The following is CTDR's Call for Papers for the Annual Meeting of the AAR in San Diego, November 17-20, 2007. Any member of the AAR may submit a proposal or panel using the on-line OP3 application system, which will be available in February, 2007:

CTDR offers a forum for critical/theoretical work in conversation with concrete cases, e.g., the historical or ethnographic study of religious life and institutions. This year's themes: (1) China's "isms" (origin, validity, and ideological functions of "Daoism," "Chinese Buddhism" "Confucianism," "Folk religion," etc.); (2) Race, power, binary thinking (distortions and marginalizations in the study of religion); (3) Critical discussion of Thomas Tweed's Crossing and Dwelling (how does this theory work with specific cases, e.g., nomadism, diasporic religions?); (4) Documentary film and issues of visual representation; (5) Contemporary theorists/theories from non-Euro-US contexts (especially those emerging out of non-Christian traditions); (6) Discourse analysis (uses and insights, especially in the area of religious law).

Here are some further details on these and on other topics recently suggested as worthy of sessions:

  1. The "China's isms" topic (sugggested by Gustavo Benavides) reflects the 2007 international focus on China (Chinese religions and scholars, not necessarily in China). We have discussed co-sponsorship with a couple of Program Units, and that seems likely to materialize.
  2. Race, ethnicity, and theory: This proposed session would, in part, bring some of the insights of post-colonial and subaltern theory within the specifically North American context. This remains a priority for us.
  3. Our goal in a tentative session on Thomas Tweed's Crossing and Dwelling: A Theory of Religion (Harvard, 2006) is to put together three or four presentations that look at specific cases in the light of his theory. Tom developed his theory based on his work with Cuban ex-pat Catholics in Florida, for which it works quite well, of course. The obvious question is how well it works in other contexts, and this is what we hope to get at with such a session.
  4. Documentary film and issues of visual representation (an issue raised by Jens Kreinath). This topic brings together several important themes: truth, objectivity, and representation (in general and specific to visual media); visuality and the colonial gaze; the pedagogical use of film/video, etc.
  5. This topic (suggested by David Shefferman) aims to highlight three closely related issues: the potential value of theoretical work currently being done by scholars "off the beaten track" (as defined in regional, institutional and linguistic terms); reclaiming neglected "classic" analyses and conceptual work done by scholars form these areas; and an inquiry into the theoretical leverage offered by concepts and categories derived from of and in non-Christian traditions (a point emphasized by Ann Taves).
  6. Discourse analysis (an issue highlighted by Kocku von Stuckrad) is a very rich and extremely well developed set of theories and methods of great potential value for the study of religion. Yet, especially in North America, there is almost no work being done. For example, is there anyone out there working with critical discourse analysis (Teun Van Dijk), conversation analysis (Harvey Sacks), institutional ethnography (Dorothy Smith), the natural history of discourse (Michael Silverstein and Greg Urban), or any of several dozen other models? Biblical studies is good on this, but we are hoping to put together a panel illustrating the value of at least some of the range of approaches available.
  7. The gendering of theory: We are still hoping to put together a high-quality (likely co-sponsored) session that would look at the influences that issues of gender (especially in terms of discourse and authority) have on dominant theoretical approaches to the academic study of religion in North America. This has not yet come together and looks like a priority for 2007.

 

In addition, we have a proposal before the AAR's Program Committee for a special session to look at some of the research implcations of the separation of the AAR and SBL annual meetings. Here is part of that proposal:

"The Chairs and Steering Committee of the Critical Theory and Discourses on Religion Group would like to propose a topic for consideration as a special session at next year's Annual Meeting in San Diego. The decision to discontinue joint meetings of the AAR and SBL has generated great interest among the Academy's members. We propose a special session examining the theoretical and methodological implications of this development in a balanced manner, explicitly avoiding the tone of recrimination and one-sided critique that has been prominent in informal discussions.

"The proposed session would reflect on theoretical and methodological aspects of (i) the origin and history of the decades-long relation between these two important professional associations, (ii) the upcoming shift in that relationship, and (iii) potential new modes of collaboration between the two. This would involve an analysis of the historical development of Religious and Biblical Studies as academic fields and of parallels and contrasts in their methodological and theoretical allegiances.

"We think that such a discussion would be of significant scholarly interest to a large portion of the membership of both groups. This frame would enable us to move past partisan posturing regarding "the split" and to examine productively the intellectual ground we share as scholars of religion."

 

For further information on any of these issues, or to suggest topics that CTDR might consider in its sessions, please email Steven or Kocku.