Note: This piece was originally published in the Journal of South Texas English Studies
In his article, “One University Under God,” Stanley Fish wrote, “When Jacques Derrida died I was called by a reporter who wanted to know what would succeed high theory and the triumvirate of race, gender, and class as the center of intellectual energy in the academy. I answered like a shot: religion.” Fish’s focus on the theological was created by his observations of academe and his conclusion that the line between religion and intellectuality, the border between an embrace of faith and a search for truth, was becoming more and more blurry.
Fish writes: Announce a course with “religion” in the title, and you will have an overflow population. Announce a lecture or panel on “religion in our time” and you will have to hire a larger hall. . . . And those who come will not only be seeking knowledge; they will be seeking guidance and inspiration, and many of them will believe that religion—one religion, many religions, religion in general—will provide them. Fish’s words, keenly observational if not prophetic, seem, in the context of the article, to be conveyed in an ominous tone that implies a need for scholars to enter academia with a bit of trepidation. Such an attitude implies that the religious guidance of which Fish speaks cannot coexist with secular practicality. However, it can and it does.
It is hard to deny a religious doctrine simply based on secular bias if that doctrine provides the practical knowledge so valued in Western secularity. That practical knowledge is rhetoric, and I present rhetoric as one effective bridge between religious doctrine and the secular liberalism that drives higher education.
Fish’s words, keenly observational if not prophetic, seem, in the context of the article, to be conveyed in an ominous tone that implies a need for scholars to enter academia with a bit of trepidation. Such an attitude implies that the religious guidance of which Fish speaks cannot coexist with secular practicality. However, it can and it does. It is hard to deny a religious doctrine simply based on secular bias if that doctrine provides the practical knowledge so valued in Western secularity. That practical knowledge is rhetoric, and I present rhetoric as one effective bridge between religious doctrine and the secular liberalism that drives higher education.
Before we begin to explore a new approach to the relationship of religion to academia we should recognize where we’ve already been. Melding the subjects of rhetoric with religion is nothing new. St. Augustine’s On Christian Doctrine applies Ciceronian tactics to teaching, praising and motivating based on scripture. He writes that, since common people cannot be nearly as eloquent as scripture, they have to use tactics derived from secular sources. Christ, himself, utilized many rhetorical tactics in his time. His stories about the good Samaritan and the prodigal son are easily recognized narratives in both religious and secular society. The marriage of Buddhism with academia and rhetorical theory, in particular, is nothing new, either. It has been applied to rhetorical strategies as well as pedagogy.
However, these texts seem to miss the fact that the Buddha explicitly addresses the use and importance of rhetoric for any sage. Mark Lawrence McPhail’s excellent work, Zen in the Art of Rhetoric, gives a Buddhist analysis of rhetoric, but from a specific Buddhist sect (Zen) and its general ideologies; he does not recognize rhetoric as a specific and explicit subject in the Buddha’s teachings.
The acknowledgement of a specific religious text as a treatise on rhetoric may be a new beginning for the presence of spirituality as a systemic part of the humanities. It may be a new beginning for student and scholarly interests in both rhetoric and religion. It may be a new beginning for those seeking spiritual fulfillment but lacking a graspable and practical conduit. When it comes to spiritual renewal, those inside and outside of academia may benefit from a study of rhetoric, and a Buddhist text may provide the most salient opportunity.
In this series, by initially acknowledging the inherent problems of communication that motivated the Buddha’s respect for rhetoric, I will show where the Buddha expresses the importance of rhetoric, how he exposes his own use of rhetoric, and what this implies about rhetoric, religion and academia: rhetoric is spirituality’s chaperon into the world; perhaps the study of rhetoric is the new focal point where religion and academia meet. Perhaps without rhetoric, we would not have religions, and religious figures would not be able to be religious figures. By examining a specific Buddhist text, The Lotus Sutra, I will show how rhetoric manifests in Buddhism and how Buddhism manifests in the rhetorical canon. The symbiosis of Buddhism and rhetoric is the bridge that can effectively connect religion and secular liberalism.
This article is the Part One of a four-part essay series by Dr. Erec Smith on The Lotus Sutra as a Rhetorical Doctrine
Happy to have discovered your Substack. Where the heck are the other three parts?