Hermeneutical Justice at the Intersection of Religious Studies and Disability Studies: A Roundtable Conversation

Our intentionally inclusive roundtable aims to facilitate cross-temporal/ -cultural/ -disciplinary conversations centering on hermeneutical justice as an analytical framework, and thus encouraging participants and the audience to reflect on what this framework can offer for scholarly (as well as non-scholarly) discussions surrounding religion and disability. As Hänel notes (citing Fricker), a major challenge facing disabled people can be understood through the lens of hermeneutical injustice: “the injustice of having some significant area of one’s social experience obscured from collective understanding owing to hermeneutical marginalization” (5). Recognition of this fact has led to Disability Studies’ commitment to activist scholarship (as described in Vidali, 2010). However, and in potential tension with position, we can see another case of hermeneutical injustice when we consider the ways that contemporary western theories and epistemes are often applied to other cultures and times, essentially treating the lives and recorded experiences of these “others” as data to be ground through the Euro-American analytical mill. This risks replicating the exploitative, extractive logics of colonialism (Ogunnaike, 2022). Disability Studies scholars have recognized these issues in recent calls to decolonize the discipline and to inaugurate a “global disability studies” that challenges a universal application of Euro-American theories by attending to specific variables that shape individual narratives and lived experiences of disability (see: Dirth and Adams, 2019; Nguyen, 2018). Issues surrounding which theories and approaches are appropriate / applicable are obviously all the more fraught when religious figures, narratives, and practices are concerned, as such issues often possess particular existential importance to members of the groups in question (as discussed in Patton, 2019). This makes the sort of discussion we are proposing particularly salient in the context of Religious Studies as a discipline. This roundtable aims to facilitate productive, ongoing conversation on these complex issues by considering two related themes: first, the areas where current theories in the Euro-American discipline of disability studies can (and cannot) be productively applied to specific historical examples; second, examples of non-“western” theories / perspectives that could be used to rectify or problematize these theories. In both cases, exploration of cross-cultural and cross-temporal data and perspectives will be vital. Some theories that will be considered include narrative prosthesis, the felt/enacted model, and crip time; likewise, some non-western theories and exempla include the Buddhist notion of the eight unfortunate rebirths, the situatedness of “disability” discourses in South Asian medical and legal texts, contemporary Shin Buddhist views on disability seen through the lens of self-power/other-power, and classical Chinese perspectives on “useful/useless bodies.” This roundtable has been designed, from its inception, to embody the collaborative ethos exemplified by the past activities of both the Comparative Studies in Religion Unit and the Comparative Hagiology Group. As such, rather than the roundtable representing an initial, one-off conversation, the participants will meet in an online workshop prior to the conference, where we will share ideas, and engage in dialogue about our respective projects and approaches. In so doing, we will collaboratively settle on several organizing questions for the roundtable itself. Doing so will allow our academic conversation to evolve naturally, and thus better represent the interests and specialities of all participants, instead of forcing them into a Procrustean bed of preconceived notions. While reflexivity is important (and necessary), it pales in comparison to the breadth of perspective that can be gained through thoughtful, inclusive dialogue (as discussed in Hollander 2020). Moreover, and as noted in Freiberger (2019), truly effective interdisciplinary research does not merely involve a “buffet-style” sampling of theories and methods from a variety of sources, but rather requires a recognition of the contours of one’s own disciplinary training and scholarly identity (/identities). From such a disciplined standpoint, scholars can thoughtfully and intentionally engage in conversations across disciplinary boundaries, and thus arrive at theories and conclusions that could not have been reached via the tools and perspectives of any single discipline alone. With this insight in mind, the current roundtable aims to foster such an interdisciplinary conversation, drawing together insights from scholars in religious studies, disability studies, history, philosophy, and sinology. Inclusivity and Diversity This panel was intentionally constructed with an eye to diversity, including scholars who openly characterize themselves as disabled and who do not, from a variety of genders, and at varying stages of their academic careers (including PhD candidates, contingent faculty, and professors). Likewise, in the interests of accessibility, we are applying to present at the online conference in June, as doing so is more feasible for both participants with mobility challenges and those for whom a costly trip to California is simply unfeasible. Our accessibility concerns about the in-person conference obviously apply equally to potential attendees as well, which further cements our decision to participate in the online session. Bibliography Dirth, Thomas P., and Glenn A. Adams. 2019. “Decolonial Theory and Disability Studies: On the Modernity/Coloniality of Ability.” Journal of Social and Political Psychology 7 (1): 260–89. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v7i1.762. Freiberger, Oliver. 2019. Considering Comparison: A Method for Religious Studies. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Hänel, Hilkje C. 2022. “Potentially Disabled?” Inquiry 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2022.2136753. Hollander, Aaron T. 2020 “Comparison as Collaboration: Notes on the Contemporary Craft of Hagiology” Religions 11(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/rel11010031 Nguyen, Xuan Thuy. 2018. “Critical Disability Studies at the Edge of Global Development: Why Do We Need to Engage with Southern Theory?” Canadian Journal of Disability Studies 7 (1): 1–25. https://doi.org/10.15353/cjds.v7i1.400. Ogunnaike, Oludamini. 2022. “From Theory to Theoria and Back Again and Beyond: Decolonizing the Study of Africana Religions.” Journal of Africana Religions 10 (2): 174–211. Patton, Laurie L. 2019. Who Owns Religion? Scholars and their Publics in the Late Twentieth Century. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. Vidali, Amy. “Seeing what we know: disability and theories of metaphor.” Journal of Literary & Cultural Disability Studies 4:1 (Jan. 2010). 33-54