Podcast Summary:

New Books Network – Interview with Russell T. McCutcheon
Episode: “Our Primary Expertise: A Future for the Study of Religion” (Rutgers UP, 2025)
Date: November 6, 2025
Host: Raj Balkaran
Guest: Dr. Russell T. McCutcheon

Overview

This episode features Dr. Russell T. McCutcheon discussing his new book, Our Primary Expertise: A Future for the Study of Religion. The conversation critically examines the past, present, and especially the uncertain future of the academic study of religion within higher education, particularly amid institutional changes, declining majors, and the shifting job market. McCutcheon argues for a necessary reorientation in the field—moving from content-based expertise and disciplinary silos toward broader skills application and institutional engagement.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

The Origins and Intent of the Book

• Essays Framed by Crisis: The book compiles essays written to intervene at a time when higher education—and not just the humanities or religion—is under prolonged stress.

  “I think it’s an error to say the humanities is under attack. It’s far broader … It’s higher education itself.” — McCutcheon (03:45)

• Long Trend, Not Sudden Crisis: The problems facing religious studies are decades old, not a recent phenomenon.

• Agency Amid Larger Forces: Scholars don’t control financial or political forces, but do have agency in shaping programs and student experiences.

  “They do have agency. They might consider doing a few things that at least in this particular time, might be beneficial to their students, the staff, other faculty.” — McCutcheon (04:52)

The Field’s Origins and the Silo Mentality

• Critique of Disciplinary Insularity: The field’s tradition of seeing itself as having unique methods or objects has contributed to its isolation and vulnerability.

  “The foundational strategy opted for by scholars a few generations gone by now … has isolated us and made us rather exposed and easy to get rid of…” — McCutcheon (06:25)

Departmental Reinvention: McCutcheon’s Experience (08:16–17:38)

• Inherited Crisis: McCutcheon describes taking over a struggling department at University of Alabama, nearly cut due to low enrollments and graduating numbers.

• Strategic Pivot: The department shifted emphasis:

  • From content-based expertise (e.g., coverage of all religions)
  • To cross-content, broadly applicable skills in cultural analysis
  • Fostered a departmental identity focused on transferable skills, not just data or tradition-specific expertise

• Results: Growth from 4.5 to 14 faculty, thriving amid challenging conditions.

  “We thrived during that time. And I would like to think that among the reasons that we did well … was this shift that we gradually made away from the content … toward broader cross content skills…” — McCutcheon (11:34)

The “Examples Approach”

• Encourages seeing specific traditions or data as examples of broader cultural principles or processes—preparing students for multiple career pathways.

• Necessity for explicit communication to students about what they gain: not specialist knowledge, but analytic, interpretive, and cultural skills with wide application.

Changing Job Markets and Graduate Education (17:38–35:10)

• From Exceptionality to Applicability: The field must relinquish the idea that it is uniquely exceptional or above broader social or practical concerns.

• Mismatch with Job Realities: The traditional model of graduate education—training almost exclusively for tenure-track academic jobs—is now out of sync with the realities of the job market.

• Necessity of Career Diversity: Programs must explicitly prepare students for non-academic work, acknowledging this as legitimate and valuable, not a consolation.

  “If you couple [methodological frustration] with the job I was hired to do ... it has produced a recurring posture that we might have more control over our conditions than we think.” — McCutcheon (07:57)

• Pushback from the Field: Some defend “the life of the mind” as the last bastion, viewing practical reform as a threat to ideals.

  “Scholars rather younger than me ... come back and criticize my recommendations as imperiling the life of the mind … whether you ever could engage in that. And I don’t even know what that means.” — McCutcheon (18:30)

Structural and Individual Agency (26:01–29:55)

• Constraints Exist but Agency Remains: While professional incentives (e.g., less teaching, more research) and institutional hierarchies exist, faculty still have agency to change curricula and training.

• Critique of Complacency: McCutcheon stresses the need for faculty to take responsibility for institutional awareness and reform.

  “This was a slow moving iceberg that we have seen coming for decades … and we were caught extremely flat footed.” — McCutcheon (28:39)

Calls for Leadership and Institutional Engagement (35:10–44:25)

• Admin Engagement Is Crucial: Department chairs, grad directors, and senior faculty must lead curricular innovation, rather than delegating it to graduate students.

• Integration into Campus Life: Academic survival may depend on integration into wider campus committees and decision-making, not just on scholarly output.

  “Because we have faculty on every senior committee on this campus. And the campus would have a hard time imagining running without our input.” — Paraphrasing Richard Hecht via McCutcheon (41:53)

• Institutional Myopia: Many see admirable admin/service work as a burden—ignoring its vital institutional function.

Prospects for the Field (38:21–44:25)

• Diverging Models: Some programs may double down on theology or “religious literacy,” while a minority may pivot towards broader cultural studies.

• Failure to Recognize Value Translation: Many faculty do not understand how programmatic value is viewed at the administrative level, which compounds vulnerability to cuts.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the limits of discipline-specific exceptionalism:

  “You’re not necessarily producing scholars of Greek Orthodoxy, scholars of Islam … but you’re probably all along been doing something else.” — McCutcheon (16:50)

• On graduate training realities:

  “The vast majority are finding rewarding lives for themselves, have a fond nostalgia for our programs. So we have to really take a serious inventory … I think we've been teaching broader skills all along to our students and we need to really double down on that…” — McCutcheon (12:25)

• On leadership engagement:

  “The people who should be attending [career diversity panels] are department chairs, graduate directors. That’s who ought to be there. They’re in a position to make changes within units…” — McCutcheon (35:20)

• On the skills being taught:

  “I would hope that as students who have a sense of nuance in cultural analysis, a sense of ambiguity and identity, how does identity work? How does conflict work? … Where they inform decisions that are shaping all of our lives, from government to … industry … That, though, strikes a lot of people in our field as selling out. But all along the rationale we’ve used at the undergraduate level was just that…” — McCutcheon (32:50)

• On the future direction:

  “I think we'll see a small number of programs experiment with reinventing the field as a broader instance of culture studies, critical thinking, wide applicability, not a lot. I think that some will feel that's a bridge too far for them.” — McCutcheon (40:01)

• On administrative involvement as the key to departmental survival:

  “Because we have faculty on every senior committee on this campus. And the campus would have a hard time imagining running without our input.” — Richard Hecht via McCutcheon (41:53)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Introduction and the Book’s Genesis – 03:25–05:43
• Critique of Disciplinary Exceptionalism – 05:43–08:16
• Departmental Reinvention at Alabama – 08:16–17:38
• Defining “Primary Expertise” and Pushback – 17:38–23:15
• Structural Constraints vs Agency – 26:01–29:55
• Defending and Reforming Graduate Training – 31:40–35:10
• Who Should Lead Change? – 35:10–38:21
• The Field’s Possible Futures – 38:21–44:25
• Practical Call to Action – 45:53–50:42

Call to Action & Final Thoughts

• Direct Engagement Needed: Senior faculty, chairs, and grad directors must join practical conversations about institutional change, not just symbolic ones.
• Rethink Dissertations and Assessment: Time to critically reevaluate graduate requirements—including what constitutes a dissertation and how skills are assessed.
• Institutional Awareness Essential: Faculty need to learn how their universities actually function to better advocate for programs and prepare students for real-world success.
• Community and Alumni Engagement: Maintaining connections and demonstrating relevance through alumni outcomes are crucial for departmental sustainability.

“Figure out how your own institution works and grappling with you're not irreplaceable.” — McCutcheon (49:38)

Overall Tone:
Direct, critical, pragmatic, but ultimately hopeful—emphasizing agency and the need for practical institutional engagement alongside disciplinary expertise.