The Blog Assignment: Confronting “Spirituality” in Teaching Religious Studies

In this second of a two-part series, Richard Ascough adds his voice to Sharday Mosurinjohn’s reflections on a new blog post assignment used in a course on Spirituality, Secularity, and Nonreligion taught through the School of Religion at Queen’s University. In the earlier post, Sharday noted that she learned two key lessons: that students are concerned...

By Richard Ascough

Richard Ascough is a Professor in the School of Religion at Queen’s University. His research and teaching focuses on the history of early Christianity and Greco-Roman religious culture with particular attention to various types of groups. He has published widely in the field with more than forty articles and essays and ten books and has been recognized for his teaching most recently as a 3M Fellow. He also teaches courses on “Religion and Film” and “Religion and Business Ethics,” although is currently serving a three-year sentence as an Associate Dean in the Faculty of Arts and Science. Together with Sharday Mosurinjohn, Richard is co-teaching a new course on religion and art that integrates their respective expertise on ancient and contemporary material culture. With a grant from Queen’s Centre for Teaching and Learning, they are researching “threshold concepts” in the study of religion. In their other research collaborations, they are engaged in theory-building in the field of affect using ancient and contemporary artefacts as touchstones.

Richard Ascough

Richard Ascough is a Professor in the School of Religion at Queen’s University. His research and teaching focuses on the history of early Christianity and Greco-Roman religious culture with particular attention to various types of groups. He has published widely in the field with more than forty articles and essays and ten books and has been recognized for his teaching most recently as a 3M Fellow. He also teaches courses on “Religion and Film” and “Religion and Business Ethics,” although is currently serving a three-year sentence as an Associate Dean in the Faculty of Arts and Science.

Together with Sharday Mosurinjohn, Richard is co-teaching a new course on religion and art that integrates their respective expertise on ancient and contemporary material culture. With a grant from Queen’s Centre for Teaching and Learning, they are researching “threshold concepts” in the study of religion. In their other research collaborations, they are engaged in theory-building in the field of affect using ancient and contemporary artefacts as touchstones.

By Sharday Mosurinjohn

Sharday Mosurinjohn is an Assistant Professor in the School of Religion at Queen’s University, Kingston, ON. She is an assistant editor for the NSRN blog. Her research uses the thought of existential cultures - religious, spiritual, and not - to theorize the aesthetic, affective, and material conditions of contexts that are marked by late modern modes of temporality and attention, information technology, and metaphysical disenchantment. Her current book manuscript and a related website project take the heuristic idea of “boredom as a spiritual crisis” in order to explore problems of meaning in an age of overstimulation. Other recent work has examined art exhibitions that use Indigenous spiritual ontologies to challenge settler canons and institutions (Brendan Fernandes’ Lost Bodies 2016; Kent Monkman’s Shame and Prejudice 2018); considered how social justice movements that sacralize liberal humanist values trouble the boundaries between concepts like “spirituality,” “the sacred,” and “new religious movements”; and refigured the concept of enchantment for religious studies through affect theory. Together with Richard Ascough, Sharday is co-teaching a new course on religion and art that integrates their respective expertise on ancient and contemporary material culture. With a grant from Queen’s Centre for Teaching and Learning, they are researching “threshold concepts” in the study of religion. In their other research collaborations, they are engaged in theory-building in the field of affect using ancient and contemporary artefacts as touchstones.

Sharday Mosurinjohn

Sharday Mosurinjohn is an Assistant Professor in the School of Religion at Queen’s University, Kingston, ON. She is an assistant editor for the NSRN blog. Her research uses the thought of existential cultures - religious, spiritual, and not - to theorize the aesthetic, affective, and material conditions of contexts that are marked by late modern modes of temporality and attention, information technology, and metaphysical disenchantment. Her current book manuscript and a related website project take the heuristic idea of “boredom as a spiritual crisis” in order to explore problems of meaning in an age of overstimulation. Other recent work has examined art exhibitions that use Indigenous spiritual ontologies to challenge settler canons and institutions (Brendan Fernandes’ Lost Bodies 2016; Kent Monkman’s Shame and Prejudice 2018); considered how social justice movements that sacralize liberal humanist values trouble the boundaries between concepts like “spirituality,” “the sacred,” and “new religious movements”; and refigured the concept of enchantment for religious studies through affect theory.

Together with Richard Ascough, Sharday is co-teaching a new course on religion and art that integrates their respective expertise on ancient and contemporary material culture. With a grant from Queen’s Centre for Teaching and Learning, they are researching “threshold concepts” in the study of religion. In their other research collaborations, they are engaged in theory-building in the field of affect using ancient and contemporary artefacts as touchstones.

In response to:

Richard Ascough and Sharday Mosurinjohn

In this second of a two-part series, Richard Ascough adds his voice to Sharday Mosurinjohn’s reflections on a new blog post assignment used in a course on Spirituality, Secularity, and Nonreligion taught through the School of Religion at Queen’s University. In the earlier post, Sharday noted that she learned two key lessons: that students are concerned about what it means to be “critical” in a public posting and that they do not have a level of digital literacy that one might expect in a generation that grew up fully immersed in digital technologies. In this follow-up post, Sharday and Richard discuss strengths and weaknesses in students’ digital literacy and explore how understanding one of the weaknesses might actually help us understand a particularly troublesome religious studies concept – what they consider a “threshold concept.”


Despite students’ immersion in the world of digital communication instructors cannot presume that undergraduates have a high level of digital literacy. Indeed, perhaps what it takes to be digitally literate in their social media contexts is distinct from, if not antagonistic to, the expectations of a professional scholar. In truly social media (social media that is “off duty” from professional work, unlike the academic Twitterverse or blogosphere), the poster is the author, regardless of where the content originally came from, because part of the value of sharing a meme, a link, a retweet, is for each poster to show their audience they “get” it and are in on the conversation. Authorship, then, is less a matter of intellectual property than an expression of “authenticity.” As Katz and Shifman (2017, 825) write, “digital nonsense [clusters of seemingly meaningless digital texts imitated and circulated by many participants] is … a generative source of ‘affective meaning’ that marks the formation of social connections preceding cognitive understanding.” The same might go for content, as far as the disregard for building on the work of scholars that have come before; religion scholars know from the likes of Charles Taylor (2007) and Paul Heelas and Linda Woodhead (2005) that we are living in an age where subjective authority and personal authenticity are ascendant values. It matters to students because, to invoke The Dude, “that’s just, like, your opinion, man.” And given that conventional writing mechanics get reconfigured in texting and microblogging to replace face-to-face affective cues (e.g., “Here’s Why a Period in a Text Message Makes You Sound Angry”), it stands to reason that establishing writerly tone in a digital context is that much more challenging than in a traditional essay.

To address this, in the next iteration of “The Blog Assignment” (as described by Sharday here) choosing which blog to comment on will become an opportunity to evaluate digital sources for scholarly integrity. Students will workshop a completed draft of their comment before posting it and we’ll discuss what makes it publication-worthy or not.

In the absence of these safeguards in the inaugural iteration of The Blog Assignment a fascinating trend emerged: whether it was “secular spirituality” or “spiritual but not religious,” student assignments addressing the concept of “spirituality” troubled some of the best analysts and most skillful writers – and we think this is not unrelated to the points made above in relation to the “subjective turn.” While informally debriefing this assignment, it occurred to us that “spirituality” is a troublesome concept whose understanding will irreversibly change how students engage with the field.

We noted that when asked to define “religion” students in upper year religious studies seminar courses tend initially to divide along two camps. First-timers tend to invoke words such as “faith,” “belief,” and “practice,” while clearly indicating that they are talking about “others,” not themselves, for they have no credal or liturgical inclinations. Religious studies concentrators, or indeed anyone who has previously taken a religion course, tend towards a wry smirk, knowing almost instinctively that the “correct” answer is to challenge the very notion that there is a “thing” called “religion” that exists anywhere outside the scholarly category created by academics. They too, however, are often keen to avoid implicating themselves in the category, no matter how artificially constructed it may be. Two camps, with different underlying assumptions, but both clear in their affirmation “not me.”

Inevitably someone will throw up the term “spirituality” and the mood in the room shifts dramatically. Often it is framed as a contrast: “I am spiritual, but not religious” – almost as if to say, I am “good” not “bad.” But what does that mean? Suddenly hands go up, putting substance to the term – yoga; sunsets; mindfulness; hiking; volunteerism. Such self-revelation is often deeply personal yet unsystematic not only insofar as students do not share the same view, but also that a single student may articulate different descriptions of “spirituality” across different courses in the same week. We liken this approach to modular furniture – various pieces that can be coordinated in multiple configurations, depending upon the discursive needs of the moment.

Our students can be disabused about religion. They can accept it’s not sui generis. Moreover, in this generation of students, many are not religious. But “spirituality” floats in their discourse as something that’s not grounded by the same institutional histories as “religion.” It offers all the same resistances to definition, as many scholars have demonstrated, yet our students resist subjecting it to scrutiny. We suspect that students don’t necessarily want to transfer the lessons of “religion” over to “spirituality” because in the cultural context of their lives, it matters to them in Taves and Bender’s (2011) sense, as a major way that things get their value. And in their scholarship, it’s an escape hatch from religion that allows them to talk about what has been the purview of “religion” without the difficult work of historicizing and otherwise contextualizing phenomena that, in a digital landscape, may be especially ephemeral.

In this way “spirituality” is, like “religion,” a “threshold concept,” a “troublesome” or “irreversible” idea that comes into play in the formation of scholarly identity (Meyer & Land 2006). While students have crossed the threshold that disallows imagining “religion” as a “thing” in and of itself rather than a construct of scholarly discourse, with all its attendant political ramifications and power dynamics, a core pedagogical problematic for us is moving students to see “spirituality” in a similar way, even in a course such as Sharday’s that tackles this construct directly.

By attempting to destabilize their underanalysed notions of “spirituality,” we are trying to shift students’ binary thinking in ways that are irreversible, that do not allow them to return to a juxtaposition of “religion” as somehow “bad” and “spirituality” as somehow “good” or at least “better.” We want them to cross a conceptual Rubicon (“Rubiconcept”?), one of many in Religious Studies (and possibly other fields), that we are exploring in our ongoing project on “threshold concepts.”

References

  • Bender, Courtney and Ann Taves. 2012. What Matters? Ethnographies of Value in a Not So Secular Age. New York: Columbia University Press.
  • Heelas and Woodhead, et. al. 2005. The Spiritual Revolution: Why Religion is Giving Way to Spirituality. London: Blackwell Publishing.
  • Katz, Yuval, and Limor Shifman. 2017. “Making sense? The Structure and Meanings of Digital Memetic Nonsense.” Information, Communication and Society 20(6): 825-42.
  • Meyer, Jan and Ray Land. 2006. “Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge: An Introduction.” In Overcoming Barriers to Student Understanding: Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge, ed. Jan Meyer and Ray Land, 3-18. London: Routledge.
  • Taylor, Charles. 2007. A Secular Age. Cambridge MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

 Fund the RSP while you shop! Use an Amazon.co.uk, Amazon.ca, or Amazon.com affiliate link whenever you make a purchase. There’s no additional cost to you, but every bit helps us stay on the air! 

We need your support!

Want to support us directly? Become a monthly Patron or consider giving us a one-time donation through PayPal

Other EPISODES YOU MIGHT ENJOY

Global Categories; Local Contexts

Podcast

Carlo Ginzburg is professor emeritus in History of European Cultures in Scuola Normale Superiore in Pisa, Italy. A distinguished historian with a remarkable career, Ginzburg is known for his microhistorical research approach. His most well-known book The Cheese and the Worms: The Cosmos of a Sixteenth Century Miller follows clues ...
Religion, Youth, and Intergenerationality

Podcast

We begin this interview by asking what is ‘youth’? How do sociologists define it? What are some of the current trends in sociological research on youth? What, if anything, is distinctive about youth experience? Discussion then turns to ‘religion and youth’, focusing on why scholars might be interested in it, ...
On the Tantricization of Jain Ascetic Rituals

Podcast

In the RSP’s first episode on Jainism, Dr. Ellen Gough joins Andie Alexander to discuss what she terms “tantricization,” a method for thinking about the process of establishing something as tantric.
Religious Climate Activism | Discourse! February 2021

Podcast

Environmental issues take center stage in this month's episode of Discourse!, hosted by Michael Munnik with guests Suzanne Owen and Daniel Gorman Jr.
Holocaust Museums as Sacred-Secular Space

Podcast

In this interview, @Bre_Fallon talks to Dr Avril Alba on the tension between the secular and the sacred in Holocaust Museums.
Brian Victoria on Zen Buddhist Terrorism and Holy War

Podcast

Is there something particular about religion which makes it a more potent ‘violence enabling mechanism’ than other factors? Are some religions more likely to inspire violence than others? And why should scholars even care? In this interview, Chris discusses these issues and more with Professor Brian Victoria, who, in addition to his scholarly credentials, is a fully ordained Zen Buddhist priest.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial- NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

The views expressed in podcasts, features and responses are the views of the individual contributors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Religious Studies Project or our sponsors. The Religious Studies Project is produced by the Religious Studies Project Association (SCIO), a Scottish Charitable Incorporated Organisation (charity number SC047750).