American Academy of Religion

Response: American Indian Religious Traditions and the Academic Study of ReligionAuthor(s): Lee IrwinSource: Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 66, No. 4 (Winter, 1998), pp. 887-892Published by: Oxford University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1466178 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 08:47

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Oxford University Press and American Academy of Religion are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserveand extend access to Journal of the American Academy of Religion.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 08:47:03 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Journal of the American Academy of Religion 66/4

A4R~

Response: American Indian Religious Traditions and the Academic Study of Religion

THE RECENT DEBATE BETWEEN Christopher Jocks (Dartmouth) and Sam Gill (University of Colorado) on the issue of the study and teach- ing of Native American religions (JAAR 62/4 [1994] and 65/1 [1997]) has raised several critical issues to which I would like to respond. I find that while I can sympathize with both positions (particularly with Jocks) and feel that both have merit, there are larger discourses within academic studies which this debate reflects rather tangentially and indirectly. And yet these discourses are deeply germane to the topic and the future devel- opment of the field of religious studies. One of these issues is that of post- colonial discourses that relocate the center of academic studies "at the margins" where members of distinctive cultural communities intersect with members of other cultural communities rather than "at the center" where intellectual training occurs.' The academy, that is, the academic institution, is certainly one of those distinctive communities-but it is far from correct to imagine that such a community is congruent or self- consistent in defining the values and priorities of that community for all members. In fact, academic communities embody the very debates that problematize the study of cultures (and religions) at large; commu- nity members embody ethnic representation, gender politics, minority and majority identities, diversity in language and culture, and a sweeping array of institutionally defined positions of power and privilege. In that context the study of religion takes on new meaning and direction as scholars attempt to (re)locate themselves in relationship to the debates at the margins.

The study of Native American religions is certainly one of those mar- ginal locations in which scholars (non-native, part-native, and native)

1 See Francis Barker and Peter Hulme; and Eduardo and Bonnie Duran.

887

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 08:47:03 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

888 Journal of the American Academy of Religion

have all been struggling to identify their place and concerns.2 In such a context (as in many other such academic areas) it is impossible to sum- marize the position of these scholars as either "native" or "western" in terms of their intellectual or scholarly outlook. If, as Sam Gill suggests, scholars need to problematize the study of religion through raising criti- cal questions about the scholar's own religious background and location, they also need to problematize their intellectual and academic training, and this includes questioning the rationale and methodologies of "west- ern, scientific" theorizing. Otherwise, the debate on religious identity or affiliation loses coherence: the internalized values and concerns of "self" juxtaposed to those of "others" is not simply a matter of religious affilia- tion or thinking. Such thinking is rooted in epistemology and cognitive training that may be as prejudicial as any form of religious belief or con- viction. The "secularization" of religious studies is no safeguard against prejudice and bias in teaching, nor is it somehow free from subjective valuations that attempt to place religion into a context subservient to theorizing. Intersection "at the margins" means that there is no privileged position, that every scholar faces the demanding challenge of locating himself or herself according to both the concerns of the communities they study and those they inhabit professionally.

And it means there is no privileged discourse that represents the acad- emy at large, only the multivocal interchange that occurs between par- tisan members of various intellectual perspectives, each espousing his or her own particular concerns and issues-religious, political, academic- or just a plain struggle for survival and recognition. Subsequently, it is illusory to imagine that all disciplines or all areas of study are equally developed or similarly constituted. Academic institutions are no less prejudicial than the dominant values of the cultures in which they are constructed, and many areas of study have been marginalized. Outstand- ing among those areas marginalized is Native American studies, par- ticularly the study of religion. So it is no surprise that scholars of native communities are struggling to find their own epistemologies, discourses, and constructive histories distinct from the dominant, dismissive, and degrading theories of past academic writings. And this does require going into the field with new attitudes of humility, sensitivity, and receptivity to other ways of thinking, acting, and seeing. It means cultivating au- thentic dialogue "at the margins" where real people interact respectfully in order to learn what constitutes coherence and meaning for the other. A first step in facilitating this process is to bring seriously into question the intellectual presuppositions that constitute any specific epistemology

2 See Lee Irwin (1996, 1997).

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 08:47:03 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Irwin: Responses and Rejoinders 889

or method-and to do so not simply as an act of momentary self- consciousness but as an on-going reflexive stance that understands the inescapability of subjective bias. Respect for the "traditions of the other" is no less significant than the need for critical self-reflection concerning one's own training and education.

In that process of education the voices of the other are increasingly deconstucting the monological discourses of western science and empiri- cal rationality.3 A strong presence in that deconstruction is articulated in gender studies of all types. Certainly religious studies has been profoundly impacted by feminist discourses that call into questions multiple aspects of the study of religion, particularly the authoritative male voice that wishes autonomously to define what constitutes the good and valuable theory (or method) in the study of any or all religions. What emerges out of this critique is the necessity of a more dialogical approach to how any field is constituted theoretically and in which the role of the self is insepa- rable from that of the equally valuable other.

What I hear Christopher Jocks asking for is greater tolerance, flexi- bility, and receptivity to concerns and perspectives that are constituted outside the academic institution and brought into it (by native and non- native scholars) as a source of renewal and new academic self-definitions. These new perspectives are offered as a corrective to an over-reliance on a strictly rationalized application of abstract ideas and theories often highly alien and antagonistic to the self-definitions of the communities to which they are applied. Further, these outside community perspectives call into question the underlying, often unexamined, assumptions that act to propagate "western, scientific" thinking as a superior method of discourse or analysis. In doing so, they act to deconstruct, in a positive way, the authorial perspectives of the silent observer naively mesmerized by his or her mainstream theoretical training.

Thus, the issue of "problematizing" religious studies applies all the way down-not just to religious orientation or membership in specific communities-but to the very roots of the inherited epistemologies and theories that are transmitted by cultural institutions as "superior" (or "correct") methodologies for carrying out disciplinary studies. The strength of religious studies, as a profession, lies in its diversity and rich, multi-ethnic roots in all world cultures. The realization of that strength lies not in some "super-science" of an inherited "western" tradition but as a place "at the boundaries" where many diverse peoples can meet, share perspectives, and learn from each other in the mutual formulation of criti- cal theories that seek to illuminate the many cross-currents in religious

3 See Gerald Vizenor; Julia V. Emberley; and David Murray.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 08:47:03 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

890 Journal of the American Academy of Religion

studies while also fully respecting the differences and unique concerns of any specific community.

In the context of Native American studies native peoples have long resisted the importation of their beliefs and practices into alien theoretical settings. A dialogical approach can only be effective if scholars are willing to hear and to think in terms of alternative (non-western) epistemologies whose value lies in enriching the ways in which scholars construct theo- ries of religion. And this also requires that scholars recognize the marginal nature of native studies within the academy and the long struggle on the part of native communities to be heard in their own terms. Dialogue means learning to listen and to hear with a mind open to alternative per- spectives; it does not mean the assimilation of the other into a leveling theoretical discourse that denies the struggles and suffering of the other. It requires a willingness to set aside the inherited and the learned for the possibility of acquiring insight into the limits of one's own perspective, not the shortcomings of others.

I hear Sam Gill when he says that he values a critical approach to the study of religion and not simply a reiteration of the beliefs and values of one's own religious community. And I hear Christopher Jocks when he says that respecting native traditions is a matter of learning new episte- mologies and more sensitive, interactive modes of discourse. The exis- tence of such creative tension in scholarly debate is part of the process by which we find out who we are and what we value as scholars and as human beings. I value both of these perspectives without denying the need for continued debate: in the plurality of voices speaking the issues reverberate with a deeper concern for the very meaning of why we study (or teach) religion at all. A rejection of the "rational scientific" perspective as a dominant or exclusive definition of the academic study of religion is by no means a rejection of the valuable insights that such a perspective may contribute to that study. However, dialogue "at the margins" requires a willingness to take a non-exclusive stance toward the values and beliefs of others. And within the academic community there is increasing repre- sentation of others as legitimate, meaningful partners in a growing com- plexity of voices, concerns, and creative interactions. Perhaps the greatest challenge in this process of increasing representation is a willingness to question our own presuppositions and to see how those presuppositions are radically challenged by alternative perspectives.

The larger discourses of deconstructive analysis located in academic communities push all disciplines to reconsider the methodological and theoretical premises that constitute those disciplines. In the study of reli- gion that reconsideration must be deconstructive all the way down to the most componential theories that underpin the very idea of religion itself.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 08:47:03 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Irwin: Responses and Rejoinders 891

If "religion" is a "western" theoretical construct (as Sam Gill suggests), then its deconstruction will be part-and-parcel with the general decon- struction of western epistemological methods. And reconstructive, emer- gent theories of religion will no longer be dominated by a single episte- mological framework or discourse. Instead, those theories will draw on substantive, critical studies of alternative epistemologies (and cultures) whose articulation constitutes a necessary theoretical pluralism in the teaching of religions."

In the Native American context this require a new learning, a new willingness to listen with humility to the various ways native peoples con- struct their spiritual worlds. But it also mean acquiring a skillful use and knowledge of non-native theoretical perspectives in order to participate in the larger discourses of reconstructive theorizing within the academy. In that context the politics of being Indian (as Christopher Jocks notes) are inseparable from the politics of education: both operate to validate the recognition of persons within and outside the academy. And this recog- nition is necessary given the long and painful marginalization suffered by native peoples. What is needed is a greater receptivity to alternative perspectives and a genuitle willingness to see the relativity of an acquired theoretical perspective without denying its value for acquiring a particular understanding. But, even more, what is necessary is a deep respect for the other and a willingness to let the other stand as that, other and valuable, an equal participant in an on-going dialogue whose purpose is mutual understanding and mutual acceptance.

Lee Irwin

College of Charleston

REFERENCES

Barker, Francis, and Colonial Discourse PostColonial Theory. New York: Peter Hulme St. Martin's Press.

1996

Dean, Thomas, ed. Religious Pluralism and Truth: Essays on Cross-Cultural 1995 Philosophy ofReligion. Albany: State University of New

York Press.

4 See the volume edited by Thomas Dean, particularly the articles by Raimundo Panikkar and Harold Coward.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 08:47:03 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

892 Journal of the American Academy of Religion

Duran, Edurado, and Native American Postcolonial Psychology. Albany: State Bonnie Duran University of New York Press.

1995

Emberley, Julia V. Thresholds of Difference: Feminist Critique, Native 1993 Women's Writings, Postcolonial Theory. Buffalo: Univer-

sity of Tornoto Press.

Irwin, Lee, ed. American Indian Quarterly, Special Issue: "To Hear the 1996 Eagles Cry: Contemporary Themes in Native American

Spirituality." Vol. 20, 3/4.

1997 American Indian Quarterly, Special Issue: "To Hear the Eagles Cry: Contemporary Themes in Native American Spirituality" Vol. 21, 1.

Murray, David Forked Tongues: Speech, Writing, and Representation in 1991 North American Indian Texts. Bloomington: Indiana

University Press.

Vizenor, Gerald Manifest Manners: Postindian Warriors of Survivance. 1994 Hanover, NH: University of New England.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 08:47:03 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions