proselytisation

I've been considering the words proselytism and proselytisation. It seems to me they're a bit like 'fundamentalist'  or 'racist': it's always a term applied to someone else and it is always derogatory; a way to dispose of someone else; to put them beneath consideration. Our own university in its memoranda of understanding by which chaplains and the like are incorporated into working within the university has a 'no proselytism' clause and this can be interpreted to rule out any shairing of faith at all. But that interpretation, it has to be said, would be ridiculous. We need a more nuanced understanding and this is why.

It is important to acknowledge that most world faiths are explicitly or implicitly 'converting' faiths and that most are not at all unhappy for conversions to them to happen and make provision for the formation of converts in appropriate spiritual perspectives, disciplines and practices. They understand themselves to me making truth claims or at least claims to be able to help people to discover the best for themselves in life and/or beyond it and as such they each would be less than generous by their own lights if they were to collude in deliberately turning people away from this or helping others to find a fuller truth. 

To ask them via their followers and representatives to refrain from explaining and propagating their perspectives and dearest convictions would be to attempt to impose on them yet another ideology which would not be compatible at all points with particular beliefs or practices. In effect it is to ask them to agree to the proposition that some other 'truth' trumps their own. 

We should, by the way, in this respect, note that humanisms and secular ideologies function as belief-and-value systems and so are not neutral entities in the public arena and so should neither expect their tenets or practices to be accepted without challenge, discussion or the gaining of mutual consent. It should be noted that many secularists are clearly set to gain assent and 'converts' to their beliefs as well as the more well-known religious faiths.

In a university context it is acknowledged also that the freedom to debate, disagree and to express opinion is part of the fundamental value set implied in the search for knowledge and intellectual advance. Thus a university should be a place where different ideas, perspectives and beliefs can be expressed. Held. debated and scrutinised and where the skills of differing respectfully can be honed.

Thus we must distinguish between on the one hand expressing a belief and commending it to others and on the other hand doing so in a way that amounts to harassment, bullying and/or undue inducement. It is, in practice, this latter cluster of abuses that is really in the frame when someone is worrying about 'proselytisation' or 'proselytism'. I propose than that we should understand proselytism as pressing ones beliefs upon others in ways that harass, bully, and/or which use extrinsic inducements.

'Extrinsic inducements' are things such as power, conditional affection, money, other material considerations which are not inherent to the faith or belief-system concerned. By these things I have in mind power over someone which effectively means that not going along with them puts one in an unfavourable position whether that is explicit or unstated what is communicated is 'agree with me or things will be awkward'. The other way this can be expressed, of course, is the offer of power; that 'converting' will give access to power and its correlates. Similarly and usually relatedly, money or other material advantages could be offered openly or by implication. In effect: "Change your mind and you will be paid more /have food /gain sexual favours .... etc". What I have in mind in naming 'conditional affection' is the 'love bombing' some groups were accused of using in the 80's and still today in some cases: "join us and you will be loved, accepted and cared for (leave us and you will rediscover what a cold, hard world it is)".

One of the important words in that phrase is 'extrinsic': Most belief and value systems have some element of highlighting the advantages of agreeing with and joining them. However, in legitimate, non-exploitative and ethical faith-sharing these are intrinsic to the 'offer'; they are part of the package and can't be separated from it. When they are extrinsic they are simply bribes or threats or some combination of those. Thus Sikh's might offer food, but that is intrinsic to their faith practice, langar -and in any case is not an inducement as it is offered to all regardless of response to Sikh faith (or so I understand). Christians might offer (however imperfectly) 'love'  but that is part and parcel of living out a faith in God who is Love and indeed are not permitted to offer conditional love without departing from the faith. 

I think that this forms a workable perspective on proselytism that doesn't rule out respectful faith sharing or sensitive raising of faith-related issues in the public sphere.