Interpretation: Comparative Religion
Faculty Evaluation
12JUN1997
On the first day of class, Kirk told a story about
young Buddhist boys and their playful games. When the boys would discover they
had an attachment to a misconception, instead of anger or frustration which a
western youth might exhibit, the children would clap away the attachment and bow
in thanks towards the peer who helped them discern the unfounded bias. One of
the accomplishments of this quarter, for me, was to clap away a number of misconceptions
other materials had imparted towards the texts we read. I learned to reclaim the
texts and their stories for myself, interpreting these for what was found in them
and not what I knew about them. This happened to be one of the more difficult
tasks for me, as I registered for this class due to my interests in Comparative
Religion. Kirk from the outset discussed the need for both disciplines in the
context of the work we were to do; he said that the work was incomplete if we
only looked at one side of the course title. Concentrating on the task and texts
at hand insured that we were not interpreting cultures or religious institutions
for what they contained in their histories, but what their texts said about their
creators lives, their desires, and their spiritual goals. As one of my notes from
the discussion on Milton's Paradise Lost reads, "we are cursed by a world
where our individuality (sic individual interpretation) is compromised by the
institution, where objects tend to turn into subjects."
There were many times in which it was necessary for Kirk to show control in regards
to our discussions. On several occasions there were situations which warranted
Kirk's intercession to direct the conversation away from an overt bias which had
little or no relevance to the texts at hand. He was overly fair in these regards,
in that he would attempt to understand first, exactly what was being said, so
there wasn't any room for misconception. He respected each of our attempts at
interpretation, even if it was in the service of a bias, and did not reflect what
was being said by the texts. Personal conflict was for the most part avoided due
to his careful steering of our foundering ship through the troubled waters of
individual interpretation. We seldom were forced to acquiesce to the desire, or
need to agree to disagree. Even though at first when we began interpreting more
difficult texts, Geertz for example, we encountered a deafening quiet, he didn't
allow the silence of struggle to go on too long. Nor did he do all the work for
us, although at times it might of seemed so, his work at directing the discussion
was tantamount to our getting a better grasp at what we were reading and interpreting.
The fact that the class was as varied in experience as it was, not once did that
variance weigh on the discussion, or terrify those with less experience away from
speaking. In writing seminar this was particularly apparent. Oftentimes our writing
assignments would show glaringly the bias we might not have raised in seminar,
he would simply address the fact that this might not be in the text, as was usually
the case. Never once did I feel that criticism wasn't constructive, or that my
efforts were not being appreciated, in regards to my growth as both a writer and
an interpreter. Kirk's assistance on my final presentation made the difference
between a paper which excelled at discussing topics which had not been brought
out in our discussions, yet remained central to our whole work, and a paper which
descended into bias which was unfounded by the supporting material. The configuration
of the divine in our texts was one of paternity, I would say that Kirk did an
excellent job of fathering a community, which gained new insight and skills in
the task of interpretation of texts, and comparative religious studies. I feel
that with his help, we all made progressive strides towards being scholarly readers
and attentively civil students at Evergreen. I would recommend both this class
and Kirk to other prospective students.