Presentation Paper to Sheila Greeve Davaney: Between Identity and Footnotes (Academic Study of Religion)

Examining the relationship between identity and scholarship in Western academy, Davaney starts her analyses from finding the important issue about identity and scholarship by examining the history of Western modernity. Then, she tries to contextualize her finding in many events and perspectives today. Finally she needs to explain how those findings interrelate and convolute in her own discipline, the modern (western) academic theology.

The History background

Reading the history of Western modernity, Davaney points the most important value in western modernity is Reason. Reason is the turning point for enlightenment which differs exclusively from medieval era. Reason is an “antithesis of medieval values such as authority, tradition, historical particularity and often religious heritages and communities”.[1] Therefore, Reason is universal, exists in all human beings and also to be central source of knowledge and truth. More than that, Reason was to be above “all independent context”, purified of history and divorced from “details of particular historical and cultural situations” (Toulmin, 21, 104).[2]

That conclusion had many protest from inside and outside of western society. The hardest group protesting that is from German philosophers. The basic critique for reason is about the objectivity and universal values which are applied by western scholars for everything in this world. Immanuel Kant is the example for German thinker who insists that Reason has its limitation in the relationship between the truth and the real. The reality as we know in daily activity has the other faces which have different type and nature from as we seen which what he called: Das ding an sich.

The question about truth claim based on universality and objectivity of knowledge lead to the discussion of the identity of scholarship. This is more sharpened recently as the contemporary challenges. The rising of identity has the communion with the rejection of the more comprehensive perspective within social reality. This rejection occurs when scientific works only accept one work for examining social reality which is based on the scientific methods. Those scientific methods obviously excluded the other possibility of examining and studying reality with another way. Therefore, this violation has triggered the rebellion from many groups concerning with race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, class, sexual orientation, and political and religious orientation.[3]

The Problem among Identity, Theology and Scientific works

The first problem arises when people tried to question about the location of research conducted by western scholars. The meaning of location is not merely about the land area of some people but also the interests they have. This location problem actually starts from the claim of objectivity of research which means that there is nothing about interest except for knowledge’s goal. And that it one of the rejection from people who are to be object of research that they have no idea about the result of research and sometimes being aggrieved by that result. Therefore, many people insist that the most eligible for defining them is themselves as the insider in their group of society, not few of people from western scholarship who are considered as outsider.

This problem of location triggers the next question about the identity of scholarship. While concerning the location such as insider or outsider or who is an eligible or not eligible, the second question arises about the identity. Davaney writes clearly that “variables of identity such as race, gender or religious association often determine the location…”[4] This position imposes the main role of identity which is a based values of every location they have. According to Davaney, identity and location “become the ontological source and vehicle for knowledge”.[5] Simply talking, identity gives us the basic understanding about everything we see and how we construct it scientifically. Based on this reason, the claim of objectivity has fallen down.

Actually the problem of identity has emerged firstly about identity itself. Every people have many identities. For instance, someone who may be a feminist, he also can be a white, western, homosexual and atheist. The question of that is in what identity he will be as a representation of his struggle. Is he a representation of race as a western-white person, or feminist, or an atheist? There is no single identity in this world, and human always tends to be representation of many identities.

The problem among religious studies, theology and identity highlight all of the problems above. Religion recently has been one of the fields of science which is called by religious studies when scholar tends to study and examine religion. On the other hand, religion has its own studying itself called Theology. The religious studies have reaction that actually when the identity has been a question for who is the most eligible person to study religion. we know that many scholars from religious studies are mostly outsider and suspected irreligious people. And also, the goal of religious study is merely for academic purpose, not for serving an representing the adherents of one religion such as played by Theology. This is also contains irony that because many works of theologians only serve and represent the dominant or ruler class in that religion. Theologian only voices “the official voice” of dominant group and excludes the marginal and minority group.

Davaney herself proclaims that she is an academic theologian who wants to embrace both of academic and theological perspectives. She tries to define herself as one of the adherents of one religion but it has no relationship with his work to examine and study her religion critically. The different point is she tries to “bring religious commitments and political passion” in order that she wants to be more critical about her religion but she admits that she also wants to study religion faithfully.[6] To strengthen her choice, Davaney proposes 4 (four) commitments for her visions : 1). The commitment to the proliferation perspective, 2). The commitment to Critical reflection, 3). The commitment to accountability, 4). The commitment to generosity and humility.[7]

My critique

The critical question about Davaney’s explanation is about the position of religion and science. When Davaney tries to embrace both perspective of religion and science (she names: Academic theologian), actually she wants to create a middle way between the misleading use of identity and also the strong power of scientific works. The problem of this choice is still confusing whether she tries to strengthen the function of theology and science or to weaken both of them by proposing four commitments above. It is so important because Davaney does not give the clear strategy for each perspective facing the problem in religious and scientific works.

---

[1] Sheila G. Davaney, Between Identity and Footnotes, page 26.

[2] Ibid

[3] Sheila G. Davaney, Between Identity and Footnotes, page 31.

[4] Ibid

[5] Sheila G. Davaney, Between Identity and Footnotes, page 32.

[6] Sheila G. Davaney, Between Identity and Footnotes, page 39.

[7] Sheila G. Davaney, Between Identity and Footnotes, page 39-41.