Advocacy in the study of religion\s

Bibliographic Data

ID4844546
AuthorsMichael Stausberg (0000-0002-2011-6997, University of Bergen, corresponding author)
Year2014
Volume44
Issue2
Pages220-232
Publication date2014-04-03
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueReligion (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0048-721X • E-ISSN: 1096-1151
PublisherInforma UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/0048721x.2014.892248
OpenAlexW2003346173
LanguageEN
Citations received4
References cited21

This article introduces a thematic issue on advocacy in the study of religion\s. It reflects on some issues relating to instances of advocacy in the study of religion\s such as the importance of personal relationships, intervention on behalf of marginal and controversial religions, forms of and audiences for advocacy, its legitimation, and its relations to scholarly identity and the academy.Key Words: advocacyactivist researchinterventionist researchhuman rightscontroversial religions AcknowledgmentsFor comments on earlier drafts of this essay, I wish to thank Knut Aukland, Lori Beaman, Steven Engler, Greg Johnson, Knut Melvær, Mary Jo Neitz, Jane Skjoldli, Håkon Tandberg, and Manuel Vásquez.Notes1For critiques see Jensen Citation2011; Gardiner and Engler Citation2012.2There are also critical voices, see for example Hastrup and Elsass (Citation1990, Citation301) and the responses to their article, which argues ‘that advocacy, as such, is incompatible with anthropology as a distinct kind of scholarship.’3As a result of the peer-review process not all papers that were originally commissioned are published here.4Bailey (Citation2008, 266) mentions, among others, the following: public-interest anthropology; public anthropology; public sociology; participatory-action research; activist anthropology; collaborative-action research; action anthropology; scholar-activist approach; critical anthropology; advocacy anthropology; interpretive ethnography; militant anthropology; institutional ethnography; political anthropology; and public-interest sociology. For social anthropology, Antweiler (Citation1998) attempts a systematization of available approaches to societal relevant anthropology: (1) applied anthropology; (2) practicing anthropology; (3) militant, partisan, action, populist anthropology, anthropological advocacy, moral models; (3) anthropology as cultural critique, critical anthropology; (4) engaged, relevant anthropology. The author seeks to avoid the politicization of anthropology.5As he defines and defends it, if the study of religion\s were to become a ‘concerned science,’ it would seek to contribute to ‘the humane quality of religions and religion in the new century’ (Droogers Citation2010, 236). It would ‘help to rehabilitate’ (Droogers Citation2010, 237) the power-play balance. It ‘would help to make the world a better place in which to live’ (Droogers Citation2010, 237).6Cush models it on Practical Theology and Engaged Buddhism. She envisions that the study of religion\s ‘makes a difference to the poor, oppressed, sufferers in conflict situations and the planet’ (Cush Citation2005). Despite its prominent occurrence in the title, Cush mentions the term only briefly at the end of her essay, without giving any examples. (In other fields the term is used in a variety of ways, sometimes with further qualifications such as politically engaged research.)7Tworuschka, who coined this term, conceives of this as more than the mere application of results stemming from research, but as involving additional descriptive and normative dimensions: the practical study of religion\s is an open, plural, interdisciplinary project aimed at making the world a better, i.e., more humane and peaceful, place by drawing on the competence of scholars of religion. Such competence can be relevant in a variety of fields of practical work including social work, education, medicine, media, sports, and tourism – in short, wherever the knowledge produced by the study of religion\s is potentially relevant for improving the situation.8Based on their theoretical positions, some contributions to this issue propose a broader understanding of the nature of advocacy. The starting point for compiling this issue, however, was the definition given above.9In turn, there is a myriad of religious-advocacy organizations working on all sorts of issues. Recently, the increasing number of religious-advocacy or lobby organizations working on policy issues has attracted some attention; see the Norad report 7/2013 on religious non-governmental organizations (NGOs) at the United Nations (Lobbying for Faith and Family: A Study of Religious NGOs at the United Nations) and the Pew Research Center's report on religious advocacy groups in Washington, D.C., published in 2012 (Lobbying for the Faithful: Religious Advocacy Groups in Washington, D.C.). Both reports are available online.Additional informationMichael Stausberg is a Professor of Religion at the University of Bergen, Norway

Anthropology of art · Applied anthropology · Ethnography · Medical anthropology · Political science · Scholarship · Social anthropology · Sociocultural anthropology · Sociology · Anthropological Studies and Insights · Anthropology · History · Law · Religion and Society Interactions · Study and Philosophy of Religion

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub