Showing posts with label intellectual history. Show all posts
Showing posts with label intellectual history. Show all posts

7 Questions with Lilian Calles Barger: The World Come of Age

Cover for   The World Come of Age       I corresponded recently with Lilian Calles Barger about her new book, The World Come of Age: An Intellectual History of Liberation Theology (Oxford University Press). Lilian is a historian, author, women and gender consultant. She is currently a podcast co-host for New Books Network covering women and gender, religion, intellectual history and American Studies. Her research interests include the historical development of social, religious and feminist thought in modern America with a particular expertise in women and gender history. Visit her website (www.lilianbarger.com) or follow her on twitter (@lilianbarger)

Tell us about how you became interested in liberation theology

I have been thinking about the history of theology in general for a long time. Women’s history and feminist theory was something I was interested in and reading in the 1990s. I found feminist theologians referring to Black and Latin American liberation theology and curious to find out more about that connection. My own background as a Latin American immigrant to the U.S. and my interest in feminism gave me two legs of a three-legged stool. The exposure to African American history completed the triad and deepened my interest in the question of how and why these three theologies of liberation emerged independently and yet simultaneously in the late 1960s. That was a historical question no one was addressing and I found intriguing.



Because I have read a lot of theology across traditions I know it’s not nailed down or unchanging. The theological field is one that since the early twentieth century has gone on its merry way largely ignored by other humanistic disciplines. I think that is a mistake because of its vast influence over individuals and communities. We tend to concentrate on the social and political effects rather than on the source. As historians, I think we can bring some outside accountability to that field through our critical examination. I say this with all due respect to the many professional theologians I know.

Could you tell the blog readers a bit about your method? You call your work a "cultural history of liberationist ideas" and also "a cultural history of thought." The method hones in on specific texts written by liberationists, but it also provides deep political and social context going all the way back, in some places, to early modern political theology. The chapter on the social sciences and liberation theology engages pragmatism, Comte, and Marx. I found this very effective. It would be great to hear more about how you developed this approach.

I went into history, and specific intellectual history, because I was interested in how ideas, emerge, change, adapt and influence people’s lives socially, politically, and culturally over long spans of time. This interested arose from a life-long practice of observation. A cultural history of thought was a method I gained from my brilliant graduate advisor Daniel Wickberg. It fit with my already formed interest in the history of ideas.

A cultural history of thought supported my interest in getting beyond abstracted philosophical or theological arguments of a few “great “ thinkers. It allowed me to view ideas in the context of lived culture giving them concrete on the ground significance.  My other influence came from the sociology of knowledge in which ideas are cultural artifacts or create the environments in which we all live. It does take a strong anthropological approach to historical change. This way of approaching the continuous generation and regeneration of ideas is something that I will continue to apply.

The origins of liberation theology are geographic, chronological and intellectual. In your chapter “The Political is the Total” you also show that the origins of the movement are in the realization that theology is not autonomous from the political and that “politics constituted all theology.” Tell the blog readers about this realization among thinkers like Cone, Gutierrez, and others.  How does this connect to the argument that God is with the oppressed?

The idea that all theology is political is one of the most significant challenges to modern theology that the liberationists as a group took up. They did not believe that elite white male thinkers, who constructed modern theology in Europe and the U.S., could read the Bible with pure openness. Their position of social power created a bias. They found in the text what they were looking for to justify their political and social position.

Liberationists turned it around. They did not believe that theologians, like anyone else, could escape ideology (capitalist, racist, or sexist) that colored their reading. Recognizing that ideology was inescapable, what mattered was the nature of ideology and whether it furthered freedom or subjugation. As liberation theologians, they brought to the text a prior commitment to the oppressed and applied Marxist and critical race and feminist theories and found within the text the idea of a holistic salvation for blacks, women and the poor overlooked by other theologians.
During the turmoil of the 1960s and 70s, liberationists came to identify the oppressed as knowing something about God arising from their own experience. What oppressed people heard or read in the Bible was significantly different because of the situation of oppression. An example I like to give: If two people are praying and one is a rich and male Wall Street banker and the other a poor single black mother, how are their prayers different? What they find by way of religion differs because of their individual social positions. This is obvious to us now, but theology had virtually ignored it believing that classic and modern hermeneutical tools were sufficient to discover the meaning of the text.  Liberationists sought to validate a reading “from below” by recognizing it as a valid theology. For them, a theology that ignored oppressed people in their struggle was ultimately an abstraction that made it irrelevant to the social or political situation and could not bring about the radical social change they saw as necessary.

How would taking theology more seriously change the fields of American Religious History and US Intellectual History?’

Religious history and intellectual history are close siblings. When we think of historians of American religion such as Perry Miller, Sydney E. Ahlstrom and Mark Noll, they are all concerned with religious ideas and how they shaped the nation’s political and social life. Recently, Molly Worthen and Christopher Grasso have followed in those footsteps. For historians of religion attending to theology in both formal and popular forms, not just lived religion or institutions, can expand the field to demonstrate how religious ideas combine with other systems of thought to bring about disruption and continuity.

As the work of applying a specific hermeneutic to the biblical text, Christian theology, particularly of the Protestant kind, is continually changing and adapting to social and political environments and influencing them in return. For example, the Protestant Reformation’s doctrine of the priesthood of all believers and justification by faith became a basis for the ascendancy of modern democracy. It’s not the whole story, but surely part of it.

It’s easy to think that the theology of a conservative evangelical like Carl F. H. Henry, considered the theological father of the Christian right, remained strictly within an unchanging dogma. More attention needs to given to Henry and how his theology changed and its political ramifications. I only touch on this in my book but intrigued by its possibly for illuminating the theological foundation for the rise of the Christian right. Like any other field of thought we might investigate, the language of theology is learned.

The field of intellectual history has experienced a revival in the last couple of decades but it has also narrowed by often excluding theological thought in understanding movements like pragmatism, critical theory, feminism and political conservatives and radicals. We tend to understand these in non-religious terms. By attending to change in theological thinking, intellectual history can offer a fuller more robust description of the constitution and dissemination of ideas. Maybe because the fields of intellectual and religious history have produced a huge amount of scholarly work they have forgotten that they need each other.  We need to bring these back closer together and I see good signs this is happening.

Of all the thinkers you write about, both secular religious, both more contemporary and distant, do you have a favorite?

I don’t think much about individual thinkers but rather I pay attention to ideas and always have. Asked if I have any intellectual heroes, my answer is generally no, but I’m impressed by the power of certain ideas and their eloquent expression. I admire a probing mind that offers insight for understanding the social world especially that of William James, Karl Mannheim, Simone de Beauvoir, Juan Luis Segundo, Rosemary Radford Ruether, and James Cone. I’m generally interested in how cultures are constructed and the embeddedness of individuals so I have a keen interest in social theory. Those thinkers who take that on have my full attention.

Your book recovers a very important and unexpected chapter in the history of secularization. Tell the blog readers about how the liberationists' efforts to secularize religion changes the way we think of modernity. 

Our work in intellectual and religious history needs to be continually suspicious of the categorical secular/sacred split. Asking what counts as religion, or theological thinking, is the first step. That’s not settled. Instead of seeing religion as under assault by secularizing forces or of religious incursions into the secular state, I think the main story is about them being mutually constitutive. Modernity has been a movement toward a unified political order in which there is no room for a challenge by any other realm or interest. The field of political theology is critically examining the phenomena and offers historians a theoretical scheme.

Liberationists, as political theologians, marked a critical historical junction as theology was breaking through its artificial sequestering and  “secular” thinkers were recognizing its power to both legitimate social structures and challenge them. This was the end of private religion and the start of recognizing that religion(s) offered competing social visions for society that often clashed with the goals of a liberal state. America is now again at another critical point in which a new “war of religions” has emerged between the religious right and the religious left. The religious left has gained strength and visibility. This is a political conflict in which different views of God and God’s will is at the center in regard to human sexuality, the meaning of social justice and the nation’s self-definition. The question now is whether the liberal state can negotiate that conflict and maintain its preeminence.

What are you working on next?

I’ve started a research project on the long cultural history of feminist thought and how it led to the gender revolution we are experiencing today. I have wanted to do this work for a long time. I set it aside for the topic of liberation theology for a variety of reasons.

Of course, the relationship between feminism and changing gender norms is both one of affinity and conflict in which the political, scientific and philosophical come into play. I believe that religious ideas play a significant part in redefining what it means to be a woman, a man or non-binary. Ultimately, questions of gender equality are moral questions on how we will live and organize society as gendered and sexual being. There is much to do in the way of research but the field literature is vast and extremely fruitful.

Thank you!

spacer

Religion at the Ninth Annual Meeting of the Society for U.S. Intellectual History



Image result for 9th annual s-usih conference
I did not attend all of the panels on religion at the Ninth Annual Meeting of the Society for U.S. Intellectual History. My brief reflections here are in response to the panels I did attend (including my own) but I also make mention of the many projects of interest to our readers. I left with two questions and bring attention to two trends.

 S-USIH offers a space for historians of religion from various organizations – the ASCH, the ACHA, the AAR, etc.  – to meet and explore common interests. The common thread at the 9th Annual S-USIH is an interest in how the study of religion overlaps with the study of thought more broadly.



Two Questions: Synthesis and Lived Religion

Related image
The Mapparium 
Can intellectual history provide us with tools to build a coherent narrative of America’s religious history even in the face of tremendous pluralism? What themes can intellectual history offer historians of religion? Panels offered familiar conceptual devices to gather religion under the umbrella of “Civil Religion” or “The Public Sphere.” Papers approached these canopies from a diversity of angles. Sarah Georgini considered the message sent by the Christian Scientists with the construction of the Mapparium. Her paper made the important point that the craftsmen and architects who labored to materialize a religious vision are the subjects of American intellectual history. David Mislin examined the concept of evil in liberal Protestants’ midcentury theology. Rachel Gordon analyzed middlebrow Jewish literature published in the 1940s and 1950s, weighing its effects on Jewish citizenship. In a panel on Civil Religion, audiences explored John Foster Dulles’s Manichean worldview (John D. Wilsey); the supra-national thought of Jerry Falwell (James M. Patterson); Congress placing “In God We Trust” on its rostrum to spite the Supreme Court’s decision in Engel v. Vitale (Fred W. Beuttler); Protestants and Catholics using human rights language to shape politics in Latin America (Lauren F. Turek); and a linguistic analysis of American exceptionalism from George W. Bush to Barack Obama (Hilde Eliassen Restad). Pluralism, one of the cornerstones of our field, was on full display in Dallas. Panels ran across the denominational (Presbyterians, Jews, Catholics, Christian Scientists) and trans-denomination (evangelical, liberal protestant) axes. Panels also implied that “anxiety” and “crisis” shaped religious life in the US. A panel featuring Daniel Williams, John Compton, and Benjamin Leavitt – chaired by Molly Worthen – considered mid-century religious thought in an “Anxious Age.”

Image result for congress rostrum in god we trust
In God We Trust, Congress's Rostrum 
We might permit ourselves a moment to dwell on the ability of intellectual history to bring the congeries of religious history under a synthetic roof.  All of these religions enter into public space from their own institutional positions. Hence, there is utility in bundling religion into a broader Public Sphere or a Civil Religion.


We might also dwell on how religious pluralism feeds into the broader theme of “The Culture of Democracy.” James Kloppenberg’s Toward Democracy makes the case that the ethical teachings of Christianity, and the small Protestant towns of New England, facilitated the rise of our current democratic political horizons. Papers by Benjamin E. Park, Matthew Bowman, and Lily Santoro considered “Protestant Democratic Culture,” “Civic Religion,” and the concept of “Fit Christian Citizens.” My own paper looked at how Catholics fit into culture of democracy: culture, meaning a series of practices, ideas, and ideals to work towards.Gale Kenny ended a roundtable on the state of the field of religious history with a provocative question: is US Intellectual History Protestant history? 

How will intellectual historians address the issues raised by historians of lived religion? The theory of lived religion – and its emergence out of archival sources – poses a serious epistemological challenge to intellectual historians. Cultural history dwells on the incongruous nature of religion or its eclectic nature. Religious thoughts are seen as provisional and experimental. At the state of the field panel, Erin Bartram raised the question about the relationship between sources in the intellectual history canon where religion appears organized and sources like diaries in which subjects feed off multiple fonts of religious ideas.  The panel considered the issue at length but never shied away from the suggestion that the archives – and certain methods of social history – are a boon to intellectual history and the history of religious thought. Rendering religion into a systematic body of thought with the tools of intellectual history remains a productive endeavor for our field and for understanding religion more broadly. Dan Hummel’s paper raised the question of how the historian of religion – while “taking religion seriously” – also considers how religion is shaped by other realms of behavior: social, cultural, economic, and political.  Ben Wright responded with a question of what it might mean to be seduced by religious subjects who wanted the people around them to think they were religious. The state of the field panel considered how to balance the fairly streamlined content of doctrine next to the messiness of religion in the lives our subjects. How should intellectual historians approach these problems?

Trends: International History and Gender 

American religion is very much “out in the world,” as panels in Dallas amply demonstrated.  S-USIH conference presenters operate in the jet stream of Andrew Preston’s Sword of the Spirit, Shield of Faith: Religion in American War and Diplomacy and David Hollinger’s Protestants Abroad: How Missionaries Tried to Change the World but Changed America. Woodrow Wilson’s social gospel now plays an important role in American empire (Cara Burnidge), missionaries imbued science in Hawaii with the divine (Tracy Laevelle), and religion, of course, also challenged empire (Ray Haberski). As mentioned above, Lauren Turek’s work brings the fields of American religion and international human rights history into conversation. Emily Conroy-Krutz’s paper on the state of the field panel considered how recent books by Christine Heyrman and Michael Altman study religion abroad to illumine religious issues in America. Conroy-Krutz makes the important point that recent scholarship has portrayed missionaries both as purveyors of bias and important sources of cosmopolitanism.  The subjects we study in the field of American religious history go out into the world and think about a wide range of issues. Religion is exported as well as imported.



Image result for mike altman hindooImage result for christine heyrman islam

Women’s and gender history intersected with long-standing research trends in the field of American Intellectual and religious history.  These approaches are producing new insights into old questions. Erin Bartram offered an analysis of how gender shapes the construction of the female self in the nineteenth century. Religion and religious questions are involved in the construction of the self and the recognition of boundaries between the individual and society. Elesha Coffman discussed the ways the legacy of Betty Friedan occluded historians’ understandings of Margaret Mead, the subject of her new book Oxford’s Spirited Lives series. Andrea Turpin’s paper considered women from both sides of the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy. Elizabeth H. Flowers asked why women were so involved in spreading the doctrine of inerrancy in the late twentieth century. Karen K. Seat looked at how ideas of women’s labor helped to explain the general turn towards neo-conservative policy during and after the Reagan era. These papers demonstrated that women thinkers and ideas about gender shaped key trends in American history: the rise of the self, fundamentalism, the rise of the right, second wave feminism, and neoliberalism.





spacer

Religion at the U.S. Intellectual History Conference

Andrea L. Turpin

I am looking forward to the annual conference of the Society for U.S. Intellectual History (S-USIH) this coming weekend, October 26-29, 2017, at the Dallas/Plano Marriott at Legacy Town Center! (This Baylor professor got lucky with travel this year.)


One of the striking things about the program is how many papers related to American religion it contains. Indeed, this blog is exceptionally well represented. I am presenting, as are four fellow bloggers: Pete Cajka, Elesha Coffman, Lauren Turek, and blogmeister Cara Burnidge. Literally every time slot of panels save the very last one (which meets at 10am Sunday morning) has at least one paper on U.S. religious history--and more than one time slot has two entire panels on U.S. religion meeting simultaneously. There's a good mix of full panels on religious history and individual papers relating religion to a panel dedicated to a different main topic. Another encouraging sign of the vitality of the field is that the religious historians presenting at the conference span all career stages from graduate student to full professor.

Probably the most common themes in the papers are the connections between religious thought and politics/economics or women/gender. Other papers explore the intersection of religious thought with ideas about empire, education, and science. Judaism, Catholicism, and Protestantism--both conservative and liberal--are all reasonably well represented, with liberal Protestantism the most common. In the future, I would love to see more papers on the religious thought of people of color and religious thought beyond the boundaries of Christianity and Judaism.

I've listed below in bold the papers and panels explicitly featuring American religion. They give a good sense of the state of the field of the intersection of U.S. religious and intellectual history. Enjoy!

2017 USIH CONFERENCE SCHEDULE

Friday, October 27, 2017

8:00 AM – 9:40 AM                 Session I

“Religious Ideas: A State-of-the-Field Roundtable based on 19th and 20th Century American History” (roundtable)
Moderator:  Gale Kenny, Barnard College
Emily Conroy-Krutz, Michigan State University
Daniel Hummel, Harvard University
Peter Cajka, Notre Dame
Jacob Hiserman, Baylor University

“Humanisms in Twentieth Century American Culture” (panel)
 Chair/Comment:  Elisabeth Lasch-Quinn, Syracuse University
 Paul Murphy, Grand Valley State University, “Two Humanisms – Separate and Distinct, Conservative and Progressive – and the Belief in an American Mind”
 Stephen P. Weldon, University of Oklahoma, “Intellectuals and the Role of Liberal Religion as a Change Agent in 20th-Century America: The Example of American Humanism”
 Emily J. Griffin, University of Oklahoma, “Post-War Industrial America and the Shaping of the
Humanistic Worldviews of Kurt and Bernard Vonnegut”

 
“Modern Moral Causes in Context” (panel) (a/v)
Chair: Lilian Calles Barger, Independent Scholar
Chris Babits, University of Texas at Austin, “Curing the Fallen: Women Conversion Therapists, Freudianism, and Prayer in the 1970s and 1980s”
Alexander Steele, University of Minnesota, “Black Lives Matter: History, Memory, and the Politics of Dissent”
Adam Shapiro, “Does the March for Science Have an Intellectual History?”
Comment: audience

10:00 AM – 11:40 AM             Session II

Annuit Coeptis: Forms of Civil Religion in the Midst of Crisis, 1953-2012” (roundtable)
Moderator: Ethan Schrum, Azusa Pacific University
Hilde Eliassen Restad, Bjørknes College
John D. Wilsey, Princeton University
James M. Patterson, Ave Maria University
Fred W. Beuttler, University of Chicago
Lauren F. Turek, Trinity University

1:30 PM – 3:10 PM                 Session III

“Religion and Nationalism in Early America” (panel)
Chair/Comment: Emily Conroy-Krutz, Michigan State University
Katherine Carté Engel, Southern Methodist University, “The Shallow Roots of American Religious Nationalism”
Ben Wright, University of Texas at Dallas, “Nationalism, Denominationalism, and the Benevolent Empire”
William Black, Rice University, “Cumberland Presbyterians and the Project of the Christian Nation”

3:30 PM – 5:10 PM                 Session IV

“Fundamentalists v. Feminists? Reevaluating the Role of Women and Gender in Conservative Protestant Political Engagement” (panel)
Chair/Comment: Daniel K. Williams, University of West Georgia
Andrea L. Turpin, Baylor University, “Women Between Fundamentalism and Modernism: Fusing Conservative Theology and Progressive Politics in the Presbyterian Church and the YWCA”
Elizabeth H. Flowers, Texas Christian University, “From Eve’s Curse to Eden’s Blessing: Submission, Complementarianism, and the Gendering of Inerrancy”
Karen K. Seat, University of Arizona, “The Symbiosis of Social and Fiscal Conservatives: Gender and Human Care in a Neoliberal World”

7:00 – 9:00 PM                        Friday Plenary Roundtable    

Toward Democracy as Faith or Doubt”
Moderator: Christopher Cameron, University of North Carolina, Charlotte
Caleb McDaniel, Rice University
Amanda Porterfield, Florida State University
Manisha Sinha, University of Connecticut
Daniel Wickberg, University of Texas at Dallas
Respondent: James Kloppenberg, Harvard University

Saturday, October 28, 2017

8:00 AM – 9:40 AM                 Session V

“U.S. Women and Transatlantic Intellectual Cultures in the Nineteenth Century” (panel)
Chair/Comment: Sarah Gardner, Mercer University
Paul Gutacker, Baylor University, “Church Fathers and ‘Nursing Mothers’: Adaptations of Religious Historiography by Antebellum Women Historians”
Jonathan G. Koefoed, Belhaven University, “Harriet Beecher Stowe: A Transatlantic Romanticist”
Joel Iliff, Baylor University, “The Sable Wings of Skepticism: Antebellum Southern Women, German Thought, and Intellectual Crises of Faith”
Sara S. Frear, Houston Baptist University, “Seeing Farther: Mary Virginia Terhune Interprets Darwin for Her Readers”

“How to Make an ‘American Century’: Religion and the Shaping of the Modern Public Sphere” (panel)
Chair/Comment: Ray Haberski
Sara Georgini, Massachusetts Historical Society, “Making the Mapparium”
David Mislin, Temple University, “‘A Great Time to Be Alive’?: The Midcentury Protestant Establishment and the Memory of the Past”
Rachel Gordan, Brandeis University, “’Introduction to Judaism’ Literature”
 
10:00 AM – 11:40 AM             Session VI

“Markers of Memory in the Long 19th Century” (panel) (a/v)
Chair: Leslie A. Butler, Dartmouth College
Erin Bartram, University of Hartford, “’Jane’s mind desires intensely demonstration in all things’: Experiments in Imperfect Happiness in Antebellum America”
Lauren Davis, University of Texas at Dallas, “Free Women of Color and Counter-Domesticities of the Circum-Caribbean: Plaçage, Passing, Broken Marriages, and Religious Vocation as Alternatives to the Cult of True Womanhood in New Orleans, 1765-1865”
Nicolette Gable, College of William and Mary, “Memories of History in the Mauve Decade”
Ermine Algaier, Monmouth College, “Historicizing Alice’s ‘Valuable & Much Prized by W.J.’ Bibliography: A Nostalgic Reading”
Comment: audience

“Deep in the Mind of Texas: Unsung Texas Intellectuals, 1865-1965”
Chair/Comment: Robert H. Abzug, University of Texas at Austin
David Weinfeld, Virginia Commonwealth University, “Zionist, Pragmatist, Texan: The Case of Constance Pessels”
Karen Kossie-Chernyshev, Texas Southern University, “Lillian Jones Horace (1880-1965) and Zora Neale Hurston (1890-1960): Twin Towers of Black, Southern, Female Intellectual Engagement in Comparative/Contrastive Review”
Cynthia Morales, Texas State University, “Alonso S. Perales: Defender of His ‘Race’”

“In a Mirror, Darkly: Religion, Empire, America” (panel)
Chair/Comment: Philip Goff, Center for the Study of Religion and American Culture, IUPUI
Tracy Laevelle, Creighton University “A Fatal Experiment: Missionary Science and ‘Providential Colonialism’ in Nineteenth-Century Hawaii”
Cara Burnidge, University of Northern Iowa, “Woodrow Wilson’s ‘Spiritual Mediation’ and American Empire”
Raymond Haberski, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, “Competing Affections: The Challenge of Peace and Moral Debate Over Empire”

“Faith in an Anxious Age: Religious Thought in Mid-Twentieth-Century America” (panel)
Chair/Comment: Molly Worthen, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Daniel K. Williams, University of West Georgia, “Believing in God in the 1950s: Rational Defenses of Faith among Evangelicals, Mainline Protestants, and Catholics in the Early Postwar Years”
John W. Compton, Chapman University, “Holding the Vital Center: The National Council of Churches and the Postwar Welfare State”
Benjamin P. Leavitt, Baylor University, “Experiments in Education: Robert Lincoln Kelly, the Council of Church Boards of Education, and Religious Instruction in Early Twentieth-Century Colleges and Universities”

1:30 PM – 3:10 PM                 Session VII

“Feminist Disruptions in Theory” (panel)
Chair/Comment: Andrew Hartman, Illinois State University
Matthew Brown, University of Texas at Dallas, “William Moulton Marston’s Feminist-Scientific Critique of Freud”
Elesha Coffman, Baylor University, “Margaret Mead, Betty Friedan, and the Boundaries of Feminism”
Lilian Calles Barger, Independent Scholar, “From Subjectivity to Revolution: Radical Feminism and the Uses of Marcuse”
Gregory Jones-Katz, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, “The ‘Female’ School of Deconstruction and the Transformation of Feminism, 1969-1993”

3:30 PM – 5:10 PM                 Session VIII

“Democracy and Christianity in the American Political Arena” (panel)
Chair/Comment: Elesha Coffman, Baylor University
Benjamin E. Park, Sam Houston State University, “Self-Rule in a Godly Society: Antebellum Challenges to Protestant Democratic Culture”
Matthew Bowman, Henderson State University, “Robert Bellah and the Cults: Civic Religion, Liberal Protestantism, and Democracy in an Age of Anxiety”
Lily Santoro, Southwest Missouri State University, “Scientifically Creating Righteous and Fit Christian Citizens”

“Pluralism and Democracy in the Twentieth Century” (panel)
Chair/Comment: Anne Kornhauser
Andrew Seal, Yale University, “Pluralism and Its Problems: Reconstructing the Postwar Critique of Liberal Social Science”
Tom Arnold-Forster, Cambridge University, “Populism and Pluralism after the Scopes Trial”
Merve Fejzula, Cambridge University, “Cultural Pluralism and American Democracy in Black Diasporic Thought”

“Remembering and Forgetting that Old-Time Religion in the Age of Trump” (roundtable)
Moderator: L.D. Burnett
Jeff Sharlet, Dartmouth College
Randy R. Potts, freelance writer
Molly Worthen, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Wassim Daghrir, University of Sousse

Sunday, October 29, 2017

8:00 AM – 9:40 AM                 Session IX

“Circulation of Ideas in Early Republic and Antebellum America”
Chair: Michael Landis, Tarleton State University
Rebecca Brenner, American University, “Mr. Jefferson’s Library & Mr. Madison’s War”
Samuel Davis, Temple University, “’Which all should labor to remove’: Colonization and Removal in the Old Northwest”
Daniel Roeber, Florida State University, “Delivering Religion at Reduced Rates: The Post Office and Religion in the Early Republic”
spacer

Dispatch from Berkeley: Smoke Gets in Your Eyes

Elesha Coffman

image credit here
Last week I spent a fantastic, albeit smoky, few days out at Berkeley at a workshop on "Ecumenical Protestantism and Post-Protestant Secularism in the United States," convened by David Hollinger. The elegiac song I've used in my title was inescapable. How does one define ecumenical/liberal/mainline Protestantism? "Something here inside / Cannot be denied." What has happened to it over the past century? "When a lovely flame dies / Smoke gets in your eyes." But wait--is the topic really as nebulous, and the outlook as grim, as that?

Not at all! Well, maybe. It depends on what you're talking about. But scholars are talking about this, and a case can even be made that the center of gravity in the study of American Protestantism is shifting from evangelicalism and fundamentalism toward ecumenical Protestantism and post-Protestant secularism. The "mainline moment" continues!

I can't even try to summarize all of the rich conversations from the workshop or preview all of the really exciting work in progress. Some version of the presentations might be made available in the future. In the meantime, here are just a few things that struck me:


Post-Protestant: I never understood this term before. I read it either as defeatist insider talk (Oh no, we lost the culture!) or triumphal scholar talk (Finally, we can stop being "church historians" and study the more vital, authentic religion that flourishes beyond church walls). In Berkeley, I heard it used differently, to describe the particular kind of secularism that arises when an individual, a group, or possibly a whole society ceases to identify as Protestant but carries forward a lot of Protestant ideas and impulses.

Two moments that clarified this for me: (1) Amy Kittelstrom calling attention to A Rap on Race, the dialogue in which James Baldwin declares himself to have left Christianity and Margaret Mead insists that he hasn't; (2) Kenzie Bok (who writes on John Rawls) describing modern American political philosophy as a jungle gym on which modern political philosophers play without realizing that it was built by Protestants. Or, as the latter discussion continued, maybe post-Protestantism is a house, or maybe it's a prison. At any rate, I am now convinced that this is a very useful line of analysis, and we're going to be hearing a lot more about it in coming years.

Freight and vehicle: David Hollinger used this image in the midst of a discussion about what happens when institutions dissolve or change radically. Was the institution merely the vehicle for a particular kind of (ideological) freight? What happens to the freight without the vehicle? Or are institutions more than vehicles--to use another binary David employed, not merely instrumental, but definitional? Ecumenical Protestants cared so much about their institutions, not just as vehicles for their ideas, but as goods in and of themselves. Why did they care? What happened in those institutions that didn't, perhaps couldn't, happen anywhere else?

Theology: "Did [subject of this paper] have a theology?" I heard that question after my presentation on Margaret Mead, but versions of it swirled around other papers as well. The question wasn't hostile, but its repetition made me wonder, What is "a theology"? Do even scholars of ecumenical Protestantism and post-Protestant secularism have such an old-fashioned understanding of theology (it means quoting Bible verses, describing attributes of God, and name-dropping other theologians, right?) that our research subjects don't qualify as theologians? Considering that my ASCH paper in January is on Mead's theology, I'm going to have to come up with some answers on these questions quickly.

Rest assured, ideas spinning out from Berkeley will be making appearances at USIH later this month and at ASCH/AHA in January. It's a good time to be studying ... whatever we call this.


spacer