WELCOME TOWorkshop 2:The

Insider/OutsiderDebate in

Plural ContextsAssoc Prof Dr Paul Hedges

SRP, RSIS, NTU26th March 2015

RETURN TO WORKSHOP 1

WHAT DOES THE WRP MEAN FOR RELIGIOUS IDENTITY/ BELONGING? Western scholars inherit the Christian conception of religion:Religions are bounded territories of belongingReligion is primarily about belief in a set of principles (cannot adhere to more than one)

Every religious tradition is its own set of meanings and a clearly defined set of beliefs and practices

Therefore: each religion is a distinct and discrete unit to which sole allegiance is required

Therefore: you can only be an ‘insider’ of one religion (at a time)

IS THIS AN ABRAHAMIC PARADIGM? Christianities Judaisms Islams

South-east Asia:The Hindu family of traditions

Sikhisms Chinese sphere:

BuddhismsDaoismsConfucianismsSanjiao (3 traditions)

Folk practisesShintoisms

WALKING IN ANOTHER’S SHOES

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Sandalias_del_Neol%C3%ADtico_de_Albu%C3%B1ol_(M.A.N._Inv._595_y_596)_01.jpg

SOME IMPORTANT TERMINOLOGY Keywords:

Phenomenology – methodology to remove own prejudices and see phenomenon clearly.

Methodological Agnosticism – to avoid judgements of truth or falsity.

Verstehen – (German) ‘understanding’ or ‘re-living’ another’s experience.

Hermeneutics – theory of interpretation.Epistemology – theory of knowledge.Reflexivity – to be aware of one’s own prejudices in the act of analysis and understanding and so to realise our interpretations are always biased, i.e. recognition that ‘pure’ phenomenology/ verstehen is impossible.

Insider-Outsider – to take a believer’s/ devotee’s standpoint or a non-believers’/ scholar’s standpoint/ interpretation.

Emic-Etic – to understand/explain something in the terms of the insider (emic) or outsider (etic) – both are ‘outsider’ stances.

I/O TERMS Insider & Outsider

Insider accounts: Descriptions by a believer/ devotee about their own faith

Outsider accounts: Description by a non-believer about another person’s faith

Emic & Etic (Kenneth Pike) both outsider

Emic accounts: A description given in terms meaningful to a believer

Etic accounts: A description given in external theoretical terms

PHENOMENOLOGY Most widespread method in RS until recently:Phenomenology – as philosophy from Husserl (via others) to Eliade and RS

Method (very crudely): Epoché: suspension of judgement Eidetic Vision: seeing things as a whole/ as an essence

Widely attacked/ reviewed:No neutral stanceHowever, can it be redefined: how do we approach the ‘Other’? Descriptive and reflexive

FOUNDATIONAL EPISTEMOLOGICAL PREJUDICES

Discuss where you stand on McCutcheon’s “three theoretical options” (1999: 2):Is the Other/ other people/ other religions:

A) an open book we simply need to learn to readi.e. there are common human experiences which we can all simply relate to even if we must learn some tools

B) a set of hidden codes we must decipheri.e. we need to see that people’s outer beliefs/ ideas are actually based upon motivations we need to deconstruct and study to understand as aspects of natural science

C) something in which we only see ourselvesi.e. when we study the Other we actually always impose our own interpretations, so we need to recognise our own biases and realise that is all we can ever know

THINKING ABOUT INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS Some Questions:

Discuss with examples to clarify your position

Can someone in a particular religion ever understand someone in another religion?

Can outsiders sometimes understand things better or more clearly than an insider?

In what ways may we be both insiders and outsiders across traditions and within traditions?

‘If we accept the argument… that to be able to work in both emic and etic modes can provide richer insights, then may it not stand to reason that the Insider can extend the emic position even further? However, this contradicts what may seem fairly clear common sense that Insiders will never be able to remove themselves from a position that endorses their own agenda, and so cannot look impartially at the facts..

‘…. [W]e also need to realize that to think that the terms “Insider” and “Outsider” as referring solely to religious belonging is misleading…. Variables such as gender, ethnicity, region, class and other matters all play a part. For instance, a Western scholar who seeks an emic understanding of the religious culture of a Hindu (ex)-untouchable, or Dalit… will find himself an Outsider… on account of religion… class and ethnicity…. If we consider a movement like Santeria, a fusion of Roman Catholicism and African traditional religions… we may find that many Insiders within Roman Catholicism… may experience greater difficulties relating to and understanding this system than many others, perhaps those who share the cultural and social origins that gave rise to Santeria even if they do not practise it (i.e. black slaves).’(Hedges and King, 2014: 34-5).

CASE STUDY 1: PAUL WILLIAMS’ ‘UNEXPECTED WAY’

WHO ISPAUL WILLIAMS?

English AcademicProfessor of Indian and Tibetan Philosophy, Bristol

Life:Born in Exeter University: Sussex, study philosophy

Oxford, doctorate in Indian and Buddhist philosophy

Religious journey:Anglican until 16Converted to Tibetan Buddhism c. 28 years

Reconverted to Catholicism

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/image/3201662-4x3-700x525.jpg

WILLIAMS’ JOURNEY AS I/O “It will be difficult if we seek to understand to which tradition he is an Insider or Outsider; certainly, we could not simply quantify it and ask whether he has a higher level of insiderness or outsiderness to either tradition, and when such a change occurred. Also we can ask what happens when he thinks in emic or etic terms about each tradition as a scholar, or even if this makes sense? Moreover, presuming that many conversions are a process rather than an event we may ask where did someone like Williams stand one week, or one month, before he formally converted back from Buddhism to Catholicism? Of course the process may be one of many years during which questioning of both traditions finally leads to conversion. To which tradition was Williams, as our example, an Insider and an Outsider during the period leading up to his conversions?”(Hedges and King, 2014: 35-6).

WILLIAMS AS INSIDER/OUTSIDER

Youtube Interview:www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUPC_s3i8zU

7.00-8.30 No longer Christian became Buddhist

Path to deep interest?31.00-32.15

Belief in God makes you very different – reorientated

48.00-50.15 God in Mass not meditation

Words of advice or protection

Think about the I/O dichotomy:Does being a convert/ revert give you both insider and outsider perspectives? Does it make sense to be an insider to two traditions?

In what way are you an insider/ outsider when it comes to studying another religion or another group? As an academic teaching Buddhist philosophy how do you think his teaching changed before and after his reversion to Catholicism?

BIAS AND REFLEXIVITY It has been suggested that Williams’ scholarly presentation of Buddhism is different from his presentation as a Catholic. The latter is skewed and unfair:He presents a ‘negative’ and ‘antiquated’ view of Buddhism: Pessimistic Self-centred and non-communal

Subjective – all based in your own mind: introverted and solipsistic

Reflexivity:What do you think is meant by reflexivity and does it allow us to avoid bias or simply to recognise that we are always biased and so no neutral position is ever possible? If we can never understand the Other what does this mean?

Can we ever be free (free enough) of our own prejudices and assumptions?

CASE STUDY 2: BEDE GRIFFITHS’ HINDU-CHRISTIANITY

TERMS(USED IN VARIOUS WAYS BY DIFFERENT AUTHORITIES)

• Multiple Religious Belonging/Identity (MRB/I)• Dual Religious Belonging/Identity (DRB/I)• Hyphenated Religious Belonging/Identity (HRB/I)– To actively engage in two or more religious worldview systems

– To identify with more than one religious tradition– To shape your religious worldview from the perspective of various religious traditions

– For some: DRB acceptable, MRB not• Syncretism

– The creation of a new religion from other sources– Blending other religious traditions into your own

TRADITIONAL WESTERN STATEMENT SINGLE RB/I Is MRB possible?

Notion of ‘religion’ generally traced to: re-ligare, to ‘bind together’ or ‘link’ bond of piety: God and humanity

“Religion and religious belonging is about the complete surrender of one's own will and judgment to a truth and power that lies beyond or beneath one's own rational and personal judgment. While it is possible to engage with and to be enriched by encounters with other religious traditions, a truly religious attitude presupposes a norm beyond oneself from which, in the final account, the truth of the other religion is assessed. This unique and total commitment is expressed in the demands that most religious traditions make upon their followers.” (Cornille, 2003: 48).

WHY CAN PEOPLE ONLY BELONG TO ONE RELIGION? ‘It seems reasonable to say that Greek Orthodoxy and Gelug Tibetan Buddhism are different religions just because it is performatively impossible to belong to both at once – in much the same way that it is performatively impossible simultaneously to be a sumo wrestler and a balance-beam gymnast, or natively to live in the house of English and the house of Japanese.’Griffiths, Paul J., 2001, Problems of

Religious Diversity, Oxford: Blackwells, p. 13

OTHER PERSPECTIVES ON D/MRB/I: 1 ‘To the insistence that you can’t speak two different religious languages, many people are responding: “But I think I’m doing it. And it seems to work.”’Knitter, Paul, 2002, Introducing theologies of Religions, Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, p. 228.

Many famous/ high profile examples:E.g. Bede Griffiths, Abhistikananda (Henri Le Saux), Aloysius Pieris, Michael Rodrigo, Thomas Merton, Julius Lipner, Radhakrishnan

Common for many:‘A telling sign of the time is reflected in the response by a recent American college graduate who, when asked about her religious identity, answered with an easy laugh: "Methodist, Taoist, Native American, Quaker, Russian Orthodox, and Jew.“’ Diane Winston, ‘Campuses Are a Bellwether for Society’s Religious Revival,’ The Chronicle of Higher

Education 44 ( January 16, 1998) A60, cited in Phan, Peter, ‘Multiple religious belonging: opportunities and challenges for theology and church’, Theological Studies, 63, 2003, pp. 495-519, p. 495.

OTHER PERSPECTIVES ON D/MRB/I: 2

Normative in some cultures: Especially East Asia:

China: sanjiao/ 3 Traditions Confucianism – public life Daoism – bio-spiritual purification Buddhism – devotional rites

Japan: Different religious functions Shinto: life cycle rituals Buddhism: death and birth rituals Confucianism: ethical duties

BEDE GRIFFITHS (1) Bede Griffiths (1906-93)

Conventional Middle Class life1925-1929 Oxford:

CS Lewis, ‘return’ to Christianity1931 enters RC Church, after reading Newman

1932 enters Prinknash Abbey1955 goes to India1958 establishes Christian Ashram, Kurisumala

1968 arrives in Shantivanam1990 suffers stroke – experience of divine feminine

BEDE GRIFFITHS (2) See Video:

www.youtube.com/wtach?v=zYEFgrc6Lc (00.00-11.00) 00.00-11.00

Stroke – experience of the feminineAdvaita experience – oneness of all thingsFound in all religions: non-duality, void, insight into Trinity

Word = ShaktiAdvaita and Christian = one

Discussion:What insight does this give us into insider/outside perspectives? Does D/MRB/I affect our perspectives on the possibility for moving between and within I/O stances?

His stance is at variance with that of Williams: www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUPC_s3i8zU (see 53.30-54.30). Each has very different views of belonging and what this means for being an I/O. How to theorise such perspectives?

Does this image suggest to you a Christian or Hindu insider representation? Can it be

both? Or neither?

Thanks to Juhi Ahuja and FB for this image.

REFLEXIVITY AND INTERRELIGIOUS STUDIES

Click icon to add picture

http://pah2.golding.id.au/images/InvisiblesArcadaDualism2.jpg

INTERRELIGIOUS STUDIES IRS: “… recognises the researcher’s, the teacher’s and the student’s role as agents in the spaces between. Agency means being implicated in negotiations of power, both within the religious traditions and between them…. Hence self-critical reflection one one’s own agency is called for” (Leirvik 2014: 11-12).

Issues:No neutral spacesScholars, devotees, etc. all ‘create’ religionsNo position to simply stand back and study scholarship (i.e. McCutcheon et. al. – see who creates definitions of religions and the power structures implied, see Hedges and King, 2014: 48-9).

IN CONCLUSION – OR, WHERE WE GO FROM HERE: AN AGENDA (WS 1&2)

Studying religion today entails self-questionning and doubt – about what we’re studying and how we study it.

In involves a recognition that we all contribute to the creation and manufacturing of ‘religion’ (scholars do not simply study and report).

However, does not mean we have no methods or total uncertainty about the subject area.

We must rather be continually reflexive. Recognition that insider/outsider perspectives are all part of the picture.

Part of a history of interpretation – our concerns.

FINAL DISCUSSION Do you need to be religious to understand religion?:Does a believer have a better understanding of their own faith than an external observer? Does it matter if they belong to another religion or are an atheist (non-theist).

Reflexivity and/ vs. moccasin walking/ phenomenology:Should we strive for an ideal of objectivity, or just report our prejudices and get on with talking about other people’s ideas from our perspective?

Scholarship and the study of the scholar:Do you think you need to examine yourself before you look at religion?

How far do you think activism or political involvement should be a part of what a scholar/ academic does? Does it stop them from being neutral/ impartial?

REFERENCES I/O and Reflexivity

Chryssides, George and Geaves, Ron. The Study of Religion: An Introduction to the Key Ideas and Methods. London and NY: Continuum, 2007.

Flood, Gavin. Beyond Phenomenology: Rethinking the Study of Religion. London and New York: Cassells, 1999.Hedges, Paul and Anna King, 2014, ‘Is the Study of Religion Religious?’, in Paul Hedges (ed.),

Controversies in Contemporary Religion, vol. 1, Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger, 31-56, esp. 33-8, 48-51.Leirvik, Oddbjørn, Interreligious Studies: A Relational Approach to Religious Activism and the Study of Religion, London and New York: Bloomsbury, 2014.

McCutcheon, Russell T., ed. The Insider Outsider Problem in the Study of Religion. London and NY: Continuum, 1999.

Case Study LiteratureChing, Julia (2009 [1999]), ‘Living in Two Worlds: A Personal Appraisal’, in Hedges, Paul & Race, Alan (eds), Christian Approaches to Other Faiths, SCM Reader Series, London: SCM Press, 212-217.

Cornille Catherine (ed.), Many Mansions? Multiple Religious Belonging and Christian Identity, Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2002.

Cornille, C., 2003, ‘Double Religious Belonging: Aspects and Questions’, Buddhist-Christian Studies, 23, 43-49.

Griffiths, Bede (1982), The Marriage of East and West, London: Fount.Griffiths (online sources):

www.youtube.com/wtach?v=zYEFgrc6Lc (00.00-11.00) www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOAyl7u2dw

Samartha, Stanley J. (1993), ‘The Cross and the Rainbow: Christ in a Multi-Religious Culture’, in Sugirtharajah, R.S. & Cecil Hargreaves (eds), Readings in Indian Christian Theology, vol. I, London: SPCK, 102-115.

Williams, Paul, The Unexpected Way, London: Bloomsbury, 2002.Williams (online sources):

www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUPC_s3i8zU http://whyimcatholic.com/index.php/conversion-stories/buddhist-converts/65-buddhist-convert-paul-williams.