methodology I think

I found the issue of methodology relating to the three articles a fascinating exercise on my own academic biases. Thus, while addressing some of the questions posed by Dr. Garrett I will explore why I found Huntington’s Introduction to be a better methodological model.

Structure and articulation are inextricably linked in these pieces, for structure dictates how you can say something and how you say something implies a type of structure in an essay. Bynum and Huntington have very different structures. Bynum has a narrative approach while Huntington is analytical. Bynum’s approach allows her to create a dialogue between the past and present, a point I will come back to. In doing this however her approach relies on the connection of various intertwined narratives that tie her theme together. For example in “Fragments” she starts by describing how two scholars from the Middle Ages understood bodily fragmentation (pp. 11-13). Then (pp. 13-14) she goes on to discuss fragmentation in terms of a collection of essays, all dealing with various “fragmented” topics. She returns to the theme of fragmentation (pp. 21-23) by asserting that medieval history has been fragmented off from the rest of history due to a lack of engagement with new historical theory, something she seeks to engage. And finally, the last part of her Introduction (pp. 24-26) deals with the idea that all historical work is fragmentary, that is only partial and liable to change. This is a rather relaxed method, mingling theory with narrative and anecdote, which I found more expositional than argumentative. I found her humorous and engaging, although somewhat informal, perhaps given that her intended audience was broader than just scholars in her field, thus trying to make her writing appeal to the amateur “historian” or the novice student.

Huntington is dealing with a much more theoretical topic and applies what I found to be a much more rigorous and authoritarian method. He is more succinct in defining his terms, and the methods he is countering, for his purpose is to present a method whereby scholars can discuss the meaning and not just the historical and philological aspects of the text. Thus, he begins by outlining the currently accepted scholarly methods for studying Asian religious philosophy, points to their failings, and outlines what he believes to be a better approach to the texts, i.e., one that addresses problems of interpretation. This might be the heart of my bias, for I find a method dealing with meaning and interpretation more engaging than one that is expositional.

He, unlike Bynum in either of her articles, quotes from scholars who support his method (pp. 8, 10, 14) and from the Western philosophical traditions of hermeneutics and epistemology that provide the groundwork for his interpretive method (pp. 7, 9, 10). Bynum tends to use her references to other scholarship for empirical data rather than theoretical abstraction, and she mentions them more in passing than to prove a point (for Huntington they directly help to justify his methodological claim). In fact, in “Holy Feast” she does not name any scholar outside of the time period she is writing about, which may be intentional on her part, since her purpose in the book is to reveal the past. She says: “It is a book about then, not about now… My commitment, vision, and method are historical; I intend to reveal the past in its strangeness as well as its familiarity” (“Holy Feast” p. 8). In “Fragments” however, she does use major twentieth century intellectual thought. She says: “The three methodological pieces all use major twentieth century intellectual figures as means to better understand late medieval religion” (“Fragments” p. 14). This contrasts the different purposes in her books, and thus the different methods employed. In “Fragments” to show how the past engages questions that are seen as modern, and in “Holy Feast” to show how the past was.

This brings up the problem of history addressed in all three Introductions. Bynum’s methodology creates a link between the past and the present. In “Fragments” the goal is to show how the medieval mind understood problems that are in the forefront of history today, to bring medieval history into the realm of modern historical method. In “Holy Feast” the goal is to show how the past is unique from the present. Although Bynum mentions in both Introductions that present day society is not a direct descendant from medieval society she can make these links because the she is working within the same tradition, that is Western tradition. For Huntington history and the historical consciousness become more complicated. He says: “This introduction to the Madhyamika is predicated on a conviction that any attempt at understanding the texts must proceed through an effort to uncover our own presuppositions as well as those of the Indian and Tibetan authors” (pp. 14-15). The Western religious/philosophical vocabulary is different from the Indian, and the Western scholar cannot empty him/herself of this contingency. History is both enemy and friend, for helps give context to the Buddhist texts, but it also burdens the translator with hidden presuppositions. Thus, Huntington makes use of Gadamer’s theory of hermeneutics to aid the western reader in understanding these texts.

Could it be that because my research is centered on engaging a topic as a philosophical concept that I found Huntington’s method more appealing? Or, could it be that working with non-Western material in English requires a more critical approach? Since that is what I plan on doing, the issues of translation and interpretation will have to be a necessary part of my methodology.