Centering Our Complex Human Stories: “Way of Life” Studies Liberated from Religious Labeling

Please accept this proposal for the Workshop session entitled “The Different Questions We Might Be Asking: If interspirituality (multiple religious belonging) or dharmic traditions were centered in Interreligious Studies, what might be different about the field?”

For many years interfaith encounter and interreligious studies has been guided by a model of engagement that emphasizes dialogue across clear lines of difference; lines demarcated by religious identity and affiliation. Participants were expected to be firmly rooted in their tradition so that they could effectively represent it to other participants similarly rooted in a different religion. The great value of such encounters was found in learning about and gaining an understanding about the diversity of religious traditions sand communities in our communities. Proselytizing was explicitly prohibited in order to preserve the boundaries between religions keep the focus on learning and understanding rather than personal growth and transformation. 

This approach was fine at the beginning, to build some knowledge of others and build some trust. I would argue, however that it no longer serves us, and is in fact harmful for our work today. There are two main reasons why we must decenter “religions” as discrete entities and labels in all our work; academic and in our communities. First, an inter-religious (between religions) approach simply leaves out too many people. The ever increasing rise of those who check the box marked “nothing in particular” are automatically marginalized, as is anyone affiliated with a religion who feels themselves insufficiently knowledgeable to speak for their tradition. Second, those who do choose to participate are expected to lead with their label and apologize for the ways they might deviate from the beliefs, practices, and approaches assumed to align with that label. In this way, parts of our lives are marginalized or excluded from consideration. Trying to center Multiple Religious Belonging could invite people to share how they cross these boundaries, but doesn’t go far enough as it continues to speak in terms of those same labels. 

For this presentation I propose a new framework that might be called “Way of Life Studies” that invites every person to bring their full self and their whole story to the encounter. This approach begins with the recognition that we are all individuals in context. Our understanding of and ways of approaching our lives is indistinguishable from our experiences alone and in communities with others and with the world. We look to the example of queer studies to help us. Religious identities, like gender and sexual identities are social constructs. If we use labels prescriptively to define people into different categories, we inevitably “straighten” them to fit our boxes and limit their flourishing. In contrast, we can invite each of us to describe ourselves, finding language to tell our stories and illuminate our connections with others. 

Our ways of life, however, include much more than our sense of ourselves as gendered and sexual beings. We would also consider our belonging and peoplehood, foodways, practices of reflection or introspection, beliefs/imaginations about God(s), spirits, human anthropology, and afterlife, ethical principles and moral values, mentors/teachers/models/heroes, sources of wisdom, texts and traditions of reading, notions of beauty, awe, and wonder, etc. In this way we acknowledge and give voice to our complex lives and intersecting self understandings. 

What would this approach mean in practice? Here are some ideas to explore:

1. We would center stories rather than labels. Our experiences would be our teachers and our whole lives would matter. 
2. We would set aside shortcut assumptions about what people practice or believe. We would have to slow down and take more time to get to know each other. We would have to be curious and ask more questions. 
3. We would organize and seek out panels and conversations that focus on the intentional practices of building pluralism, rather than the “representative” nature of the panelists. 
4. We would realize equality of access - each individual would be recognized as the total authority on their own experience.
5. We would resist the influence of patriarchy and institutional authority that can police the boundaries and promote a normative way of walking one’s path. 
6. We would focus on the dynamic, ever changing nature of our sense of ourselves in relation to our communities and the world. 
7. We would be freed up to express and experience inspiration and transformation without apology.