology which underlies them.

It is undoubtably the case that in the past, too little attention was paid to the role of ideology in the construction, deconstruction and reconstruction processes which characterise the creation of classificatory systems and the societies they support. By focusing on theory in this sense, the study of religion has been able to deconstruct metanarratives and notions of objectivity which homogenise diversity and ignore the voices of those not in positions of power. And it is common to see the argument that even today, the reach of theory in the above sense is not widespread enough.

However, there is a danger of self-identified critical religion scholars believing that only their work is theoretical and that unless scholars of religion are like them, what they do cannot be said to be examples of theory in practice. The problem here is that the critical religion scholars, instead of uncovering the ideologies at play in all scholarship, adopt one rule for themselves and another for others. This is not to say that scholarship cannot be normative and that certain constructions of ‘theory’ cannot be promoted over and against others. The issue is whether one acknowledges that one is being as normative as the next person.    

Another problem is that the legitimate theoretical voice according to the critical study of religion tends to be that of the so-called outsider. The suggestion that the view of insiders are merely descriptive and only provide interesting data reinforces a false dichotomy between confessional and non-confessional scholarship – as all scholarship is confessional in the polemical sense of the term – and thus unnecessarily reduces the number of dialectic partners one interested in study of religion theory can have. At a time when the inclusion of marginalised voices in of increasing importance, such a practice should not continue.

Moving forward, the study of religion needs to reflect upon how to construct a critical, yet open, ‘theory’ signifier. It is undoubtably the case that too many scholars continue to deploy arguments based upon the presumed fact that religion, etc. is a natural phenomenon divorced from its situated surroundings – ignoring the co-dependence of the signifier and signified. In this respect, research output should continue to be critically examined from a ‘theoretical’ perspective. Nevertheless, it is also the case that some critical religion scholars need to reflect upon whether they ever apply to themselves the kind of thoroughgoing analysis they subject other scholars to. 

Jack Lewis Graham