Curriculum vitae
Transcription
Curriculum vitae
docent Patrik FRIDLUND — Curriculum vitae 1/7 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Docent (Reader) in Philosophy of Religion Patrik FRIDLUND Folkparksvägen 4M SE-227 30 LUND Sweden [email protected] Curriculum vitae UNIVERSITY DIPLOMAS APPOINTMENT Appointed docent (Reader) in Philosophy of Religion at Lund University 2014 LUND UNIVERSITY Doctor of Philosophy at the Faculty of Theology in the subject Philosophy of Religion. Thesis: Mobile Performances. A Philosophical Account of Linguistic Undecidability as Possibility and Problem in the Theology of Religion. Supervisor: Catharina Stenqvist - cotutelle with La faculté libre de théologie protestante de Montpellier: Docteur en théologie Assistant Supervisor: Marc Boss 2007 Master of Arts in Religious Studies. Master’s Thesis: Un, seul et unique. « The Real » chez John Hick — Une étude critique de l’un-ité de la notion; L’université de Lausanne. Supervisor: Pierre Gisel (recognised by Lund University) 2000 Bachelor of Arts in French. Essay: Ils sont fous ces Suédois. Étude de la traduction du comique dans Astérix chez les Bretons. Supervisor: Göran Bornäs 1988 UNIVERSITY EDUCATION NOT INCLUDED IN DIPLOMAS LUND UNIVERSITY Practical Philosophy The History of the Philosophy of Religion Theoretical Philosophy Old Testament Exegesis 2002 2001 2001 1988 KALMAR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE International Tourism 1990 PEDAGOGICAL COURSES FOR ACADEMIC TEACHING Supervising PhD Students—Introduction To Supervise Students Who Write Essays Introductory Course II Introductory Course I Autumn 2013 Autumn 2013 Autumn 2003 Spring 2003 docent Patrik FRIDLUND — Curriculum vitae 2/7 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ RELEVANT EMPLOYMENT (SELECTED LIST) Lecturer in Philosophy of Religion, Lund University (part time) 2014 Researcher in Philosophy of Religion, Lund University (part time) 2013—2014 Post-doc in Philosophy of Religion, Lund University (full time) 2011—2013 Lecturer in Philosophy of Religion, Lund University (part time) 2011 Lecturer in Religious Studies, Jönköping University College (full time) 2010 Lecturer in Philosophy of Religion, Lund University (full time) 2010 Research Scholarship, Fonds Ricœur, Paris 2009—2010 Lecturer in Philosophy of Religion, Lund University (part time) 2009 Lecturer in Religious Studies and in Political Science, Kristianstad University College (part time) 2009 Lecturer in Philosophy of Religion, Lund University (full time) 2008 President, Lund Doctoral Student Council (part time) 2007—2008 Project Assistant, Lund University (part time) 2007 Project Assistant, Lund University (part time) 2004—2006 Administrative Assistant, Lund University (part time) 2002—2005 INVITED AS GUEST LECTURER ‘Derrida & Subjectivity’, Shanghai Normal Univerity (China) 29 May 2014 ‘Dialogue and Conversion: Tasks and Methods of Academic Work’, Shanghai Normal University (China) 28 May 2014 ‘Religious Diversity: Dialogue and Conversion—Partners in Opposition?’, McMaster University, Hamilton (Canada) 18 April 2012 INVITED SPEAKER AT CONFERENCES, AND OTHER ACADEMIC EVENTS ‘George Lindbeck and Cross-Cultural Dialogue’, When the East and the West Meet, Fu Jen Catholic University, Taipei (Taïwan), 23-24 May 2014 23 May 2014 « La théorie des religions de George Lindbeck et ses corollaires missiologiques », Investigations missiologiques, Centre Maurice Leenhardt de recherche en missiologie, Montpellier (France) 7 November 2013 « Quelques enjeux catégoriels dans les discours sur le dialogue et la conversion », Le dialogue entre les religions. Partage. Conversion. Confrontation, ISTR, Paris, colloquium 16-17 May 2013 16 May 2013 « Dialogue et conversion à partir d’une lecture du théologien luthérien George A. Lindbeck », Journée d’études, ISTR, Paris Round Table ‘Gouvernance, transmission, légitimité’, Journée d’études: « Bouddhisme et christianisme—Autorité: théories et pratiques »; ISTR and l’Université Bouddhique Éuropéenne, Paris « La possibilité de l’impossible. Ethique et politique dans un contexte multiculturel », Confrontations identitaires et pratiques missionnaires, Centre Maurice Leenhardt de recherche en missiologie, Montpellier (France) « Problèmes du relativisme dans l’idée postcoloniale », Perspectives postcoloniales dans la mission, Centre Maurice Leenhardt de recherche en missiologie, Montpellier (France), 3-4 March 2008 2 May 2011 20 March 2010 18 February 2010 3 March 2008 docent Patrik FRIDLUND — Curriculum vitae 3/7 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ INVITED SPEAKER—GENERAL PUBLIC Docent lecture: ”Gudomligt kaos pch mänsklig ordning—om filsoofi, litteratur och teologi”, Lund 6 Nov. 2014 « Rencontre avec Patrik Fridlund », l’Oratoire du Louvre, Paris 19 March 2010 ‘Vad är sanning. Språkets instabilitet som problem och möjlighet i interreligiös dialog’, Open lecture, Kristianstad University College ‘Hur fel det kan gå, och hur rätt det kan bli—om några olika sätt att tänka fred mellan religioner’, lecture at CTR-days 5-6 March 2004 19 Nov 2007 6 March 2004 ‘Religionsteologiska utmaningar’, KRISS i Lund 20 November 2003 AWARDS Scholarship, Fonds Ricœur August 2009—July 2010 Grant and Diploma for significant contribution to research in Humanities Vetenskapssocieteten i Lund 2007 EXTERNAL FUNDING Crafoordska stiftelsen: research project ”Måste ett starkt politiskt och etiskt subjekt innebära att might is right?” Knut och Alice Wallenbergs stiftelse AND Stiftelsen Per Westlings Minnesfond AND Erik och Gurli Hultengrens fond för filosofi respectively: participation in the research programme Dialogue et conversion, Paris (2009-2013) 2013 2010-2013 AFFILIATION Member of the Research Team Dialogue et conversion, ISTR, Institut Catholique de Paris 2009-2013 LANGUAGES Swedish: first language: English: fluent French: fluent Danish: fairly good Norwegian: fairly good German: basic level: Italian: beginner’s level Spanish: beginner’s level RESEARCH INTERESTS Plurality of religions; human rights and religion; religion and politics; philosophical questions about subjectivity, informed by readings of Derrida and Lévinas. Deputy director responsible for international relations of the open access review Logoi.ph. docent Patrik FRIDLUND — Curriculum vitae 4/7 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ LIST OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT PUBLICATIONS —INCLUDING SHORT DESCRIPTIONS Monographs Mobile Performances. Linguistic Undecidability as Possibility and Problem in the Theology of Religion, Peeters Publishers, 2011. 978-90-429-2479-6 (revised version of doctoral thesis) - The starting point is: how to judge religions other than one’s own when facing a diversity of religions? The author makes a philosophical inquiry in two interconnected fields. He argues that no stable centre for meaning can be established. The claim is that linguistic entities have to be mobile in order to give space for newness in interpretation and understanding. A problematic aspect of this is that a stable meaning of the linguistic entities sometimes seems to be required. The interconnected question is: how to make judgements? What is at stake is whether knowing and information automatically provide good judgements. Does true entail just? The author argues that this is not the case; judgements ultimately have to be made by human subjects, as responsible beings, not by impersonal principles. At the end, these philosophical arguments are brought back to the concrete question concerning religious diversity. While offering a fresh approach to issues of religious diversity, the philosophical discussions have interest far beyond this field.. Editor Patrik Fridlund & Lucie Kaennel & Catharina Stenqvist (eds), Plural Voices. Intradisciplinary Perspectives on Interreligious Issues, Peeters Publishers, 2009. ISBN 978-90-429-2072-9 Book Sections ’Dialogue et/ou conversion? Quelques enjeux catégoriels de la question’ in Anne-Sophie Vivier-Muresan et al. (eds), Le dialogue entre les religions. Partage. Conversion. Confrontation [working title], Paris, ISTR & DDB /in press/ - Christian theology is in favour of interreligious dialogue without proselytism. At the same time, all religious institutions do seem to have a drive to convert those who are not already inside. Hence there is a tension. Redefine the terms seems insufficient to me. The question to deal with is rather when, how, and why is conversion allowed or even praised even though the character of dialogue without efforts to convert is respected. It has to do with our understanding of religion. A widespread and commonly held understanding of religion as stable and isolated entities with believers who are profoundly marked by their belonging, is a view that can and must be questioned if one looks into how religion functions and what people actually do when they live their religion. Once this is seen, a new perspective on dialogue and on conversion is possible, and thus also a new perspective on the relationship between the two. ’Religion in the Public Sphere’ in The Routledge International Handbook of Education, Religion and Values (eds James Arthur and Terry Lovat), Routledge, London, 2013, pp. 224-238. ISBN 978-0-41551919-9 - A very strong trait in contemporary liberal thinking is that religion should not have any place in the public sphere; religion is a private thing. The idea is that religions have a character that makes them unsuitable for the public sphere, as they are seen as comprehensive doctrines claiming allencompassing adherence. This vision of religion is shared also by theologians, but is has to be questioned. I maintain that there is an alternative perspective, which includes ’arguments that religion cannot be excluded from the public sphere; it is good if the spectrum of different worldviews comes to the surface in public deliberations, and that it is good for society as new areas are brought into or out from the public sphere.’ (p. 224) docent Patrik FRIDLUND — Curriculum vitae 5/7 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ ’Förnuftets gränser’ in Religionsfilosofisk introduktion. Existens och samhälle (eds Eberhard Herrmann, Catahrina Stenqvist), Verbum, 2010, pp 209-222. ISBN 987-91-526-3297-0 - The starting point is Clifford’s claim that ’it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.’ This seems to be advocating a rational attitude, but what is it to be rational? The rational must be something stable, unified, and independent of individual inclinations. That is problematic however. If rationality is emphasised in this sense, the decision that the subject has to make is diminished, the corporeal and concrete side of life tends to be reduced, and the very reason to be rational remains enigmatic, inexplicable and at the end irrational. The article deals with this complexity Journal Articles ‘Ambivalent Wisdom as the Fruit of Reading,’ Logoi /accepted/ It can be said that literary texts do not have any obligation to reality, and that literature destabilises our relation to normal use of words and to established perspectives. Literature is in relation with something that cannot be explained or conceptualised. In this respect literature is close to religion. I argue that many of these characteristics of literature apply to philosophical writing too. Concurrently, I argue that also literature indeed is connected to reality and indeed wants to say something about our world. I contend that philosophy can benefit from a deeper understanding of the parallels and similarities between philosophical writing and literature. ‘The Rotten Syncretism That Opens the Spirit,’ Swedish Missiological Themes 102:2 (2014), pp. 151-169 ‘People have always been inclined not to stick with one god alone, not to trust one single religion. One possible conclusion is that history is full of syncretism. Syncretism seems to be disturbing. It disturbs the exclusive relationship between God and his people, and it disturbs the idea of logical purity if things are mixed up in an uncontrolled manner. Two main attitudes towards syncretism are identified. One is to play down and reduce the problem of syncretism. The other is to take up arms against syncretism. The suggestion in this paper is to walk along a third path: be concrete and contextualise and hence sometimes accept, sometimes condemn. The main risk here is that the path is open for anything. I maintain that it is possible to cultivate the human faculty to judge, and that ethics plays a vital role.’ (Abstract) ’George Lindbeck as a Potential Religious Pluralist’, The Heythrope Journal, Early View Published 4 March 2014 - ’Interreligious dialogue and conversion are two intriguing components in understandingreligion. A reading of George Lindbeck constitutes the starting point for a discussion in this paper. The dominant reading of Lindbeck is that he claims that traditions absorb the world. According to this reading of Lindbeck, religious traditions are isolated, and yet the one with the best capacity to assimilate others’ concerns is the strongest, implying what is often called exclusivism. The contention of this article is that a radically different reading of Lindbeck is possible. Hence, it is not primarily about questioning Lindbeck, but about bringing forth another side of his texts. If grammar, framework and structure, and not propositional first-order ontological contents, take first place, dialogue and conversion may be seen differently. Questions must be raised though. Is it not true that there are always some contents and some substance—even if hidden and masked?’ (Abstract) docent Patrik FRIDLUND — Curriculum vitae 6/7 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ ‘Double Religious Belonging and Some Commonly Held Ideas about Dialogue and Conversion,’ Mission Studies 31 (2014), pp. 255-279 - [T]here is often a perceived tension between these two parts, dialogue on the one hand and conversion on the other hand. This article suggests that this tension may be related to religious conviction and religious belonging being seen as monolithic. A basic idea of this article is that there are suggestive empirical findings and relevant conceptual arguments about double religious belonging in a large sense, which lead to a profound questioning of some underlying ideas about religion. This questioning, which undermines established views of religion as comprehensive systems, has implications for conceptions of dialogue and conversion. Indeed, there are many scholars of various brands who share these assumptions about religion. The American theologian George A. Lindbeck, who is one of those who articulate these ideas in an elaborate manner, does so in an explicit theory about the nature of doctrine. As Lindbeck is considered a good exponent of this way of describing religion, his writings are given a special place in this article. It is suggested that a consequence of taking into consideration double religious belonging in a broad sense is that established ideas of religions as comprehensive interpretative schemes are undermined. Instead, one would have to acknowledge the fragmented, partial, and contextual character of religion. Accordingly, interreligious dialogue and conversion must also be understood as diversified, variegated and fragmented phenomena. Dialogue is addressed to specific issues, in precise contexts, regarding particular concerns, and the same could generally be said of the aim to convert others.’ (Abstract) ’I See that from Both Sides Now: On the Intricate Relation between Dialogue and Conversion,’ Australian Religious Studies Review 25:3 (2012), pp. 254-272 ISSN (print): 1031-2943; ISSN (online): 1744-9014 - ’There seems to be a double track in the relationship to the other. On the one hand, there is dialogue—an attitude of seeing the other as she is. On the other hand, we all seem to have some kind of worldview implying that My Way is the Best Way, at least in a certain respect—there seem to be certain points where I would like other people to see things in the same way as I do. I argue that these two seemingly opposite attitudes need not necessarily be connected to opposite values. No, both attitudes may be traced to similar ethical grounds. There is an ethic of dialogue, and there is an ethic of conversion, as it were. […] I argue ’that the relation between dialogue and conversion is an intricate one from an ethical point of view. Intricate indeed, as an ethical perspective is also related to theological standpoints and to views of religion in an interdependent fashion.’ (Abstract) ’Dialogue et conversion : Une bataille éthique,’ Histoire et Missions Chrétiennes 23 (september 2012), pp. 35-58; ISBN 978-2-8111-0838-0; ISSN 1957-5246 La théologie chrétienne est favourable au dialogue interreligieux. En meme temps, toutes les institutions religieuses semblent vouloir convertir ceux qui ne sont pas déjà à l’intérieur. Ce conflit entre dialogue et conversion va loin et il a des racines profondes. Simplement re-definir « dialogue » ou « conversion » ne suffit pas pour effacer le conflit ; il est impossible de l’effacer totalement. La question à se poser c’est plutôt à quoi, quand, comment, pourquoi et sous quelles conditions conversion et proselytisme deviennent-ils acceptables voire louables. L’auteur donne quelques pistes pour une réflexion approfondie à partir d’une lecture de la philosophie de la religion féministe. docent Patrik FRIDLUND — Curriculum vitae 7/7 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ ’The Fragility of Religious Freedom,’ Agathos. An International Review of the Humanities and Social Sciences 3:1 (2012), pp. 141-164. ISSN 2069-1025 - http://www.agathos-international-review.com/ e-ISSN 2248-3446 - ’One implication of freedom of religion is that the State must accept a variety of religious beliefs and practices. Yet, not everything can be accepted. One way of dealing with such a conflict is to state that freedom of religion is absolute in so far that it does not infringe upon some other more important value. Another way is to limit what is considered ”religious.” Both these ways are insufficient. In this contribution it is argued that the whole freedom of religion construct is a fragile edifice and it be better seen as such; only if the fragility is recognised can non-conformist and anti-totalitarian approaches flourish. Such approaches may vitalise political life and encourage ability to discern and make judgements concerning what is permitted and what is not with regard to religion in the public sphere.’ (Abstract) 'The Abhorrent Relativism We Do Not Profess,’ Svensk Teologisk kvartalskrift 87:4 (2011), pp. 177-185. ISSN 0039-6761 - ’Although many take a strong position against relativism, relativising and deconstructive traits are important and indispensable in scientific and intellectual work. The aspect of relativising, putting into perspective, or saying that things are dependent on background, is generally emphasised in descriptions of academic undertakings—i.e. in descriptions of scientific or philosophical work, as well as in theology and religious studies. There are good grounds: anything that is related to the human world is also exposed to human freedom and human limitations. Even when relativising is thematized and seen as something indispensable, it does not necessarily open for relativism in the sense of subjective arbitrariness. When making certain claims, they must in some way be supported if they should have any value. Judgements made by other people, external signs, some indications, proofs or evidences are required if such interpretations and claims should be considered correct; some support is needed.’ (Abstract) ’Konstruktiva religionsstudier,’ Svensk kyrkotidning, 17/2005, April 2005, pp. 212-216. ISSN 0349-2153 - A common understanding is that there are two separate approaches to academic study of religion—a theological one and a religious studies one. In this text, I argue that both approaches have various drawbacks, if practised according to the book. Religious studies cannot be as neutral and disinteretesd as it is often said, and theology cannot be as strongly dependent on the scholars personal beliefs and faithfulness to a particular tradition if theology should be taken seriously outside its own playground. Two theologians, Per Frostin and Pierre Gisel, are resources in a reflection regarding ways of studying religion otherwise. It is necessary and unavoidable to be interested and to take stands. It is not necessary and to adhere to a given religious tradition in order to do so. ’A More Pluralistic Pluralism?’ Swedish Missiological Themes 93:1 (2005), pp. 43-59. ISSN 0346-217X - The text is a critical discussion of Mark Heim’s pluralism. Heim suggests a model in which the real differences between the religious goals are accepted and tolerated. Consequently, Heim says, his model is more pluralistic than established ’religious pluralism.’ I maintain that Heim cannot refrain from evaluating religious ends and thus judge one religious end to be better than other ends. In that way, Heim’s pluralism is strongly questioned ’Le dialogue entre les religions et ses défis,’ Théolib. Revue trimestrielle du libéralisme théologique, no 21, March 2003, pp. 45-58. ISSN 1286-692X 17/3/2015 - pf