Episode 302: Public Scholarship & Representation
Transcript!
PDF transcript. Also available via our Buzzsprout page.
Shownotes
(because citations are political)
Today’s episode is the first of a pair centered on public scholarship, representation, and ultimately the work of Dr. Simran Jeet Singh. This one sets up all the issues of doing public scholarship in religion: why we do it, why you might want to, and why it matters.
The thesis of this episode? Public scholarship is just teaching outside the classroom.
E302: Public Scholarship & Representation
27 January 2021
In which we talk about public scholarship, why you might want to do it, and how representation of religion—maybe especially minoritized religions—in various publics matters.
E303: Simran Jeet Singh Keeps Going
10 February 2021
Guest lecture chat with Prof. Simran Jeet Singh, author of oh so many things, but most recently Fauja Singh Keeps Going, which both NPR and the New York Public Library listed as a top 2020 title.
The 101:
(where we did the professor-work)
Another math equation from Megan for us, this time on public scholarship:
Public Scholarship = public sharing of expertise + publicly accessible format + comprehensible by folks who didn’t spend a decade in grad school
And, she argued, we need public scholarship on religion in particular because lots of folks never take religious studies classes. Or worse yet, have never listened to this podcast. So they don’t know that Religion Is Not Done With Us.
Megan is basically a missionary for public scholarship. Here’s why: (1) you, scholar of religion, are an expert, which means you know stuff that matters. (2) public work isn’t safe, and it’s less safe for scholars who are already less safe both within and outside the academy.
There are objections to public scholarship, which we refuted.
Objection A: no one cares about my stuff
Incorrect. The stuff you work on is interesting and important to you, or you wouldn’t work on it. You just have to find a way to explain WHY it’s interesting and important, much as you would in an intro class on your subject. People DO care about your stuff — they just don’t know it yet. So help them out.
Objection B: I’m not an “expert”
Again, incorrect. Do you have graduate-level training in religious studies? Then you are an expert in religion. Do you know everything there is to know about all the religions in all the world throughout time and space? You do not. But also neither does anyone else, so don’t sweat it.
(This is not advice for everyone, I should say. Let me be even more specific: I am emphatically not giving this advice to most straight white cis dudes in the academy. We know what you think, because you tell us. You tell us all the time. We’re all good on what you think. This IS advice for anyone who’s first reaction to the word “expertise” is to cringe in horror like Nosferatu at dawn. Chances are you are minoritized in the academy (on the basis of race and/or gender and/or sexuality and/or class and/or disability and and) AND you have been socialized not to kick up a ruckus or draw attention to yourself. This advice is for y’all.)
Objection 3: My work is too complicated to explain to the public
Incorrect thrice. Anthea Butler does public-facing work. Judith Weisenfeld does public-facing work. Your work is not more complicated than their work.
People assume that because public-facing work is comprehensible to general audiences that it must be dumbed down. It’s not. No, it’s not every single piece of information and analysis you’d include in a peer-reviewed article. But it is bringing the full weight of your scholarly expertise to bear on an issue that affects our lives and our world.
Clear and concise are not dumbed down.
And, just to reiterate: public scholarship is not safe for everyone.
Institutions and guilds are increasingly calling for public scholarship, but they’re mostly not set up to help deal with the blowback. And there can be blowback, especially if you’re not white, not male, not cis, not straight, not able-bodied, not securely employed, not institutionally-housed, etc.
There are incredible rewards to doing public scholarship: you can help shift important conversations on topics you care a lot about, build networks, refine your own thinking, translate complex ideas into vocabulary that helps people better understand their own lives and the world around them. But there’s also risk involved in doing public work, both professional and personal risks.
What does any of this have to do with Simran Jeet Singh? Well, he is a prolific public scholar who teaches us, all the time, about how certain people with certain bodies are not afforded the choice to be public scholars or not. He recently wrote, in “Why universities--and the rest of us--need religious studies” that as a turban-wearing, beard-having brown man, knowing about religion is a life or death issue for him and people who look like him. He’s talked a lot in public about how being a scholar, looking and presenting the way he does, means that his life - in and out of the academic arena - has often had folks demanding he be the Sikh voice, the Brown voice, the Non-Christian voice.
Story Time!
(the segment where we cite major works, scholars, & ideas in the study of religion)
In this episode’s story time, Megan shared a little snippet from the very first page of Mira Sucharov’s Public Influence: A Guide to Op-Ed Writing and Social Media Engagement.
We talked about how writing short things is harder than longer ones, how hilarious it is that Noam Chomsky would feel this way at the start of his career, and how disciplining our writing has been important—for us—as we lean into and take on more public scholarship.
Primary Sources!
(the segment where we talk about how the episode’s themes affect us, as humans, because the “I” matters)
We spent Primary Sources talking about why we do public work. Ilyse talked about why she does “hostile” audiences about Islam, why she writes about hate, and why her obscene privilege as a white Jewish lady influences all of it.
Megan says she sees public scholarship as a moral and ethical issue, especially encouraging others to do it, and especially when those folks are historically marginalized in society and the academy. She also said it’s fun!
Homework!
(that’s right, nerds, there’s always more to learn)
Ilyse assigned public scholarship examples by us, truly:
Megan & Ilyse on DinoZaddy, RuPaul’s Drag Race, and Islamophobia: “How a Stars and Stripes Hijab on Rupaul’s Drag Race Reveals America’s Troubling Relationship to Gender, Ethnicity, and “That” Religion,” Religion Dispatches April 27, 2020.
Megan’s 3 part series for The Revealer, which took the primary case studies from her book, Abusing Religion, and made it public scholarship:
Abusing Religion: Polygyny, Mormonisms, and Under the Banner of Heaven. February 20, 2019.
Abusing Religion: Race, Islam, and Not Without My Daughter. May 29, 2019.
Abusing Religion: Michelle Remembers and the Satanic Panic. February 4, 2020.
Hannah McGregor, Secret Feminist Agenda, Episode 3.25 Keep Podcasting Weird.
Simran Jeet Singh, our guest next episode, has oh-so-many public pieces. Here’s a few recent ones:
“Why universities — and the rest of us — need religion studies,” Religion News Service. December 4, 2020.
“Indian Farmers are Right to be Outraged,” co-authored with Dr. Gunisha Kaur, CNN.com. December 11, 2020.
Megan tried to keep it together and assign just enough.
REAL TO-DO: Dox yourself. No, seriously.
New York Times Guide to Doxxing Yourself on the Internet.
Mira Sucharov’s Public Influence (our Story Time read today!)
Tressie McMillan Cottom, “Everything But The Burden: Publics, Public Scholarship, And Institutions”
Her own piece about the value of religion: “The University of Vermont Might be Done with Religion But Religion Isn’t Done with Us.”