tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post5967486836877339077..comments2024-03-26T11:33:59.219-06:00Comments on Religion in American History: The ABS and the Art of History WritingPaul Harveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13881964303772343114noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-62791820556755756522016-05-08T04:14:57.192-06:002016-05-08T04:14:57.192-06:00In response to Charlie's initial question and ...In response to Charlie's initial question and the ensuing conversation, I am indeed calling for more critical reading, analysis, and interpretation of sources, as well as more engagement with secondary scholarship, rather than more wielding of a "moral criticism hatchet." The former (but not the latter) is, in my view, the work of historians as well as religious studies scholars (I consider myself to be both).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11536703364783616624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-92062927009379895622016-05-04T11:53:13.154-06:002016-05-04T11:53:13.154-06:00i agree with your questions and logic, Charlie.i agree with your questions and logic, Charlie.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-80160608829659316312016-05-04T07:45:03.635-06:002016-05-04T07:45:03.635-06:00I think we agree, Elesha. Some of these difference...I think we agree, Elesha. Some of these differences come down to style of writing and what the final product looks like. What's more important, in some ways, is the process that comes beforehand. There, my model for doing history is pretty much the same as yours. And I think Lincoln's is similar too. He always starts with a text and then tries to map out or graph (often literally) what's going on in and around the text. That analysis is critical work, and it's the final word. So, pretty much the same process. I share Ed's frustrations and confusion at some boundary-drawing, and I didn't mean to invoke a religious studies versus history thing, because I have no interest in that. I agree that most of us probably think of our work as "trying to write clear prose and incorporate complicated concepts." If that's not what we're doing, then what? Mostly, my response here was to ask John for clarification, since he seems to be claiming not to do that. If critical reading is a distraction, if incorporating any theoretical framework is a detour, then what is he doing? And if the answer is indeed "not scholarship," then, fine, but don't simultaneously defend it as the "art of history writing."Charlie McCraryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07974315175707119170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-41517298022144628152016-05-03T10:37:25.423-06:002016-05-03T10:37:25.423-06:00I've been fascinated by the conversation and d...I've been fascinated by the conversation and disassociation of the disciplines "history" and "religious studies" since I was in graduate school. At conferences, I hear time and again mentions of "historians do this" while "religious studies people do that." Or, I hear people who clearly delve into historical topics comment, "I'm not a historian." It all seems strange to me. There are so many scholars approaching her or his topics in so many different ways that I'm not sure all this pigeon holing reflects our realities. Along with this, there seems to be a binary assumption of "clear prose" versus "complicated ideas." I find it all very dissatisfying because I've always tried to do both. I see myself as a historian and as someone writing in religious studies; I see myself as trying to write clear prose and incorporate complicated concepts. And, to be honest, I think most of us feel the same ways about our scholarship.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-37529589144728015812016-05-03T08:34:52.632-06:002016-05-03T08:34:52.632-06:00Perhaps, Charlie, rather than a binary--critical o...Perhaps, Charlie, rather than a binary--critical or uncritical, scholarly or popular, history or something else--it would make more sense to think of a continuum. At one end would be the perspective from Bruce Lincoln that Mike Altman quoted on Facebook, with reference to these ABS pieces:<br /><br />"When one permits those whom one studies to define the terms in which they will be understood, suspends one's interest in the temporal and contingent, or fails to distinguish between 'truths', 'truth-claims', and 'regimes of truth', one has ceased to function as historian or scholar. In that moment, a variety of roles are available: some perfectly respectable (amanuensis, collector, friend and advocate), and some less appealing (cheerleader, voyeur, retailer of import goods). None, however, should be confused with scholarship."<br /><br />Call that the "question everything" end of the continuum, which more aptly describes (some) religious studies work than (very much) historical work. At the other end, you'd have an "accept everything" posture that would be more like PR cheerleading than scholarship of any sort. Critical reading of sources is not, as you note, synonymous with moral critique, but they do often go together. Over on the "accept everything" end of the continuum, there's neither critical reading of sources nor moral criticism of whoever generated those sources. On the "question everything" end, you get both kinds of criticism.<br /><br />All three reviewers of Fea's book place it between those extremes, but we differ a bit on where to place it. To use your terms, I see the book doing more reflecting and less explaining than I'd like, but I do see it doing both. I don't see those two activities as necessarily antithetical. When I think of doing history, I think first of letting sources speak (reflecting?), then talking back to them (critical work), and ultimately giving myself the final word (explaining?). Where I think this hastily sketched model diverges from Lincoln is that I give historical sources the first word, rather than starting with my interrogation. Does that make any sense?<br />Eleshahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03764991021577652939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-85832179628679071482016-05-02T20:38:39.889-06:002016-05-02T20:38:39.889-06:00I might be misreading these posts (and I haven'...I might be misreading these posts (and I haven't read the book), but on my reading it seems like there's some miscommunication. John seems to be using two different senses of "critical" somewhat interchangeably. I don't think Candy was calling for more forceful use of a "moral criticism hatchet," to point out on some theological or moral grounds why the ABS did bad things. But, at any rate, that's one way one could be "critical" of the ABS. <br /><br />Candy's charge, I think, is rather that John is reading sources uncritically. So, the call is not for a moral critique but just for a critical reading. John addresses this too, but his response is basically that uncritical reading is OK because it's not a scholarly monograph, and critical reading is a "detour." <br /><br />We're talking about two different senses in which the book lacks "critique," and I think only the second one was explicitly alleged (again, that's just on my reading). I'm asking for clarification because this seems like a conversation people want to have, but I'm just not following it. John points us to Paul's RD piece, but the framing at the end of that piece confuses me too. Paul contrasts deconstruction with "reflect[ing] and explain[ing] the views of their subjects." But it seems to me the reflecting and explaining aren't the same activity but almost opposites. How is the mere reportage of some group's views an explanation? For explanation (and critique), we interrogate sources, ask why they were written, what assumption informed them, etc. And that seems like the foundation of a historical argument, not a "detour." <br /><br />That's where I see the tension in John's response. I read him as defending his work by saying both that 1) it isn't scholarship and 2) it is history. It doesn't seem fair or reasonable to make both arguments simultaneously. I'm laying this out not necessarily as an accusation, but as a request for clarification, because I assume I must be missing something here.Charlie McCraryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07974315175707119170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-24453550300251683512016-05-01T15:49:48.131-06:002016-05-01T15:49:48.131-06:00In the end, I don’t think Brown really gets what I...<i>In the end, I don’t think Brown really gets what I was trying to do in The Bible Cause. Actually, I think the book is filled with subtle critique, though I imagine that Brown wanted me to wield my moral criticism hatchet with a bit more force. I suggest that she read Paul Harvey’s review of the book at Religion Dispatches. Harvey does not agree with all of my interpretive choices, but he understands my approach—the approach of an historian.</i><br /><br />There should be a place for historians restricting themselves to history.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.com