How do we articulate our self-identification as Social Scientists, or critically engaged Humanities scholars always seeking theoretical challenges to methodologically derived findings? Last year, the point was raised that the Study of Religion is a modernist enterprise with “objectivity” as its goal; we need to talk about how the term is used in discussions about analysis. Even if we cannot have the sort of “Objectivity” with a capital “O” desired by some modern philosophers, does it necessarily follow that all claims to knowledge and modes of data acquisition are on the same level?
Speakers: Ipsita Chatterjea and Merinda Simmons
Readings for Merinda Simmons's segment
1) Lorraine Daston and Peter Galison. "The Image of Objectivity." Representations 40 (1992): 81-128. http://www.scribd.com/doc/36401183/Daston-Galison-the-Image-of-Objectivity
2) Peter Dear. "From Truth to Disinterestedness in the Seventeenth Century." Social Studies of Science 22.4 (Nov., 1992): 619-631.
Readings for Ipsita Chatterjea's segment
1) Hans G. Kippenberg, Violence as Worship: Religious Wars in the Age of Globalization, "Introduction: Violence as Communal Religious Action" p.1-19
2) David Frankfurter, "The Satanic Ritual Abuse Panic as Religious-Studies Data" Numen, 2003, Vol. 50 p. 108-117
3) Bruce Lincoln Gods and Demons, Priests and Scholars, Chapter "Anomaly Science and Religion" p. 43-52