Some would say that this, right here, is the exact problem in thinking
that keeps the discipline from being respected, in its own right,
rather than as a subset of religion, anthro, or psych.
Religion is still dealing with its separation from Theology, in that
almost every Religious Studies department considers the discussion of
theology to be anathema. It clings to the methodology of
Anthropological studies, as well as psychological, and socicological,
in order that it may have some form of "legitimacy."
This leaves a distinct hole in the study of religion, more often than
not.
I'm not saying that I know what the field is like, everywhere, but
only what studies have evinced, recently, and I wonder, is that kind
of overcompensation what we want to see happen to the still Extremely
Impressionable field of the Academic Study of Magic?
-Damien
--- "Christopher I. Lehrich" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> kaligrafr wrote:
> > Lastly, I'm no a big fan of the creation of *new* departments or
> sub-
> > departmental study areas, although I realize that such things are
> part
> > of the money and prestige part of the university. It doesn't seem
> to me
> > that we'll see lots of magical studies programs in the next few
> years,
> > unless somebody decides to throw tons of money that way.
> >
> And even if we do, I am also no big fan. In general, amen, brother.
>
> Get a degree in something respected. Prove yourself in a respected
> discipline. Having done that, you are ready to argue for magic as a
> legitimate field. This is part of my ad for our BU program: you get
> a
> degree in religion. Otherwise, who cares?
>
> Chris Lehrich
>
> --
> Christopher I. Lehrich
> Assistant Professor of Religion
> Associate Director, Division of Religious and Theological Studies
> Boston University
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
|