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