The Ideology of Religious Studies: The Birth of a Breakthrough or an Unnecessary Blow to a Discipline Fighting for its Place in the Academic Canon?

Abstract

Studies in Religion Departments continue to be undervalued within Australia’s tertiary education sector. As universities move funding and attention towards vocational degrees rather than humanities, it is important to revisit and build upon existing debates surrounding the efficacy and importance of critical examinations of religious phenomena. Timothy Fitzgerald’s The Ideology of Religious Studies (1999) provides a vessel for conversation and debate regarding whether a discipline built upon Euro-centric constructs, which fails to agree upon its own definitions, can add value as an academic category. This article will provide an overview of Fitzgerald’s arguments, followed by an exploration of rebuttals made by Kevin Schilbrack and Alexander Henley. Fitzgerald singles out Studies in Religion, failing to extend his analysis to the other academic disciplines (including, for instance, Art History) that also squabble about the meaning of their category and the influence of dubious colonial origins. The Ideology of Religious Studies continues to impact the discipline as it contributes to a narrative that undermines the credibility of the subject. I stress the irony that Fitzgerald’s arguments for the need to dissolve Religious Studies as a discipline. The way to improve Euro-centric academic categories and ensure they account for cross-cultural phenomena is not to dissolve them completely, but to change them. Instead of ‘giving up’ we must continue to focus on platforming a diverse array of voices and embrace academic ‘self-awareness’.