Discussion: View Thread

Hi one and all,

Andre nudged me not once, but twice to add this to the on-going dialogue.

Kindly,

Richard

Hi Andre,

My respect to you for the clarity of your simple argument...

In the leadership classes taught by me at GSM students represent the religious, non-religious, spiritual, and non-spiritual, non-believers, and doubter's spectrum all of whom, including the professor, are on their individual path.  There exists in these classes and society generally a need to express and attempt to understand spirituality as it experienced, and religion or non-religion as it is lived.  Any one answer does not seem to satisfy all. This exploration of differences and search for truth seems to be the thrust of MSR as academic scholarly pursuit.  As such knowledge of the differences and of the similarities of ALL spiritual and religious exponents remain subject to investigation.  Exclusion while sometimes a simplifier frequently misses the essential. The integration of spirit and belief is needed, yet I do not profess to have the integrative answer.  I have a personal belief and practice.  It seems that as academics or simply as people love has a lot to do with understanding and acceptance.

And again I thank you for your contribution to my knowledge of the integration rather than the segregation of religion and spirituality.

One of the most non-religious yet spiritual men that I have ever had the pleasure to know is Mario Cabral, my father-in-law who made the transition at the age of 95 on 2 April 2009. A contemporary of Jorge Amado, he is regarded as an exemplar composer of poetry in Brasil.  He published his last book shortly before passing this week. His compassion lives on.   Mario lived as a lover of his creator, a lover of his country, a lover of his family. His spirit will never die; he leaves for a different life.

Kindly,

Richard

Dear all,

As a number have mentioned, this is a fascinating dialogue and discussion, especially from a European perspective in which I think secularism [or laicite, as the French state/culture puts it] carries more weight than in the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region>. The shape of the discussion reminds me of another list conversation, also started by Don McCormick [!], as to the national cultural make-up of the MSR group. For what it's worth, my and colleagues' experience in the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">UK</st1:place></st1:country-region> suggests that there are a few significant disagreements here – or perhaps areas of diversity, to be more positive. Whatever the terminology, these issues can either be ignored or explored - I experience them as the remit of MSR (integration of spirituality and religion into organizations, or critical analysis of same?), potentially exclusive cultural practices (e.g. post-conference retreat, pre-session meditation), presence of Christianity (especially US conservative/evangelical?), prioritization of contemporary/New Age spiritualities, and perhaps a reluctance to acknowledge personal beliefs as integral to the research process?, but I'm sure there are others. I hope I'm not alone in this community in hoping that difficult issues such as these can be explored through our academic work, but also through engagement with scholars and theory in other communities who are, frankly, way ahead of us here [e.g. sociology and psychology of religion, theology are those that come to mind but again I'm sure there are others], in a way that inspires confidence within the wider management/organization studies community as to the quality of our scholarship.

All good wishes, scott