-----Original Message-----
From: Tsouvalis, Judith
Sent: 01 December 2009 22:00
To: 'Maarten Loopmans'
Subject: RE: Geographies of Religion conference - 8-9th March 2010 -
call for papers
This debate raises several interesting questions:
1) Why should we assume that anything 'radical' should be the complete
antithesis of anything spiritual?
2) Is the taboo of religion and the consideration of the spiritual side
of human being in the social sciences driven by a fear that we will no
longer be enlightened beings (as in Enlightenment!) and will no longer
be Modern (perhaps we need a Latourian take on things here, such as in
'We have never been Modern', and deconstruct some of the
taken-for-granted beliefs passed on to us from the period of
enlightenment.
3) What about intellectual freedom? Why should we not be allowed to talk
about or consider religion, spirituality, and belief seriously in our
academic endeavours, be it in our analyses or interpretation? Who
polices the borders of discourse in radical geography or the social
sciences more widely? Did Marx have the final word (if indeed he was not
misread as others on the list have pointed out)? And the heck if he did
say what people often say he did, does it mean we all have to join in
and replace the dogma of religion (which is the side of religion many
people fear) with just another dogma? In other words, can we not be
radical but still take spirituality seriously?
4) Discourse, power, and the policing boundaries... what a nice example!
-----Original Message-----
From: A forum for critical and radical geographers
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Maarten Loopmans
Sent: 01 December 2009 20:57
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Geographies of Religion conference - 8-9th March 2010 -
call for papers
I learned from people more acquainted with Marx's writings than I am
that Marx was much more nuanced on religion than the decontextualized
classical quote of 'religion as opiate of the people' would make us
believe...don't know if that's true but even if not, to make such a
sentence in a dogma to the extent that no serious research on the impact
and meaning of religion in our societies is possible or allowed does not
appear as rigorous critical scholarship to me...
-----Original Message-----
From: A forum for critical and radical geographers
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Thomas Doerfler
Sent: dinsdag 1 december 2009 21:49
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Geographies of Religion conference - 8-9th March 2010 -
call for papers
Am 01.12.2009 um 21:34 schrieb Justin Beaumont:
> The question I would pose is why is there such an aversion from
> certain neo-marxist/ political economy quarters to critical and
> progressive social science that embraces religion and postsecularism?
>
See Marx, Theses on Feuerbach I, VI, VII, VIII and >Religion as opiate
of the people<, orig. Marx-Engels-Werke/MEW, Vol. 1, p. 378
But there's some religion in this aversion, too ...
thomas
|