ABSTRACT
A well-known conflict in the study of religion is that between the perspective of the participant (whether we designate such people as “the faithful,” “believers,” “practitioners,” etc.) and that of the scholar who studies them and their assorted cultural productions. Perhaps not surprisingly there exists a range of views on this topic. These run the gamut from scholars who are themselves members of the groups they are studying, and who thus see themselves as participating in some sort of mutual conversation with their tradition, to those scholars who may strongly disagree with the groups under study (such as those who study so-called religious extremists). This issue has traditionally been characterized as the insider/outsider problem, with the words “emic” and “etic” standing in as a more technical way of talking about issues of viewpoint, along with how the methods used by scholars can be influenced by the stance one adopts. Although there was a time when some framed the issue as being about working to achieve objectivity, and thus strict neutrality, today the issue is rather more nuanced than this. Very few scholars, including critical scholars, claim that the standard we ought to be aiming for is completely disinterested detachment. Despite recognition that interests are a slippery, ever-present thing and that perspective is inevitable, a critical scholar will probably still wish to maintain some methodological safeguards to be able to distinguish participant claims and accounts from those of scholarly ones. Whether or not these different viewpoints present a problem—as in the way this topic has traditionally been phrased—will depend on what a scholar aims to do when studying religion.
