2000 PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS

The Fuataire of the Academy

Ninian Smart

This lecture has three parts. The first deals with the roots and formation of the modern study of religion, especially in North America and Britain. Religious studies is aspectual, cross-cultural, multidisciplinary, and nonfinite (i.e.,flowingbeyond religions to cover analogous embodied worldviews). The second part deals with the cutting edges in religious studies and the various theologies, notably through the rediscovery of the phenomenology of religion, underpinned by a good general knowledge in thefield.The third part suggests new ways of integrating religious studies, geographically and otherwise, via confederal links between the American Academy of Religion and other learned societies. This will lead to global integration of the study of religion. Also, our talents (especially, informed empathy) should be spread more widely and would be useful to a number of other professions. I conclude with a paradox about belief in God or nirvana. 1 I am going to do three things here. First, I am going to review the formation of religious studies and theology, for these are the chief ingredients of the intellectual life of the American Academy of Religion. Second, I am going to suggest some of the cutting edges of the study of religion, together with some recommendations about the future of theology or rather of theologies. Third, I shall adumbrate some ways in which the academy ought to develop.
Ninian Smart was Professor of Religious Studies at the University of California at Santa Barbara He died suddenly in Lancaster, U.K , on 29 January 2001 journal ofthe American Academy of Religion September 2001, Vol 69, No 3, pp 541-550. 2001 The American Academy of Religion

542

Journal of the American Academy of Religion

Religious studies as we know it derives from the 1960s, though it has roots and forebears of various kinds. I shall mention these later. I was involved in setting up Britain's first Department of Religious Studies in the University of Lancaster in 1967. In February of the following year I gave an outline description of the logic of the subject in my inaugural lecture. It was called "The Principles and Meaning of the Study of Religion." I delineated it as being aspectual (that is, dealing with an aspect of human experience and life), cross-cultural, multidisciplinary, and nonfinite (that is, it partly has to do with systems that have an analogy to religions, such as East German Marxism in the old days, likewise functioning as an "Established Church"). I still think this general description is valid, though since that day the many disciplines involved include new ways of approaching matters, such as feminism and, more generally, gender studies, which have greatly enriched the field; film studies; and so on. Also, textual studies have changed, with the stronger emphasis on contextual approaches. Incidentally, the nonfinite aspect of religious studies, incorporating worldview analysis, was a forerunner of much in modern cultural studies, as is implicit religion. At a similar time in the United States, following Schempp, the first Departments of Religious Studies were being set up in public universities. There were roots of such developments: there was comparative religion, a nineteenth-century creation; before that, David Hume and others of the socalled Enlightenment; French research institutions; sociologists like Weber; textual studies of the Bible, the Upanishads, and the Pali Canon; anthropological researches; and revived Asian cultures like those of India, Sri Lanka, China, and Japan (revived, that is, because of the potent, depressing, and yet stimulating challenge of colonialism). But the coming together of all this was in the sixties. You can see its evidence in the 1974 Encyclopedia Britannica, under the guidance of an intuitive person, Seymour Cain. Some might, of course, point to Mircea Eliade as a father of the field. But he, though learned and innovative, had two serious weaknesses: he hated the social sciences (though for my money religious studies is a global social science, among other things), and, second, he did not differentiate between ideology and, in the broader sense, description. His worldview was heavily disguisedyou had to know Romania sometimes to recognize it. But he was certainly one of the roots of religious studies.

But the AAR includes many people who are more interested in theology, mainly Christian theology of various kinds. I happen to be an Anglican; and I had to undergo a fair amount of abuse in setting up religious studies in

Smart- The Future of the Academy

543

Lancaster even from Anglicans (but there were also many Christians who supported me). I was told that you had to belong to understand. All departments in universities were in theology. Theology was largely Anglican. Only one Roman Catholic taught (part-time) in our universities in Britain in 1967. Not a single person taught Judaism as a religion in British universities. So I don't talk against theology; but it should not be established. The fact is that power leads to irrational and biased decisions about knowledge. Theology ought to label itself as Christian, or Islamic, or Buddhist (despite the oxymoron), or Roman Catholic, or Shia. Then it would be respectable in academia. I am serious. I wrote a book with a colleague, Steven Konstantine (of Bulgarian descent and an Orthodox Christian). But you should have the elementary sense to know when you are expressing or advocating your faith and when you are doing something more objective. All this is illustrated by that old joke: One man says to another, "Do you believe in baptism?" The other replies, "Believe in itI've seen it done." In terms of my previous analysis of religious studies, theology deals with a segmental aspect; that is, it deals with (let us say) the Christian (or within that the Baptist or Catholic) segment. Or you might be dealing with the Sunni or Shia segment of Islam. Part of theology deals with description, and part deals with advocacy and expression (of the Methodist, or Shia, or Pure Land, or Ramanuja's position, because they are believed in). So religious studies, as a scientific enterprise, overlaps with segmental theology and has in the past benefited from biblical studies, Quranic studies, and so on. There remains, in this jigsaw, the place of philosophy of religion. My first book, Reasons and Faiths [London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1958], not only was the first dissertation after World War II in Oxford in philosophy of religion but was the first after World War II to take religion seriously, I thought. In order to write it, I learned a lot of Pali, for Buddhism refuted so many western theories and analyses of religion. Anyway, it was a cross-cultural philosophy. I followed my guru, J. L. Austin, the discoverer of the performative, in thinking that the philosopher of religion ought to know about religions. Few philosophers do so: indeed, Gilbert Ryle, then dean of philosophy in Britain, once said to me (after I'd published Doctrine and Argument in Indian Philosophy [London: Allen and Unwin, 1964]), "I don't know why you're so interested in Indian philosophy; nothing good philosophically came out of India." I replied, "Why, Gilbert, you must have read a lot to know that."

Anyway the philosophy of religion should be creatively cross-cultural and not cabined within narrow assumptions, largely western. Since the

544

Journal of the American Academy of Religion

sixties religious studies has been very busy pouring out hundreds of monographs, and whole new areas have been developed, from Eastern Europe, to Latin American religion, to Central Asia. Other areas are much more richly developed than they were thirty years agofor instance, Chinese religions. Though this is heartening, there has been a tendency to overspecialization. One can know all about Hinduism and neglect Buddhism and Islam, both important in the history of India. This tendency is caused in part by the mass of new books published, partly by the weight of linguistic training insisted on in our graduate schools, partly by academic respectabilityborne out by one's attendance both at the AAR convention and at an area studies convention each year and the need to publish intensely in one's specialty. These fragmentations of the field are also found in the theologies and date a long way back in the curricula of seminaries. Now I turn to the important areas of development, now and in the future. First, we need a rediscovery of the phenomenology of religion and by the same token a recognition of the importance of comparison. Without it religious studies is not a fruitful subject. As humans we have similar kinds of experience in differing cultures. This is not to deny that differences and particularities are important. But as with noses, which have similar functions in different human beings though each person's nose is at the same time unique, we can observe degrees of overlap between ideas and experience in varied cultures. Or, more expansively, we can see that there are dimensions of spirituality and organization in each religious tradition: the dimensions of myth and narrative, of ethics and law, of doctrine and philosophy, of experience and emotion, of social organization and influence, of ritual and practical expression, of material manifestation, and so on. Or you could vary your assessment of these dimensions. Let me illustrate how phenomenology may have the effect of altering your perspective. If we assume that Paul was practicing a devotional form of religion in the life of prayer and worship that he commended, and if we see a strong overlap with the life of bhakti in medieval Hinduism, then as in Ramanuja, it helps to explain why both expressed a doctrine of grace. Of course, the particularities of Paul's devotion to Christ and of Ramanuja's background in the Tamil poets and devotion to Visnu are very different; but even so there are striking similarities in the general outlines of their theologies. Incidentally, our cross-cultural vocabulary could well be increased so that we have the beginnings of a genuinely international language. I have in the above example used bhakti virtually as an English word, like its counterparts, karma, nirvana, and yoga, now English borrowings. One could add Tao, dharma, li (good or right behavior), and so forth.

Smart: The Future of the Academy

545

There is a shoal of coincidences and combinations in the world's religions: this is not to say that overlaps are everywhere. Not every religion has a supreme God: thus, Theravada Buddhism and Jainism do not, and many small-scale religions do not. But Buddhism has a strong mystical and contemplative content, as Christianity and Islam came to have. Anyway, the revival of efforts in phenomenology will restore the vision of a scientific approach to religious studies. It is a powerful complement to the sociology of religion. Indeed, if sociology has a weakness, it is a lack of cross-cultural phenomenological depth, and though this is less true of anthropology, the history of anthropology has distorted its vision, too. When the three fields of phenomenology, anthropology, and sociology are genuinely and solidly integrated, then a genuine advanced religious studies will be achieved.

The underpinning of comparative work is a general knowledge in the field. I studied a whole variety of religions in the fifties in preparation for my graduate work in the history and philosophy of religion. I believe that graduate research ought to include a serious survey of the world's religions and, more generally, of embodied worldviews, as well as the usual course in the history of the history of the subject and of theoretical approaches. General knowledge is more important that any specialism. It is the prerequisite of phenomenology. Next, we need a revival of the pursuit of objectivity. Relativism is a self-curing disease, though this has not often been noticed. If you can show me that my standpoint in delineating something is biased, then already I have the means to be more objective in my delineation. Of course, I realize that we are often subject to (often unrecognized) ignorances and biases. But we can improve our track record. Indeed, that has been happening from the time of Max Miiller and Chantepie de la Saussaye till the present. And we can learn from the best journalism and documentary making. When I was involved, with two others, in planning The Long Search for BBC television, I was delighted to discover how my then keen interest in the scientific study of religion corresponded closely to their general pursuit of the truth about people. They had a poetic view of truth, in a way, but that was appropriate: a science (as Aristotle said) should correspond in exactitude to its object. And in constructing a science of human behavior, one has to use informed empathy. In knowing why Caesar crossed the Rubicon you had to know a lot about the Roman Republic, Caesar's history and character, and so forth. You have to try to see and

546

Journal of the American Academy of Religion

feel the world from his standpoint. You have, as I say, to use informed empathy. It is important to have a fair and rounded view of what you are examining.

Briefly, I think that the academy should learn a lot from the better kind of journalism and documentary: shall we say from the Pulitzer breed? In the same mold, we ought to be able to distinguish advocacy from description and analysis. There are those who think that religious studies is infected by theology. Perhaps it is, here and there: I think Eliade was so infected, as I have impliedhe had an ideology behind his phenomenology. I was one of the earliest to criticize him for this, during the early seventies. What I object to is not knowing (perhaps deliberately) metaphysics from analysis, theology from phenomenology, ideology from informed empathy. Next, I turn to more substantive matters. Religious studies may benefit from new discoveries and techniques in brain studies. For instance, the question of an underlying core of contemplative or mystical experience may be partly settled by brain physiology and the way the brain acts. Brain processes are also relevant to numinous experience, devotional states, shamanism, and other phenomena. We can coordinate brain knowledge with ways of approaching these experiences from reports and the literature. This double enterprise needs a sound morphology of types of experience. The results of such an investigation will be relevant to theology (e.g., Christian theology), for if it reinforces the claim that experiences in differing traditions of a given type are like one another, it would be suggestive of and hard to deny some spiritual truth in the other tradition. Cosmology is very much flourishing these days, with Hubble and Chandra and other means of gathering distant and fascinating data. This side of science would affect different species of theology more than religious studies. For quite new perspectives open up with the enormous scope of the universe, together with the possibility that there are parallel universes. Physics nowadays goes into wild speculations. The question of the meaning of God's creation appears quite different in the period since 1929, when Edwin Hubble showed that the universe is expanding. And, of course, when you combine the enormity of the cosmos with the notion of evolution, it raises the real question of the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere. So theologies and religious doctrines might have to be revised to fit in with modern science. And also there are other thoughts relevant particularly to theology, such as the Gaia hypothesis.

Smart The Future of the Academy

547

Let us return from outer space to deal with the history of humankind. We have to get to grips with globalization. In 1987 I published an article in the Festschrift Gilgul for Zwi Zerblowskyan early treatment, if not the first, of diasporas as a worldwide phenomenon, which transforms our treatment of the "home" tradition: for instance, the Sikh communities in Britain, North America, and so on; Hindu communities in South Africa, Guyana, and so on; and Muslim communities in France, Britain, and so forth. Their importance may alter the dynamics of the home tradition. Generally speaking, diasporas involve a critical mass, that is, a certain density of migration, as with Hindus in Fiji and Guyana, and more scattered presence, as with Hindus in the U.S. Scattered diasporas are everywhere in the globalized world, and denser collocations are the result mainly of empires and large dislocations of peoples due to warfare. Anyway, such diasporas are an integral part of the history of religion, large and small. In a global world nearly every nation is plural. This has created a new relationship between religions and often friction. This has added to the phenomena of new religions, emerging notably during the colonial period. They can now be seen as a universal manifestation: we note the work of Eileen Barker, Diana Eck, G. Oosthuizen, and others. They may originate in a given continent but now migrate. That is an important aspect of our field. This also suggests a new geography of religion: greater Africa comprising black Africa plus segments of North and South America; greater India, comprising the subcontinent plus Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia (whose languages are no more divergent from Hindi than, say, Tamil and whose culture likewise is suffused with Indian ideas); and greater China, comprising Singapore, parts of Indonesia, and Malaysia. We can see a reverse diaspora, also, with the establishment of the State of Israel. It happens, too, that new areas are opening up to exploration: highly important are Central Asia, the Caucasus, China, Russia and Siberia, and Eastern Europe and the Balkans. These are fruitful fields of new development and are already emerging in the academy. I see in the future the consolidation of these areas, together with regions that are a bit neglected in the academy, such as Central and South America, the South Pacific, and Indonesia. We need a more logical arrangement of regions in the AAR. It is a bit cobbled together, the present schematism, the result of groups and ad hoc initiatives, welcomed once but in need of revision.

548

Journal of the American Academy of Religion

I would also like to see a reappraisal of history in the academy. One of its important aspects is that it reaches back when there were separate civilizations with minimal contact. Then comparisons could really mean something. Second, history will show ways in which religions change and evolve. There is still a tendency to underestimate the degree to which given traditions undergo often revolutionary transformations. Cultural studies may have relevance to religious studies, and, even more, vice versa. If religious studies is stretched in a nonfinite way into worldview analysis, then we can discover overlaps between worldviews and how they can and cannot be combined. This would define the outlines of a global worldview and (hopefully) of tolerance. It would also help, in an applied way, with the pursuit of mutual dialogues. It would be a useful philosophical service to come up with a map of the overlaps between beliefs and where there are not conflicts.

I now apply this thought to theologies. It has been clear that because you believe that everything in System A is true, everything in System B is false. But there may be overlaps. Moreover, you cannot rule out the thought that you can learn from System B. We may all be able to learn something from every worldview. This is a basis for friendship between religions. Indeed, I think every form of theology ought to be in some degree outward looking and dialogical. I think teaching only your faith is immoral and garners absolutisms and often hatreds. There should always be a comparative aspect alongside the concern to unravel and express one's own faith. Especially, one should pay attention to the spiritual and moral values of other faiths. We might follow the African Orthodox Church of John Coltrane in San Francisco: it shares a building with the Lutherans and opens its heart to Hindus, and Yoruba, and Buddhists, and atheists while not abandoning its own commitments and the social gospel. This is where general knowledge about religions is important for theologies as well as for religious studies. It is a duty, with its intrinsic empathy, at least to understand the Other.
8

I now turn to the AAR as an institution and how it might develop. First, because of modern jet transport, an increasing number of Europeans, Africans, and others are joining in our annual meetings. Further, there are a lot of immigrants with green cards teaching religion and theologies on

Smart: The Future of the Academy

549

our campuses and coming to the AAR. I proposed about ten years ago forming a Global Academy, but some feared it might be hegemonic (and I was only proposing that the AAR become a facilitator, with its immense resources, relatively speaking). I was not trying to be an American imperialist. But as a result of my proposal, a Committee on International Connections is an established part of the academy. I think at least a federal structure should be promoted: with the LAHR (International Association for the History of Religion), international sociological societies, and innumerable national institutes and associations of scholars. The study of religion and religions is too important not to be pursued on a global basis. It should not be left to hegemony by certain powers. Also within North America it should not neglect natural allies, like the Association for the Scientific Study of Religion; also, we may continue with our alliance with SBL (Society of Biblical Literature), and we should cultivate relations with other religious societiesJewish, Islamic, Buddhist, and so forth, provided these latter have a scholarly dimension. This kind of confederal alliance might be cumbersome. But I would favor having a "federal strand" in our conventions. Visitors from foreign and home institutions could present reports on their organizations' researches of interest to the academy. But ultimately I would like to see a Global Academy, to give our profession a sense of solidarity. It could give a pluralistic sense of religious and philosophical theologies and worldviews, compatible with a global and effective study of religion. I would like also to see a conference among members of the academy to work out a rational system of dividing up the world geographically and by traditions and, here and there, disciplines. This is not to negate our rich pluralism but, rather, to take care of areas of the world that may be neglected or misdescribed. Moreover, there should be more opportunity for all religions to express their theologies, even if it means cutting down on some microseminars. Further, I think some practical fruits of the AAR might be offered in and beyond the profession. I have stressed the importance of informed empathy in our field. It is something that might be stressed in schools and in professions that expose their practitioners to people from a variety of religious backgroundssuch as doctors, police officers, social workers, and nurses, not to mention teachers. We need to offer courses in the world's religions and practical ways to understand them. Finally, I shall make a curious point about God or nirvanaor who or whatever. If you have an experience of God, it may affect you in various ways. You may come to believe in God; it has its empirical effects. You may become a highly loving person, or give up drink, or go to work in

550

Journal of the American Academy of Religion

poor places and among poor people, or become a religious firebrand. You can investigate all these things empirically. So with various other dimensions of religion, there is no call for "reductionism" as though the experience of God does not exist. So, my conclusion is that whether you say that there is or is not a God, the experience of God is still potent in our world. The encounter of nirvana is strong also. May the future hold great treasures, including the study of spirituality, worldviews, and religion. May that knowledge enrich humankind.