LifeOnaPlate wrote:The main problem I have with Hamblin's piece is that it fails to engage any actual people, any actual arguments, aside from a brief, dismissive reference to Claremont. Hamblin doesn't define Mormon studies. Instead, he rhetorically denigrates it by referring to it as a “fad,” and offers up a caricature which can’t actually be verified by readers without considerable assumptions on the part of any given reader. Rhetorically, he has set himself up to win an easy victory against precisely no one.
So first he sets up a distorted picture of what might constitute Mormon studies, then he claims that Mormon studies doesn't actually exist. The essay is a brief exercise in de-legitimization, a political wrangling, and it tastes a little of sour grapes. I suggest this is the case because, as Hamblin argues, some of the folks who fancy themselves part of Mormon studies have criticized the work of FARMS to which Hamblin feels (felt) a deep allegiance. He says people have claimed apologetics should be out of bounds. This fails to discriminate between people who don't like apologetics altogether and people who merely object to a certain style or approach of particular apologetics. This explains why he can claim: The fact that the director of the Maxwell Institute has decided to no longer allow the Institute or its employees to publish LDS apologetics will, in the long run, not even put a small dent in the effort." Other than Hamblin and DCP I haven't seen anyone say NAMI will no longer publish apologetics.
Scott Lloyd wrote:What is "Mormon Studies," anyway? The definition seems to be somewhat nebulous. Is it ivory-tower esoterica?
Are we to assume that it excludes any scholarly activity pertaining to Mormonism up until the founding of the graduate program at Claremont?
No, and I don't think anyone said it did. But perhaps Hamblin's assumptions would require such a strange notion.
Oddly enough, one of the best analyses of Mormon studies as a newer phenomenon appeared under the editorship of DCP in the FARMS Review! Gerald Bradford wrote it:
http://maxwellinstit...19&num=1&id=640It isn't perfect, but it does a good job of laying out the conclusion that Mormon studies is in fact a rising interest in the academy. (Also, someone alert the HBL Library at BYU, because they think MoStudies exists, too:
http://guides.lib.by.../mormonstudies/)
Joseph Antley speaks well:
Joseph Antley wrote:I think Hamblin is overstating a bit...there are a number of peer-reviewed journals devoted to Mormon studies, graduate programs, and research groups. And interest in Mormonism by outsiders is only growing, and I really think that the majority of those in the field have abandoned the "us vs. them" mentality that, in my opinion, leads to much of the negativity.
Hamblin is right that Mormon studies may still be a relatively tiny field, but I only see growth and positive things on the horizon.
Hamblin's conclusion says:
Furthermore, for the most part, only Mormons--or their marginalized and ex-Mormons counterparts--actually do Mormon studies...The fact of the matter is that, up until now, there simply have not bee enough interested non-Mormons willing to devote the time and study necessary to master the field. Ask yourself: who are the top ten non-Mormon scholars on Mormon religion?
I doubt anyone here could name the top 5 scholars or journals of biochemistry, theoretical physics, Islamic studies, or botany. I don't think that actually proves anything. But I can immediately name 5 non-Mormon scholars off the top of my head who have done great work in MoStudies (which is, basically, the study of religion using the various tools of a variety of academic approaches and methodologies, ie, a subset of religious studies) who don’t fall under Hamblin's categorization: Turner, Gutjahr, Mould, Shipps, Maffly-Kipp. Claremont's journal, Dialogue, the Journal of Mormon History, and the International Journal of Mormon Studies are all good journals as well. And here is a list of university courses, small but growing, on Mormon themes:
http://timesandseaso...tudies-courses/As others have noted, no one is claiming that Mormon studies is going to take over the world, that it will dominate the university, that it will revolutionize human existence and demand attention from all scholars. Instead, we see it as a growing interest in the academy that may or may not stick around for the long term, but the present prospects are promising, and they are producing some wonderful work. And most importantly, the work does not exclude apologetics, even if a very tiny fraction of it criticizes various apologetic attempts or approaches.
Just to reiterate my most important point: Hamblin tries to make the argument that Mormon studies doesn't exist, and that in order to be legit, it must have large departments at multiple universities. This is simply a subjective opinion about what might legitimize a particular academic study. Such academic studies as fields are socially constructed---they exist to the extent that communities of scholars participate in their discourses through conferences, journals, blogs, books, etc. So Hamblin argues against (and skews) the discursive community of Mormon studies, and then argues that it doesn't actually exist, in addition to arguing that it isn't big enough to count, ignoring any counter evidence. His arguing against it proves its existence, even if he doesn't like how it is constituted. (And even then, I think he misrepresents how it is constituted.)
