Towards the concerned study of religion: Exploring the double power–play disparity

Abstract

a b s t r a c tIncreasing numbers of students of religion, from various disciplines, address issues of public interest, going beyond documentation and analysis, taking the quality of human life in religion and society as a criterion for their recommendations. Accordingly, systematic reflection on the concerned study of religion is gaining relevance. The approach chosen in this article is to focus on one particular aspect, in this case the double -cognitive and moral -disparity in religious contexts between forms of power and play. Power is viewed as the human capacity to influence other people's behaviour, even against their will. Play is defined here as the human capacity to deal simultaneously with different realities. Power and play represent two human capacities that in themselves are neutral but in combination may change from means, a situation of parity, into goal, a situation of disparity. A first type of disparity is cognitive in nature. It stems from the reduction of the potential open dynamic meaning-making that the power-play constellation could stimulate as well. A second disparity is of a moral nature. It stems from the fact that the power-play set may come to interfere with the quality of human life. As a set, power and play thus move between the roles of being either subservient means or self-fulfilling goal, between a soft and a hard version. Religion is one field in which the gift for play is applied, resulting in the relationship with a sacred or divine reality. Whereas religions cannot survive without some form of power, the form given to the power-play set marks out a religion's identity. Within our time the critical study of the double disparity of hard power and play has gained urgency. Global society faces severe problems of poverty, violence, pollution and miscommunication. Religions may act as a cause, but also as problem solver. Students of religion are invited to form multidisciplinary teams to study the double disparity in its actual form, while simultaneously exploring prospects for the promotion of both open meaning-making and the quality of human life, with power and play in a relationship of parity. This turn would necessitate a reappraisal of the research agenda for Religious/World-view Studies. It demands an identity change for this study field, both in the selection of themes for research and funding, and in the explicitly applied nature of scholarly work.

Religie als spel en zingeving

“…Wetenschappers die religies onderzoeken en deze mogelijkheden doorzien, moeten hun vak toegepast maken (Droogers 2010b). Ze moeten zich niet beperken tot het beschrijven van de religieuze conflicten op het wereldtoneel.…”

Advocacy in the study of religion\s

“…In a letter posted on 17 February 2013, on the official blog of the American Anthropological Association the then-president, president-elect, executive director, and a past-president of this association stated: 'Contrary to some loudly voiced claims, both advocacy and science are (and long have been) at the core of our discipline' (Mullings et al 2013). 4 In the study of religion\s, the terms concerned science (Droogers 2010), 5 engaged research (Cush 2005), 6 and practical study of religion (Klöcker and Tworuschka 2008) 7 have been introduced for programs that seek to go beyond the standard model of the study of religion\s. Even though scholars of religion, at least those working on or with contemporary religious communities, often face the above-mentioned advocacy-related issues in their work, they have rarely been put on the agenda, likely due to fears of transgressing boundaries of academic legitimacy.…”