My volunteering to participate in this panel was prompted by three main things. First, my attempts to teach a course on contemporary Paganism; second, discussions on the Nature Religion Scholars’ Network listserve during which arguments were made that the ideas and concepts of insiders should not be re-interpreted by scholars; and third, discussions of the need for Pagan theology on this same listserve and at academically-oriented conferences. These three occurrences prompted me to critically reflect on my role as a scholar and to re-evaluate and clarify my teaching and research agendas. As such, I offer my observations on the current state of, and suggestions for the future of, Pagan Studies as a legitimate field in the modern public university.
Difficulties with course approval
I work at a public university in the United States, which means that the institute is funded by federal tax dollars, and therefore is ideally subject to the Constitutional amendment that prohibits the promotion of particular religions or religious views in a classroom setting. When I have discussed teaching a course on the historical development of Contemporary Paganism, some of my colleagues express support, while others question the need for, the benefits of, and the aims of such a course. I have heard expressions of worry that the course would devolve into non-academic, theologically-oriented discussions due to the expectations and desires of the Pagan student contingent. Some seem to be unconvinced that the course would attract a sufficient cross-section of students, even though this same argument could be made for any upper-level tradition-specific course. I have also heard concerns that because only Pagan students have expressed interest, the reasons for teaching the course would be to appeal to these students, which for them is not a particularly convincing argument.
The problem boils down to the idea that it is not good enough that there a number of students who have expressed interest in a course on Contemporary Paganism, I have to legitimize my teaching of and prove the academic worthiness of this topic, which is fairly controversial in the cultural milieu of modern America. How can I do this? What arguments can I use to defend my position that such a course would be beneficial for the students, the department, and the university?
My response is taking a tripartite approach. First, I emphasize my commitment to scholarly approaches to the study of religion, such as the etic stance of religionswissenschaft, cross-disciplinary examination, and maintaining a strong foundation in methodological and theoretical approaches to the study of religion. Second, I attempt to assuage fears that I will adopt a theological approach to the subject and that I will allow students to utilize a theological orientation with regard to their assigned coursework. Third, I provide examples of the various ways that the field of Pagan Studies is contributing to comparative religion and theory-oriented academic endeavors.
As part of my defense, I must provide evidence that the gathering of sufficient readings and resources for productive research (following disciplinary conventions) on the topic is possible through the library and on-line databases. This means that I need to provide examples of course-related materials that have strong theoretical and methodological orientation.
In my research into available Pagan Studies texts, I found a great deal of work from sociology, psychology, anthropology, Religious Studies, and Women’s Studies. Some common research themes address community formation; historical development; and concepts of the divine, the divine feminine, the self, and nature. In addition to many insightful scholarly works, I also found much theologically-oriented material, such as ethnographies of self-description and testimonial-style essays about Pagan identity and practice, which were written as apologetic defenses rather than academic analyses. All of the work that has been done is useful, insightful, and interesting! However, to increase our acceptance as an academic field of study, I think we need to do more rigorous theoretical and comparative work, and less theology and overt apologetics, which are not appropriate for use in the public university classroom.
Pedagogical issues
Reflecting on the course approval process led me to think about pedagological issues of teaching about Contemporary Paganism. I questioned not only my teaching techniques and goals, but also the entire endeavor of teaching in a Religious Studies department.
To begin, it is important that I find explicit ways to meet my university’s general education goals of facilitating critical, creative, and global-oriented thinking; the recognition of community membership responsibilities; and the development of effective communication skills. Second, it is critical that I utilize sources that are accessible for students and that utilize relevant academic vocabulary and theory, so that I am not merely describing the religion, but I am teaching students to critically reflect on various sets of datum. Third, I need to choose materials that are appropriate for the course. I must avoid sources that promote particular religious beliefs or that focus on apologetic-oriented theology.
Introductory-level courses tend to be more descriptive in orientation; however, upper-level undergraduate courses ideally should go beyond mere description and should include an analytical component. As Robert Segal writes, “The heart of the modern study of religion is theorizing” (2006, 157). Contemporary Paganism, “like religion in general, is without question an object for psychological, sociological, anthropological, and historical methods and theories” (Ellis forthcoming, 8). Utilizing this approach simultaneously trains students to engage with the materials in a more pro-active fashion, but it also provides a language that they can use to negotiate the present subject matter, their other university courses, and any future comparative thinking exercises.
Additionally, I think that part of our academic jobs is to defend our subject matter against misinformation, sensationalization, and Orientalist-type tendencies. In this way, scholars of religion can interface with public discourse and can serve as public intellectuals (McCutcheon 2001; Ellis forthcoming, 20). Personally, I also want to promote tolerance toward the traditions which I teach, but this must be tempered to avoid crossing into the more active agendas of apologetics and theology (See Wiebe 1999). I recognize that my own teaching occasionally slips into a defensive posture when students ask antagonistic questions; however, the academic study of religion in a public university necessitates the avoidance of advocating religious ideas or explicit presentation of them as ‘valid, worthy, and logical alternatives.’ Therefore, we need to find ways to identify the thin line that separates presentation and apologetics regarding our teaching and writing about Contemporary Paganism.
Critics not caretakers
I also have thought about the model of academic inquiry that I want to perpetuate, and I think it is important that students learn to confront data and to be able to find more sophisticated ways to discuss it than merely detailed re-description of phenomena. In order to accomplish this goal, scholars of Pagan Studies must be willing to go beyond privileging insider accounts and explanations, in order to reinterpret and re-explain their ideas and practices in light of our academic, etic categories that facilitate cross-disciplinary and cross-tradition dialogue.
I agree that we should respectfully record the truth claims of our informants, as this forms our datum. However, we cannot responsibly privilege first person authority in our analyses. Robert Segal writes, “Believers, like human beings generally, have no automatic, privileged, incorrigible entrée to the true nature of their behavior. The fact that they are the subject of their behavior is almost coincidental. It scarcely entails that they [should be] the best, let alone sole, judge of it” (1983: 114). As scholars, we know that there is always more going on than what is presented as simple facts by our informants; therefore, we need to critically analyze the data that they represent.
Due to concerns that our informants will not like our interpretation of the datum that they present to us, or because our informants do not wish to be associated with certain negatively-perceived terms or ideas used to describe other religions, much scholarship on contemporary Paganism is not as theoretically strong as it could, and should, be. Therefore, we need to find ways to promoting the scholarly endeavor of critical inquiry while not being perceived as attempting to persecute or misinterpret a religious community that is already suspicious of academic priorities and agendas.
As scholars we must be able to transcend emic categories and work to answer questions of why people believe and act in various ways, how and why do those beliefs and actions develop, and the implications of following those beliefs and practices. If we are unwilling to pursue an approach related to religionswissenschaft, then we are left with two alternatives: thick-description and theology, which basically repeat and/or promote insiders’ views. As Ellis argues, “Without theoretical engagement, we run the risk of nurturing either theological or particularist approaches to the academic study of religion, both equally hostile to explanatory agendas, in which case they are not in fact academic or scientific” (Ellis forthcoming, 17).
In this way, the field of Pagan Studies should be aimed at more thoroughly understanding the data and the discipline, and should not be an attempt to influence Pagan ideology or practice. These are two completely different goals, the latter of which is not appropriate to the public university setting. Although there have been many recent calls for scholars to support and assist adherents with the development of a Pagan theology, I agree with J. Z. Smith, Robert Segal, and Thomas Ellis who argue that theologians are ‘data’ and should not be considered the primary dialogue partners for the scholar of religion, (Ellis forthcoming, 7; Segal 1992, 6; Smith 2004).
In other words, to stop at description or to promote theological studies stagnates our academic discipline because we effectively exclude our scholarship from larger academic discourses which claim that description of emic ideas is merely data that needs to be interpreted and explained by applying the many social scientific and psycho-biological theories available in our toolboxes, by modifying extant theories to work with our data, or by developing new theories. It is the rigorous use of academic theories and vocabulary from religious studies, history, sociology, anthropology, psychology, literature, et cetera that facilitates comparative work, cross-disciplinary application, and ultimately the legitimation of our field of study.
What can Pagan Studies offer academia?
My call for greater critical scholarship is not out of the blue. In fact, this is a current hot topic for scholars of Buddhism, and on Saturday a panel is convening to discuss ways to be more critical and theoretical while also providing a constructive resource for Buddhist communities. They are taking this issue seriously as they actively shape the future of Buddhist Studies. We need to do the same.
There is still need for research on many thematic issues, but in order to broaden our readership and convince our colleagues that our discipline is relevant, we need to find better ways to explain why studying the burgeoning traditions that fall under the concept of contemporary Paganism can be beneficial to the scholarly agenda. What can this research offer to other university disciplines? New methodology? New theoretical positions to re-evaluate previously widely-held assumptions? We are the only people in a position to explicitly address these questions. Making cogent arguments, grounded in relevant method and theory concerns, regarding how the data and analyses of Contemporary Paganism can positively influence the future of the academic study of religion will be instrumental in the advancement of the field of Pagan Studies.
Using the new data presented by our informants, we can re-evaluate and expand the theoretical models used in Religious Studies and other disciplines. We can examine the various ways that Pagans work to create answers to various aspects of Western society which they view as problematic. For example, the religious traditions under the aegis of Contemporary Paganism claim to represent alternatives to more prevalent religious practices and social interactions. Examining these ideas can go a long way to opening our subject matter to social scientific analysis, which is an overall goal of the academic study of religion. However, if we want our colleagues to take our subject matter and scholarship seriously, ultimately we must be willing to adopt and maintain a rigorous agenda of what J.Z. Smith calls re-description and explanation, in lieu of our informants’ desires that we take the roles of caretaker, advocate, and theologian.
Works Cited
Ellis, Thomas B. forthcoming. “Of ‘And’ and ‘Of’: The Politics of Grammar and the Study of Religion.”
McCutcheon, Russell T. 2001. Critics Not Caretakers: Redescribing the Public Study of Religion. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Segal, Robert. 1983. “In Defense of Reductionism.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 51, no. 1: 97-124.
—. 1992. Explaining and Interpreting Religion: Essays on the Issue. New York: Peter Lang.
Smith, Jonathan Z. 2004. Relating Religion: Essays in the Study of Religion. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Wiebe, Donald. 1999a. The Politics of Religious Studies: The Continuing Conflict with Theology in the Academy. New York: Palgrave.