Callanan asserts her root argument as, “the ideological destruction of the political affected by liberal philosophy provided the necessary background for an ideology of professionalism which based legitimate social power on the foundations of private monopolies of expert knowledge”(7). Her argument goes hand in hand with my experience of taking Hinduism courses at the University of Toronto, this of course being my area of specialist. However, it was surprising to hear that, when a student raised her hand and related to her experience to validate her point, the professor interrupted and said this course has nothing to with how people practice at home but instead with historical evidence. Therefore, not only was the student’s experience pushed to the side, but also, her attitude affirms that there is no knowledge outside the expert. In other words, she proved that her ‘socail power was [based on a] monopoly of expert knowledge. In this regard, there was no room for any assertions that were based on experience if it was not conjured up by a specialist. Just like one who wants to know the reasoning and method behind a math formula will consult a specialist or mathematician rather than a scientist.
Thus, as mentioned there is an area of specialty that needs to addressed when consulting a person with questions that need validated answers. In this respect, there needs to be a specialist at all times. It is however, not impossible for a person to specialize in two fields, but this means extensive education and one rarely goes through this process. In this light, I agree with Callanan’s assertion that, “expertise without the elements of curiosity and relationship, is a trap” (9). In other words, there needs to be discourse from other disciplines in order for a broadening of information and knowledge on particular topics. In this regard “flexibility, creativity, and curiosity can be beneficial to a particular subject under discussion only is there are people who are from different bodies of expertise.
For example, study of a particular religious text would call upon different bodies of expertise to come to a consensus on the actual meanings of the text. Without one body of expertise the text lacks a full analysis as evident in my discussion of the Quran last week.
What is important to note in Callanan’s discussion of discourse though is how closely it relates to Said’s ‘clash of definitions’. According to Said, this means that cultures are always in the process of redefining their identities at a given time and place in history and in relation to others. This can be applied to this as disciplines are always in a process of redefining their ‘correctness’ at a given time and place in history and in relation to others. In this regard, disciplines when in the face of one another are in constant conversation about what is the right way of approaching a particular discipline at a particular time in history.
This approach however, in my training as a scholar is rarely used, because as a student, we rely on the expertise to exercise their knowledge, not questioning or bringing into dialogue our own curiosity and how it might relate. This method can have both a positive and negative take. On the first hand, it can encourage a greater understanding of a topic, leading to harmony and integration of disciplines, and therefore as Callanan puts it makes us “smart, responsible, ethical and complex citizens” (5). On the other hand, dialogue can create stronger boundaries that emphasize even more this relationship of us vs. them. More specifically, in trying to reach consensus boundaries might be resurrected to emphasize why the disciplines are separate in the first place. however, what remains important is the fact that greater knowledge that can relate to social contexts is best achieved through dialogue.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Monday, November 12, 2007
Contextualism
What strikes me in my studies of religion the most is this problem of contextualism. In chapter seven of Clark’s book he addresses skinner’s understanding of ‘context’. He outlines, “[Skinner] privileges linguistic, generic, and ideological contexts, attempting to ascertain the range of meanings that particular words would have conveyed to the people of the society in which the text was produced”. In outlining the ways in which I agree with this assertion for the rest of my discussion I would look more closely at the Quran as a text.
To Muslims the preservation of the Quran implies a direct relationship to who interprets it. In other words, the question here is who has the authority to interpret the Quran? Many Muslims would agree on the fact that the person who is bestowed with such a privilege of interpreting the Quran is one who is well learned. Put more precisely, the person who gets to interpret the Quran is one who has mastered several disciplines. He is the one who is a musician, knows aspects of law, a theologian, knows rhetoric, grammar, mythology, the Hadith, is very pious etc… What remains important here is that the Quran is to be interpreted by someone who can dissect the text in its original form, to allow the tradition to speak for itself. The key to understanding the Quran is not only language (Arabic) but also, the ‘context’.
More precisely, when western scholars interpreted the Quran, they were criticized for their misrepresentations. This was mainly because most scholars were not versed in the language of the book, so the context in which they were interpreting the text was misrepresented. For example, scholars tended to interpret the Quran through a chronological method because that was the way history was understood. However, the Quran was not compiled chronologically so to apply such a method to understanding the Quran would seem irrational to many Muslims. As skinner puts it, “what are the authors doing?” or “where is the linguistic action?” becomes the central focus. To put it more simply, a word can have different meanings, but the meaning should imply a direct relationship to the context in which it is used. For example if I say to someone “don’t forget me when you are marking the tests”, ‘forget’ can have many meanings it can mean to not put me out of your mind, or in this context, remember me when you are marking the tests.
Keeping this in mind, Muslims also interpret the Quran with specific references to social, economic, and political circumstances. For example, there are many stories in the Quran that are told based on the assumption that the audience already have some background knowledge of that particular story. What is important here is that there is a background force that works together with linguistics in guiding one to the right interpretations. For example, in the Quran there is a verse that states, “They forgot God, but God forgot them”. In this light, the context in which this should be interpreted is theological. In the theological sense, God cannot forget because his divineness presupposes that he is all knowing. Therefore, one who knows little about theology could not make such a sound interpretation.
In conclusion, interpreting any text calls for an informed opinion not an unformed opinion. To illustrate, if one wants a more accurate description of a particular religion they would consult a religious practitioner, just as one who wants a proper diagnosis of their illness will consult a doctor. It all boils down to the fact that an informed opinion depends on the author’s background and their field of specialty. One would not regard an anthropologist making claims on scientific matters more rational than a scientist making the same claims.
To Muslims the preservation of the Quran implies a direct relationship to who interprets it. In other words, the question here is who has the authority to interpret the Quran? Many Muslims would agree on the fact that the person who is bestowed with such a privilege of interpreting the Quran is one who is well learned. Put more precisely, the person who gets to interpret the Quran is one who has mastered several disciplines. He is the one who is a musician, knows aspects of law, a theologian, knows rhetoric, grammar, mythology, the Hadith, is very pious etc… What remains important here is that the Quran is to be interpreted by someone who can dissect the text in its original form, to allow the tradition to speak for itself. The key to understanding the Quran is not only language (Arabic) but also, the ‘context’.
More precisely, when western scholars interpreted the Quran, they were criticized for their misrepresentations. This was mainly because most scholars were not versed in the language of the book, so the context in which they were interpreting the text was misrepresented. For example, scholars tended to interpret the Quran through a chronological method because that was the way history was understood. However, the Quran was not compiled chronologically so to apply such a method to understanding the Quran would seem irrational to many Muslims. As skinner puts it, “what are the authors doing?” or “where is the linguistic action?” becomes the central focus. To put it more simply, a word can have different meanings, but the meaning should imply a direct relationship to the context in which it is used. For example if I say to someone “don’t forget me when you are marking the tests”, ‘forget’ can have many meanings it can mean to not put me out of your mind, or in this context, remember me when you are marking the tests.
Keeping this in mind, Muslims also interpret the Quran with specific references to social, economic, and political circumstances. For example, there are many stories in the Quran that are told based on the assumption that the audience already have some background knowledge of that particular story. What is important here is that there is a background force that works together with linguistics in guiding one to the right interpretations. For example, in the Quran there is a verse that states, “They forgot God, but God forgot them”. In this light, the context in which this should be interpreted is theological. In the theological sense, God cannot forget because his divineness presupposes that he is all knowing. Therefore, one who knows little about theology could not make such a sound interpretation.
In conclusion, interpreting any text calls for an informed opinion not an unformed opinion. To illustrate, if one wants a more accurate description of a particular religion they would consult a religious practitioner, just as one who wants a proper diagnosis of their illness will consult a doctor. It all boils down to the fact that an informed opinion depends on the author’s background and their field of specialty. One would not regard an anthropologist making claims on scientific matters more rational than a scientist making the same claims.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Emotion
Most religious practitioners accept as ‘true’ their religious beliefs. In other words, most religious believers will argue that their beliefs are rational. What is rational to the practitioner can easily be denounced as being irrational by a non-believer. With regards to our readings on emotion this week, emotion stems this common debate between Universalism on one hand and Cultural relativism on the other. The former aims to find a common explanation of emotion which can be applicable to ‘world religions’, whereas the latter aims to, “support the cultural construction of emotion, the distinctiveness of local and even personal emotional experiences and styles”. The nineteenth century saw the beginning of many religions through the eyes of European scholars. Due to this, many religious practices that did not fit into a universal ideal of scientific ‘Truth’ was dismissed as being irrational. Corrigan argues that if religion was to be explained in these terms there would be no room for “religious studies professors”. He further says that a very important component of religion that should be studied is emotion, something that can’t be proved and is thus, irrational. However, given how strongly religion typically appeals to emotional values as opposed to intellectual values, don’t believers think that emotional reasons for belief are valid or worthy?
Emotions are said to be accompanied by bodily responses (racing heart, sweaty palms, tense muscles etc…) in which we can sense what is going on inside our body much the same way we can sense what is going on in the outside world. These bodily sensations that one feels is a response to different emotions. For example, during the exam period, some students experience intense muscles and ‘butterflies’ in their stomachs due to stress/anxiety. In this respect our states of mind internally reflect the emotions that we reveal. For instance, students are not stressed because of intense muscles, but have intense muscles because they are stressed. Another example is: people don’t cry because they feel sad, they are sad because they cry.
In this regard, emotion is a very important dimension in religion. In most religions that I have studied emotions plays a key role in differentiating an exceptional practitioner from a practitioner. More precisely, in Hinduism a very key path that is practiced by many Hindus is bhakti yoga or the path of devotion. This path was established to include all peoples regardless of their status or class distinction in society. This path is the easiest of the four paths to reach the main goal of liberation. The practitioner becomes one with god through unconditionally loving him/her. In other words emotions that are felt by humans should be expressed only towards the lord. Such emotions as jealousy should be directed towards the lord. One tries to maximize their emotions towards God, the ultimate idea is to refine negative emotions of jealousy to the most positive which is love. In this context, the individual becomes more and more in tune with God through refining bad emotions/feelings.
Thus, in such a religion emotion becomes the ground for determining the ‘truth’/ worth of Hindu belief. In other words, Hindus who practice this path hold to the assumption that these emotions are what create this inner purity. This to them is how one attains ‘true’ knowledge and is then liberated from the cycle of rebirths. How can one dismiss this aspect of Hinduism as something irrational, if to the believer it is totally rational? In this light, one can clearly see that emotions are reason for belief over intellectual values. Thus, a lot more can be learned about ‘world religions’ through studying things that appear to be ambiguous, such as belief, experience and emotion.
Emotions are said to be accompanied by bodily responses (racing heart, sweaty palms, tense muscles etc…) in which we can sense what is going on inside our body much the same way we can sense what is going on in the outside world. These bodily sensations that one feels is a response to different emotions. For example, during the exam period, some students experience intense muscles and ‘butterflies’ in their stomachs due to stress/anxiety. In this respect our states of mind internally reflect the emotions that we reveal. For instance, students are not stressed because of intense muscles, but have intense muscles because they are stressed. Another example is: people don’t cry because they feel sad, they are sad because they cry.
In this regard, emotion is a very important dimension in religion. In most religions that I have studied emotions plays a key role in differentiating an exceptional practitioner from a practitioner. More precisely, in Hinduism a very key path that is practiced by many Hindus is bhakti yoga or the path of devotion. This path was established to include all peoples regardless of their status or class distinction in society. This path is the easiest of the four paths to reach the main goal of liberation. The practitioner becomes one with god through unconditionally loving him/her. In other words emotions that are felt by humans should be expressed only towards the lord. Such emotions as jealousy should be directed towards the lord. One tries to maximize their emotions towards God, the ultimate idea is to refine negative emotions of jealousy to the most positive which is love. In this context, the individual becomes more and more in tune with God through refining bad emotions/feelings.
Thus, in such a religion emotion becomes the ground for determining the ‘truth’/ worth of Hindu belief. In other words, Hindus who practice this path hold to the assumption that these emotions are what create this inner purity. This to them is how one attains ‘true’ knowledge and is then liberated from the cycle of rebirths. How can one dismiss this aspect of Hinduism as something irrational, if to the believer it is totally rational? In this light, one can clearly see that emotions are reason for belief over intellectual values. Thus, a lot more can be learned about ‘world religions’ through studying things that appear to be ambiguous, such as belief, experience and emotion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)