Embarking upon the enterprise of sitting on a panel entitled “Late Capitalism Arrives on Campus: Making and Remaking the Study of Religion” I first familiarized myself with the material Russell McCutcheon sent us—to locate myself, if you will, in the order of things. In this process, three issues appeared germane: (1) How does one define religious studies (identity politics)? (2) What are the implications of that definition, or, in other words, what is at stake? (3) And finally how these two issues relate to the larger problem of late capitalism and the university? These questions are relevant not only to people like myself, a student nearing completion of a religious studies doctorate, but also to those already working within Religious Studies departments.

1

Deciding upon the organizing principle for religious studies as a discipline has meant fabricating an identity. Jonathan Z. Smith's article (1988) addresses this issue, pointing to two particular developments: on the one hand there was the desire for religious studies to define itself over and against its parent, theology; while on the other hand, it strove to maintain an autonomy that marked it off from other humanities and social science disciplines such as English or Sociology.