RISA-L DISCUSSION ON A PROPOSED HINDU STUDIES AAR PROGRAM UNIT (12/12/96-1/29/97) Compiled by Lance Nelson (11/17/97) ============================== Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 11:50:22 -0800 (PST) From: chumes@BENSON.MCKENNA.EDU To: risa-l@lists.acusd.edu Cc: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Studying Christian India Message-ID: I must admit when I read the complaint about christianity being under-represented in RISA I thought, as Frank Cloooney has expressed so adequately below, that there is more than enough other venues for this subject to be heard at the AAR, which in my opinion is already far too weighted toward Christianity. I am wondering if there has been any movement to establish a section just for Hinduism at the AAR? Should we be trying to establish such a section, so that determining who gets to present (and often, therefore, to attend, since many institutions require presenting for reimbursement) is easier, and more subjects get their due? RISA could become a more comparative and methodological section if there were a Hinduism section. Cynthia Ann Humes Claremont McKenna College (909) 607-2503 Department of Religious Studies (909) 621-8419 fax 850 Columbia Avenue chumes@mckenna.edu Claremont, CA 91711 ============================== Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 15:05:40 -0400 From: Gene Thursby To: risa-l@lists.acusd.edu Cc: gthursby@religion.ufl.edu Subject: AAR Sacred Space Message-ID: <199612122008.PAA18885@clas.ufl.edu> In response to the proposal from Cynthia Ann Humes (reprinted below), in its current incarnation the RISA is the result of the merger of two AAR units -- Hinduism and Religion in Modern India. I arrived from the Religion in Modern India side and believe that there is quite enough attention to Hinduism in RISA as currently constituted. On the other (doubtless right) hand, I'd support a popular movement to gain more elbow (and speaking) room at AAR -- especially if it were to result in a new RISA as a forum for South-Asia-based discussion of comparative and methodological questions. Cynthia Ann Humes wrote: >I must admit when I read the complaint about christianity being >under-represented in RISA I thought, as Frank Cloooney has expressed so >adequately below, that there is more than enough other venues for this >subject to be heard at the AAR, which in my opinion is already far too >weighted toward Christianity. I am wondering if there has been any >movement to establish a section just for Hinduism at the AAR? Should we >be trying to establish such a section, so that determining who gets to >present (and often, therefore, to attend, since many institutions require >presenting for reimbursement) is easier, and more subjects get their >due? RISA could become a more comparative and methodological section if >there were a Hinduism section. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Gene Thursby http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/gthursby/ ============================== Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 13:37:14 -0800 (PST) From: chumes@BENSON.MCKENNA.EDU To: risa Message-ID: I am quite intrigued by Gene Thursby's helpful history of RISA as the merger of two "units," Religion in Modern India and Hinduism, sufficiently so to postpone grading papers and instead (thank you!) continue the conversation. My comments on establishing both "Hinduism" and "methodology/comparative" sections comes out of an impression I have had of late about RISA. It has seemed to me that it has become predominately comparative and methodological, and Hinduisms per se have become quite submerged in our inquiry. I reviewed the RISA sessions presented this year in New Orleans, and of the five solely RISA sessions, only one dealt with Hinduism alone. The first had three of five papers on hinduism -- Christianity and Islam were the subject of the other two; the second was solely on Hinduism; the third included Sufism, and several essays on hybridization and multiculturalism; the fourth was on Hinduism/Buddhism/Jainism; and the fifth was on Hindu/Muslim contested identities. A sixth panel, mine on goddess worship and methodology, was co-sponsored with Women and Religion. That panel discussed pre-historical South asia, Jainism, Hinduism, Hindu tantra, and western appropriation of Hindu goddesses, thus not "hinduism" proper, and the Hawley and Wulff book, Devi. There is also the recent Hinduism and Judaism consultation, and Hindu-Christian studies meeting. Personally, I like all of this comparison, and thus what RISA is doing, and I can see the logic of fusing the two originally. I do think, however, that with so many adherents and such diversity, as well as scholars paying attention to these areas - both geographical "boundaries" and religious -- there may be reason to resurrect some other section. I thus have many questions. Are people completely turned off by the title, "hinduism" (was that a reason for the fusion, Gene?). I am not sufficiently familiar with the AAR "sacred space" to know what benefits might have accrued from the merger -- I am curious, for instance, if the "units" were actual sections, with multiple sessions? Did we win more slots, or was it primarily ideological? I do know that usually more than half of the proposals to RISA are turned down. From speaking with friends in other subjects and disciplines represented at the AAR/SBL, I understand that this is quite competitive. Is there a better division people feel would be more defensible than "Hinduism"? Do more people want to push for greater representation? Could the fearless (and overworked) leaders of RISA look into this, or is there lack of support for such an idea? I eagerly await further responses to procrastinate even more in the pursuit of a far greater (and more entertaining) goal. Cynthia Ann Humes Claremont McKenna College (909) 607-2503 Department of Religious Studies (909) 621-8419 fax 850 Columbia Avenue chumes@mckenna.edu Claremont, CA 91711 ============================== Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 20:17:30 -0500 (EST) From: "Kathleen M. Erndl" To: risa-l@lists.acusd.edu Subject: Re: your mail Message-ID: <199612130117.AA09025@mailer.fsu.edu> To Cynthia, Gene, and others interested in the "Hinduism" section issue: Douglas Brooks has argued (in a JAAR essay--Winter 1994) for the establishment of a Hinduism section in addition to, not as a replacement for, the existing RISA section. (Doug, if you are out there, please respond.) I am substantially in agreement, for what boils down to two main reasons: 1) substantive--Hinduism(s) is/are a major world religious tradition with a substantial body of scholarship on it and thus deserves a section of its own (just as Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, etc. have). 2) practical/political--having a Hinduism section would provide another venue for the work of scholars of Hinduism who curently have to compete with those working on all other South Asian religions (and comparative sessions) for a space on the program. There are those who argue against a Hinduism section, saying that RISA would become a mere shell. I do not agree. There is much exciting work on South Asia as a region of religious multiplicity and interaction: witness the several excellent sessions at the recent AAR which were multi-religious. I think this is an important trend. On the other hand, there is also a place for sessions on various aspects of Hinduism(s) per se. I believe that our field has become big enough to support two sections. (Goddess knows how many Christianity has, as Cynthia points out.) I have given several examples of what we would have to gain by a Hinduism section. Is there something we would lose? It may be that some people object to the term Hinduism, with or without the parenthetical s. Is there another term which would be more satisfactory? Hindu Traditions? (Or we could take a leaf from Prince and call it "The Religion Formerly Known As Hinduism"--TRFNAH). I brought up the issue of a Hinduism section at the RISA steering committee meeting, but as there was not sufficient interest in the committee, we decided not to bring it up as a proposal from the committee. So, I am glad that the issue has come up from the "grassroots" on RISA-L and urge further discussion. Instructions for how to propose a new section are in the AAR meeting program, if anyone is interested. Kathleen ______________________________________________________________________ Kathleen M. Erndl phone: (904) 644-0207 Department of Religion fax: (904) 644-7225 Florida State University email: kerndl@mailer.fsu.edu Tallahassee, FL 32306-1029 ============================== Date: Thu, 12 Dec 96 19:26:04 CST From: "Prof. James Lochtefeld" To: Subject: RISA Message-ID: As the messages came in today on the RISA/Hinduism question, I found myself largely agreeing with Cynthia, Kathleen, and Douglas. Gene Thursby's information that RISA was formed by merging two earlier groups also did a great deal to explain the seemingly divided nature of our enterprise. A couple of thoughts came to mind (in between reading papers): 1. By its name, RISA is geographically bounded. Does this mean that if I were to do research on Hindus in Trinidad, I have to apply to the "Religion in Latin America and the Carribean" group? Or if I wanted to the talk on the Venkateshvara temple two hours south of me, I should contact the "North American Religions" section? And what if (God forbid) I did research on Hindus in Fiji, who have no geographical section of their own...? Many (if not most) of us in RISA focus primarily on Hindu religious life, and it seems to me that we should be up front about this, whether or not such Hindus are geographically located in South Asia (which as part of the section's name is also something of a misnomer, since I would also speculate that most of us work in India). 2. Should this happen, what would happen to the "lesser-studied religious traditions" (on the model of "lesser-studied languages"), particularly the Jains and Sikhs, who to my knowledge have no organized groups of their own (unlike Islam, Christianity, and Buddhism)? 3. One of the things I love most about India is its rich religious mix, which (as we all know) has wide regional differences (my corner of U.P. has lots of Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs, a smattering of Christians, and precious few Jains or Buddhists). AT least recently, RISA has tried to foster "pluralist" panels, and I would hate to see us simply give that up, particularly given how illuminating I found Art Buehler's paper (in the New Orleans panel on middle-class religion). Still, although comparative work is interesting and sometimes enlightening, the question I keep coming back to is: what are we really doing? And might there be better ways to do it than we are doing it now? thanks, and best wishes to all, jim lochtefeld ============================== Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 22:43:51 -0500 (EST) From: WILLIAM HARMAN To: risa-l@lists.acusd.edu Cc: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: your mail Message-ID: Kathleen (whose laptop is ready to go!), It seems to me that the issue of creating a Hinduism section separate from RISA would be more a strategic move rather than something done out of principle. Specifically, do you folks on the managerial front lines get significantly more proposals for RISA panels than you can handle? If so, would a high proportion of those fall under the rubric of Hinduism? In other words, would creating a separate section for Hinduism allow more quality panels to be included than we can presently accomodate? Bill ============================== Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 23:19:34 -0500 (EST) From: "Laurie L. Patton" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: AAR Sacred Space Message-ID: I haven't made up my mind about whether there should be a separate "Hinduism" section at the AAR, with RISA dealing with more comparative questions. There seem to be good arguments on both sides. The issue I wanted to raise was a more situational one: I continue to hear from colleagues who participate in other sections at the AAR that our RISA section is one of the most collegial and constructive at the AAR. By this I do not mean simply that we are all friendly. I mean that there seems to be a culture of constructive exchange and debate which shows up both on the RISA-list as well as the tone of the RISA sessions at the annual meeting. These days I have come to value such collegiality more and more. I have come to value it because there are fewer and fewer places in the academy where very tough issues (e.g. the colonial, missionary heritage of Indology; the nationalist politics of some Hindu movements, among many many others) can be brought to the table and openly debated. So, for what it's worth: I would like to see that rather delicate ecology of collegiality protected, no matter what we end up doing. Laurie Laurie L. Patton Dept. Religion Emory University Atlanta, GA 30322 PH: 404-727-5177 FAX:404-727-7597 ============================== Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 10:08:45 -0500 (EST) From: "Douglas R. Brooks" To: risa-l@lists.acusd.edu Cc: dbrk@troi.cc.rochester.edu Subject: RISA and Hinduism Message-ID: <199612131508.KAA16439@troi.cc.rochester.edu> I am not sure I have a great deal to add to the conversation regarding RISA and the possibility of a Hinduism section that I did not already mention in the "Thousand Headed Person" essay in last year's JAAR. Just a few points: First, this suggestion was not made for "strategic" or "political" reasons so that we might have more AAR sections. RISA has come to mean not only the religions of South Asia wherever they may be but religions in South Asia no matter what they are. This much is obvious. Rather, my point was to raise questions about how we might study Hinduism (or The Religion formally known as Hinduism. Thanks, Jim, that was _great_!), about what we are studying, and about the future of the subject. Second, I do not mean to be divisive but I don't fear for a future in which Hinduism is treated on a par at the AAR with the other macro-historical religions of the world. John Cort's suggestion for a panel on Jains and South Asian Christians makes clear to me that there is room (perhaps even a need) for RISA and for a section on Hinduism without setting us upon one another. I mean to lead no charge here. Douglas Brooks Douglas R. Brooks Professor of Religion and Chair of the Committee on Asian Studies University of Rochester Rochester, New York 14627 ============================== Date: Fri, 13 Dec 96 9:18:10 CST From: "Prof. James Lochtefeld" To: Subject: re: RISA and Hinduism Message-ID: Douglas Brooks gives me too much credit in making me the author of Kathleen Erndl's suggestion for naming a section "the religion formerly known as Hinduism." Let's give credit where it is due. jgl ============================== Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 09:11:13 +0000 (HELP) From: ORR@vax2.concordia.ca To: risa-l@lists.acusd.edu Subject: Re: AAR Sacred Space Message-ID: <01ICYDNVP6RM004T9J@vax2.concordia.ca> I think Laurie's point about the desirability of conserving and nurturing the dynamic and collegial atmosphere of RISA is extremely important. I believe that this atmosphere would be best supported by keeping RISA with its current definition, although I admit I have mixed feelings about this. At other times, I have complained about the absence of a unit for the study of TRFKAH (thank you, Kathleen for this nomenclature!), which-- like most other units at the AAR--is tradition rather than region-defined. But lately, I've been feeling that what makes RISA work for me is its inter-traditionality, as well as its inter-disciplinarity. These inter- nesses promote discussions of methodology and of conceptualizing and teaching in our areas (and I'm willing to bet that *all* of us, even if our research is exclusively on Hinduism--and I wonder for what proportion of us this is actually the case--are teaching and otherwise operating in a bunch of other areas). Instead of splitting off a Hinduism unit from RISA, I would prefer to see RISA grow into more of a super-unit. If many deserving panel and paper proposals are regularly turned down by the program committee, then I think we should make a representation to the AAR to get more slots, on the grounds that we are covering three religious traditions that have no other venue in the AAR, in addition to a major and geo-politi- cally important region of religious pluralism. We also should strive to build connections with colleagues in the Buddhism and Study of Islam sections, to do joint panels with these folks and to get them to come to our sessions--instead of competing for audiences with them. I am increasingly becoming a true believer in the importance of studying the religions of India (or South Asia) *together*. None of these religions has ever existed in South Asia apart from the others, and I feel that our understanding of them is impoverished if we deal with them as if they were isolated and independent of one another. The bottom line really is: I don't want to have to choose whether to go to the Hinduism *or* the RISA panel (or the Buddhism or Ascetic Impulse or Ritual Studies or Tibetan and Himalayan or Tantric Studies panel), when they are scheduled for the same slot. I want it all. Best wishes to you all --Leslie Leslie Orr Dept. of Religion Concordia University Montreal ============================== Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 12:36:13 -0500 (EST) From: John Stratton Hawley To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: AAR Sacred Space Message-ID: Just a note to echo what Laurie has just said about ours being a wonderfully collegial group. There is a dimension of that that comes, I think, for all of us (I hope) feeling part of a whole. This may suggest as desirable a two- or three-tier format for RISA: panels likely to stimulate general interest; panels (or consultations, seminars) apt to work best for a smaller subset; and perhaps a few individual papers, as well. When I last worked with the AAR administratively (it was a long time ago, now) there was no framework that made this precisely possible. You could mount a group or consultation, but it would have a defined frame and life. A question to AAR leadership might be whether they would be willing to consider a "branching" format in which a Section sponsored different levels of discussion--some of the smaller ones, perhaps, occuping the same time slot on the program. And for us to consider might be whether we would want to save one of those panel slots (perhaps even one that host two presentations--yes, that's right, in different rooms: the walls are already sufficiently osmotic)--for individual papers to be presented primarily by scholars new to RISA. This one, of course, we would call "Show and Tell." A danger in all this is obvious. How many panels (however worthy) do you *really* want to go to in the course of a conference? A tiered approach to the schedule might keep the number of time-slots constant--or almost constant--while permitting greater variety and greater access to the program for the vendors concerned. Yours for what it's worth, Jack ============================== Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 11:37:25 -0800 (PST) From: chumes@BENSON.MCKENNA.EDU To: risa-l@lists.acusd.edu Cc: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: AAR Sacred Space Message-ID: Just a quick note before I return to my paper grading. I am going to make a confession, which I hope does not doom me to a series of rejections in the future, or other sorts of divine retribution. {:| When I have created panels/sessions for RISA, I have quite deliberately included non-Hindu faiths in order to imitate successful RISA proposals in the past, and thereby make it more likely that my proposals get accepted. I have actively, and intentionally, recruited people for my panels who I knew would make my proposals more likely to get accepted, not on the basis of fame or power, but on the area studied. Perhaps people find this overly shrewd; I apologize if that intentionality is offensive to some of you. It is not purely strategic on my part. RISA's emphasis on multiplicity and inclusion is definitely good in many ways, because it does cause people to include the lesser-represented religions, and also to question boundaries. In short, it appeals to what I have liked about the religion in south asia section. In fact, it is the interstices that have appealed to me most, and I remain very interested in Hindu-Muslim boundaries, for instance, a subject which I had intended to write a proposal for in New Orleans, but learned that I was scooped by Bruce Lawrence's group, so I sent in only the Goddesses and methodology panel proposal. But the emphasis may be restrictive in important ways. I know I may cause some controversy here, but I worry that it leaves out a lot of centers, and focus, and it may even blur edges of reality that do exist. I have had a lot of ideas for panels that I have talked about with people, but decided that it wasn't Raysal enough; it was too focused on Hinduism alone. Is there a place in RISA-L for panels on Hinduism alone? Indian Buddhism alone? Indian Islam alone? Gosh, I have postponed this message three times, and self-censored it, too; if you are reading this, I have accidentally hit the control x keys instead of control o . . . Cynthia Ann Humes Claremont McKenna College (909) 607-2503 Department of Religious Studies (909) 621-8419 fax 850 Columbia Avenue chumes@mckenna.edu Claremont, CA 91711 ============================== Date: Fri, 13 Dec 96 13:45:02 CST From: Andrew Fort To: Subject: Hindu traditions group Message-ID: <13DEC96.14850740.0011.MUSIC@TCUAMUS> I also would vote for a Hindu traditions group in addition to RISA--if we have sufficient numbers to make the case to the AAR, and if we could keep our very valuable collegiality. Perhaps we could start with a "group" instead of a "section." Then we could still meet together on Sunday afternoon. One of my reasons for favoring such a group is to have more room for more traditional textual work--while I know that the Sanskrit/Vedanta/philosophy material I work on has been privileged in the past, it isn't now. Additional sessions in other areas would also be welcome, and if the sessions are carefully scheduled, the competition shouldn't be too fierce. Andy Andrew O. Fort, Religion Dept. A.FORT@TCU.EDU Texas Christian University Fort Worth TX 76129 ============================== Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 16:12:34 -0500 (EST) From: "Douglas R. Brooks" To: risa-l@lists.acusd.edu Subject: Correction, Apologies Message-ID: <199612132112.QAA05100@troi.cc.rochester.edu> Jim Lochtefeld noticed, I noticed, I wrote Kathleen to apologize for the misattribution of the wonderfully whimsical term, The Religion Formally/Formerly Known as Hinduism. Now which was/is it? I prefer the former of Formally, but are there others who prefer the latter of Formerly? Did I get any of this right? Sorry for the bandwidth, Douglas Douglas R. Brooks Professor of Religion and Chair of the Committee on Asian Studies University of Rochester Rochester, NY 14627 ============================== Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 09:59:11 -0700 (MST) From: Bruce.Sullivan@nau.edu To: risa-l@lists.acusd.edu Subject: Re: Hindu traditions group Message-ID: <01ICZVAX253201AZ2Z@NAUVAX.UCC.NAU.EDU> I would also like to strongly encourage our current RISA leadership to enter into discussions with AAR. Perhaps a RISA section AND a Hinduism section would be appropriate. I would not mind have a richer set of offerings from which to choose at each annual meeting. Bruce M. Sullivan Associate Professor, Religious Studies Coordinator of Asian Studies Northern Arizona University ============================== Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 12:36:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Cort@CC.DENISON.EDU (John E. Cort) To: risa-l@lists.acusd.edu Subject: Re: Hindu traditions & RISA Message-ID: <01ID00Z52KDU002EV3@CC.DENISON.EDU> Dear colleagues: Rather than deal with the growing stacks of papers & blue-books, let me weigh into the discussion. I was one of those on the RISA steering committee who dissented from the idea of forming a separate Hinduism(s) (or whatever) group, and so let me explain some of my reasoning, and also bring in some of the issues raised by others. And let me give the standard disclaimer that these represent my own thoughts, and are in no way representative of either the RISA steering committee or the International House of Radio. (1) Collegiality. Whether this would be affected by breaking into 2 groups is not fully clear, although I suspect it would be lessened. The collegiality of RISA is important; it allows us to have intelligent conversations rather than ad hominem arguments; it allows us to pursue collaborative approaches to the study of South Asia, rather than be a field in which numerous egos stake out positions. One of the reasons why I attend AAR on a regular basis but AAS irregularly is precisely because of the collegiality of the former. (2) Quality control. I'm not convinced that we could propose twice as many panels without a serious loss of quality. It may be that a separate Hinduism section would result in a siggnificant number of quality panels that otherwise would not have been proposed, but I'm sceptical. I would like to see the evidence first. (3) Time management. I'm definitely not convinced that an increase in panels wouldn't just result in much smaller attendance at every panel. As it was this year, of the six panels RISA sponsored this year, two fine ones were very sparsely attended. Granted, one was the third RISA panel on a busy day, and the other was in the conference-sesa on Tuesday morning. But let's be realistic; how many of us would attend any more panels than we already do? And as a result, how many panels would be lightly attended? I am of the opinion that a smaller number of well-attended quality panels is preferable to a larger number of less-well-attended panels of greater range in quality. (4) Theoretical. One of the positive developments in RISA in recent years has been the number of panels and papers that bring Islam into our discussions. The recent discussion of South Asian Christianity indicates a lacuna that I hope will be addressed. Perhaps Cynthia Humes is right, that we over privelege panels organized around themes addressed from multiple ('Hindu,' Sikh, Jain, Muslim, &c.) perspectives; but the methodological recognition that any discussion of religion in south asia has to start with the sheer fact of diversity marks one of our strengths. Most panels start with aspects of religion in south asia that are actually in some sort of interaction, rather than with reified aspects that have been abstracted from any recognizably authentic context; I think this is positive. I would argue that our greatest problem in RISA is not the lack of panels addressed specifically to 'Hinduism,' but our inability to get more people involved in South Asian Buddhism to RISA. I won't go into my critique of the problems that have resulted from the creation of 'Buddhist Studies' as an autonomous field, but I think we're all aware that both sides (Buddhist Studies and RISA) are the poorer for the lack of extensive interaction between the two. I fear the creation of a 'Hinduism/s' section might have a similar result, although obviously not an identical one. This might sound self-serving, coming from someone whose research specialty is Jainism; but this is how I teach 'Hinduism' and I think it is the sound way of approaching things in south asia. It wasn't all that many years ago that instead of 'south asian studies' the field was construed as 'Indian studies'; let's not reverse this laudable move. (5) The other side of the coin. At the same time, Cynthia Humes's comments about the appearance of an orthodox form of RISA panels, and Andy Fort's comments that certain areas of inquiry are being left out, give me pause. There is no doubt that the six of us on the steering committee all share certain similarities in approach, and a number of us are as much 'area studies' people as 'religious studies.' [So, as an aside to my fellow steering committee members, maybe we need to be more careful that our own predelictions are not unduly shaping the panel-selection process.] But I also think that some of the burden lies upon those people proposing panels. Any panel proposal should include, in addition to individually sound papers, a clear exposition as to why the panel as a totality would speak to RISA at large. This past year I felt that several panel proposals contained good papers but involved more the panelists speaking to themselves rather than speaking to RISA as a whole. (In this I know I don't speak for RISA as a whole, as the steering committee has discussed the possible implications of the fact that different of us use different criteria for judging proposals.) In sum, I think that splitting RISA into 2 sections would be a loss. And I urge those who feel that specific aspects of religion in south asia are underrepresented at AAR panels to accept the responsibility for organizing good panels on those topics. And if anyone would like some extra bluebooks to grade, I'll be glad to express mail them! I also have a nice selection in late-model papers ... in peace -- John Cort ============================== Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 09:40:20 +0000 From: "Lance Nelson" To: risa-l@lists.acusd.edu Subject: Re: AAR Sacred Space Message-ID: <199612141742.JAA12512@pwa.acusd.edu > On 13 Dec 96 at 11:38, chumes@BENSON.MCKENNA.EDU wrote: > When I have created panels/sessions for RISA, I have quite deliberately > included non-Hindu faiths in order to imitate successful RISA proposals in the > past, and thereby make it more likely that my proposals get accepted. I have > actively, and intentionally, recruited people for my panels who I knew would > make my proposals more likely to get accepted, not on the basis of fame or > power, but on the area studied. > > Perhaps people find this overly shrewd; I apologize if that intentionality is > offensive to some of you. I don't find it offensive. I have been advised in the past by steering committee members and others to adjust proposals on the basis of similar calculations: make it less textual, include more women, make it more representative of non-Hindu South Asian traditions, etc. I don't know exactly what this means, or if it is somehow inauthentic (or just pragmatic). I suppose it does mean that anyone with a panel idea on exclusively Hindu concerns might feel somewhat disenfranchised. Back to grading . . . Lance ------------------------ Lance Nelson Religious Studies University of San Diego lnelson@pwa.acusd.edu ============================== Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 13:06:06 +0000 From: "Lance Nelson" To: risa-l@lists.acusd.edu Subject: (Fwd) Error Condition Re: Re: Hindu traditions group Message-ID: <199612152107.NAA15178@pwa.acusd.edu > Message from Lloyd Pflueger, forwarded because of techinical glitch. LN ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Dear RISA friends, I too would like to support both a RISA and a Hindu Traditions group--I think there is room for both--not "losing a daughter but gaining a son" so to speak. I am not sure about the dowry, however. That will have to be worked out by the leadership. I think it is a real shame that Hinduism does not have its own special section. There are, I believe, also still things to say with more traditional textual studies--let's have both. Holiday greetings. Lloyd ============================== Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 14:32:31 -0600 (CST) From: ROBERT MINOR To: risa-l@lists.acusd.edu Cc: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Hindu traditions & RISA Message-ID: I was both on the last steering committee of the Religion in Modern India Group and the first combined steering committee of the Religion in South Asia Group. Part of the reason for the broader designation was a recognition of the interaction of all the traditions of South Asia on any topic. I applaud the conscientiousness of past steering committees who sought to see to it that the panels reflect what we all know is so obvious to any geographical area. I think there was, and is, a definite advantage to looking at south Asia without the barriers of the "isms." This reified entity called "Hinduism," whatever it is, does not exist in isolation. Yet, it would be good to add another section of panels. Is there not another more creative way to do so than separating "Hinduism" out of the tradition? Can we do so by religious phenomena like texts, thought, ritual, etc.? There must be someone more creative than me who can do this Bob Minor University of Kansas ============================== Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 16:50:49 -0500 (EST) From: Brad Clough To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Hindu traditions & RISA Message-ID: If anyone is keeping tabs on the many responses to the question of a separate AAR group/section on Hinduism, I would just like to simply weigh in at this time and say that I wholly concur with John Cort's recent comments on the issue. I actually have a couple of (hopefully!) substantive comments to add, especially regarding John's Point #3 on the place of South Asian Buddhism in the RISA, but they will have to wait until I emerge from an avalanche of tests and papers. More later... -Brad Clough ============================== Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 12:33:30 -0400 From: Gene Thursby To: risa-l@lists.acusd.edu Subject: Re: Hindu traditions & RISA Message-ID: <199612171736.MAA02502@clas.ufl.edu> John Cort's statement (with seconds from Bob Minor and others) has reminded me of what the Green Revolution taught some people earlier -- in this real (read that: reified) world the strong tend to get stronger, the big bigger, the rich richer. A presumed "expansion" of South Asian interests into a separate Hinduism unit and a residual RISA successor unit would not assure continued attention to the less populous traditions. A few years ago a few members of RISA expressed concern that Sikh tradition had been given very little attention in the AAR. An informal interest group with no official standing got together and put together a panel proposal which was accepted. The result might be of interest, in fact, to social historians because it brought N. Gerald (Jerry) Barrier out from the book exhibit to present a solid paper. He was one of three. The others were the young, already embattled and accomplished, Harjot Oberoi, and one of the most senior international scholars in Sikh studies, the esteemed W. H. McLeod. The panel was worthy on its own, but also a tribute to the care given to circulating the sacred speaking space. Wearing all of their hats, dupattas, and turbans, the RISA board have been doing an admirable job of attending to multiple interests within the worlds of scholarship and of scholars in recent years. This is a tradition one would not wish to lose. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Gene Thursby http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/gthursby/ ============================== Date: Tue, 17 Dec 96 00:45:20 -0600 From: Ron Neufeldt To: risa-l@lists.acusd.edu Subject: Re: Hindu traditions & RISA Message-ID: I would like to support the statements by Minor and Thursby. Like Minor, I was on the steering committee of Religion in Modern India at the time that Modern India and Hinduism were brought together to form RISA. I am still of the opinion that that was the right thing to do and would not like to see it undone. To use an old cliche: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Gene's observation about a panel on Skhs is instructive. The problem is not the structure. There should be ample room in the existing structure for panels on Hindu traditions, textual studies or anything else. ron neufeldt University of Calgary ============================== Re: AAR Sacred Space To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: AAR Sacred Space From: chumes@BENSON.MCKENNA.EDU Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 17:17:00 -0800 Reply-To: risa-l@lists.acusd.edu Sender: risa-l@lists.acusd.edu The conversation has died down about a possible Hinduism section or group. I looked over the responses, and it seems the input falls into the following categories. I fall on the "pro-creating" a greater venue for Hinduism or some type of expansion of RISA, so I don't pretend to objectivity. Con: 1) What we have already works; don't fix something that is not broken. Pro: 1) A significant number of people have expressed that while RISA is not "broken", it could be improved or expanded. Their sentiments are recorded and/or reinterpreted below. Con: 2) Hinduism is already covered sufficiently. Pro: 2) "Hinduism" is not adequately covered at the AAR through our RISA section, because: a) although it is one of the more populous religions of the world, it is treated only in a single section, compared with the dozens of sections on Christianity and Judaism in AAR/SBL. Even there, proposals on it compete with the likes of proposals such as popular Southasian Christianity, for example, a religion that comprises an infinitesimal number of people by comparison (but is a subject that is still much larger -- and in my mind, more compelling -- than the half-verse of Deuteronomy which might be the subject of an entire panel in some of the SBL sections, for example). Instead of arguing amongst ourselves about the respective merits of Southasian Christianity versus Hinduism, why aren't we asking the merits of Religion in South Asia and Hinduism versus the representation of those religions and subjects which occupy the most attention of the AAR? b) As Lochterfield has pointed out, Hinduism does not appear only in South Asia c) the panels in RISA tend to be comparative rather than focused on specific "hindu" topics, both by design (the section is deliberately comparative) and by default (those are the panels more likely to "speak to the whole" -- John Cort). Con: 3) Hinduism should be studied in context, which means comparing to other Southasian religions. Pro: This is a valuable approach, but there is also virtue in studying detailed topics, such as scriptures and specific philosophies, which is done throughout the AAR/SBL for Christianity and Judaism, but is rarely done in RISA because of its comparative focus Hinduism is not just a Southasian Religion. 4) We have wonderful congeniality, which should not be threatened. All agreed with this. Some responded that they saw no reason why this had to be threatened by creating more space, however. 5) The topic "hinduism" is problematic; perhaps something more "creative" should be used. What would be some good alternatives, and what are the motives for avoiding this title? Since "hindus" have appropriated the term, are we too quick in dismissing it? 6) There is doubt that we could get quality proposals for the new slots. As Thursby said, there may be wisdom in providing more "elbow room" in the AAR. A quick look at the "comarative studies in religion" sections in New Orleans reveals that many Southasianists have already found another venue for comparison projects which closely mimic what RISA does. I haven't heard one complaint about this. I don't remember anyone answering one query I had, which was whether the Hinduism and Religion in Modern India groups were "sections" or "groups" or whatnot. When RISA was created, was there an addition to the slots? Was there a decrease? John Cort has expressed misgiving about the Buddhism section's effects on Buddhism and its representations in RISA, which to my mind is a tad strange, given how few Indian Buddhists exist, and how much more common it is to see panels on the present Southasia in RISA, rather than the past. It is nevertheless a legitimate concern, and I am aware that he might be especially concerned given his area of research. But I wonder, again, how many people would participate more readily if they did not have to be so comparative, and could speak from a more secure position drawing on their own expertise? How many bodies are considered important in an audience? Could anyone respond as to the average number of attendance for panels in other sessions? This might be a fruitful line of inquiry. I, too, enjoy the great feeling of togetherness at these gatherings, knowing I will run into some of my favorite people in the world if I just attend the session at 2:45 on Saturday in the Whatever Ballroom. . . Thanks to all for such thoughtful responses to my query, Cynthia Cynthia Ann Humes Claremont McKenna College (909) 607-2503 Department of Religious Studies (909) 621-8419 fax 850 Columbia Avenue chumes@mckenna.edu Claremont, CA 91711 ==================================== Re: AAR Sacred Space To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: AAR Sacred Space From: nancy.falk@wmich.edu Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 09:55:42 -0800 Reply-To: risa-l@lists.acusd.edu Sender: risa-l@lists.acusd.edu In answer to the question re the initial Hinduism and Religion in South Asia slots in the AAR: in my best recollection, both were 'Groups.' Hence creation of the section would have added slots. Nancy Falk ==========END OF FILE===============