tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post6345507525978380651..comments2024-03-26T11:33:59.219-06:00Comments on Religion in American History: American Religion and the New MaterialismPaul Harveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13881964303772343114noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-38526105685304220222015-04-12T02:08:51.406-06:002015-04-12T02:08:51.406-06:00Yet, to the extent that we are justified in speaki...<i>Yet, to the extent that we are justified in speaking of a “material turn”, no consensus has arisen about what materiality is or does. </i><br /><br />It would seem that justifying this premise itself would be the first order of business, then. Per the provided link:<br /><br /><i>To take seriously the efficacy of nonhuman fat is, then, not only to shift one's idea as what counts as an actor but also to focus one's attention away from individuals and onto actants in assemblages.</i><br /><br />I take it this is a good thing.<br /><br />"The New Materialism" is ~20 years old. At what point--is there a point?--must it justify its place [and bold new ontology!] at the philosophical table, subjected to the critiques and rigors to which all other systems, premises and propositions are also obliged?<br /><br />Is the project at this point seeking some consensus [coherence] about what it even is? Or is this an umbrella term for an opposition to transcendence<br /><br />https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/what-body-knows/201309/dancing-the-new-materialism<br /><br />sort of like "Protestantism," which [esp after 500 years of it] is most descriptive of what it <i>isn't</i>, namely Catholicism.<br /><br />On a personal note, I do find Ms. Hazard's use of "bias" here<br /><br /><i>That is, they remain anthropocentric and beholden to the biases against materiality deeply entrenched in the study of religion.</i> <br /><br />disturbing because the pejorative "bias" begs the question, suggesting that "materiality" [New Materialism?] has established a legitimacy that to question would be "biased." As previously noted, it's not self-evident it's won legitimacy at the philosophical table; indeed, it's unclear it's even established a coherent table of its own.<br /><br /><i> It is our hope that the panel’s multidisciplinary approach</i><br /><br />Until its bona fides as at least a coherent philosophical premise have been established, that its "new theoretical and methodological tools" should be employed by other disciplines is contraindicated.<br />Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.com