It may be pointed out in this context, that acquaintance with scholarly work
produced in languages other than English has all but disappeared among a
sizable number of North American academics in the field of religion. This is
particularly troubling in the case of theory and meta-theory, as some of the
most important work in these areas is carried out in languages other than
English, especially in German. One can attend interminable debates about the
ideological functions of religion as well as about the need for scholars of religion
to engage in ‘scientific’, that is, non-theologically colored work not only
without ever hearing even a single reference to the stuff that constitutes
‘religion’ but also without anyone ever mentioning Hans Albert’s lucid work
or Ernst Topitsch’s exercise in ideology-critique, Vom Ursprung und Ende der
Metaphysik, a book published almost fifty years ago (1958). In order to be
reminded that books and articles are published outside the English-speaking
world—in order, indeed, to be reminded that other languages do exist—one
needs to have access at the very least to reviews of books written in a number
of languages. While US based journals such as Religious Studies Reviewand
History of Religionsregularly publish such reviews, the Journal of the American
Academy of Religion, the most widely read journal among North American
scholars of religion, no longer considers it necessary to acquaint its readers
with the multitude of books published in foreign languages. In addition to
contributing to the parochialism of some of the scholarship produced in the
United States, this deplorable policy constitutes a step back, as the journal that
eventually became the JAAR, namely, the Journal of the National Association
of Biblical Instructors, known later as the Journal of Bible and Religion,
regularly published reviews of such books, including, in 1952, a couple in
Russian and Swedish. This salutary practice continued when the JAARcame
into existence in 1967; in fact, reviews of Japanese books appeared in 1968
and 1969, with a good number of foreign language books having been reviewed
between 1975 and 1983. Thereafter the number decreased sharply, until after
1996 reviews of books written in languages other than English ceased
altogether.
The monolingualism that characterizes some of the theorizing and meta-
theorizing prevalent in the United States belies the current academic infatuation
with ‘diversity’ and ‘the Other’. Even though most US American academics
claim to reject the US government’s contempt for world opinion, their ignorance
of work produced outside the English-speaking world (unless it happens to be
available in English translation) mirrors the who-cares-about-the-world attitude
of their government. This situation should not, in principle, surprise anyone,
as scholarship is very much part of the society in which it is practiced. An
extreme example of this embedding is provided, precisely, by theory, that is,
by that component of the academic enterprise that would appear to have freed
itself from the constraints that apply to less exalted academic pursuits. One
sees this in the fact that dealing with theory and meta-theory corresponds in
1111
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1011
1
2
3111
4 5 6 7 8 9
20111
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
30111
1
2
3
4
35
6
7
8
9
40111
42222
3
411
NORTH AMERICA
245
