Because I switched into a Religion major subject POSt late in my undergrad career*, at the moment I am taking both the Method & Theory and World Religions courses; which I think is proving to be instructive for this course, and hopefully for World Religions as well.
The syllabus for the latter course begins with the expected preamble as a course description: it states that the course will be a survey of the “major religious traditions of the world”, and will be divided into two sections “Western” (Judaism, Christianity and Islam; which was amended in lecture to Mediterranean) and South East Asia (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism and Chinese religions). The core text for the course A Concise Introduction to World Religions begins with what it terms ‘Indigenous’ traditions, followed by the three Abrahamic religions, then Hindu, Sikh, Jain and so forth. And although the syllabus states that the course aims to “situate traditions within their larger cultural worldviews” and will also include a lecture on new religious movements; it does follow what Masuzawa terms the “uniformly adopted convention” (256) of world religions discourse.**
I think that the interesting question or angle here is NOT why is this course being taught? Or even why is this course structured in this manner? BUT what are the presuppositions that therse (for the most part) 17 and 18 year-old students bringing to the world religions survey course. Why are they taking it? What has made them think it is important? Is it just for a well-rounded liberal arts education? For an introduction for latter more specific/in-depth study?
I think, actually, that a large part of the reason a student would take RLG 100 is informed by the 19th Century Europeans, that is to say their influence on popular culture. And also, more importantly that what Masuzawa calls the “flatly monotonous pluralism” (256) that became the norm for the 20th century discourse as a product of the ‘scientific’ study of religion (the need to categorize and define, the ‘family resemblances’ and such; essentially a need to impose a European directed order on the people of the world) is key to understanding something held dear in Canadian culture: multiculturalism. That is not to say that the present understanding of multiculturalism and related social justice goals are the direct descendents of this earlier thought; BUT that the underlying concept, the flattening of differences, so necessary to this ‘value’ would lead students to want to have an understanding of world religions. Even if the taxonomy is dubious. In other words, this course would not be taken to understand far off nations, but close neighbours.
* I took Psychology and Religion to begin with, and then followed that with Phenomenon of Religion, Early Christian Writings, and Roots of Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity. Needless to say all of these courses were indeed Eurocentric in material covered and bias. Arguably with cause in terms of the subject matter i.e. psychology and Christianity; two fields of study developed in Europe, for Europeans.
** It would also appear that the standard characterizations that Masuzawa mentions are also present. For example, the Buddhism that Masuzawa comments as generally appearing “benignly compassionate…metaphysical at the core” (256) is presented in the introduction to its chapter in A Concise Introduction to World Religions as having followers that “seek to become more compassionate…more pure of mind, and more spiritually wise.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
It's funny your position of being in these two courses. I'm kind of in the same boat because I switched majors, and just completed the world religions course in August. I find myself asking similar questions.
Why do young Canadians want to learn more about world religions? Sometimes I thought that is was to have the ability to boast some obscure fact in order to sound interesting, or to be able to buy lulu lemons and really be a Buddhist. As the course went on I found that students had a genuine interest in trying to understand other parts of the world. And I think that as Canadians, students feel the need to know about the different ethnicities around them. After reading Masuzawa, I am now beginning to understanding the falsity of my own so-called understanding of 'world religions'.
I do however, feel better for having taken world-religions. Becuase at least I have some idea of what is going on around the world. I am even more pleased that I have taken this course afterward. So that I can put what I learned throughout the summer into some context.
Hi Jen,
I really enjoyed how you were able to bring your own experience with the course in question into dialogue with M's text. I also enjoyed one of the reasons you offered as to why so many students take world religions in the first place - the need to categorize in order to understand and whatnot. However, there is one other reason why students take this course, and one that I myself was familiar with: it's manditory for a degree in religion at UofT. This, of course, raises the question of whether or not such a course SHOULD be mandatory, given the baggage and decided short comings it comes with (or, at least taught as it is now, without prefacing the course with a description of its baggage and short comings). So, thanks for your blog, it inspires some really great questions!
Being a student who has taken the RLG 100 course in my first years of study i think it would be interesting for you to hear my perspective. I think that you are fortunate to be taking these two courses simultaneously becuase it allows for you to view it from a different perspective. However, as an 18 year old, I took it solely becuase I thought it would be interesting to learn about other relgions. I almost believe that if this course was offered elsewhere I would have taken it too despite the fact that the majority of the population followed a particular religion. However, I guess in such a context, I would not be as openminded and accepting.
Hi Jen,
I think you bring up an excellent point that perhaps we need to start looking at what presuppositions these students seem to hold upon deciding to take a world religions course, their reasons behind such a decision and what made them find it important enough to do so. Is it just to gain more social awareness or to lessen the gap between one person of faith from another? Or is it the excitement that one gets from seeing it presented in an anthropological approach in the study of religion; learning about the different rituals, beliefs, customs, etc. As you have emphasized, much of our perceptions are influenced by 19th Century Europeans since it that perspective that we are exposed to in popular culture and even in our education system. RLG 100 for me was an exact replica of courses I had to take in high school which taught world religions from exactly the same perspective. But it's also what got me interested in the first place and want to delve deeper into the subject.
Post a Comment