Methodological Assumptions Part I

FOUNDATIONS

For a variety of reasons dating back to the Enlightenment (including Christian

influenced theories of secularization that were reproduced through
colonialism) there are many commonly held assumptions about religion in
general and religious traditions in particular that represent fundamental
misunderstandings. Scholars of religion are well aware of these assumptions
and have articulated some basic facts about religions themselves and the
study of religion that serve as useful foundations for inquiry. [1]

Differentiating Between Devotional Expression and the Study of Religion

First and foremost, scholars highlight the difference between the devotional
expression of particular religious beliefs as normative and the
nonsectarian study of religion that presumes the religious legitimacy of
diverse normative claims. The importance of this distinction is that it
recognizes the validity of normative theological assertions without equating
them with universal truths about the tradition itself.

Unfortunately, this distinction is often ignored in public discourse about

religion. For example, there is a great deal of contemporary debate about the
roles for women in Islam. In truth, there are a variety of theological
interpretations of the tradition that lead to different, sometimes antithetical
practices and assertions. Equally common is that differing communities will
have similar practices but with diverse theological justifications.

It is appropriate for members of a particular community to assert the

orthodoxy of their theological interpretations of the tradition, but it is
important to recognize the difference between a theological assertion of
normativity and the factual truth that multiple legitimate perspectives exist.
The latter represents the nonsectarian study of religion. This is the approach
promoted here and the one most appropriate to advance the public
understanding of religion.
There are three other central assertions about religions themselves that
religious studies scholars have outlined and that flow from the recognition of
the distinction between devotional expression and the nonsectarian study of
religion outlined above:

1) religions are internally diverse as opposed to uniform;

2) religions evolve and change over time as opposed to being ahistorical and
static;

3) religious influences are embedded in all dimensions of culture as opposed

to the assumption that religions function in discrete, isolated, “private”
contexts.

Religions are Internally Diverse

This assertion is a truism but requires explanation due to the common ways
that religious traditions and practices are frequently portrayed as uniform.
Aside from the obvious formal differences within traditions represented by
differing sects or expressions (e.g., Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant for
Christianity; Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism, for Hinduism, etc.) there are
differences within sects or expressions because religious communities
function in different social/political contexts. One example is the debate
mentioned above regarding the roles of women in Islam. The following
assertions are also commonly repeated: “Buddhists are nonviolent”,
“Christians oppose abortion”, “Religion and science are incompatible”, etc.
All of these comments represent particular theological assertions as opposed
to factual claims representing the tradition itself.

Religions Evolve and Change

This is another truism but again requires explanation due to the common
practice of representing religious traditions without social or historical
context and solely (or primarily) through ritual expression and/or abstract
beliefs. Religions exist in time and space and are constantly interpreted and
reinterpreted by believers. For example, the Confucian concept of the
“mandate from heaven” evolved within dynasties, geopolitical regions, and
historical eras and continues to evolve today. Another example is that the
practice of slavery has been both justified and vilified by all three
monotheistic traditions in differing social and historical contexts. Finally, in a
more specific example, the Southern Baptist convention in the United States
passed a series of resolutions in the 1970s supporting the moral legitimacy
of abortion and reversed those resolutions in 2003.[2]

Religious Influences are Embedded in Cultures

Religions are collections of ideas, practices, values, and stories that are all
embedded in cultures and not separable from them. Just as religion cannot
be understood in isolation from its cultural (including political) contexts, it is
impossible to understand culture without considering its religious
dimensions. In the same way that race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, and
socio-economic class are always factors in cultural interpretation and
understanding, so too is religion.

Whether explicit or implicit, religious influences can virtually always be found

when one asks “the religion question” of any given social or historical
experience. For example, political theorists have recently highlighted the
ways that different interpretations of secularism have been profoundly
shaped by varied normative assumptions about Christianity.[3] This is just
one representation of a fundamental shift in political theory that is
challenging the legitimacy of the longstanding assertion that religion
both can be and should be restricted to a private sphere and separated from
political influence.

Modernist claims predicting the steady decline of the transnational political

influence of religion that were first formalized in the 17 th century have been
foundational to various modern political theories for centuries. In spite of the
ongoing global influences of religions in political life throughout this time
period, it is only in the aftermath of 1) the Iranian Revolution in 1979; 2) the
fall of the Berlin wall in 1989 and the subsequent rise vs. the widely
predicted demise of religion; and 3) the 9/11 and 7/7 terrorist attacks that
political theorists in the West began to acknowledge the highly problematic
ways that religions and religious influences have been marginalized and too
simplistically rendered.

This shift is a welcome one and paves the way for multi and cross-
disciplinary collaborations with religious studies scholars across the full range
of social science investigations in order to explore the complex and critically
important roles that religions play in our contemporary world.

Definition of Religious Literacy

The following definition of religious literacy articulated by Diane L Moore has

been adopted by the American Academy of Religion to help educators
understand what is required for a basic understanding of religion and its
roles in human experience:

Religious literacy entails the ability to discern and analyze the fundamental
intersections of religion and social/political/cultural life through multiple
lenses. Specifically, a religiously literate person will possess 1) a basic
understanding of the history, central texts (where applicable), beliefs,
practices and contemporary manifestations of several of the world's religious
traditions as they arose out of and continue to be shaped by particular social,
historical and cultural contexts; and 2) the ability to discern and explore the
religious dimensions of political, social and cultural expressions across time
and place.

Critical to this definition is the importance of understanding religions and

religious influences in context and as inextricably woven into all dimensions
of human experience. Such an understanding highlights the inadequacy of
understanding religions through common means such as learning about
ritual practices or exploring “what scriptures say” about topics or questions.
Unfortunately, these are some of the most common approaches to learning
about religion and lead to simplistic and inaccurate representations of the
roles religions play in human agency and understanding.
METHODOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS AND ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORKS
REGARDING RELIGION

CULTURAL STUDIES

The cultural studies approach to understanding religion that forms the

analytical and methodological foundation for this course assumes the basic
elements of the study of religion outlined in Part One and frames them within
a postmodern worldview with the following specific characteristics.

First, the method is multi and inter-disciplinary and recognizes how political,
economic, and cultural lenses are fundamentally entwined rather than
discrete. For example, economic or political dimensions of human experience
cannot be accurately understood without understanding the religious and
other ideological influences that shape the cultural context out of which
particular political or economic actions and motivations arise. This is the
methodological framework related to the third tenet of religious studies in
Part One: that religions are embedded in culture and that “culture” is
inclusive of political and economic influences.

Second, the method assumes that all knowledge claims are "situated" in that
they arise out of particular social/historical contexts and therefore represent
particular rather than universally applicable claims. This notion of
"situatedness" is drawn from historian of science Donna Haraway's assertion
that "situated knowledges" are more accurate than the "god-trick" of
universal or objective claims that rest on the assumption that it is possible to
"see everything from nowhere." Contrary to popular opinion, the recognition
that all knowledge claims are "situated" is not a manifestation of relativism
whereby all interpretations are considered equally valid. Rather, "situated
knowledges" offer the firmest ground upon which to make objective claims
that are defined not by their detachment but rather by their specificity,
transparency and capacity for accountability.

Regarding the study of religion, this understanding of "situatedness" offers a

tool to recognize that religious claims are no different than other forms of
interpretation in that they arise out of particular contexts that represent
particular assumptions as opposed to absolute, universal and ahistorical
truths. (For example, claims such as "Islam is a religion of peace" and "Islam
promotes terrorism" are equally problematic and need to be recognized as
particular theological assertions as opposed to ultimate Truths.)

Third, this notion of situatedness applies to the texts and materials being
investigated, the scholarly interpreters of those materials, and all inquirers
regardless of station. The method recognizes that all forms of inquiry are
interpretations filtered through particular lenses. By acknowledging this fact,
an essential dimension of the inquiry itself is to identify those differing lenses
and make transparent that which would otherwise be hidden.

Fourth, the method calls for an analysis of power and powerlessness related
to the subject at hand. Which perspectives are politically and socially
prominent and why? Which are marginalized or silenced and why? Regarding
religion, why are some theological interpretations more prominent than
others in relationship to specific issues in particular social/historical
contexts? For example, what are the factors that led to the Taliban's rise to
power in Afghanistan and why did their interpretation of the role of women in
Islam, for example, gain social legitimacy over other competing claims within
the tradition itself?

In another vein, what are the converging factors that lend social credibility
and influence to some religious traditions over others and which dimensions
of those traditions are interpreted as orthodox and which heretical and by
whom? What were the conditions that allowed Muslims, Christians and Jews
to live together in relative harmony in medieval Spain and what are the
religious influences that have contributed to shaping contemporary tensions
in the Middle East and more globally regarding the "war on terror" and “the
Arab Spring”?

Fifth, this approach highlights what cultural anthropologists know well: that
cultural norms are fluid and socially constructed even though they are often
interpreted as representing uncontested absolute truths. This dynamic
tension is powerfully demonstrated in social science theorist Johan Galtung’s
three-pronged typology of violence/peace. This framework also provides an
excellent foundation for discerning and representing the varied ideological
influences of religions in human affairs. We'll be focusing on Galtung's work
in Day Three of our module.

ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT HUMAN NATURE AND VIOLENCE

One of the most vexing questions that many humans ponder is why we
continue to perpetuate heinous forms of violence against one another and
other living entities in spite of lessons learned from history. One answer to
this question is rooted in a credible but bleak assumption about human
nature and capacity where such violence is viewed as inevitable and
fundamental to the human condition. For those with a more optimistic view
of human nature, however, the answer is more complicated, and this more
optimistic view is the one that is assumed in the cultural studies approach
represented in this course.

Such optimism requires confronting issues related to the perpetuation of

violence in new ways. For example, most contemporaries will view the 19th
century illustration above with horror at the base brutality it depicts.
Many will view the Caucasians represented in the illustration with
repugnance and moral condemnation, fueled by an often unstated
assumption that "those" people are not like "us." But what if they are like
"us?" What if our attempts to distance ourselves by consciously or
unconsciously depicting those "others" as "evil" or uniquely callous or
morally bankrupt serve to hinder versus enhance our ability to learn from the
past? The assertion that "they" are like "us" is the entry point for
understanding the following resources.
As we learned in Part Two of the Methods document reviewed in the last
class, the fifth tenet of a cultural studies approach is the recognition that
cultural norms are fluid and socially constructed, even though they are often
interpreted as representing uncontested absolute truths. This dynamic
tension is well represented in Johan Galtung's typologies of violence and
peace. His framework is described in the following animation video and in
Part Three of the Methods document. Please make note of your questions
and responses to these ideas as you review these materials.

METHODOLOGIAL ASSUMPTIONS AND ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORKS

REGARDING RELIGION

Part Three

Diane L. Moore, Harvard Divinity School, 2015

Johan Galtung: Direct, Structural, and Cultural forms of Violence and

Peace:

Often referred to as the “Father of Peace Studies”, Norwegian theorist Johan

Galtung has developed a three pronged typology of violence that represents
how a confluence of malleable factors merge in particular cultural/historical
moments to shape the conditions for the promotion of violence (and, by
inference, peace) to function as normative.

 Direct Violence represents behaviors that serve to threaten life itself

and/or to diminish one’s capacity to meet basic human needs.
Examples include killing, maiming, bullying, sexual assault, and
emotional manipulation.
  Structural Violence represents the systematic ways in which some
groups are hindered from equal access to opportunities, goods, and
services that enable the fulfillment of basic human needs. These can
be formal as in legal structures that enforce marginalization (such as
Apartheid in South Africa) or they could be culturally functional but
without legal mandate (such as limited access to education or health
care for marginalized groups).

 Cultural Violence represents the existence of prevailing or prominent

social norms that make direct and structural violence seem “natural” or
“right” or at least acceptable. For example, the belief that Africans are
primitive and intellectually inferior to Caucasians gave sanction to the
African slave trade. Galtung’s understanding of cultural violence helps
explain how prominent beliefs can become so embedded in a given
culture that they function as absolute and inevitable and are
reproduced uncritically across generations.

These forms of violence are interrelated and mutually reinforcing. Galtung

provides a representation of these intersecting forces in the following
commentary on slavery:

Africans are captured, forced across the Atlantic to work as slaves: millions
are killed in the process—in Africa, on board, in the Americas. This massive
direct violence over centuries seeps down and sediments as massive
structural violence, with whites as the master topdogs and blacks as the
slave underdogs, producing and reproducing massive cultural violence with
racist ideas everywhere. After some time, direct violence is forgotten,
slavery is forgotten, and only two labels show up, pale enough for college
textbooks: “discrimination” for massive structural violence and “prejudice”
for massive cultural violence. Sanitation of language: itself cultural violence.

Galtung’s typology provides a helpful vehicle to discern the complex roles

that religions play in all three forms of violence as well as in their
corresponding forms of peace. The formulations of cultural violence and
cultural peace are especially helpful and relevant. In all cultural contexts,
diverse and often contradictory religious influences are always
present. Some will be explicit, but many will be implicit. Some influences
will promote and/or represent socially normative beliefs while others will
promote and/or represent marginalized convictions.

For example, in Galtung’s illustration cited above, religions functioned to

both support and to challenge the moral legitimacy of the transatlantic slave
trade and religions continue to function to support and to thwart structural
and direct forms of contemporary racism. Similarly, religions currently
function in particular ways to shape and support as well as to challenge
prominent economic theories and their policy manifestations. In a final
example, normative cultural assumptions about gender roles and sexuality in
particular social-historical contexts are always shaped as well as contested
by diverse religious voices and influences. One has to simply look for these
voices and influences in any context and about any issue to find the ways
that religions are embedded in all aspects of human agency and experience.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

This course represents the following methodological and analytical

assumptions about religion:

1. There is a fundamental difference between the devotional expression

of a religious worldview as normative and the study of religion which
recognizes the factual existence of diverse devotional assertions;

2. Religions are internally diverse;

3. Religions evolve and change;

4. Religious influences are embedded in all aspects of human experience;

5. All knowledge claims (including religious ones) are socially constructed

and represent particular “situated” perspectives;

6. There is nothing inevitable about either violence or peace; both are

manifest in three intersecting formulations: direct, structural, and
cultural and both are shaped by conscious and unconscious human
agency where religious influences are always operative.

We on the teaching team believe that these foundations provide the best
tools to understand the complex roles that religions play in human
experience, and understanding them will help diminish the negative
consequences of widespread religious illiteracy.

What is required in addition to good intentions is to develop the capacities

to, first, critically reflect upon one's own contemporary culture and, second,
to identify manifestations of cultural violence that are functioning and, third,
to interrogate those ideologies, to determine if they are credible and worthy
of conscious reproduction.
You will be graded on two criteria:

Do you address every part of your prompt? Do you organize your argument
in a way that is easy to understand?

Please post your commentary and do a PEER REVIEW of two other posts that
will be randomly assigned to you. Once you respond to your peers, your own
post will be made available for you to review with comments from two
others.

Option One: Evaluate a Media Representation of Religion

Please choose a contemporary article in the news related to religion from

your local or national context and paste a copy of the article or a link to it at
the top of your posting. Using the cultural studies method, please briefly
respond to the following questions. Your answers should not exceed 500
words.

The article discusses the recent decision by Geert Wilders, leader of the
Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV), to withdraw three controversial draft
legislations targeting aspects of Islam and dual citizenship. This Dutch right-
wing politician tried to past the policies that could potentially harm the
Muslim community in the Netherlands. The article stated the actions that
Dutch government may commit if the parliament pass the policy, such as
bans on the Quran and Islamic schools.

The article does not present Islam as internally diverse. Islam is discussed
only in the context of being the target of legislative restrictions proposed by
Wilders. The measures appear monolithic and do not distinguish between
different Islamic sects, interpretations, or the diverse Muslim communities
present in the Netherlands. article misses an opportunity to contextualize
how such proposals might affect Muslims differently or how various Islamic
voices might respond to these proposals.

Wilders opinions are cited in the article. These opinions, such as lock up
“potential” jihadis or ban “expressions of Islam”, are well presented in this
article. These citations are perfectly chosen to present the structural violence
and cultural violence that the Muslim community are affected by.

In this article, there are only few Muslim traditions represented, such as
reading Quran and holding Islam school in the Netherlands. However, it fails
to represent the Muslim community’s perspective, as well as those of civil
society groups who might oppose such legislation on ethical, legal, or
humanitarian grounds. If the relevant voices are included in this article, the
cultural violence and structural violence will be more represented, which
make this news more than just a political update.

This article also demonstrates that religious influences are deeply embedded
in all aspects of human experience; politics has a significant impact on
religious influences, and vice versa. Many policies are created to protect or
mitigate the influence of religion.

The article also presents that direct, structural, and cultural violence always
exists where religious influences are operative. The story of Dutch politicians
trying to oppress the Muslim community in the Netherlands shows the
existence of structural and cultural violence toward the Muslim community.

In conclusion, the article can be rated as 3 out of 5. It is average in quality:

clear, fact-based, and timely, but it lacks religious nuance, and diverse
religious voices that would enhance its journalistic and ethical depth.

Exploring Buddhist Diversity: A Neighborhood Learning Experience

This learning experience is designed for an informal neighborhood gathering

of adults interested in exploring world religions. The group includes people
from different faiths or no religious background, many of whom are curious
about Buddhism but often think of it as a single, unified tradition. I chose to
share content from Day 6 “What is the Role of Canon?” to introduce
participants to the internal diversity within Buddhism, specifically the
differences between Theravada and Mahayana traditions.
This element of the course is especially valuable for this audience because it
challenges the common assumption that religions are static or monolithic. It
also illustrates key course principles: that religions evolve, are internally
diverse, and that sacred texts (canons) are shaped by human contexts. By
examining how different Buddhist communities developed distinct teachings
and scriptures, neighbors can gain a broader understanding of how all
religious traditions grow and adapt.

First, the Learning Objectives should be discussed before the activity:

 Introduce Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism in accessible terms.

 Show how religious canons shape beliefs and practices differently.

 Promote respectful discussion about religious diversity.

Activity Plan:

1. Welcome and Framing

Begin with a warm welcome and ask: What comes to mind when you hear
“Buddhism”?
Briefly explain that Buddhism includes many traditions, not just one path.

2. Short Readings
Share key excerpts from:

 1

 2
Explain unfamiliar terms (e.g., canon, bodhisattva, arahant).

3. Group Discussion
Break into small groups to discuss:

 What differences stood out to you?

 How do these two traditions understand the Buddha and his teachings?

 What does this say about how religions change over time?

4. Summary and Wrap-Up

Bring the group back together to share insights.
Highlight how Theravada emphasizes early teachings and personal
liberation, while Mahayana expands the canon and focuses on universal
compassion through the bodhisattva path.

5. Reflection
Ask participants to consider: How does this change the way you think about
religion and sacred texts?

By exploring these two Buddhist traditions, participants will better

understand how religious teachings are shaped by history and human
interpretation, an insight that applies far beyond Buddhism.