tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3417352582429078455.post2213237994413747476..comments2023-07-27T08:56:13.496-07:00Comments on SHAKE WELL BEFORE USING: SECULAR STUDIES IN THE NY TIMES AND HERE AT PITZERDaniel A. Segalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01804407462659738136noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3417352582429078455.post-57955015761907223852011-12-13T18:56:15.602-08:002011-12-13T18:56:15.602-08:00Nicely articulated. I lean towards your points of...Nicely articulated. I lean towards your points of view.<br />Hal FairchildHalford Fairchildhttp://bernard.pitzer.edu/~hfairchi/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3417352582429078455.post-88068387432826368582011-11-21T12:50:25.324-08:002011-11-21T12:50:25.324-08:00The idea that a field of studies is so vulnerable ...The idea that a field of studies is so vulnerable that it needs to have a "safe-house" is laughable, not to mention the fact that it undermines everything academe stands for. <br /><br />It seems the good professor wishes to sing the triumphs of his field while ignoring the very context in which it exists. Secularism, as you correctly phrased it, is a position within a spectrum, not an independent position.<br /><br />As for the Times' error, shame on them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3417352582429078455.post-90475701583937831992011-10-07T01:29:44.376-07:002011-10-07T01:29:44.376-07:00Hi RTC,
Here in Claremont, many of the courses in...Hi RTC,<br /><br />Here in Claremont, many of the courses in religious studies do in fact attend to the embranglement of religion and secularity. I have also found this to be a particular strength of the scholarship, in cultural-social anthropology, on Islam in modernity.<br /><br />By contrast, here in Claremont, I have found secular studies faculty resistant, for example, to a work such as David Hollinger's book, "Science, Jews, and Secular Culture."<br /><br />Also, I advocated what you describe as a "reasonable response"--that is, having a joint religious studies/secular studies major--to my valued colleague Phil Zuckerman (the leading figure in the secular studies field group B at Pitzer) and Professor Zuckerman dismissed the idea. Professor Zuckerman's response was that "secularism" is so vulnerable that it needs to have the protection of a "safe-house" -- a major of its own.<br /><br />And too much of what is proposed be put in that protected space is secular triumphalism--which is to say, modernization theory for our time of fear of "fundamentalisms," so-called.<br /><br />Thanks for your thughtful comments and questions.Daniel Segalhttp://www.pitzer.edu/dsegalnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3417352582429078455.post-62562992175733724322011-10-06T13:32:55.751-07:002011-10-06T13:32:55.751-07:00Daniel,
First, thanks for sending me a link to th...Daniel,<br /><br />First, thanks for sending me a link to this. It is relevant to what I do, so I am interested in discussing this further. <br /><br />Second, I'd like to know why you think the following is true:<br /><br />"The reason I think this principle applies in the case of secular studies is that, as best I can tell, the version of secular studies that is being championed at Pitzer... is in fact something like a re-inscription of modernization theory--since it always turns out... that religion is 'behind' (or 'backward') and secularism is 'ahead' (or distinctly 'modern'). And it almost never turns out the other way."<br /><br />As a sociologist who studies "the secular" I do not take that perspective in my work. I may believe that secularism is a better approach to understanding the world for me, personally, but in my work as a sociologist, I'm simply interested in studying the nonreligious and find them interesting in their own right. My research is guided by a variety of theories (primarily religions as pseudo-corporations or the religious marketplace and secularization theory). So, why do you believe "modernization theory" is the primary idea that will be championed in the secular studies major?<br /><br />And, finally, what about religious studies? If you're concerned that disciplines are walled off from views that may disagree with the dominant perspectives in the field, why not advocate for a joint religious studies/secular studies major? That would seem like a more reasonable response then - kill secular studies. It seems as though you're grinding an ax with secular studies but giving religious studies a free pass. Why?RTChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08665565137977071153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3417352582429078455.post-76803116792164132752011-10-05T21:32:38.699-07:002011-10-05T21:32:38.699-07:00Dan, have there been any cases in recent memory of...Dan, have there been any cases in recent memory of respected newspapers getting into serious trouble for errors of fact? I was trying to think of examples and could not...carmenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13186989328791212297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3417352582429078455.post-24748410882480285132011-09-23T09:07:49.947-07:002011-09-23T09:07:49.947-07:00Also, this article would have been the absolutely ...Also, this article would have been the absolutely perfect discussion topic for our Capitalism class, as a counter-point to Krugman's Freshwater/Saltwater argument. It's the best economics piece I've read in 3 years.<br /><br />http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/re-targeting-the-fedAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3417352582429078455.post-77505232514093859032011-09-23T08:15:28.079-07:002011-09-23T08:15:28.079-07:00Keep in mind much of this is from my own experienc...Keep in mind much of this is from my own experience, but:<br /><br />IIS, in its form at Pitzer, was a joke.<br /><br />Why are EWL and Creative Writing different FGs?<br /><br />American Studies seems like it would be better as part of history, perhaps as a concentration.<br /><br />I also have mixed feelings about the ethnic studies groups. I'm not sure abolishing them is a good idea, but I'm also not totally confident they serve their intended purposes (or even have definite purposes) anymore.<br /><br />Perhaps "abolish" is a poor choice of words. I really mean "reform." Most, maybe even all, of the above are valid majors if they're rigorous. It just feels like there's very little accountability in some FGs and that filters down to the student-level very quickly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3417352582429078455.post-12829934331255756842011-09-22T13:18:38.952-07:002011-09-22T13:18:38.952-07:00Hi Will,
1. I specifically give the Times a pass ...Hi Will,<br /><br />1. I specifically give the Times a pass for their initial error; my hard criticisms are for their refusal to print any acknowledgment of their error. What I do not say in the blog is that I had a pretty lengthy back-and-forth with Joan P. Nassivera, who is the NY Times's "senior editor" before writing the blog.<br /><br />2. And keep in mind, the last line is meant to be funny, not entirely serious.<br /><br />3. Which Field Groups do you have in mind, as ones that should be abolished?Dan Segalhttp://www.pitzer.edu/dsegalnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3417352582429078455.post-6581601151190652112011-09-22T11:30:21.075-07:002011-09-22T11:30:21.075-07:00I think you're too hard on the Times. They too...I think you're too hard on the Times. They took a short-cut that was good enough for their purposes.<br /><br />The rest of the argument is a great criticism of the manner Pitzer has set up Field Groups in the past. I would add there are a few FGs that really don't meet the minimum rigor standards that should apply and should be abolished.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com