Abstract
The World Religions Paradigm (WRP) has long served as the predominant framework for teaching Religious Studies globally and in South Africa. However, criticisms of the WRP highlight its tendency to marginalize non-Christian, non-Western, and non-white perspectives. This article examines these critiques in the context of South Africa, particularly in light of the events of 2015–2016, when the #MustFall movement sought to raise and address issues of decolonization. This article will argue that South Africa provides a pertinent example of the need to re-evaluate pedagogical choices in Religious Studies education by emphasizing the importance of context in re-shaping the curriculum.
Introduction
Teaching religion requires a systematic approach that allows students to gain a coherent insight into the complex nature of religions, both historically and contextually (Havlíček 2018). While the World Religions Paradigm (WRP) has traditionally provided a classification framework for organizing religious material, it has faced criticism for its exclusionary nature, particularly regarding non-Christian, non-Western, and non-white perspectives. In this article, I will argue that the WRP's taxonomic approach is not suitable for the first-year introductory Religious Studies module at the University of KwaZulu-Natal (UKZN), specifically in light of South Africa's unique historical and social context as highlighted by the #MustFall movement in 2015–2016. This article reports on a project which explores pedagogical approaches in a particular context, aiming to develop a more inclusive and contextually relevant curriculum for the first-year introductory Religious Studies module at the University of KwaZulu-Natal.
World religions paradigm
The WRP holds a significant position in the ongoing debate about the so-called correct pedagogical approach within Religious Studies programs, both locally and globally, and the discipline of religion at the University of KwaZulu-Natal is no exception. The concept of the paradigm encompasses a distinct set of assumptions, concepts, or thought patterns which provide a theoretical framework that determines what is considered legitimate contributions to Religious Studies. Over several decades, this model has been widely employed in teaching Religious Studies modules.
One of the fundamental aspects of the WRP is its essentialized approach to the study of religion, which aims to distinguish the most prominent and widespread world religions, often referred to as the “Big Five,” namely Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. These traditions are presented in an Abraham-centric order and are considered to have attained substantial support and followers, rendering them formidable forces that have played a crucial role in shaping global history in various ways (Smith 1998, 280).
Attributed to Ninian Smart, the emergence of the WRP in the 1960s took place against the backdrop of “the context of colonial discourses” in the United Kingdom (UK) (Bleisch and Schwab 2021, 1). During this period, narratives and opinions about the religion and religious traditions of colonized societies were predominantly communicated from the perspective of the colonizers, resulting in the paradigm developing as a means to divide religions into an East-West, us-them binary, reinforcing colonial hierarchies and power dynamics (Masuzawa 2005). While the original intention behind the WRP was to broaden the study of religion beyond its Christian focus and encompass other prominent religious traditions worldwide, the term “world religions” was initially misinterpreted to refer exclusively to the world's major religions (Fujiwara 2016). For instance, in England's religious education sector, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and Sikhism were embraced as the religions imported by immigrant communities, which were credited to religious pluralism and included in the religious education curriculum during this period. However, minor religions, particularly those lacking in sacred texts, were excluded.
The WRP has heavily influenced the structure of the Religious Studies curricula, with religion courses often classified based on central beliefs, historical developments, scriptures, and founders, categorizing religions into discrete traditions with supposedly “global” significance (Cotter and Robertson 2016, vii). Despite its prevalence in the academic study of religion, the WRP has been subjected to rigorous criticism over the years (Cotter and Robertson 2016). Scholars such as Smith (1978), Masuzawa (2005), Owen (2011), Fujiwara (2016), and Alberts (2017) have extensively critiqued the WRP, offering objections in three key areas of contention. Firstly, the paradigm has been accused of modeling Religious Studies on Christianity, touting it as the ultimate truth while designating other faiths as having a lesser value. This approach inherently upholds a Christian-centric view, influencing how other religious traditions are perceived within the framework.
Secondly, the close association of the WRP with discourses of power stems from its historical context in colonialism, impacting the academic study of religion (Owen 2011). The paradigm accentuates hierarchical categorizations, prioritizing Christianity and the “Big Five” world religions, while often asserting their superiority over other traditions (Havlíček 2018). Lopez (1998) highlights the contrast between Christianity’s link with political power and lesser-known religions that claim universality beyond their geographical boundaries.
Moreover, the WRP’s essentialized and ahistorical perspective provides an “unsuspecting sui generis model of religion,” treating religions as distinct, independent entities devoid of historical contexts (Cotter and Robertson 2016, 7). This oversimplification fails to recognize the dynamic and contextual nature of religious traditions. The paradigm's construction of religions, using terms like “faith” and “holy scriptures” in an essentialized manner, further disregards historical and cultural contexts (Bleisch and Schwab 2021). Non-Christian religions are evaluated based on Christian standards, where beliefs played a central role.
According to Cotter and Robertson (2016), the knowledge gained from colonial ventures employed to exercise control and power is echoed in the WRP. The association between Christianity and political authority facilitated the export of these beliefs across the globe, making belief the benchmark by which all religions were judged (Lopez 1998). Two decades earlier, Smith (1978) asserted that from the perspective of the WRP, other religious traditions could only be classified as religions if they conformed to the Western criteria of Christianity. This monopoly on power reflected the underlying political and economic debates on how the world's populace was divided into adherents of the Big Five (Cotter and Robertson 2016) and the lesser species (Havlíček 2018) of religions.
As a pedagogical tool for introducing undergraduate students to various religions, the shortcomings of the WRP have become more apparent over time as highlighted by Bell (2006). One of the paradigm's significant drawbacks is its selective nature in determining which religions are included and which are left out. This selectiveness runs the risk of perpetuating the idea that some religions hold greater significance or are more globally relevant compared to others (Bell 2006, 34). Such an exclusive stance could inadvertently suggest that specific religious traditions do not meet the criteria for being labeled as world religions, potentially marginalizing a wide array of spiritual expressions.
Moreover, Chidester (2018) highlights the flaws of the WRP when applied to South African Religious Studies during the Apartheid and post-apartheid periods. The classification of world religions, with its arbitrary construction, where certain religious traditions were selected for inclusion without clear and objective criteria, has led to an uneven representation of religious diversity and has marginalized certain belief systems, particularly those of indigenous and non-Western cultures. Chidester further argues that this classification has been historically influenced by Eurocentric perspectives and colonial ideologies, where European colonial powers often imposed their own religious categories and interpretations onto indigenous cultures, disregarding the unique practices and spiritualities of these cultures. These biases perpetuated historical injustices and the paradigm's exclusionary stance opposed religious practices of colonized people, particularly the African religions.
While historically the division of the world into world religions served the imperialist project, enabling conceptual control over religious diversity, during apartheid the South African government controlled educational institutions to maintain cultural and racial dominance, leading to a focus on a limited number of world religions conveniently bypassing the religious practices of non-white ethnic groups (Chidester 2018).
In response to WRP's shortcomings, this article argues for a more inclusive and contextually sensitive approach to Religious Studies in South Africa. This approach recognizes the agency of individuals in shaping religious practices and meaning and seeks to move beyond the paradigm's eurocentric perspective.
The various classifications of religions within the WRP create the impression that religion itself has agency and hence social control over how the subject is taught and is independent of human agency. This augments the ability of the students to determine and make meaning based on their contexts—which encapsulates the sui generis model mentioned by Cotter and Robertson (2016). In agreement with Ramey (2016), they argue that religion is not inherently endowed with the agency to dictate how it is taught. Rather, it is portrayed by those who teach it as possessing agency. Furthermore, the construction of religion occurs through these presentations, rather than being merely reconstructed and reinterpreted.
However, this approach has faced criticism for misrepresenting the lived experiences of religious believers and has led to a pillarization of religions, often presenting them as monolithic entities (Cooling 2021). Pillarization, described as the division of society into distinct groups based on religion and their corresponding political beliefs, becomes evident through this perspective (Molendijk 2022). Such a colonizing approach ultimately fails to reflect the complexities and diversities of the broader religious landscape (Owen 2011).
In light of these critiques, it is essential for scholars and educators in Religious Studies to critically engage with the WRP and explore alternative approaches that promote inclusivity, contextual sensitivity, and an authentic representation of religious beliefs and practices. Embracing perspectives such as the lived religion approach, postcolonial theories and intersectionality may offer more comprehensive and nuanced insights into religious traditions globally. By acknowledging the historical context and shortcomings of the WRP, the University of KwaZulu-Natal and other institutions can lead the way toward a more reflexive and culturally sensitive study of religion within their academic programs.
Religion education in South Africa: A brief history
To argue against the WRP’s method of introducing first-year students to the study of religion through compartmentalization at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, it is necessary to delve into the history of religion education in South Africa. Against the backdrop of the historical context, Van den Heever (1994) argues that any theoretical reflection on religion and the study thereof cannot be undertaken without examining the political landscape of South Africa.
The onset of colonialism with the arrival of the Dutch in South Africa in 1652, was the beginning of centuries of religious flagrances that have had a lasting effect on the country. The doctrine of Christianity was employed in South Africa to justify the European colonial expansion from the sixteenth to the nineteenth century and facilitated racial and religious segregation by underpinning the religious motives in government policies. However, the religious monopoly was one-sided where the purveyors of power were found solely within the Reformed Protestant Church. This one form of Christianity was hallowed to the exclusion of other denominations and other religions. As a result, the reformed church played a significant role in shaping a Christian South Africa and was closely involved in implementing the racial segregation that governed the country (Van Den Heever 2004).
The arrival of the missionaries towards the end of the eighteenth century coincided with Britain's first occupation of the Cape, which meant that along with the superior position that Christianity already held in the country, the denigration of the African customs as barbaric and primitive was further enabled. The core focus of the missionaries and their mission stations was for the African people to eradicate their worldviews and adopt the culture and customs of the European settlers. The self-proclaimed sources of literacy meant that many African people were educated within the contexts of the mission stations. While religious education had been present in schools from the time of the arrival of the first (foreign) settlers, this was limited to instruction in the Christian faith (Summers 1992). In contrast, as inferred by Rose and Tunmer (1975), the missionary approach was a Calvinistic attempt to either convert non-Christian students or nurture the faith of those who claimed to be Christians, rather than a genuine effort to teach and promote religious education.
When the National Party assumed power in 1948, one of the critical development initiatives was implementing a new educational system in South Africa, further emphasizing Christianity as the religion of the Afrikaner populace. Although this regime did not establish Religious Studies in South Africa, the Christian National Education (CNE) policy sought to instill in children a particular brand of Christianity that mostly criticized other religions by highlighting its authority and a traditional Christian view of morality and reality, while simultaneously discouraging individualism and difference. Designed to protect the identity of the Afrikaner nation (Summers 1992), the educational system sought to close the social and economic divide between the Afrikaans and English-speaking populations established during British colonial rule (Damons 2016). The CNE was premised on a distorted interpretation of Christianity that erroneously endorsed racial discrimination and Apartheid policies.
Fueled by their quest for “separateness” and superiority, the Afrikaners considered themselves God's chosen people with an ordained mission; the nationalist government further reinforced this. This ideology not only formed the cornerstone of Apartheid, but the already flawed educational system became a primary vehicle for propagating the government's agenda. An underlying principle of Apartheid rule was to enforce strict separation among languages, cultures, races, and especially religions (Marquard 1959, 4). As a result, South African society and its institutions were forcibly segregated along cultural lines (Amin 2005).
The then prime minister Hendrik Verwoerd’s opening address to parliament in 1953, which stated that the Black population should only be educated based on the Christian faith, indicated the nationalist ambition to exert even stricter administrative control over Black schools. This was evidenced in the introduction of the Bantu Education Act 47 of 1953. This Act ensured the transfer of control of Black education from the church and mission schools to the state. Verwoerd’s address not only saw the segregation of universities in 1959, but the establishment of a separate education system in 1963 for the Coloured (mixed-race) populace, with education Acts passed for the Indians in 1964 and the Whites in 1967. As argued by Naidu (2011), the apartheid educational system promoted race, class, cultural, and gender divisions, which emphasized separateness rather than citizenship and nationhood. Even though the nationalist government sought to separate the running of the education departments according to race, the teaching of religion remained mandatory, occupying a pivotal place in the curriculum. Religion, from this perspective, meant Christian and reformed, and Christianity became the de facto religion taught at state schools and institutions of higher learning.
The 1980s heralded a surge of political action, social unrest, and anti-apartheid resistance led by various individuals and groups, including students, academics, and religious leaders, which contributed to changing views and contexts on religion in primary, secondary, and higher education. The apartheid system was in force at the time and the government's policies and actions significantly impacted the educational environment, particularly religious education.
There was a growing realization of the need to confront the dominant character of the CNE and encourage a more inclusive and varied approach to religious education. Scholars, educators, and activists engaged in critical dialogues and debates, investigating alternate views and criticizing the system’s inherent biases and exclusions. All of these interactions took place in the context of South Africa's quest for democracy, equality, justice, and social transformation.
According to Van den Heever (1994), religious communities in the 1990s attempted to insulate themselves against political change in the country. By considering religion as ahistorical and monolithic, Christianity was regarded as the truth, distinguishing it from falsehood (other faiths). As a result, any interreligious syncretism had to be denied, as any contact with foreign traditions would taint one's own traditions.
Until the early 1990s and despite the separateness that defined the schooling communities, the teaching of religious education was homogenous. During this time, there were numerous debates on the suitability of religious education in the school curriculum due to its association with Apartheid and the history of white dominance that shaped the country. Bible education was a compulsory yet non-examinable subject in all public schools for all grade one through twelve students. On the contrary Biblical Studies functioned as an examinable elective similar to subjects like math, geography, and biology from grades nine through twelve. The Dutch Reformed Church and Christian National Education policy determined the curricula and “dogma” for these subjects (Louw 2014, 175). The inclusion of Bible Education and Biblical Studies in Bantu Education served an ideological agenda, reinforcing the cultural hegemony of the Apartheid government by shaping the minds of citizens who could be politically and culturally controlled (Smit and Chetty 2015).
The African National Congress (ANC) won South Africa's first democratic election in 1994, formally ending Apartheid and the era of white minority rule. With the political changes came classroom changes, with students of different linguistic, religious, cultural, and racial backgrounds sharing the same space. All children were given the right to a foundational education under the nation's new constitution. This initiated the country's lengthy restructuring of the curricula and educational system. The role of religion in public education was extensively debated from 1996 to 2003. While discussions and transformation within the context of education in general continued, the matter of religion was held in abeyance until 2003 (Van der Walt 2011) when Kader Asmal, the education minister at the time, announced the enactment of the National Policy on Religion in Education (2003).
Within this framework, the new policy for teaching and learning religion was inclusive (Chidester 2003), allowing pupils to investigate their own religious identities within the country's diverse settings. Abandoning the enforced Christian education of the apartheid era, the policy on religion in education proposed teaching and learning outcomes centered on religious diversity that promoted an empathetic understanding of religion, thus allowing students to reflect critically on religious identity and diversity. The National Policy on Religion in Education, under the umbrella of the South Africa Schools Act (Act 27 of 1996), forbade confessional and denominational religion from being taught in state schools (Van der Walt 2011). The implementation of the policy prepared the way for two new examinable subjects, namely Religion Studies (grades ten through twelve) and the teaching of religion education in Life Orientation (grades R, which is South Africa’s equivalent to Kindergarten, through twelve) (National Policy on Religion in Education 2003, 14).
The changing trajectory in higher education
Prior to 1994, the study of religion in South Africa was primarily situated within the broader field of theology. However, with the advent of a democratic state in 1994, there was a significant shift in the positioning of Religious Studies as a discipline within higher education. As the country embraced democracy, Religious Studies gained increasing autonomy and had to redefine its role and place within the academic landscape. The political changes allowed Religious Studies to break free from its previous alignment with theology and establish itself as an independent and distinct academic discipline. Prior to the change in the political dispensation, specific departments were tasked with specific Religious Studies education. That is, the departments of Islamic Studies focused on Islam, Hindu Studies on Hinduism, and Jewish Studies on Judaism. At this point, Religious Studies departments at universities were viewed as a solid alternative to theology, which pre-1994 had been well-positioned within the education sector. Before the merger leading to the formation of the University of KwaZulu-Natal, the University of Durban-Westville (UDW) stood as a constituent institution, holding a prominent position in the field of Religious Studies with an array of religion specific departments. During 1997–1999 the Centre for Religious Studies underwent minor curriculum changes. One significant area of discussion was the terminology used to refer to African Religions. The preference shifted from African Traditional Religions to African Religions. The argument was that using the former term, African Traditional Religions, contributed to the derogatory nuances placed on it by scholars worldwide and relegated it to a secondary category of religion, while its contextual relevance was crucial to South Africa’s transition.
In 2015–2016 new voices began to emerge among students and academics in South Africa, calling for the decolonization and transformation of the curriculum. Having gained significant momentum, the movement challenged the academy to deal with the lingering effects of colonialism and Apartheid that continued to shape the country's educational system. By fostering inclusion, diversity, and a deeper understanding of the African knowledge systems, the movement sought to elevate marginalized voices. The emergence of the #MustFall movement saw students calling for the decolonization of the university and for symbols, spaces, and curricula (Behari-Leak and Mokou 2019) to be more relevant to the experiences and contexts of all South African students. Spurred on by the Rhodes Must Fall campaign at the University of Cape Town (UCT) in 2015, which saw the defacing of the statue of imperialist Cecil John Rhodes, a series of protests took place across universities in the country. The removal of the Rhodes statue at UCT was not only a victory for the student body but was the beginning of increased efforts to decolonize South African universities, which also resulted in the #FeesMustFall movement at the University of the Witwatersrand (WITS) in October 2015 (Martineri 2021). According to Martineri, the #MustFall movement was a new platform for expressing the voices of the marginalized who sought the socioeconomic inclusion promised in 1994 but which had never materialized. This series of protests led to a reverberation of unrest worldwide, with students expressing similar isolation and alienation in higher education in the United Kingdom, India, and the United States (Behari-Leak and Mokou 2019).
Some of the key objectives of the decolonization movement within the South African context involved the call to include African and indigenous knowledge systems into the curriculum to recognize their value and contributions to various sectors. While the WRP, in its traditional stance, did not include religions such as African Religions within its structure, at UKZN, the section on Buddhism, which formed the fifth component of the Big Five, was replaced by African Religions. This substitution, although seemingly addressing the contextual needs, might fall short of fully aligning with the goals of a decolonized curriculum and could be seen as a superficial change. As Cotter and Robertson (2016) state this might be a case of moving the deckchairs on the Titanic. However, it begged the question whether this was sufficient recourse. Acknowledging African Religions as valid yet complex religious systems with their own beliefs, rituals, and customs was a way of overcoming the historical marginalization of the tradition. This recognition required not only an appreciation of the cultural contexts of the religion, but also the diverse way in which they shaped African societies. Western knowledge was prioritized by challenging the epistemic injustices perpetuating unequal power dynamics, leading to the marginalization or dismissal of African knowledge. In challenging the Eurocentric biases that traditionally dominated the education systems in South Africa, the decolonization movement argued that the existing curricula reflected the ideologies, values, and power dynamics from the colonial era by excluding cultural and historical narratives.
Student demonstrations, curriculum reform requests, and the formation of student-led organizations campaigning for decolonized education have all resulted from the movement. It has also spurred debates and conversations in academic institutions and society on the need for an educational revolution by challenging traditional teaching methods and calling for a more participatory and inclusive pedagogic approach. This includes encouraging students to engage in debate, critical thinking, and collaborative learning to empower them and create a more equitable and inclusive learning environment. In response to the movement, South African universities have launched decolonization programs, including modifying course material, creating new courses, integrating local languages, sponsoring research on African knowledge systems, and providing spaces for African voices to be heard.
Considering the historical context of South Africa up until 2015, it is not surprising that the WRP prevailed as the framework for Religious Studies, even if in a nuanced manner. The legacy of colonization, the impact of Apartheid, and the emergence of Religious Studies in the post-apartheid era with a more significant focus on comparative religion, reinforced the use of the paradigm. However, in light of the decolonization movement that emerged in 2015/2016, there is a compelling need to reconsider and reshape how Religious Studies is currently taught. The goal is to move beyond the historical biases and limitations imposed by the WRP and embrace a more inclusive, diverse, and culturally sensitive approach to the study of religion that encompasses indigenous knowledge systems, marginalized perspectives, and diverse religious voices within the South African context.
Why context matters
According to Corrywright (2016), pedagogy is often not about what is taught, but rather, how it is taught, a crucial aspect when defining and classifying religious concepts and phenomena. Thus, any attempt to rethink the pedagogical approach of Religious Studies must also consider the need to produce critically engaged students knowledgeable about the different ideologies embedded in the various religions—an essential learning outcome in the Religious Studies curriculum. Owen (2011) further claims that the WRP is most resistant to changes in pedagogy, particularly in introductory religion courses. This resistance occurs for two reasons. In her own experience, Owen argues that students first expect to be taught from the WRP framework. Second, although many international Religious Studies disciplines claim to reject the world religions framework, many courses are still organized according to Eastern and Western traditions, perpetuating the influence of the WRP as an underlying subtext within these courses (Tite 2015).
When designing introductory religion courses in South Africa, it is essential to consider their distinctive purpose. Clingerman and O'Brien (2015) identify two primary objectives: introducing a field of study to potential majors and providing a fundamental understanding of a subject that fosters critical thinking, one of the universal prerequisites of higher education. Given the complexity of South Africa's history and the multicultural context in which courses are taught, context becomes a crucial factor in curriculum design.
Clingerman and O'Brien (2015) further argue that course design should align with the social context in which it is taught, considering the varied educational and religious background of the students and the relevant curricular context. Given the dynamics of the student population across South African institutions and the country's historical background, the focus on context becomes particularly significant. While comprehensive content coverage is not feasible at the first-year level, Smith (1988) suggests that introductory courses should extend beyond descriptive levels, including rote memorization. Instead, they should prioritize building skills that will assist students to distinguish and analyze how society and the study of religion are contextually interlinked and constructed.
The way forward - the WRP and its limitations in South African religious studies
In their publication, After World Religions: Reconstructing Religious Studies, Cotter and Robertson (2016) offer various scenarios on how the WRP has been adapted at different institutions by contributing authors, but in a somewhat subversive manner: rather than eschewing the model entirely, a critique of the WRP forms a crucial part of the curricula. They argue that the WRP is a culturally constructed tool manipulated to categorize human behavior (both virtuous and immoral) into religious categories. Martin (2016) reiterates how the fundamental beliefs of tradition have been manipulated, used, re-used, and recycled throughout the past few decades in various historical and geographic contexts.
In light of the calls for decolonization and curriculum diversification, it has become crucial to rethink the Religious Studies curriculum at the introductory level at South African tertiary institutions. The country boasts a rich diversity of indigenous religions that have evolved over the centuries and hold significant importance in many people's lives. These religions are often characterized by complex belief systems, practices, and rituals, making it challenging to fit them neatly into the compartmentalized boxes determined by the WRP. As a method used to classify religions into distinct and separate categories, the WRP has become unsuitable as a benchmark for teaching a first-year Religious Studies module within the South African context.
By categorizing indigenous religions as the “Other” or disregarding these altogether, the WRP is deliberately ignoring their distinct cultural and, most importantly, their spiritual heritage. This disregard poses a problem because decolonization in the context of religion calls for recognizing and valuing other religions and ways of being. Such recognition should encompass aspects that may not have been extensively documented or adhered to the history typically associated with Christianity or Western religion. These may include but are not restricted to the kinds of knowledgeable wealth and dogma usually associated with Western religion.
South Africa's tumultuous history of colonization, Apartheid, and migration has fostered a unique blend of cultural mixing and syncretism, resulting in numerous hybrid religions. These syncretic belief systems often amalgamate elements of various religious traditions, intertwining African indigenous religions with Christianity and/or Islam. In this complex tapestry of religion, the systematic application of the WRP poses significant challenges when teaching Religious Studies in South Africa. As discussed earlier, one of the main issues is the pervasive influence of Christianity, which acts as the yardstick for comparing and understanding other religions. As the dominant religion in the country's historical landscape, Christianity shaped the perspectives of the majority of South African students. Consequently, when using the WRPs written sources and a Christian-based framework as a reference point, religions such as African Religions, transmitted through an oral tradition, are unfairly undervalued. This perpetuates an epistemic injustice that emerges when decolonizing the curriculum and seeking to give due recognition to a multifarious religious heritage.
Moreover, the WRP fails to adequately create space for crucial aspects of African religion, such as ancestral veneration, which holds immense significance in the spiritual lives of its adherents. Additionally, the social and political dimensions of the African Independent Churches, intimately linked to the anti-apartheid struggle, are marginalized within the WRP's confines. This overlooks religion's profound role in shaping South Africa's socio-political landscape. Religion in South Africa is strongly intertwined with identity, intersecting across race, class, and ethnicity. However, the WRP tends to oversimplify the construction of religious identities in the country, disregarding the intricate web of cultural influences and lived experiences that shape religious beliefs and practices. While efforts have been made at institutions such as UKZN to appreciate African Religions within the broader World Religions Paradigm, the inherent prejudices persist.
The oversimplification of the WRP
Barrett (2020) asserts that Christianity, along with its privilege and power, greatly influenced the study of religion on multiple fronts. In an attempt to teach a world religion course with greater nuance, Ramey (2006) argues that it is imperative to challenge the idealized image of religions influenced by the Christian prototype. This necessity arises due to the negative stereotyping of other religions, such as portraying Hinduism as idolatry and Islam as inherently violent, which results in students enrolling in religion courses harboring misconceptions. This stereotyping indicates a significant problem in how religion is presented as an academic field of study as argued by Corrywright (2016). The student's capacity to distinguish the differences and recognize similarities between and within religions is further hindered by stereotypical presentations. Ramey (2006) also draws attention to how colonialism's power dynamics are inextricably linked to the traditional discourses on world religions. Asad (1993) further highlights that scholars of religion often draw on the Western assumptions of religion when evaluating non-Western religions without fully comprehending the practices of the non-Western communities. McCutcheon (2018) also notes the importance of critically examining and questioning the underlying biases that might influence the study of religion, particularly in the context of non-Western traditions—emphasizing the need for a more comprehensive understanding of non-Western practices and beliefs to avoid perpetuating Western-centric perspectives in Religious Studies.
A notable example of such bias can be observed in the South African context, where the rituals of African religions are often referred to as forms of witchcraft. The portrayal of these traditions in numerous textbooks following the WRP suggests a solid adherence to the same fundamental principles within a particular religion. Ramey (2006) argues against accepting these purported orthodox constructions of religion and urges recent scholarship to focus on recognizing the boundaries and heterogeneity within each religious tradition. Furthermore, this scholarship must emphasize the agency of religious believers and students, an aspect consistently ignored by such constructs.
Contextual dynamics
Reflection on the Introduction to the Religion (RELG101) course at UKZN reveals critical questions surrounding the teaching of first-year students and the potential perpetuation of biases associated with the continued use of the WRP. The current structure of these courses often poses challenges as students approach it with a pre-existing apologetic, faith-based understanding of religion, leading them to defend the stated religious doctrine. Additionally, relying on the WRP, underpinned by Christianity as the basis of comparison, hinders the students’ ability to comprehend relevant religious concepts and analyze diverse forms of religious expression.
Teaching a comparative module encompassing five religions, with each presented in isolation, raises concerns about effectiveness, particularly when some traditions lack the standard features previously used for classification, for example African Religions, which is an oral tradition. While providing a basic knowledge of the various traditions is essential for deeper reflection, it remains a complex task in a diverse classroom.
Introductory courses offer an ideal environment for addressing the current contexts of the students through pedagogical approaches centered on diversity and cross-cultural encounters. Given the diverse student population at UKZN, it becomes critical to acknowledge diversity across each religion, creating a platform for students to consider their religious experiences as valid (Loewen 2014). This approach calls for a revision of teaching practices to accommodate the global realities that influence students' experiences and futures.
The RELG101 class at UKZN reveals the students’ understanding of the course content as heavily influenced by prior knowledge and historical contexts. Although scholars recognize that the WRP is no longer a natural formula for categorizing religion, the students’ basis for comparison continues to be shaped by elements of Christianity. This influence can limit their ability to critically engage with other traditions fully.
To address these challenges, it is crucial to address the contextual dynamic and socially constructed relationships in curriculum development (Cornbleth 1990). The WRP approach tends to overlook a vast range of religious systems, previously categorized as “the Other,” resulting in challenging explanations, mainly since English is the second language for most UKZN students. This matter is compounded by the students’ hesitancy to critically examine their own belief systems within their familial environments, adding to the complexity of the situation.
The fact that English is a second language for most UKZN students raises significant concerns about the adequacy and accessibility of the current approach to Religious Studies. The continued reliance on the WRP as a framework for teaching the introductory course ignores the students' diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds. This omission marginalizes non-Western religious systems and perpetuates linguistic and cultural hierarchies within the discipline. While efforts are underway to translate critical concepts into isiZulu at UKZN, the current curriculum unintentionally alienates students who might have a deeper understanding of religious traditions in their native languages. While the reluctance to critically engage with their beliefs may not be solely attributed to their language proficiency, it could reflect a disconnection between the curriculum's emphasis on Western academic discourse and the student's cultural and religious experiences. This disconnection further perpetuates a sense of marginalization and disempowerment in the learning process.
This article asserts the necessity of a pedagogical revolution driven by recognizing that social, economic, and political factors manifest differently across contexts. This is particularly salient in the decolonization movement, where past racial inequalities, especially within the education sector, have come to the fore. To address these issues and develop a more contextually sensitive approach, it is imperative for UKZN to explore an alternative pedagogical approach, allowing students to explore the complexities and nuances of religious traditions beyond the traditional WRP categories. This shift in focus will not only encourage critical thinking but also assist students in moving away from a comparative mindset solely based on Christian standards.
Conclusion
This article critiques the World Religions Paradigm (WRP) as an inappropriate framework for the introductory Religious Studies course in the current South African student context. The WRP continues to assertively rely on Eurocentric assumptions, perpetuating colonial mindsets and overlooking the rich diversity and complexity of non-Christian, non-Western, and non-White religious traditions. As a result, students are ill-prepared for higher education and struggle to make genuine comparisons among religions. The WRP’s dominance in the curriculum stifles critical thinking and intercultural understanding while cementing Christianity as the benchmark for assessments of religions. To address these issues, a pedagogical revolution is needed—one that embraces diversity, inclusivity, and decolonization. The education landscape can be transformed by challenging the dominant narratives, confronting biases, and empowering students to engage with religion on their terms. This approach will liberate students from the shackles of colonial relics and enable them to navigate the complexities of religion with curiosity and genuine appreciation for the richness of human spiritual expression. Developing the Religious Studies curricula should acknowledge the social, economic, and political factors shaping students' lives. Thoughtlessly applying Western-centric paradigms like the WRP disregards these unique demands, perpetuating an oppressive status quo and marginalizing non-Western religious practices. To foster intellectual and spiritual freedom, it is essential to dismantle the archaic and harmful paradigm and embrace an educational approach that truly respects diversity and promotes critical thinking. Embracing contextual dynamics in the curriculum will pave the way for a transformative educational experience that respects and complements the richness of religious expressions and experiences in the South African context.
