tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post2785992335667168849..comments2024-03-26T11:33:59.219-06:00Comments on Religion in American History: What the Foucault (Do We Know)?: FSU's Grad Symposium ReduxPaul Harveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13881964303772343114noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-23300675926862315642011-02-28T11:55:56.461-07:002011-02-28T11:55:56.461-07:00Janine,I think this whole conversation revolved ar...Janine,I think this whole conversation revolved around who has the power of construction and definition and who does not. Moreover, Day's use of class analysis, I think, is useful, especially his commentary on how "taste" is informed and created. It made me wonder about the academic systems of "taste" too and the class status/anxiety of the academy as well.<br /><br />All this being said, everyone plan to go to next year's 11th annual symposium! (And Jenny, I love to brag on anything FSU!)Kelly J. Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14328894784072518452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-42875403897180946412011-02-26T19:15:21.067-07:002011-02-26T19:15:21.067-07:00That you, Kelly, for writing up this fantastic sum...That you, Kelly, for writing up this fantastic summary and distilling the questions and concerns at the heart of this panel. As an FSU grad student (you and I talked briefly outside about your work, teaching, and forth-coming book), I was on the working side of the symposium and wasn't able to attend this particular panel, so I'm happy to read different participants' reactions to the panel and the whole symposium in this forum. So thank you for instigating the conversation, and I hope that it can continue next year at our 11th annual symposium!<br /><br />Jenny Collins-ElliottAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-72166237234444783042011-02-26T08:24:36.934-07:002011-02-26T08:24:36.934-07:00I found the conference one of the most positive, e...I found the conference one of the most positive, encouraging and low-stress scholarly environments I have ever been a part of. I left (and returned) to the frenetic world of organizing students and teachers for a better funded university (and especially History department), a world where it often seems a forbidden luxury to discuss theoretical questions like the meaning of religion and the role it serves in society. I think both Day and Lofton agreed that religion was a "placeholder" of sorts, but while to Lofton it was a placeholder for authority, especially authority about yourself and what is "good for you," for Day it was hardly worth calling "religion" if that's all it is. <br /><br />Please, all, correct me if I am wrong, but to me Day and Lofton were really not fighting over what religion was, but who ought to have the power to call something religion. The only thing I'd add to Kelly's expert summary is Day's recurrent emphasis on Marxism, his own class position and his position within the academy, and his own personal experience when he was training in the field of Religious Studies. While Lofton issued a theoretical and cultural reflection on religion and power, Day issued a much more personal plea (which began and ended with the admission that few would be convinced) that religion ought not expand to encompass everything powerful, because by that move it would be drowned in nothingness. After Kelly asked her question, Day's immediate response was to defer (perhaps only symbolically) to Lofton because, said Day (and I'm paraphrasing from memory) "You're at the Ivies, you have more authority on these matters than I do." <br /><br />In my impression, Day and Lofton were not really fighting over the meaning of religion, but Day was concerned with the power some have to define what religion is and what religion isn't, and Lofton was inviting us to recognize that authority of deciding what truth is as the essence of religion. If you see truth as a Foucauldian regime of power, the term religion is little more than a placeholder for will-to-power. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that both ultimately agreed on this point.<br />Day found that horribly unsatisfying and Lofton found that an extremely important observation. <br /><br />What I am still wondering, perhaps a bit like Kelly, is what is at stake in arguing about this. Why can't it be both?Janine Giordano Drakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15743145462085629472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-86628922468462433022011-02-24T09:59:29.882-07:002011-02-24T09:59:29.882-07:00Kelly--Glad to see that good discussions are going...Kelly--Glad to see that good discussions are going on at FSU. I have fund memories of the Grad symposium of which I was a part some years back. Very helpful breakdown of Day and Lofton analyses of religion.<br /><br />Curtis J. EvansAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-59260990278188062582011-02-24T07:52:29.412-07:002011-02-24T07:52:29.412-07:00Hands down, it was an amazing roundtable. Nice res...Hands down, it was an amazing roundtable. Nice response.<br /><br />And I couldn't agree more, this is quickly becoming one of the most important--and most fun--shindigs out there for us scholarly, nerdy types.matt gallionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06761088685963884199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-16105390461248621842011-02-23T20:48:50.083-07:002011-02-23T20:48:50.083-07:00Kelly - What a great breakdown of the session! An...Kelly - What a great breakdown of the session! And I still stand by my description of that panel as "jammin'."esclarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02794977716560232353noreply@blogger.com