Key Concepts in Critical Cultural Studies

Religion: Faith in Cultural Studies

40 Religion Fa it h i n Cul t ur a l S t udies Quent in J. Schul t ze In a study of early American anthropologists, Gillian Feeley-Harnik (2001,144) discovered that scholars sought to escape from “transcendental philosophy and theology” by adopting new, presumably less ethnocentric ways of understanding cultures. Nevertheless, these researchers still held a “teleological dynamic” based on their understanding of the Christian metanarrative (152). Those of us who study culture today might be in the same bind. We affirm the existence of competing ways of life. We seek to avoid academic as well as religious exclusivism in favor of noble goals such as justice, freedom, and openness to the other. Continuing the attitude of early anthropologists, we still hold a “faith” in our work’s value for the future of society. I would like to explore this academic faith by probing the ancient Western myths that continue to animate our work, implicitly if not explicitly. I suggest that we are still bound to a faith in cultural investigation that can be traced to Hebrew and Christian metanarratives. Relying partly on the work of James W. Carey, whose ritual view of communication is one of the most theological theories of and for cultural study, I will explore three credos within cultural studies: a faith in diversity, a sense of realistic hope, and a commitment to sacrificial love. Re l ig io n 41 Faith in Diversity Thomas Cahill (1998, 60) asserts that the Jews invented Western culture’s faith in chronological progress. Even as a small nomadic tribe, the Jews broke from a cyclical view of history and adopted the belief that the “new” emerges beneficially from the “old.” Acting on such faith, Abraham “went forth” to establish the Promised Land. Although he did not know exactly where he was going (Heb. 11:8),Abraham imagined a better world. Similarly, says Cahill, the West believes that “out of mortal imagination comes a dream of something new, something better, something yet to happen, something—in the future” (63). This is not the end of the story, however, for in ancient Western religious thought such optimism is tempered by the recognition of human arrogance. God promises progress, but human beings repeatedly try to create heaven on earth on their own terms. In the biblical story of the Tower of Babel (Gen. 11), the Babylonians skillfully erect a tower into the heavens, but the monument’s grandeur reveals its builders’ hegemonic motives; Babylonians arrogantly sought to “make a name for themselves” by proudly erecting a self-glorifying monument. With wonderful irony, God “comes down” (Gen. 11:5)to look at the puny tower that the Babylonians foolishly believed was their stairway to heaven. Rather than destroy the tower itself, however, God dismantles the empire that created it. God creates linguistic and presumably cultural diversity to restrain human pride. This counterhegemonic scattering of people becomes a symbol of God’s faithfulness in the context of human arrogance. Perhaps humans need cultural diversity because we tend to be prideful empire builders. Maybe we tend to become so busy expanding our rhetorical and geographic terrain that we have trouble recognizing, or at least admitting, our conceited faith in ourselves and our projects. Referring to Christopher Columbus , Wes Jackson (1994, 15) suggested that conquerors “are seldom interested in a thoroughgoing discovery of where they really are.” Jackson enjoined us to beware our self-delusional faith in our abilities to guarantee a promising future. Instead, he said, we should accept “our profound ignorance—that we will never know more than a small part of what we need to know. Beginning with this . . . assumption, we are forced to remember our past, to hope for second chances, to keep the scale of our projects small, and be ready to back out when things go sour” (24). Up to now, those of us in the academic borderlands of cultural studies seem to have learned this lesson. By researching dynamic cultural forms and practices rather than erecting a static metatheology, we have remained relatively humble about the field’s contributions to academy and society. We generally admit that 42 Quentin J. Schultze cultures, like their animating religions, are best considered from diverse angles, not from a single, narrowly limited perspective. “Because religion involves, by definition, the transcendence and reconstitution of boundary, it occupies the border between the imagined and real, the historical and universal...