Summary Of Dr. Richard Valantasis's 'Making Of The Self'

Rejecting Justice Stewart In his book, The Making of the Self, Dr. Richard Valantasis proposes a new definition to a classic term used constantly throughout religious studies: asceticism. While most definitions focus heavily on the negative nature of asceticism, Valantasis asserts that the nature of asceticism is inherently positive and fulfills a more universal purpose. Although his definition is unlike previous understandings of asceticism, ultimately his approach is one more scholars should consider. I agree with Valantasis’s definition because it presents a universal function of asceticism, is inclusive of the various types of ascetic practice, and places significance on intention.

First, Valantasis does a phenomenal job at discovering

The ascetic must purposely chose to form a new subjectivity and must choose to engage in practices that separate themselves from the dominant culture. As Valantasis says, “a person does not ‘fall into’ asceticism by accident or become an unintentional ascetic” (109). If the dominant culture is all practicing traditional ascetic practices, does that make these actions ascetic anymore? Rather the ascetic must choose purposefully to be deviant from the dominant culture and maintain that difference by constantly adapting to be a part of a subculture or counter culture. For example, the synoptic gospels all promote some form of asceticism. Fasting, renunciation of property, and other activities are done by either Jesus or his disciples. As Christianity developed, Christian ascetics adapted the religious tradition to preserve its ascetic value. For instance, Pachomius leaves his previous life as a Roman soldier and begins his own monastic communities. He authors a long set of rules for his monks to follow while in the monastery such as “(114.) No one shall eat anything in his cell” or “(94.) No one may speak to his neighbors in the dark” or “(68.)…do the washing in silence” (Pachomius 157,161,163). Indeed, while these actions do not hold any obvious relationship with the earlier asceticism of the gospels, they truly show how

Arguments have been made that Valantasis’s definition is too vague, therefore, it transcends the religious nature of asceticism and includes practices with no historical context of asceticism. The definition would effectively mean everything and it’s opposite. However, these arguments are heavily invested in previous understandings of asceticism and do not get to the core of ascetic inquiry like Valantasis does. They also rely on definitions that scholars have had a hard time definition as well such as religion. Another argument would be that concluding a person’s intention to engage in the ascetic life would be an unbearable burden of proof to determine ascetic discipline. However, the burden of proof should be waited more in the change and the specific nitpicky detail. The fact that a person willing chooses to engage in activity opposite to the one currently dominant in the social sphere indicates his or her intention to be