Religious plurality, gender Identity and philosophy

If there is one BIG Idea that should be explored in more depth in RE it’s the meaning and significance of plurality.

What does it mean to ‘be religious’ in a modern plural world?

There is not much doubt that we are seeing a quality of teacher-led debate about RE that gives great optimism for the future – if only the powers that be would allow the debate to be reflected in high status provision for RE in all schools. There is still a need to Realise the Potential!

Discussions after Chris Selway’s recent post on Save RE about breadth and/or depth in RE typifies that quality with valuable contributions throughout. One from Pat Hannam caught my eye. So here are some extracts (thanks Pat, and apologies for the edits!):

“Rather than counting religions … I think it comes down to giving children and young people the opportunity to attend to …… the lived lives of those who would count themselves as religious or non-religious. The ‘study’ of religions has problems so long as we objectify what is subjective and do not cultivate the dispositions and skills in children to open up to the significance of plurality ….. Another danger is that religion or non-religion is only presented to children and young people through the eyes of the Abrahamic traditions – that is in general propositional belief and about practice; which is not the complete picture”.

But first – gender identity. One of the most dramatic social and cultural shifts in recent years has been the re-evaluation of the notion of gender identity. The notion of a simple binary of male/female is being exploded in front of us. And schools are quickly responding by rethinking the shape of much sex and gender education policy and practice. We could discuss religious responses but that is not my concern here.

I don’t know what proportion of the population live outside the ‘traditional’ male/female binary; but my guess is that it is a relatively small, albeit important, minority. But the proportion of the population who no longer fit into the standard binary religious categories (Christian, Hindu, Atheist etc) is much higher – much, much higher!

Given we are so sensitive in education to the need to acknowledge the lived reality and complexity of gender identity , does RE show an equal commitment to the lived reality and complexity of religious and non-religious identity? My sense is that the answer is generally – no!

One possible explanation is contained in this quote from Prof Detlef Pollack: “The growing plurality in the religious field undermines the social validity of religious convictions and withdraws their plausibility, which is taken for granted as long as these convictions are shared by the majority”.

Does RE pay serious attention to pluralism? In one obvious but rather limited sense the answer is yes. RE is now multi-faith and even includes non-religious world-views. But this is clearly not quite what we mean by plurality of identities. We use ‘Many Christians do X’ OR ‘Most Muslims believe Y’ – but that is not the same as seriously investigating the idea of pluralism as a lived reality.

Isn’t the reality that many (most) people live with plural religious and secular identities? Most people do not experience a sense of ‘commitment’ to one religion or belief. Being a ‘committed Christian’ is not the norm for most people who might loosely identify with that religion. We live in a world in which we negotiate pathways between religious and secular worlds. This is the social reality of religion and belief in modern life. That is the stuff of RE. It is the job of RE to investigate that complex plurality. It is not the job of RE to try to challenge or re-dress that complexity.

Philosophy or the social sciences?

Which brings me to philosophy; endless RE topics focused on philosophical issues around the existence of God etc. We tend to focus our critical enquiry into religion on the discipline of philosophy. Why?

I suspect it’s because philosophy of religion is abstract and safe. It does not, in reality, threaten traditional religious orthodoxies. Few people make decisions about their beliefs on the basis of the abstract arguments of philosophy. Dare one suggest that for most people philosophy of religion could be seen as intellectually challenging but existentially barren?

If we want to get inside the skin of religion and belief in the modern world, we need to engage with the idea of pluralism. If you want to engage seriously with the idea of ‘making sense of the lived reality of religion and belief’ you need to shift to embrace more of the perspectives of the social and human sciences.

So – if there is one BIG Idea that should be explored in more depth in RE it’s the meaning and significance of plurality. What does it mean to ‘be religious’ in a modern plural world?