Ken writes:
> You've misunderstood. I categorically distinguish between *studying religion* and *practicing religion*.
I understood. I am just disagreeing. For me to study religion and its history is to study its philosophy.
> (that's why when you want to know about Buddhism you don't read Hegel, although Hegel was foundational for shaping how many western scholars received Buddhism).
Right you read Buddhism. And it is only by reading Buddhism and the different forms it has taken that you can write/create its history. As a consequence you have to write about the Four Noble Truths, the 8-Fold Path -- in other words its philosophy (whether you agree with it or not). If you read Hegel all you get is weird notions about black people and climates and why they cannot attain perfection LOL.
> I am interested in figuring out what Augustine thinks and writes about in terms of theodicy...
Well, maybe you are studying what people say about something (Buddhism, e.g.) rather than the thing itself.
> I want to add (before I've read the entire review) it appears as though you've misunderstood the point made in the quote, or understood it but taken it in a different direction. Bartholomeusz is commenting on an unexplored aspect of Wilson's work: the consistency of the male gaze as male. Bartholomeusz seems to be suggesting that perhaps the gaze that Wilson argues is consistently found in the specific practices she discusses might not be accurately identified as "male" - and hence should be qualified as a particular trajectory of masculine subjectivity without being definitive of masculine subjectivity in the Buddhist tradition.
What she writes is: " . . . just as all things are subject to change, so are all interpretations. In other words, whether the male gaze empowers or disempowers the female, or whether there is a male gaze at all, remains to be seen."
To me that clearly states that all approaches are subjective. Where one person will see a male gaze another will not. It seems similar to Kelley's point about the man who saw women as having all the power in pornography. Also, this male gaze started (I think -- again I am no scholar) with Laura Mulvaney writing about Hollywood films.
Funny thing though. This male gaze -- objectifying women as sex objects -- was brought about by a s**tload of queers LOL. Minnelli, Cukor, Leisen, Goulding, Arzner, Atkins, Adrian, Billy Daniels, Head plus all the make-up, hair, costume designers, art people who thrived in Hollywood. Same facts and movies -- two different interpretations.
> You've gone on to take this in an awkward direction.
I don't feel skewed at all. LOL
> Wilson is presenting her work as factual. The facts are, of course, interpreted. But just because theorising is an interpretive endeavour doesn't mean that it isn't true.
Did not say it wasn't true. I only say it is a possible version of the truth. Like electrons were once thought to be the smallest elements of matter until quarks came along (which had been there all along).
> Wislon presents her work as part of a theoretical claim - suggesting that her framework is an accurate way to
understand this kind of literature.
But there are other frames. And how do you measure the accuracy of a frame? Isn't how we know something a moral as well as an espitemological question?
> It is well argued and supported - and ultimately she does present it as 'factual' which is to say 'an
interpretation.'
Huh? How can something be a fact and an interpretation? Like me cheating on my boyfriend and being monogamous at the same time.
> But interpretations can be good or bad.
Agreed. But facts are not good or bad. They are true or false.
> Interpretations of this literature that argue that it is proto-feminist are bad interpretations, they lack merit and cannot be substantiated as well as alternative explanations.
I got that. But how is the criteria set up? Who is the judge?
> If there is a hostility to scholars it has nothing to do with how or what they present. If arrogance was a sin of scholarship there wouldn't be anything to read.
Why? Are you saying scholars have no humility?
> Most scholarship is elitist, technical, jargonistic, and specialised. I'd wager that most people don't have the
skill or discipline to be able to read Faure's work, for example.
Please. I have a basic education and can read Faure. He ain't that deep (though sometimes he writes as if he thinks he is LOL).
> The hostility towards scholars is probably akin to the hostility towards vegetarians... those hostile simply assume that intellectuals or vegetarians see themselves as occupying the moral, cognitive, and aesthetic
high ground. This is probably a false assumption in most cases.
And yet you were happy to point out to me that I misunderstood both you and the review I quoted. You added that I had taken something in an awkward direction. Isn't that taking the "cognitive high ground?" LOL.
Look, all I am saying is that a good interpretation is just that -- a good interpretation that seems to fit the situation best at this moment. Crossing over from interpretation to fact is where the problems start.
> Scholars are trained professionals. That there is hostility toward them likely comes out of fear, perhaps the perception that the intellectual is trying to steal something of value from them (like their religious believes).
Not fear, just a little wariness at the dangers of inflated claims and their consequences.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister