My internet at my house has been very sporadic in the last few days, I finished writing all this last week, but I couldn’t get on to post it... arrrrggh. So I lugged my laptop to the library.
These are some of the syllabi I found by randomly googling words. Most of them seem to be for undergraduate courses, but I cannot tell sometimes.
http://web.grinnell.edu/courses/rel/f03/rel390-01/
This class seems similar to ours in regards to their blog discussions. Instead of doing different terms each week, the themes seem to be based more on what theory is. This class seems like it would be good.
http://academics.smcvt.edu/jbyrne/Religion%20Theory%20and%20Method.htm
This class is a seminar led by different students each week. I have been in a number of such classes over the years. I think they are a good skill to develop, but it really depends on the presenters each week. I think a downside to such a method is that each student only really has to focus on their own week. It is also up to the presenters to get discussion going and if they are not good the class can be really boring.
http://classes.colgate.edu/osafi/Theory.htm
The content of this course seems to stop in the 1960’s. I wasn’t too impressed with this syllabus.
http://www.ecu.edu/religionprogram/maher/courses/4500a.pdf
This course appears as if it focuses on different authors each week. I personally like reading primary theory sources as opposed to articles discussing the theorist. Sometimes the material can be hard to approach but being able to read different authors is an important skill. But the description of the reading material seems like this assumption I made is false. I am not sure if the books they are reading has excepts from other authors.
The idea of “voice papers” is interesting, where students have to write in different styles.
This syllabus is detailed and helpful.
http://www.fiu.edu/~religion/rey4030.htm
This class seems like it is fairly heavily focused on field research. The project asks for the undergraduate students to conduct their own field research. The grad students are allowed for focus on the progression of their own thesis paper. This is similar to our class. Their reading material seems to be based on a lot of actual primary sources. They get to also watch movies in their class!
http://pirate.shu.edu/~carterch/methods/rels2010syl.html
They focus on one topic for several classes, so they must really go in depth. But they also seem to have class twice a week. The topics seem interesting. I was unsure what many of the assignments demanded (one-minute essay?).
http://www.westmont.edu/~work/classes/rs144/spr2001/rs144.html
The class seems very multidisciplinary, as, instead of going over a specific term each week they focus on a specific discipline (Anthropology, psychology, etc). The other criteria were not really laid out very well, so I don`t know what they do in class.
http://www.hartsem.edu/ACADEMIC/courses/fall2007/phd700.html
This is a doctoral level method and theory course, the other ones previously listed have been predominantly undergrad and/or mixed with MA (I think sometimes it is hard to tell...) This is a team taught course, which I think would be interesting, but I wonder if it would lack direction, and possibly be repetitive. I have never been in such a course, I have one next semester so I will see how I feel about them after next term.
Hmm I just noticed it is at a seminary school though... so maybe this does not count. It calls itself Religious Studies... but I think it looks more like biblical studies
Almost all of the classes (including this one)have had exams. I don`t know if I think a class on Method and theory, which is mostly a seminar class should really have an exam.
http://www.virginia.edu/religiousstudies/programs/courses/021syllabi/RELG400a.htm
This is a more focused method and theory class devoted to the material on Christian saint`s lives. I don`t know if having a class be so focused would be good or not, it could be interesting to have more solid examples, but I know for our programme this would not work as we are all so diverse. Maybe if each focus in the department were big enough this type of class could be taught, but this is not the case.
http://condor.wesleyan.edu/pgottschalk/wescourses/2003f/reli101/01/syllabus.htm
This is an introduction to the study of Religion. It is a first year course. I think this is the type of class we were talking about instead of a “World Religion” first year course
Ooooo they get to read Rushdie? he`s my fav, yeah I would totally take this course!
This seems like a really good idea for an introductory course to the study of religion, it is similar to ours in regard to what is learned but at a lower level.
Monday, December 3, 2007
Saturday, November 24, 2007
A call for Interdiciplinarity
“A specialist is somebody who knows more and more about less and less until they know everything about nothing”
This is a saying which I have always found humorous because unfortunately it can very easily become true. I doubt any of us have reached this level of academia, and I really hope we can all avoid it. One article which I was reading last week mentions the American Heritage Dictionary definition of ‘academic’ as “scholarly to the point of being unaware of the outside world”. I found this rather hilarious, and of course scary. Is this seriously the definition of academic? I looked up the word at dictionary.com:
1. pertaining to areas of study that are not primarily vocational or applied, as the humanities or pure mathematics.
2. theoretical or hypothetical; not practical, realistic, or directly useful: an academic question; an academic discussion of a matter already decided.
3. learned or scholarly but lacking in worldliness, common sense, or practicality.
2. theoretical or hypothetical; not practical, realistic, or directly useful: an academic question; an academic discussion of a matter already decided.
3. learned or scholarly but lacking in worldliness, common sense, or practicality.
So apparently we are going to school to become “not directly useful” and learning how to be “lacking in worldliness”... great.
I know we have all heard this joke before, most likely from our parents/grandparents or crazy people on the bus who tell you that you are wasting your life because you study religion (ok, and you’re a crazy bus person, I wouldn’t talk!). But it actually being the definition in a dictionary? Well, unfortunately, that gives the issue a little more weight!
Do we really have to be so detached from the world? Isn’t this dangerous? Yes we can be as up to date on all the information in our own field. But shouldn’t’ we also be aware of what is going on in the world OUTSIDE of our specialized area of study? Does this not provide a little more *context* in order for us to make our studies relevant to a world outside of academia? My parents are very supportive of me and tell people I am saving the world because I study trees (they’re environmentally conscious products of Vancouver in the ‘60s/’70s...) But according to the definitions I will fail both them and my dearly beloved earth.
This is why I think interdiciplinarity is important to our studies in this world of academia. It’s important to step outside of our little box we create for ourselves with our “specialization”. It gets us talking to other scholars, other academics, creating discourse in which our ideas will expand and grow. I liked the quote by Mikhail Bakhtin which Callanan used to preface her article. To paraphrase: ideas become real only once they come into contact with other ideas. This conversation between disciplines is important as it expands ones comfort zone and forces people to think critically about how their work can be applied to other fields, how can non-specialists understand, and hopefully, use the work.
I think with the increasing utilization of interdisciplinary techniques a new understanding of the academic is starting to be formed. In Callanan’s article she mentions how Edward Said “argues that to be an intellectual is to actively embrace the role of amateur and exile” . Intellectuals are not distanced from the “real” world, but instead in order to be a good intellectual, we must remain an informed and engaged watcher of the world, the line between academic and public needs to be broken down. (3)
In the same article it is mentioned how Giroux discusses “leaving behind the concept of “academic” as a disengaged and esoteric category” How it is our “responsibility to foster hope, the belief in the possibility of relevance and change” (11).
These definitions and understandings of what an academic or intellectual is are much better than the previous ones, which made us completely irrelevant. In the world in which we live in today it is important to leave behind the stuffy image of the useless academic, the specialist who knows everything about nothing. Instead we should be engaged in our world, in our surroundings.
I especially believe taking an interdisciplinary approach is imperative when studying cultures other than one’s own. How can one (who is not of South Asian decent, for example) study the politics of South Asian without knowing about the religion? How can one study the religion without understanding the geography and social conditions of the people? Etc. etc. And this goes for everyone studying a culture that they are not living in, be it ancient or foreign.
We all study different cultures, different religions. This cross-cultural knowledge is important in today’s globalized world, where discourse between different groups of people is becoming more and more prevalent and is now an important part of understanding the reality in which we live.
Hopefully we will all be useful in our own way.
“Save the cheerleader, save the world”
Sunday, November 11, 2007
(con)TEXT(ualism)
The reading these weeks were quite difficult and dense, but I don’t know if it is because I am in a fairly good academic mental state the last couple days, or what... but I kinda *secretly* enjoyed them (? I know...?). Maybe it is because the topic is really interesting and more relevant to my own work. I think I may actually go over the readings again when I have more time to focus on them, which, unfortunately, is not now. November will always be known to me in my heart as “hell month”.
Yet Derrida saying the there is “no outside-the-text” might be going a little too far for me. Context does exist, the author existed in a world outside of his text. Similarily, Spiegle “insists that context be kept separate from text, that the social not be absorbed into “textuality” that politics and social practices not be treated as “cultural scripts” (164)
P.S. I love how Clark refers to the “warm embrace of theory” (164)... possibly the best quote and explains the rest of her many pages!
P.P.S I always intend to write a short blog post so you guys don’t have to go through all my randomness... I failed again this week, sorry guys!
I think it is largely my biased nostalgic love for Derrida, which as I have mentioned at an earlier time stems from my first year as an undergrad, that made me enjoy his argument against contextualism. “Contexts, Derrida argues, can never be absolutely determined or “saturated”; the “arbitrariness of the sign” disrupts this certainty.” (142)
I beleive determening the context of an ancient text will always be influenced by the context during the time it is being determined. If you search hard enough you will most likely find what you are looking for. Do I want to prove that ancient Indians were environmentalists? I probably could if I tried hard enough (and many have suceeded). This is cool and all, but I am always warry of such a modern reading of something. Indians living in pre-modern times did not protect their environment because they were thinking of global warming and reducing their carbon emissions. They protected their environment to protect themselves right here right now. They needed unpolluted water, forrest cover around the water source provided them with this. They needed protection against flooding, tree roots kept the ground stable and the forest floor soaked up a lot of excess water.
Yet Derrida saying the there is “no outside-the-text” might be going a little too far for me. Context does exist, the author existed in a world outside of his text. Similarily, Spiegle “insists that context be kept separate from text, that the social not be absorbed into “textuality” that politics and social practices not be treated as “cultural scripts” (164)
Even though I do not think context is everything, nor is is easily isolatable, I think it is important to keep the context in mind when reading a text. It determines the language and ideas used. But an author’s own personal ideas are not TOTALLY reflexive of their time.
Clark’s point that “Christian writings from late antiquity should be read first and foremost as literary productions before they are read as sources of social data.” (159). This is a good point and can be applied to more than just Christian writings. This is how I look at texts. Yes, one must attempt to reconstruct the past by any means possible. But such heavy weight and importance should not be placed on literature. Sometimes they are just stories, entertainment. Hidden moral meanings can be found in most stories, but hidden meanings are not tucked away behind everything.
“As Foucauldian theory might suggest, there is here no natural object “history”. Ancient historians, unlike our contemporaries, wrote for nonprofessional audiences for whom epic poetry was the only other narrative genre” (166)
Historians were story tellers. Some of the funniest “history” is supplied to us by Herodotus. Giant gold digging ants? Hairy giant men as the inhabitants of India? Man this stuff is good! This is supposed to be a historical factual account. I believe this provides us with a perfect example of how even histories are not 100% trustworthy sources (after all history is written by the winners). Therefore stories should be looked at with even more scepticism... but of course some people believe in gold digging ants, or at least marmots...
Even though satellite images tell me that there is/once was a land bridge from India to Sri Lanka, I do not believe Rama made it with the help of squirrels, monkeys, and bears. Yet we can take this idea, that whoever, whatever, composed the Ramayana with the knowledge that this structure existed without Satellites. Therefore maybe at the time/over the years that it was composed this bridge was possibly above water. That is the kind of context I would impose.
Or you know maybe they had satellite images back then.... how else would Kalidasa be able to describe what Indian looked like from the view point of a cloud so well?? I say aliens...definitely aliens!
As I brought up in last class I find it very difficult to believe in an accurate dating of the epics, such as the Ramayana. This is usually attempted through investigating the possible context of the time. Ok MAYBE Valmiki, the legendary bandit turned composer of the first metered verse (sloka) ACTUALLY sat down beside his anthill and wrote the entire epic after seeing a lovebird be killed by a hunter while in the throes of passion with his partner love bird. MAYBE Vyasa dictated the Mahabharata to Ganesha, who tore off his own elephant trunk to continue to write when his writing quill broke.
I find it much more believable that these traditions originated out of old bardic traditions, and changed over time to incorporate the issues of the time. Some of these contexts remained, some disappeared. Then maybe at one time they were written down (maybe by Valmiki or dictated to Ganesha by Vyasa). But they did not remain static after being written for the first time on palm leafs. Other authors came along and added chapters containing their own hierarchies, philosophies, and yes, context of the time. What has been passed down to us is the work of many authors and many times. Therefore the context is not straight forward, it is not of one time.
I find it much more believable that these traditions originated out of old bardic traditions, and changed over time to incorporate the issues of the time. Some of these contexts remained, some disappeared. Then maybe at one time they were written down (maybe by Valmiki or dictated to Ganesha by Vyasa). But they did not remain static after being written for the first time on palm leafs. Other authors came along and added chapters containing their own hierarchies, philosophies, and yes, context of the time. What has been passed down to us is the work of many authors and many times. Therefore the context is not straight forward, it is not of one time.
P.S. I love how Clark refers to the “warm embrace of theory” (164)... possibly the best quote and explains the rest of her many pages!
P.P.S I always intend to write a short blog post so you guys don’t have to go through all my randomness... I failed again this week, sorry guys!
I made this one myself after doing the readings!!
(Derrida's is taken from the lolprofs facebook group)
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Getting Emotional about Emotions
Regarding last week’s discussion of relativism and universalism in the context of this weeks readings on emotion I would have to side more with the relativist argument. I think emotions and their interpretations and level of ubiquity depends on the cultural context.”Not only ideas, but emotions too, are cultural artefacts” (Corrigan 14) One example from an old class of mine that really stood out for me was from my Japanese Court Literature class. I forget the Japanese term for this emotion but it was sort of like pity. If a girl is so pathetic and useless, the pity that men feel for her is a desirable form of attraction. Women want to produce that pity feeling in men in order to attract them. I think it is pretty messed up but that is because I am not a 10th century Japanese woman. I also thought of the rasas in Indian theatre, these are emotions evoked by certain theatrical conventions, there is a lot of literature written on the subject and it is mildly interesting to me. But a lot of the time I think “hmm why would THAT emotion be evoked at this particular circumstance” It’s FOREIGN to me.
But I would also argue the same way I argued with pure experience (as I think they are all very similar and connected) I believe there is a pure emotion that we have no true way of expressing and use language to express it. And it is that language which is culturally relative.
OK so I guess I am somewhere in between... or like the cognitive theorists mentioned on pg 14 of Corrigan’s introduction.
So I was thinking about how emotion could apply to my own topic, which is turning out to pretty much be totally textually based, or so I propose, because honestly I have no idea what I am actually doing... I have time right??? RIGHT??? I’m in a bit of an academic existential crisis at the moment so you have to excuse me!! But I do Sanskrit, which is pretty much all my life consists of at the moment, so I better make use of it and actually use it for my paper, right?? And well, I’m not into the philosophy aspect of religion, and I am not a huge historiographer, I like stories, I like myths. That is what got me into this field and that is what I enjoy the most. And so that is the approach I am taking. I am right now attempting to find my primary source... hmm why is there soooo much Sanskrit literature to sift through?!?
So I was thinking and thinking, and honestly a lot of the time I have no idea how to apply these concepts to my very loosely formed idea of what exactly my Major Research Paper topic will actually be. The discussion of emotion and language which is present on pages 16 and 17 of Corrigan’s introduction could be tied into my work... But then I was thinking about emotion and literature. A lot of the literature I look at is poetic in nature. It’s called Kavya. In translation the “Hindu” Epics are generally rendered as prose, but in Sanskrit they are in verse following a very strict meter called sloka. They also make use of many poetic conventions.
Poetry is a writing style that evokes emotion. Therefore to truly understand the literature one must attempt to be as proficient in the original language as possible. Ultimately one must begin to FEEL in another language. As I mentioned earlier I side with the relativist side on emotion. Things are expressed very differently in different languages, it’s like how jokes are lost in translation, some things are just not funny to people who think in different languages. Once we can FEEL in a language we can have better insight to that culture. We must figure out how the writer felt in, say, the courts of third century India, to truly understand what is going on. We must also think how the original readers felt while reading the poetry. The emotional element of poetry houses a large part of the content, in order for poetry to be relevant there must be a shared emotion present. The readers must somehow feel connected to the literary work, or else it will not become popular and preserved, being passed down through time, as the literature I will hopefully be looking at has been.
Ahh must get back to the books (or in my case the random unintelligible scribbles on loose leaf paper) as I have two crazy Sanskrit Midterm this week... ahhhhhhhhh
After writing all the above I didn’t feel like translating and decided to come up with random project titles (you know, it’s midnight on a Saturday that is the coolest thing to do, no doubt). One I came up with which I like very much is “Tree to Temple: the Evolution of Worship Space”. If I were to do this title, which sounds pretty cool based on the title alone (and I only have the title so far!) emotional connection to the space would be one way in which emotion could be tied into my project. How did people feel about their natural surroundings when they once worshipped in forests and sacred groves, now how do they feel about the temples they worship in (buildings that were constructed on the sacred land using the sacred trees)?
A second title I came up with (which really sounds more like a book... maybe a book I will write someday!) is “The Sacred Tree: Sylvan Symbolism in South Asian Mythologies”. How would emotion come into play with this? Symbolism is a literary device that evokes emotion, what does one think of when the symbol of a tree is used, how are they emotionally connected to this?
There is quite a strong symbiotic relationship in South Asian between women and trees (one of the many proposals I have gone through in the past year) there is definitely an emotional connection between the two. There is this one festival where the women in a village tie a string around their favourite tree, I think this is very cute, but it shows that there is an emotional attachment. Marriage of a woman to a tree is also not uncommon. Actually just last year the Bollywood actress Aishwarya Rai married a mango tree because she was told by an astrologist that something bad would happen to her first husband and she wanted to marry Abhishek Bachchan, another Bollywood actor. This move actually brought much criticism, saying it was derogatory for women or something, but again I think it is cute... I like trees, OK?
There is also the Chipko movement from North India. In this movement from the ’80 the trees of a village were going to be cut down and the women took a stand against the tree cutters and literally hugged the trees (chipko literally means “to hug” in Hindi)! It is fascinating for me because the symbol of women embracing trees (called shalabhanjika in sanskrit) is very very ancient. It can be found on reliefs from the stupa at Sanchi. Yet it is a much older tradition than this Buddhist monument, as it was used to draw in the attention of lay people who were ignorant about the esoteric ways of Buddhism and who were familiar with indigenous folk beliefs, in which the image of a woman and tree is included.
So much Sanskrit poetry also involves the close emotional relationship between women and trees. Kalidasa’s Shakuntala is one famous example. The trees and plants were Shakuntala’s children and she lovingly looked after them. The scene in which she is leaving behind her beloved forest is full of emotion.
Wow! So now I am feeling much better about myself and my project (or at least now I have many to choose from), thanks method and theory!
PS. don’t even think about stealing my titles!!!
But I would also argue the same way I argued with pure experience (as I think they are all very similar and connected) I believe there is a pure emotion that we have no true way of expressing and use language to express it. And it is that language which is culturally relative.
OK so I guess I am somewhere in between... or like the cognitive theorists mentioned on pg 14 of Corrigan’s introduction.
So I was thinking about how emotion could apply to my own topic, which is turning out to pretty much be totally textually based, or so I propose, because honestly I have no idea what I am actually doing... I have time right??? RIGHT??? I’m in a bit of an academic existential crisis at the moment so you have to excuse me!! But I do Sanskrit, which is pretty much all my life consists of at the moment, so I better make use of it and actually use it for my paper, right?? And well, I’m not into the philosophy aspect of religion, and I am not a huge historiographer, I like stories, I like myths. That is what got me into this field and that is what I enjoy the most. And so that is the approach I am taking. I am right now attempting to find my primary source... hmm why is there soooo much Sanskrit literature to sift through?!?
So I was thinking and thinking, and honestly a lot of the time I have no idea how to apply these concepts to my very loosely formed idea of what exactly my Major Research Paper topic will actually be. The discussion of emotion and language which is present on pages 16 and 17 of Corrigan’s introduction could be tied into my work... But then I was thinking about emotion and literature. A lot of the literature I look at is poetic in nature. It’s called Kavya. In translation the “Hindu” Epics are generally rendered as prose, but in Sanskrit they are in verse following a very strict meter called sloka. They also make use of many poetic conventions.
Poetry is a writing style that evokes emotion. Therefore to truly understand the literature one must attempt to be as proficient in the original language as possible. Ultimately one must begin to FEEL in another language. As I mentioned earlier I side with the relativist side on emotion. Things are expressed very differently in different languages, it’s like how jokes are lost in translation, some things are just not funny to people who think in different languages. Once we can FEEL in a language we can have better insight to that culture. We must figure out how the writer felt in, say, the courts of third century India, to truly understand what is going on. We must also think how the original readers felt while reading the poetry. The emotional element of poetry houses a large part of the content, in order for poetry to be relevant there must be a shared emotion present. The readers must somehow feel connected to the literary work, or else it will not become popular and preserved, being passed down through time, as the literature I will hopefully be looking at has been.
Ahh must get back to the books (or in my case the random unintelligible scribbles on loose leaf paper) as I have two crazy Sanskrit Midterm this week... ahhhhhhhhh
After writing all the above I didn’t feel like translating and decided to come up with random project titles (you know, it’s midnight on a Saturday that is the coolest thing to do, no doubt). One I came up with which I like very much is “Tree to Temple: the Evolution of Worship Space”. If I were to do this title, which sounds pretty cool based on the title alone (and I only have the title so far!) emotional connection to the space would be one way in which emotion could be tied into my project. How did people feel about their natural surroundings when they once worshipped in forests and sacred groves, now how do they feel about the temples they worship in (buildings that were constructed on the sacred land using the sacred trees)?
A second title I came up with (which really sounds more like a book... maybe a book I will write someday!) is “The Sacred Tree: Sylvan Symbolism in South Asian Mythologies”. How would emotion come into play with this? Symbolism is a literary device that evokes emotion, what does one think of when the symbol of a tree is used, how are they emotionally connected to this?
There is quite a strong symbiotic relationship in South Asian between women and trees (one of the many proposals I have gone through in the past year) there is definitely an emotional connection between the two. There is this one festival where the women in a village tie a string around their favourite tree, I think this is very cute, but it shows that there is an emotional attachment. Marriage of a woman to a tree is also not uncommon. Actually just last year the Bollywood actress Aishwarya Rai married a mango tree because she was told by an astrologist that something bad would happen to her first husband and she wanted to marry Abhishek Bachchan, another Bollywood actor. This move actually brought much criticism, saying it was derogatory for women or something, but again I think it is cute... I like trees, OK?
There is also the Chipko movement from North India. In this movement from the ’80 the trees of a village were going to be cut down and the women took a stand against the tree cutters and literally hugged the trees (chipko literally means “to hug” in Hindi)! It is fascinating for me because the symbol of women embracing trees (called shalabhanjika in sanskrit) is very very ancient. It can be found on reliefs from the stupa at Sanchi. Yet it is a much older tradition than this Buddhist monument, as it was used to draw in the attention of lay people who were ignorant about the esoteric ways of Buddhism and who were familiar with indigenous folk beliefs, in which the image of a woman and tree is included.
So much Sanskrit poetry also involves the close emotional relationship between women and trees. Kalidasa’s Shakuntala is one famous example. The trees and plants were Shakuntala’s children and she lovingly looked after them. The scene in which she is leaving behind her beloved forest is full of emotion.
Wow! So now I am feeling much better about myself and my project (or at least now I have many to choose from), thanks method and theory!
PS. don’t even think about stealing my titles!!!
Shalabhanjika at Sanchi
Sunday, October 28, 2007
I may not be the best candidate to discuss rationality...
In Stoller’s article he discusses three approaches to rationality, namely the universalist, relativist, and phenomenological.
The universalist uses a “logical criteria free of context” (240). This is a more “scientific” approach (pseudo-science?) maintaining an “overriding passion to isolate Truth through the precision of language and logic... rationality has been a matter of coherence and logical consistency of statements” Scholars adhering to this method believe in a “singular rationality founded upon universal principles of logic that are universally applicable no matter the sociocultural context” “universalists believe they can make sense of any phenomenon they encounter... using logical criteria” (244)
Wow that sounds intense, I wonder how much they analyze all phenomenon. Can you really break everything down to be able to be explained on a “rational” scientific basis? I think relating this back to last week the belief that alien encounters are just a manifestation of other unrelated deeply buried and/or forgotten traumas, such as sexual abuse may be an example of a universalist approach.
I think universalism may have its merits. I think it is interesting to find the similarities and patterns between many different cultures and their belief systems. Why is it that societies that are on opposite sides of the world, in such different cultural contexts, have so many striking similarities in many of their beliefs and traditions. Is it because there is a universal human quality? A universal human question attempted to be answered? Or did it really happen. Again relating this back to last week’s discussion on experience, is there such a thing as a true experience, a universal experience? How would the universalists approach this? This is more on the side of a belief in a universal ultimate, less “scientific” and analytical... more just giving in and believing. I think my first example fits better with the universalist, at least in my own understanding, I do not know if they would accept or reject my second example of a universal ultimate.
But I think it is dangerous to discuss rationality completely devoid of cultural context, reducing sociocultural differences to theoretical insignificancies as Levi-Strauss did (246). I think with universal rationality it may become dangerous judging other cultures ethnocentrically, particularly Eurocentrically. If something is irrational to westerners and western scholars it should not make it irrational for everybody. I feel this is somewhat exclusive, causing a sort of Othering where the intricacies of another culture’s identity are ignored and assimilated.
Relative rationality is pretty much the opposite of universal rationality, representing another extreme. They believe in the “diversity of rationality. There can be many rationalities, based upon diverse sets of rules” (246). “Relativists seek to understand the nuances of local context to avoid making insensitive analytic errors... they believe that it is best not to make judgements of relative rationality/irrationality” (247).
I see the merits in this system as well. Cultural context is very important in my own analysis of myths etc. (and I like Einstein!!). I also believe not everything can be analyzed and explained scientifically, I do not know how far the relativist go in their analysis though, this was not clearly explained in the article, but the universalist are mentioned as criticising the relativists “scientific naïveté” (248).
Yet again I believe Othering may have the possibility to come into play with this approach, in a more patronizing manner than how it could happen with the ignoring of differences completely in universalists rationality. ‘Oh well WE would never believe such a silly explanation of such and such natural phenomenon, but THEY do not have such advanced understandings of science as WE do, so it is OK.’
One comment that I found rather frightening (and I know this is an extreme example and an example given to illustrate how this system can be taken to extremes) is the example of the Holocaust being excused for its cultural relativism (see pg 247)... wow scary, but these types of things can be taken this far. How much can be excused by the cultural context, the context and world views of the time and place. There has to be some sort of level of universal acceptance of what is right and wrong. Genocide should be wrong no matter what the freaking context is!!
Stoller is not shy in advertising which system he thinks is best. In the introduction to the systems he states “The phenomenological approach, which I have used in my own work, creates space for multiple realities in a given belief system” (240). Because Stoller is so firm in his belief in the superiority of phenomenological rationalism, I believe this article contains a slightly biased approach in explaining the three systems of rationality (maybe you could even argue is detracts from his ability to discuss them rationally!!). Therefore I would believe that my choice for which system is the most convincing may be swayed by his arguments for phenomenology. Because this is his system of choice he goes into a much more complex discussion of the system. The other two were dumbed down a bit, maybe even in a negative light. Focusing only on their extremes leads me to focus on the negative aspects of each system.
Also, compared to the first two, I found understanding exactly what the phenomenological system was difficult. This often happens if someone knows the ins and outs of a subject; it becomes difficult to explain it to a simpleton like me! This also illustrates the author’s biases, as he simplified the others and made his more complex. (Ahh yet another example of Othering!)
I did find myself liking the author though, I liked his little anecdote at the beginning, I liked that he admitted in believing in the unexplained, and I liked his little story at the end. It made for a more enjoyable article to read, but this may be expressing my own irrational biases towards anecdotes and cute stories!!
Fitting, no?
Monday, October 22, 2007
I actually know what I am talking about, I just can't explain it to you properly
I have always been quite interested in linguistics. I think it all stems back to my non-jaded (yet somewhat pretentious) academic excitement as a first year undergrad discovering Derrida for the first time. And so if there is a question about language and how it inhibits our ability to truly understand and communicate with one another, I will jump on the chance to name drop my favourite completely non-understood philosopher of linguistics and life in general. Even though I seriously had/have no idea what he was talking about, in my first year excitement I decided that is THE POINT. Language is not a perfect medium of communication and we are all doomed...
Sharf’s discussion becomes quite Derridian at points “As it is never possible to communicate exactly how things appear to us (how could we ever know whether your experience of red is precisely the same as mine?)” (pg 110) Doesn’t he sound lonely? Poor guy, but I understand... How can we ever explain to someone how we truly feel, what we truly believe if we cannot express it in language. How can we explain our understanding of “red”?
How could one go about explain such a complex feeling/experience as experiencing the divine? One could write a poem like Rumi, paint a picture, play a song? These are all so easily misunderstood, so easy to not “get”. But can we really explain it in words? Can you explain red? How could you explain it to others who have never experienced red? What about trying to explain a mystical experience to someone who has never experienced, or to someone who have absolutely no belief in the existence or possibility of such an experience? What if two people are in a room and both have had an “experience”, do they need words to convey what it was? Or is wordless mutual understanding the only way? If this is so how can we possibly begin to write about this, discuss this from the view of the non-experienced, or even the non-believer?
“the terms ‘paradox’ and ‘ineffable’ do not function as terms that inform us about the context of experience, or any given ontological ‘state of affairs’. Rather they function to cloak the experience from investigation and to hold mysterious whatever ontological commitments one has... they eliminate the logical possibility of the comparability of experience altogether... To assume, as [others] do, that because both mystics claim that their experiences are paradoxical they are describing like experiences, is a non sequitur.” (Katz pg 204). Yes I agree that jumping to such conclusions based on the use of similar words is too simplistic. It is further complicated by the impossibility to describe personal experiences perfectly using words. The go-to words used in describing are provided by our culture, the definitions of the words are defined by our culture.
Maybe all the mystics, anyone who has ever experienced such an “experience”, are experiencing the same thing (The “universal core” of Stace discussed in Katz pg 200). Maybe the Jewish devekuth, the Buddhist nirvana, the Sufi fana, the Hindu atmavada are all the same indescribable experience. Maybe it is uninterpretable, unidentifiable, unmanifestable. The only way to describe what the hell just happened to us would be to go to our own cultural clichés to help us define, explain and understand. It is all so clear in the moment, yet once that state has been exited it is impossible to describe what just happened, “well it was kinda like.....[insert culturally relevant simile]”. Once you start to use such culturally constructed clichés to explain yourself you begin to start believing that is what indeed happened. The personal understanding of your experience that you take away with you to remember at a later date is dictated by easy ways to remember it, by the “models” given in our own culture.
I agree with the heavy role culture plays in shaping our understanding of experiences as discussed in Sharf’s article. Referencing another article by Katz, Sharf sums it up by saying “mystical experience is wholly shaped by a mystic’s cultural environment, personal history, doctrinal commitments, religious training, expectations, aspirations, and so on” (pg 98) This is true, but I would say that culture etc. may not dictate how we experience the experience as it is happening in the moment, it dictates how we understand and describe it later. (I did love his example of aliens as religion, it was a great example illustrating how culture shapes our experiences...but maybe “small greys” really DO exist... and then the point would be moot as they all indeed experienced probing by the little guys!! Same thing goes for is all mystics experience the same ultimate divine... wouldn’t this all be so much easier if that were to be proven? Hehe!!)
I probably have not been in scholarship for long enough to become as jaded as the scholar we have read for this week’s discussion (and all the weeks before this). Katz says there are no pure unmediated experiences (pg 189). I like to think true experience can be experienced, and I do not really want that to be taken away from me. I usually keep my beliefs separate from what I do, nobody needs to know them unless I feel they should, but as scholars are we really expected to be so unbelieving, lacking so much faith. Does EVERYTHING have to be explained or broken down under such minute scrutiny? I guess keeping the personal you and the scholar you at a distance is the best way to go about it, they should not meet because they would probably get in lots of fights. The scholar you calling the personal you irrational and silly, the personal you calling the scholar you heartless and cynical. Worlds are colliding... George is getting very upset!
OK I am simply going to blame the incoherencies of my post to the wonderful go-to belief that we can never fully express ourselves in words... oh it makes things so much more simple sometimes!
Monday, October 8, 2007
aaaannd... THIS is why I love what I study!!
The question: “To what extent might the sex/gender discussion seen in our readings be dependent on a Western notion of autonomous identity? What about cultures in which identity is defined more widely than the individual, as encompassing family or community? (And is there then something "male" about that?)" got me thinking about grammatical genders.
Latin gender (*shudder* oh how I try to forget this stuff): if it is a group of more than one person and there is at least one male in said group the gender will always be masculine plural. Maybe this grammatical rule could explain in some way the Bible quote in Boyarin from Genesis 5: 1-2 “and He blessed them, and called their name Adam” (119). This could be evident of gender ambiguity or duality as is discussed throughout Boyarin’s article, but it also kinda seems to me that because Adam and “Eve”(?) are a couple they are seen as one unit. And by default that unit becomes masculine and is referred to by the male’s name. Similar to the practice of referring to a couple as Mr. and Mrs. John Smith on postage etc..
Latin gender (*shudder* oh how I try to forget this stuff): if it is a group of more than one person and there is at least one male in said group the gender will always be masculine plural. Maybe this grammatical rule could explain in some way the Bible quote in Boyarin from Genesis 5: 1-2 “and He blessed them, and called their name Adam” (119). This could be evident of gender ambiguity or duality as is discussed throughout Boyarin’s article, but it also kinda seems to me that because Adam and “Eve”(?) are a couple they are seen as one unit. And by default that unit becomes masculine and is referred to by the male’s name. Similar to the practice of referring to a couple as Mr. and Mrs. John Smith on postage etc..
Now I can’t seem to remember off the top of my head f there is a set rule in Sanskrit... but I DO know off hand that if there is a compound (oh and how Sanskrit loves its compounds!!!) if the last word is feminine, no matter what the other words in the compound are, or what the relationship to each other is, the entire compound will be feminine. (Now that is girl power! haha)
Fascinatingly Brahman, the “ultimate” often worshipped in a kind of monotheistic way (henotheism), is grammatically a neuter word! Therefore “god” is an “it”... and can easily (and often is) worshipped in the feminine. Before reading the articles I was wondering if this can be found in biblical traditions, so I went to Chris: In Greek the word for god of the bible is always masculine. Yet notably in Proverbs “wisdom” is personified in the feminine and possibly present at creation (thanks Chris!). I was also wondering about how in the Christian trinity tradition god = father, son, and holy spirit... father/son are both very masculine nouns... could the holy spirit be feminine ever...?(Chris was busy so I couldn’t ask him!!)
After reading Daniel Boyarin’s article, it became clear that gender ambiguity is found in the Judea-Christina tradition as well. The “spirit” is often neither male nor female. This discussion was interesting for me as I found lots of parallels with the traditions I am more familiar with. It seems that often, when the divine is in the most unidentifiable abstract from (as in Brahman, the holy spirit, the Sikh god) gender is ambiguous, dual, or does not exist.
In many societies more than the two most straight forward genders are accepted. In North American traditional culture there are two-spirited people. In many parts of Asia (at least at one time. *Read: before colonization*) five genders are understood. This is still evident in Thailand (a country that had never been colonized) I spent just over 17 hours in Thailand, and I saw quite a lot of lady boys!
Gender is very flexible in Hindu mythology. Many of my favourite myths involve gender ambiguity. Siva’s consort (Parvati, Devi, Uma, Durga, Sakti, etc) is a very powerful force (sakti means power/energy in Sanskrit... it was brought up last class by the twins). Without her Siva is really nothing, as is illustrated in his form as Ardhanarishvara “the lord who is half woman”. As Ardhanarisvara, Siva is depicted literally as being split vertically into half man and half woman!! Yet this is not to say that male/female can be argued to be perfectly equal in the Hindu tradition, far from it. Ardhanarisva remains the LORD who is half woman... he retains his masculinity even though half of his body has boobs and stuff. “The “manipulation of conventional gender categories” seems to produce an androgyne who is always gendered male” (Boyarin 125).
Yet the “goddess” in Hinduism is not always the consort of a god. There are many Devi/Sakti /Durga cults who worship her as a completely separate, and very powerful, unit. Although these are often referred to as Saivite movements because the “goddess” is usually an avatar of Siva’s consort. I don’t know if this is a category imposed by the practitioners, but it may be the result of what Kinsley discusses in his article, how the goddesses “were discussed primarily, if not exclusively, as adjuncts to males, according to their relationships with males: as mothers, wives, consorts, daughters, and sisters.” (pg 3). All the points made in this section of Kinsley’s article are definitely true for most scholarship involving goddesses in Hinduism. They are mothers and wives. Yet in reality they are entities separate from the gods in their family, the destructive Kali chops heads off while trampling her husband Siva under her feet... she’s hard-core!
Back to gender ambiguity in characters in mythology:
gender ambiguity can be seen in the Mahabharata epic in the character of Arjuna. Arjuna is arguably the hero of the epic he is uber masculine, strong, powerful, sexy, virile... quite the ladies man. yet while in disguise in his last year of exile, Arjuna dresses up as a eunuch dance teacher... and in the sanskrit there are many plays on word suggesting that he in fact a full blown eunuch/hermaphrodite for this year (there are like 5 different myths explaining why this is so... wont go into that!) this is similar to “the dominant rabbinic interpretation [that] insisted that the first male-female human [Adam] was a physical hermaphrodite” (Boyarin 128)
In Kerala, most of the people are devotees of a god called Ayyappa. He is the son of Visnu and Siva... yup, Visnu took his feminine form of Mohini (her name translates as “temptress” and she is uber feminine) in order to become impregnated by Siva! Then Visnu gave birth to Ayyappa. It’s quite ironic that this is how he was created because the cult of Ayyappa has become quite the “boy’s club”. Again he is an uber masculine god, and only men and non-menstruating (read little girls and old women) are allowed to go on pilgrimage to his main temple. The pilgrimage takes several days, is hard work , and generally turns into a male bonding session... although I doubt they impregnate each other in the form of the temptress! (well....it IS India...).
Aahhh I knew I would have too much random stuff to talk about in this week (I could go on)... why do my blogs always turn out so random ? (and long... sorry guys!)... I’m done
Ardhanarisvara "the Lord who is half woman"
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Text is not the only answer... let's party
Oh right the blog entry... my mind has been consumed by SHHRCing and I would rather be reading over my proposal for the millionth time and stressing about having everything together... must... concentrate... on... something... else... ok here goes.
“Ritual action always ends up looking like a “text”... the astute scholar can then use ritual as a window to the deeply embedded social systems, collective representations, and even the inner psychic like of foreign cultures.....
.....There is simply no a priori reason to believe that rituals stand in need of interpretation, and thus rituals should not be reduced to something - to anything - other than itself. To approach ritual as a text is tantamount to reducing music to its score, or territory to its map.” (Sharf 249-250)
Why would one wish to focus on the textual aspects of ritual and not the ritual itself. Maybe the ritual no longer exists and can only be found in the texts. Or maybe it is so esoteric that outsiders (if it is indeed outsiders who are investigating this ritual... which in the majority of circumstances it is...) are not allowed to witness the real thing.
I love reading, books are neat! But we cannot learn everything in books. Disciplines such as religious studies, cultural studies and anthropology have had quite a number of “armchair” scholars over history. In the field of Indology the ubiquitous name of Max Muller often finds itself as the butt of many jokes. The famous Indologist and lover of all things “Indian” had never been to India!!
During my undergrad I also felt like an impostor. I was studying a culture I had never experienced outside the weddings, funerals, and many festivals I had attended with my friends in the Indian diaspora community. I felt like I had no authority on any matters, even though I had studies them for many years. (let me just say now I still feel like I have no authority to talk about any such matters... but at least I no longer DREAD the question “oh so you have been to India?”). Yearning for India, a question always nagged in the back of my head “what if I hate it?” (My dad *knew* I would, but haha I proved him wrong!!). There is a second Indologist from the nineteenth century (I forgot his name, but he is less famous than Max Muller so I am making that my excuse!! ) who did make it to India, but quickly turned around and went back home. He hated it in reality, but still studied in from the comfort of his home in England.
I took a really cool class at UBC in Asian Theatre. We learned all about lots of different “performance” traditions. I was really interested in Kathakali. It’s not a “ritual” per se. But the line between what is or is not “religious” in India is always blurred and it is based on the Epics, which are and are not religious... so yeah in a way this “performance” or “play” is a “religious ritual”. Reading about Kathakali and actually going to a performance (although it was not fully traditional as those go on all night, and well, I like my sleep!!) are two very different things. There is a “script” they follow and the story line is from the “scriptures” (oh look at all the problems I am eclipsing with my use of quotation marks!! Relating back to the semantic theme of two weeks ago: “We are entering an era in which what we want to learn cannot be learned if our terminology overdetermines the theatre of engagement. It is an era in which our terms are best used as a minimalist set of props...” (Bell 220-221)... Sharf started off his essay by stating that defining ritual would be a “difficult and contentious task” (Sharf 245) so he just never did it... my kind of guy!... but I digress) But when it comes down to it, it is less to do with the well known story of Rama etc. more about the atmosphere, the insane costumes and the crazy eye movements.
There are manual texts in Sanskrit describing every aspect of performance. The section on appreciating performances talks about the levels of appreciation, from an ignorant viewer who just enjoys it for its entertainment value to the expert scholar who can appreciate every nuance in the performance. “Just as exposure to and training in music is necessary to appreciate musical performance, the appreciation of ritual entails the acquisition....[of] a skill acquired through early habituation and/or prolonged practice...” (Sharf 250). So in a way, you could say that because I had previously studies the tradition I appreciated it in a different way than the others watching (mostly tourists... but I myself was a tourist...so I can’t say anything).
Wow I totally just went off topic and randomly talked about random things. I intended to talk about rituals and text and instead talked about me... how narcissistic! Oops!
So what I am saying is that we cannot learn everything from books, some things must be experience first hand. This can be difficult and sometimes downright impossible (I could digress and narcissistically talk about my search for a theyyam ritual in the rainy season... but I wont indulge), but the actual aspect of living religion should never be forgotten, even if we are students who focus on text (like myself).
OK back to SSHRCing... or maybe sleep... sleep is good... mmmmmmmmm
“Ritual action always ends up looking like a “text”... the astute scholar can then use ritual as a window to the deeply embedded social systems, collective representations, and even the inner psychic like of foreign cultures.....
.....There is simply no a priori reason to believe that rituals stand in need of interpretation, and thus rituals should not be reduced to something - to anything - other than itself. To approach ritual as a text is tantamount to reducing music to its score, or territory to its map.” (Sharf 249-250)
Why would one wish to focus on the textual aspects of ritual and not the ritual itself. Maybe the ritual no longer exists and can only be found in the texts. Or maybe it is so esoteric that outsiders (if it is indeed outsiders who are investigating this ritual... which in the majority of circumstances it is...) are not allowed to witness the real thing.
I love reading, books are neat! But we cannot learn everything in books. Disciplines such as religious studies, cultural studies and anthropology have had quite a number of “armchair” scholars over history. In the field of Indology the ubiquitous name of Max Muller often finds itself as the butt of many jokes. The famous Indologist and lover of all things “Indian” had never been to India!!
During my undergrad I also felt like an impostor. I was studying a culture I had never experienced outside the weddings, funerals, and many festivals I had attended with my friends in the Indian diaspora community. I felt like I had no authority on any matters, even though I had studies them for many years. (let me just say now I still feel like I have no authority to talk about any such matters... but at least I no longer DREAD the question “oh so you have been to India?”). Yearning for India, a question always nagged in the back of my head “what if I hate it?” (My dad *knew* I would, but haha I proved him wrong!!). There is a second Indologist from the nineteenth century (I forgot his name, but he is less famous than Max Muller so I am making that my excuse!! ) who did make it to India, but quickly turned around and went back home. He hated it in reality, but still studied in from the comfort of his home in England.
I took a really cool class at UBC in Asian Theatre. We learned all about lots of different “performance” traditions. I was really interested in Kathakali. It’s not a “ritual” per se. But the line between what is or is not “religious” in India is always blurred and it is based on the Epics, which are and are not religious... so yeah in a way this “performance” or “play” is a “religious ritual”. Reading about Kathakali and actually going to a performance (although it was not fully traditional as those go on all night, and well, I like my sleep!!) are two very different things. There is a “script” they follow and the story line is from the “scriptures” (oh look at all the problems I am eclipsing with my use of quotation marks!! Relating back to the semantic theme of two weeks ago: “We are entering an era in which what we want to learn cannot be learned if our terminology overdetermines the theatre of engagement. It is an era in which our terms are best used as a minimalist set of props...” (Bell 220-221)... Sharf started off his essay by stating that defining ritual would be a “difficult and contentious task” (Sharf 245) so he just never did it... my kind of guy!... but I digress) But when it comes down to it, it is less to do with the well known story of Rama etc. more about the atmosphere, the insane costumes and the crazy eye movements.
There are manual texts in Sanskrit describing every aspect of performance. The section on appreciating performances talks about the levels of appreciation, from an ignorant viewer who just enjoys it for its entertainment value to the expert scholar who can appreciate every nuance in the performance. “Just as exposure to and training in music is necessary to appreciate musical performance, the appreciation of ritual entails the acquisition....[of] a skill acquired through early habituation and/or prolonged practice...” (Sharf 250). So in a way, you could say that because I had previously studies the tradition I appreciated it in a different way than the others watching (mostly tourists... but I myself was a tourist...so I can’t say anything).
Wow I totally just went off topic and randomly talked about random things. I intended to talk about rituals and text and instead talked about me... how narcissistic! Oops!
So what I am saying is that we cannot learn everything from books, some things must be experience first hand. This can be difficult and sometimes downright impossible (I could digress and narcissistically talk about my search for a theyyam ritual in the rainy season... but I wont indulge), but the actual aspect of living religion should never be forgotten, even if we are students who focus on text (like myself).
OK back to SSHRCing... or maybe sleep... sleep is good... mmmmmmmmm
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Sacred Groves of India: An Ancient form of Environmental Conservation
During the conquest of Alexander the Great in the fourth century BCE, India is described as being a land of impenetrable forest (Evans 1992: 13). For individuals imagining India today, dense forests are unlikely a prominent image of association. Only 11 percent of the country remains covered by woodland (Evans 1992:13) and with rapid modernisation this number is likely to continue to drop. The problem of deforestation in India has not gained as much attention as the parallel problem in the South American Amazon. In both cases the push for modernisation has led to major ecological destruction and the loss of indigenous practices connecting the people to the earth.
In India, the two regions of the Himalayan mountains range and the Western Ghats have been included in the list of the thirty-four biodiversity ‘hotspots’ around the world. These designated areas are described as “the richest and most threatened reservoirs of plant and animal life on Earth” (www.biodiversityhotspots.org). Biodiversity is valuable for many reasons, from preserving the ecological dynamics of the world to the supplying genetic resources for pharmaceutical research(Jayarajan 2004: 10). Intact forests also act against climate change as they are natural and effective carbon sequestering sinks. Specifically, the deforestation of India greatly affects the annual monsoon. The trees increase the levels of water vapour in the air through transpiration, the evaporation of water through leaves, drawing the clouds across the Arabian Sea and encouraging the rains to fall. The monsoon brings life as well as death to India, yet much of the deaths caused by flooding would not occur if there was an effective amount of tree cover. Forests hold groundwater, act as a natural reservoir, and prevent flooding (Jayarajan 2004: 34-35).
I intend to explore the importance the environment and conservation held in the past throughout the history of Indian belief and apply this knowledge to how the past importance can be emphasised for the future. In particular I am interested in examining the importance the practice of maintaining sacred groves has had throughout history and how a stronger link between religion and environmental awareness can be created.
The people of India have had a pronounced affinity with nature since ancient times. Trees were possibly the first objects worshipped, dating back to the early days of civilisation in the Indus Valley (Gupta 1971: 14). In India, almost every village traditionally has had their own sacred grove, a locally protected forested area. As a result, the original biodiversity of these lands has been preserved representing the “relic climax vegetation of the region” (Tiwali et al. 2001: 20). In this way, the practice of maintaining sacred groves constitutes a method of conservation. This traditional conservational technique has been highly efficient, as these forests have survived in pristine condition since prehistoric times. (Waghchaure et al. 2006: 55)
Ironically, the origins of sacred groves are likely secular and practical, as the local inhabitants realized the value of protecting the natural resources which they relied so heavily on. Sacred groves commonly house important water resevoirs, and ponds and wells are often associated with them, providing a perennial source of water for the local village (Chandran and Hughes 1997: 419). Yet religion has played an important role in their conservation to this day as taboos have been created which restrict the destruction and exploitation of these areas deemed sacred.
These beliefs and traditions are eroding and increasingly forgotten with the advancement of modernity which labels such thinking as “backwards” superstitions (Jayarajan 2004: 20), or “low” forms of religion (Tiwali et al. 2001: 30). Religious taboo alone cannot reasonably be considered the front line defence in protecting the forests of India. Instead, increasing the awareness of their ecological importance and heightening the value placed on tradition needs to be combined in order for the existence of the sacred groves to be protected. I intend to investigate how these current tensions between modernity and tradition impact both the cultural identity of a suppressed people as well as the loss of valuable biodiversity. In doing so, I will seek to explore how these two factors integrate on these sites of cultural and environmental intersection.
With the popular imagination focused on issues such as climate change and environmental sustainability in the media, politics, and academia, I believe the ecological ramifications of my proposed research will be relevant and beneficial in dealing with such issues. The effects of climate change are felt throughout the Indian subcontinent, especially in the valuable and delicate ecosystems of the Himalayas and Western Ghats. Conservational efforts across the world will not be successful unless the local populations are included in any proposed solution. Therefore it is absolutely critical to collaborate with local communities and increase their awareness of the environmental impact of their practices.
Religion continues to be the medium through which many people in India understand and interact with their surroundings. I believe greater incentive to mobilise and participate in modern conservational projects will manifest if encouragement to become actively involved can be found within their own traditions and the Indian people understand and interact with the issues of deforestation and climate change in the context of their own worldview.
I believe my background prepares me to undertake my unique perspective which combines the disciplines of Religious Studies and Environmental Science. Focusing on the traditional interactions of Hinduism and folk beliefs with the environment would be beneficial in collaboration with environmental projects. It is important for modern conservational programs to acknowledge these traditional systems of conservation as viable strategies, and incorporate them into modern methods.
My research will explore ancient Indian literature to uncover the importance the sacred grove held in the Indian imagination throughout history. I also wish to study the traditions and rituals associated with the sacred groves. A greater awareness of the value and respect the ancient practices received has the potential to revive a new found pride in such traditional conservational and can create an environmentally positive mentality. This can be worked into new environmental programs. My future studies will culminate in a collaboration with conservational projects and working with local communities raising awareness of the importance of the environment and the values their ancestors placed on conservation.
I am currently enrolled in my first year of the Master’s program at the Centre for the Study of Religion at the University of Toronto. Students are required to complete four full-year graduate courses, a major research paper, and show evidence of reading knowledge of one language of modern scholarship or a necessary source language. I am currently focusing on improving my reading Sanskrit in preparation of fulfilling this requirement. This is a vital language to posses in my field of research as the majority of primary sources are written in this ancient language.
I feel that an interdisciplinary approach is important when studying and understanding cultures different from one’s own. Along with my home department in Religious Studies, I am also working in collaboration with two other centres: The Centre for South Asian Studies and the Centre for Environmental Studies. In the Centre for South Asian Studies there is a half-year interdisciplinary taught course, and attendance at visiting lectures relating to South Asia is mandatory. The requirements for Environmental Studies are another interdisciplinary taught course, along with an elective course chosen from a list. As I am collaborating with two centres my major research paper must include both a South Asian and environmental component.
Sacred Grove I found in Kerala, India!!!
In India, the two regions of the Himalayan mountains range and the Western Ghats have been included in the list of the thirty-four biodiversity ‘hotspots’ around the world. These designated areas are described as “the richest and most threatened reservoirs of plant and animal life on Earth” (www.biodiversityhotspots.org). Biodiversity is valuable for many reasons, from preserving the ecological dynamics of the world to the supplying genetic resources for pharmaceutical research(Jayarajan 2004: 10). Intact forests also act against climate change as they are natural and effective carbon sequestering sinks. Specifically, the deforestation of India greatly affects the annual monsoon. The trees increase the levels of water vapour in the air through transpiration, the evaporation of water through leaves, drawing the clouds across the Arabian Sea and encouraging the rains to fall. The monsoon brings life as well as death to India, yet much of the deaths caused by flooding would not occur if there was an effective amount of tree cover. Forests hold groundwater, act as a natural reservoir, and prevent flooding (Jayarajan 2004: 34-35).
I intend to explore the importance the environment and conservation held in the past throughout the history of Indian belief and apply this knowledge to how the past importance can be emphasised for the future. In particular I am interested in examining the importance the practice of maintaining sacred groves has had throughout history and how a stronger link between religion and environmental awareness can be created.
The people of India have had a pronounced affinity with nature since ancient times. Trees were possibly the first objects worshipped, dating back to the early days of civilisation in the Indus Valley (Gupta 1971: 14). In India, almost every village traditionally has had their own sacred grove, a locally protected forested area. As a result, the original biodiversity of these lands has been preserved representing the “relic climax vegetation of the region” (Tiwali et al. 2001: 20). In this way, the practice of maintaining sacred groves constitutes a method of conservation. This traditional conservational technique has been highly efficient, as these forests have survived in pristine condition since prehistoric times. (Waghchaure et al. 2006: 55)
Ironically, the origins of sacred groves are likely secular and practical, as the local inhabitants realized the value of protecting the natural resources which they relied so heavily on. Sacred groves commonly house important water resevoirs, and ponds and wells are often associated with them, providing a perennial source of water for the local village (Chandran and Hughes 1997: 419). Yet religion has played an important role in their conservation to this day as taboos have been created which restrict the destruction and exploitation of these areas deemed sacred.
These beliefs and traditions are eroding and increasingly forgotten with the advancement of modernity which labels such thinking as “backwards” superstitions (Jayarajan 2004: 20), or “low” forms of religion (Tiwali et al. 2001: 30). Religious taboo alone cannot reasonably be considered the front line defence in protecting the forests of India. Instead, increasing the awareness of their ecological importance and heightening the value placed on tradition needs to be combined in order for the existence of the sacred groves to be protected. I intend to investigate how these current tensions between modernity and tradition impact both the cultural identity of a suppressed people as well as the loss of valuable biodiversity. In doing so, I will seek to explore how these two factors integrate on these sites of cultural and environmental intersection.
With the popular imagination focused on issues such as climate change and environmental sustainability in the media, politics, and academia, I believe the ecological ramifications of my proposed research will be relevant and beneficial in dealing with such issues. The effects of climate change are felt throughout the Indian subcontinent, especially in the valuable and delicate ecosystems of the Himalayas and Western Ghats. Conservational efforts across the world will not be successful unless the local populations are included in any proposed solution. Therefore it is absolutely critical to collaborate with local communities and increase their awareness of the environmental impact of their practices.
Religion continues to be the medium through which many people in India understand and interact with their surroundings. I believe greater incentive to mobilise and participate in modern conservational projects will manifest if encouragement to become actively involved can be found within their own traditions and the Indian people understand and interact with the issues of deforestation and climate change in the context of their own worldview.
I believe my background prepares me to undertake my unique perspective which combines the disciplines of Religious Studies and Environmental Science. Focusing on the traditional interactions of Hinduism and folk beliefs with the environment would be beneficial in collaboration with environmental projects. It is important for modern conservational programs to acknowledge these traditional systems of conservation as viable strategies, and incorporate them into modern methods.
My research will explore ancient Indian literature to uncover the importance the sacred grove held in the Indian imagination throughout history. I also wish to study the traditions and rituals associated with the sacred groves. A greater awareness of the value and respect the ancient practices received has the potential to revive a new found pride in such traditional conservational and can create an environmentally positive mentality. This can be worked into new environmental programs. My future studies will culminate in a collaboration with conservational projects and working with local communities raising awareness of the importance of the environment and the values their ancestors placed on conservation.
I am currently enrolled in my first year of the Master’s program at the Centre for the Study of Religion at the University of Toronto. Students are required to complete four full-year graduate courses, a major research paper, and show evidence of reading knowledge of one language of modern scholarship or a necessary source language. I am currently focusing on improving my reading Sanskrit in preparation of fulfilling this requirement. This is a vital language to posses in my field of research as the majority of primary sources are written in this ancient language.
I feel that an interdisciplinary approach is important when studying and understanding cultures different from one’s own. Along with my home department in Religious Studies, I am also working in collaboration with two other centres: The Centre for South Asian Studies and the Centre for Environmental Studies. In the Centre for South Asian Studies there is a half-year interdisciplinary taught course, and attendance at visiting lectures relating to South Asia is mandatory. The requirements for Environmental Studies are another interdisciplinary taught course, along with an elective course chosen from a list. As I am collaborating with two centres my major research paper must include both a South Asian and environmental component.
Sacred Grove I found in Kerala, India!!!
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Origins to Classification
Two universal questions have plagued human beings from first consciousness: “where do I come from?” obsesses children, maturing into “who I am?” when we are adults. Buddha said the ego was the cause of all suffering. Our desire to prove we are different will never be fulfilled, as we have no soul, we are anatman, and we are therefore no different from anyone else. Insecurities arise from our inability to prove we are different, something we continue to strive for. Religions can be said to have been created to explain to people the answers to these questions. Most religions have creation myths dealing with the original humans, original language, and original homeland.
The search for origins among the Europeans started with the desire to prove the stories in the Bible, such as the story of the Tower of Babel:
And the Lord said, “Look, they are one people, and they have all one language: and this is only the beginning of what they will do: nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. Come, let us go down, and confuse their language there, so that they will not understand one another’s speech.” So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and the left off building the city. Therefore it was called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth; and the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of all the Earth.” (Gen 11:6-9)
The idea of a linguistically and racially unified people fueled fields of study that aimed at searching for connections between the dispersed people of today. in particular philology was a new field of science that emerged (see Masuzawa pg xii).
This was a time of great anti-semitism and attempts were made to move away from genealogy of the Old Testament patriarch Noah which made everyone a half-sibling of the Jewish “others”. Philology helped with this. with Sir William Jones’ “discovery” of the relations to other Indo-European languages, and the distancing from the agglutinating Semitic languages people could “reconstruct their ancestral roots” (Masuzawa pg xii) they could now be closer to the great traditions of Greece and the exotic India. (see Masuzawa pg 19)
With the Enlightenment, and the rise of science over the sacred, people started to lose the answers to their questions, as the Bible lost its hegemony on ‘truth’ in Europe. Therefore people searched for new beginnings, which they found in India. Adam died as the universal father, and India was born as their new mother.
In the nineteenth century many people early on were beginning to move away from Eden, starting to believe that India was the “womb of the world”. I seem to recall that even Voltaire jumped on the India bandwagon and claimed everything came from India.
OK so what do my totally random ramblings about the need to prove legitimacy and philology have to do with these readings and this class? Well first off they stem from what I was thinking when reading through Masuzawa’s book. But they also respond to part of the discussion question of why Europeans were so eager to classify religions.
I think the nineteenth century European obsession with categorizing largely stems from these insecurities, possibly even an inferiority complex. It is a need for control. Control over the chaos in the new lands they ruled over, such as India.
the question of why Europeans have such a longing to prove their legitimacy must be asked. It is not a recent phenomenon, as the Romans looked for authenticity in their mythical journey from the battlefields of Troy. Maybe Europeans, and people of European decent, felt the need to justify their dominance on the world. They created myths of origin as a means of compensating for the subconscious realization that they may not be as powerful and ancient a race as they would have desired.
With Sir William Jones’ personal conclusion that Sanskrit was possibly the most perfected language. Many British were not comfortable with this. Some even went as far as denying the existence of Sanskrit, saying Jones was deceived by Brahmin forgers. Others claimed that the reason there was a similarity between the Sanskrit of India and the Classic languages of Latin and Greek was because Sanskrit was actually a form of Greek borrowed by the Brahmins when Alexander the Great traveled to the subcontinent!!
Early on, Categorizing also placed Christianity against the “others”. It was the “West-and-the-rest” (Masuzawa pg 3) This “othering” is another form of control.
Categorizing also was a more “scientific” method, and therefore utilizing this technique was a method of securing the status of the subject in academia where scientific thought was at the top of the totem pole (see Masuzawa pg 14). Being based on a more concrete social science of Philology further added to the attempt at raising the status. Sciences still today enjoy higher prestige and funding “This is particularly true in the humanities and many social science departments, where the percentage of outside funding in relation to the total operational cost of the unit is much smaller than most natural science departments and professional schools” (Masuzawa pg 9). With the methods to their studies “the study of the Orient emerged as a fashionable and respectable science” (Masuzawa pg 17).
So I think that classifying was a means of control, putting labels on people made them easier to rule. That is why the census was so important in colonial disneyland. Think about it.
Jackie
The search for origins among the Europeans started with the desire to prove the stories in the Bible, such as the story of the Tower of Babel:
And the Lord said, “Look, they are one people, and they have all one language: and this is only the beginning of what they will do: nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. Come, let us go down, and confuse their language there, so that they will not understand one another’s speech.” So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and the left off building the city. Therefore it was called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth; and the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of all the Earth.” (Gen 11:6-9)
The idea of a linguistically and racially unified people fueled fields of study that aimed at searching for connections between the dispersed people of today. in particular philology was a new field of science that emerged (see Masuzawa pg xii).
This was a time of great anti-semitism and attempts were made to move away from genealogy of the Old Testament patriarch Noah which made everyone a half-sibling of the Jewish “others”. Philology helped with this. with Sir William Jones’ “discovery” of the relations to other Indo-European languages, and the distancing from the agglutinating Semitic languages people could “reconstruct their ancestral roots” (Masuzawa pg xii) they could now be closer to the great traditions of Greece and the exotic India. (see Masuzawa pg 19)
With the Enlightenment, and the rise of science over the sacred, people started to lose the answers to their questions, as the Bible lost its hegemony on ‘truth’ in Europe. Therefore people searched for new beginnings, which they found in India. Adam died as the universal father, and India was born as their new mother.
In the nineteenth century many people early on were beginning to move away from Eden, starting to believe that India was the “womb of the world”. I seem to recall that even Voltaire jumped on the India bandwagon and claimed everything came from India.
OK so what do my totally random ramblings about the need to prove legitimacy and philology have to do with these readings and this class? Well first off they stem from what I was thinking when reading through Masuzawa’s book. But they also respond to part of the discussion question of why Europeans were so eager to classify religions.
I think the nineteenth century European obsession with categorizing largely stems from these insecurities, possibly even an inferiority complex. It is a need for control. Control over the chaos in the new lands they ruled over, such as India.
the question of why Europeans have such a longing to prove their legitimacy must be asked. It is not a recent phenomenon, as the Romans looked for authenticity in their mythical journey from the battlefields of Troy. Maybe Europeans, and people of European decent, felt the need to justify their dominance on the world. They created myths of origin as a means of compensating for the subconscious realization that they may not be as powerful and ancient a race as they would have desired.
With Sir William Jones’ personal conclusion that Sanskrit was possibly the most perfected language. Many British were not comfortable with this. Some even went as far as denying the existence of Sanskrit, saying Jones was deceived by Brahmin forgers. Others claimed that the reason there was a similarity between the Sanskrit of India and the Classic languages of Latin and Greek was because Sanskrit was actually a form of Greek borrowed by the Brahmins when Alexander the Great traveled to the subcontinent!!
Early on, Categorizing also placed Christianity against the “others”. It was the “West-and-the-rest” (Masuzawa pg 3) This “othering” is another form of control.
Categorizing also was a more “scientific” method, and therefore utilizing this technique was a method of securing the status of the subject in academia where scientific thought was at the top of the totem pole (see Masuzawa pg 14). Being based on a more concrete social science of Philology further added to the attempt at raising the status. Sciences still today enjoy higher prestige and funding “This is particularly true in the humanities and many social science departments, where the percentage of outside funding in relation to the total operational cost of the unit is much smaller than most natural science departments and professional schools” (Masuzawa pg 9). With the methods to their studies “the study of the Orient emerged as a fashionable and respectable science” (Masuzawa pg 17).
So I think that classifying was a means of control, putting labels on people made them easier to rule. That is why the census was so important in colonial disneyland. Think about it.
Jackie
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
