COURSE EXPECTATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS

The following course expectations and requirements emerge out of the above concerns. I offer them to you for discussion in our first class and encourage you to suggest alternatives should these not meet with your needs and expectations.

1. Feminism has been the late twentieth century's most transformative element for the academic study of religion. Some common feminist elements include:

(1) concern with women and female images (to a lesser extent with other disadvantaged groups);

(2) concern with highlighting the past importance of women (forming alternative histories and traditions);

(3) concern with pointing out that the images of the world in which we live (including the academic study of religion) have largely been constructed by men (in the context of patriarchy), who have interpreted the stories, wielded political power, and determined the public agenda;

(4) concern with revisioning and reconstructing the present world (commitment to change), to make it a place in which women are entitled to an equal role, and in which academic parameters reflect that situation;

(5) concern with highlighting the differences that women would make were they to achieve equal standing (this includes an appreciation for the diversity of human experience, a heightened sensitivity to hearing the "muted" voices, and an earth-centredness that finds the sacred within). Week 2 will pause to explore and discuss the issue of feminism and religion.

I expect you to come to that class having read at least some of the Week 2 readings from the Reader, and having reflected on your understanding of feminism.

2. I have selected representative weekly readings from four key academics in the study of religion, as well as some critical commentary on their work. These are included in the Reader. In addition I have selected two secondary sources (Sharpe's Comparative Religion; Remus, James and Fraikin's Religious Studies in Ontario) to provide an overview of the history of the discipline and place those primary sources in context.

In the first part of the course, I expect you to come to each class ready to discuss the week's assigned texts from the Reader. Read the primary texts first; they are, after all, primary, and you should engage them yourself before turning to commentary. The first half of each class will focus on the primary source texts; the second half will explore the larger context, including sections from Comparative Religion.

3. During weeks 3 through 6 I would like to see graduate students prepare two brief written assessments of some of the sources (from the Reader), and undergraduate students prepare one (the first below).

I normally don't mind if assignments are occasionally submitted late, but in this case it seems best to insist that the weekly assignments be submitted to me at the start of class. In writing about Eliade, for instance, it is useful for class discussion and fairer to all if those writing on this theorist were to hand in their assignment at the beginning of that class.

What do I expect in each of these analyses?

a) The first should be a brief (500 words) analysis of one theorist based on the primary sources found in the Reader. For instance, if you choose Müller, your analysis will be based on the introductory section to his Chips from a German Workshop and the First Lecture of his Introduction to the Science of Religion (i.e. the first two entries listed below in the Anthology list). Devote half of the analysis to explaining "what" the author appears to be saying -- what are the key points, themes, issues? -- supporting the central points with brief quotations. Write that part as though you were writing to the author himself, hoping that he would nod in approval ("yes, those were indeed my main concerns in these passages"). Then devote a quarter of your paper to rhetorical matters: "how" does the author make his case -- what are his favourite words and turns of phrase, modes of argumentation? And devote the last quarter of the paper to speculations on "why" the author might have made the case he did -- e.g., does his Christian, or turn-of-the-nineteenth-century, or European, or upper class perspective form the argument (if so, how)?
value 20% / 35% for undergraduates
b) I expect the same in your second paper, and more. An extra 1000 words (1500 in total) will allow you to turn to secondary sources after you've explored the primary text. The secondary sources I have in mind are those included in your Reader (e.g., if you choose Müller, those will be the five listed after his own writings), and the appropriate chapter(s) of Sharpe's Comparative Religion. Based only on those sources, you'll want to ask: what do others say about this theorist, and how does he fit in the context of Sharpe's description of the history of the field? Again, I expect that paper to be handed to me at the beginning of the class in question.
value 25%

In these writing assignments, part of the challenge will be to restrict yourself to the word limit. Please keep to it. It takes more time to summarize Eliade, for instance, in 500 words than it does in 1500; you'll need to do a few drafts to get it right.

Another challenge will be to present the final product in correct essay-writing style. If in doubt about this, please consult the "Stylesheet and Guidelines" in our department's Blue Book (available in the department office) and (for the use of gender-neutral language) WLU's Equity in Communication Guide. Also, I encourage you to use the excellent services of WLU's Writing Centre (coordinator: Emmy Misser). And talk with me about it.

4. I propose that we devote weeks 8 through 13 to getting to know some scholars who teach in Religious Studies departments across Canada. Here's the plan.

(1) Start early in the course.
(2) Search the departments of religion in Canada on the Canadian Corporation for Studies in Religion website, find scholars who teach and do research in an area that interests you, and choose one you think you'd like to get to know in more detail.
(3) Find the scholar's publications and begin to read them (search the library CD-ROM for articles, search the regular library listings for books); some articles might need to be ordered via inter-library loan, so the sooner you identify them the better off you'll be. (4) If the readings intrigue you, contact the scholar and ask whether he or she would be interested in having a conversation with you about their work in a few weeks.
(5) Assuming the answer is "yes," read as much as you can of their work, with the intention of identifying their major concerns, points of view, direction of research: what do they write about? what matters to them as academics? where do they fit in the larger field of Religious Studies? what kind of people do they seem to be?
(6) Write this up, and include a full bibliography.
(7) Once you've done that, contact the scholar to discuss their work, and to expand your impression of them. The easiest way to do this will be via email, but phone conversations can work too, of course.
(8) Write up your results.
(9) Then present your findings orally to the class in a 30-minute session in which you introduce us to the person in question.
(10) Fine-tune your written description and submit it to me no later than 7 days after you've presented it in class; word limit is not an issue.
value 35% / 40% for undergraduates

I expect the final part of this course to be driven by your research. Classes will be divided into four presentations per week.

5. I would like you to do a final integrative paper (maximum 2000 words for undergraduates, 4000 words for graduate students; due December 15 for undergraduates, December 22 for graduate students): based only on the scholars who have been examined during weeks 8 through 13, what are some major issues and directions in "Religious Studies" in this country?
value 20% / 25% for undergraduates

|top|