Found Theologies versus Imposed Theologies: Remarks on Theology and Ethnography from a Sociological Perspective
In: Ecclesial PracticesSearch for other papers by Gerardo Marti in
Current site
Google Scholar
Some theologians have adopted ethnographic methods in their theological work. This innovation brings exciting possibilities to theological work for grasping local social situations and structures, although it also brings significant new challenges. As a sociologist who uses ethnographic methods and pays attention to theological orientations and their effects, I view the work of ethnography as a powerful methodology filled with both possibilities and perils. The newfound enthusiasm for ethnography among theologians may not yet adequately recognize the hazards involved in the use of qualitative research methods for generating valid empirical observations. Insights generated by participant observation are constantly at risk of imposition of personal presumptions and asserted “truths,” especially when researchers enter the field with strongly held convictions and compelling worldviews. In this paper, a distinction between “found theologies” and “imposed theologies” is offered as a heuristic for conversation in the hope of further substantiating a sound basis for future scholarship.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
1
For example, see L. Bretherton, ‘Coming to Judgment: Methodological Reflections on the Relationship between Ecclesiology, Ethnography and Political Theory’. Modern Theology 28:2 (2012) pp. 167–196; L. Bretherton, Resurrecting Democracy: Faith, Citizenship and the Politics of a Common Life (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015); M. McClintock Fulkerson, Places of Redemption: Theology for a Worldly Church.(New York: Oxford University Press, 2007); C. Scharen and A. Vigen A (eds), Ethnography as Christian Theology and Ethics (New York: Continuum, 2011); N. Wigg-Stevenson, Ethnographic Theology: An Inquiry Into the Production of Theological Knowledge. (New York: Palgrave Press, 2014); C. Scharen, Scharen, Fieldwork in Theology: Exploring the Social Context of God’s Work in the World (Grand Rapids, mi: Baker Academic, 2015).
-
6
N. Wigg-Stevenson, ‘From Proclamation to Conversation: Ethnographic Disruptions to Theological Normativity’, Palgrave Communications 1 (2015) Article number: 15024 (2015) doi:10.1057/palcomms.2015.24http://www.palgrave-journals.com/articles/palcomms201524.
-
15
P. Lichterman, ‘Interpretive Reflexivity in Ethnography’, Ethnography (forthcoming in print, published online 2015) doi: 10.1177/1466138115592418.
-
20
C. M. Eastman, ‘Establishing Social Identity through Language Use’, Journal of Language and Social Psychology 4 (1985) pp. 1–20.
-
28
R.K. Merton, ‘The Thomas Theorem and the Matthew Effect’, Social Forces 74 (1995) pp. 379–422.
-
29
R.K. Merton, ‘The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive Social Action’, American Sociological Review 1 (1936) pp. 894–904.
-
31
See L. Gandhi, Postcolonial Theory: A Critical Introduction (New York: Columbia University Press, 1998).
-
33
Famously argued in K. Mannheim, Ideology and Utopia: An Introduction to the Sociology of Knowledge (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co.; New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1936).
-
34
N.M. Healy Church, World and the Christian Life: Practical-Prophetic Ecclesiology (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000), p. 36.
-
36
A.J. Milbank, Theology and Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reason (Oxford: Blackwell, 1989).
-
42
H. Blumer, ‘Science Without Concepts’, American Journal of Sociology 36 (1931) pp. 515–533. For a further nuancing on the use of concepts in research, see M. Hammersley, ‘The Problem of the Concept: Herbert Blumer on the Relationship between Concepts and Data’, Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 18 (1989) pp. 133–59.
-
43
S. Vaisey, ‘From Contradiction to Coherence: Theory-Building in the Sociology of Culture’, Paper Presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Sociological Association, Atlanta, G.A. (2010). See also J. O’Brien, ‘Sociology as an Epistemology of Contradiction’, Sociological Perspectives 52 (2009) pp. 5–22.
-
44
JS Dreyer, ‘The Researcher: Engaged Participant or Detached Observer’, Journal of Empirical Theology 11 (1998) pp. 5–22.
-
48
See T.S. Kaufman, ‘Normativity as Pitfall or Ally? Reflexivity as an Interpretive Resource in Ecclesiological and Ethnographic Research’. Ecclesial Practices 2:1 (2015) pp. 91–107.
-
49
S. Mathews, ‘The Social Origin of Theology’, American Journal of Sociology 18 (1912) pp. 289–317.
-
50
C.C. Brittain, ‘Why Ecclesiology Cannot Live By Doctrine Alone: A Reply to John Webster’s "In the Society of God"’, Ecclesial Practices 1 (2014) pp. 5–30.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 487 | 73 | 2 |
| Full Text Views | 350 | 11 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 288 | 23 | 0 |
Found Theologies versus Imposed Theologies: Remarks on Theology and Ethnography from a Sociological Perspective
In: Ecclesial PracticesSearch for other papers by Gerardo Marti in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Some theologians have adopted ethnographic methods in their theological work. This innovation brings exciting possibilities to theological work for grasping local social situations and structures, although it also brings significant new challenges. As a sociologist who uses ethnographic methods and pays attention to theological orientations and their effects, I view the work of ethnography as a powerful methodology filled with both possibilities and perils. The newfound enthusiasm for ethnography among theologians may not yet adequately recognize the hazards involved in the use of qualitative research methods for generating valid empirical observations. Insights generated by participant observation are constantly at risk of imposition of personal presumptions and asserted “truths,” especially when researchers enter the field with strongly held convictions and compelling worldviews. In this paper, a distinction between “found theologies” and “imposed theologies” is offered as a heuristic for conversation in the hope of further substantiating a sound basis for future scholarship.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 487 | 73 | 2 |
| Full Text Views | 350 | 11 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 288 | 23 | 0 |