Chapter 2 delves into the primary actors and socio-historical events that have led to producing Hindu nationalism’s multiple political imaginaries and policy imperatives. It chronologically follows how Hindutva and discourses of economic development have interacted in post-Independence political regimes. I show how the BJP has been able to build multiple narratives, using both technocratic organisations and populist mobilisation, to gain several forms of legitimacy, many of which contradict one another. Scholars have written entire books on Hindutva’s ideological basis and its interaction with economic development. My intention is to give people an overview so they can appreciate how my specific research and argument fits into existing conversations and concerns. This chapter introduces how the BJP adopts two distinct forms of persuasion, making claims about the (sometimes magnificent, sometimes repugnant) past and the future to different degrees: (1) returning to an ancient, mythic, and strategically changing cultural unity; and (2) ‘cleaning up’ persisting economic and moral decadence in pursuit of invulnerable national glory.

The last chapter recapitulates the arguments in a normative, rather than historical, mode, examining the underlying logic of orthodoxy implicit in each version of conservative Christianity’s pursuit of authentic, historic faith. The chapter argues that orthodoxy is an inherently ambiguous concept that requires an authoritarian leader to determine arbitrary boundaries by policing and punishing the heterodox. So long as orthodoxy remains the normative goal, the culture-war politics of the Christian Right will remain.

This essay examines Sebald’s preference for eccentrics, amateurs and dilettantes, whose nonconformist views were incompatible with a scientific worldview or technocratic views. These were of concern to Sebald because he felt that theories and views disqualified from official discourse would offer an untapped pool of knowledge for his writing. The essay first discusses the significance and function of amateurs and dilettantes in Sebald’s narrative work as well as eccentric traits of his character. It then applies the concept of “minor writing” (Deleuze/Guattari) to Sebald’s texts and discusses the influence of academic outsiders such as Rudolf Bilz or Rupert Sheldrake. Sebald’s essays on Herbert Achternbusch and Ernst Herbeck provide examples of his use of these minor writers as inspiration for his own writing.

The conclusion revisits the complementarities between CHA and other methodologies. It emphasizes that exploration and testing are equally important for translating results into answers. It discusses the historical origins of the logical positivists’ distinction between domains of discovery and confirmation, in order to underscore its artificiality and misrepresentation of the actual scientific process. It highlights four contributions that CHA makes to social inquiry more broadly: the centrality of historical thinking across all methods, the beneifts of greater ontological transparency, the importance of paying attention to testworthiness of hypotheses, and the inescapability of methodological heterodoxy.

This final chapter explores mirror-writers’ diagnoses of political and social ills, and their proposed remedies for them. They range from kings’ propensities to indulge to excess in food, drink and sex, to the hazards of abandoning well-established and highly regarded practices, to external enemies’ seizing advantage at moments of internal weakness. The three extracts show shared concerns, especially with heterodoxy, portrayed as a mask for political dissent, as well as idiosyncratic concerns. Many of the narratives are presented as cautionary examples. Collectively, the texts convey the precarious nature of royal power and its limits. They are drawn from al-Thaʿālibī, Ādāb al-mulūk; Niẓām al-Mulk, Siyar al-mulūk; and al-Ṭurṭūshī, Sirāj al-mulūk.

Chapter 4 treats the Cappadocians’ hagiographic biographies in conjunction with their polemic against non-Trinitarian theologians.The chapter begins by outlining the background and teachings of Eunomius of Cyzicus (c. 335–c. 395), a longtime heterousian rival to the Cappadocians. The chapter analyzes the narratives about fourth-century Nicene bishop Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 298–372), Basil, and Macrina as hagiographies designed in part to contrast true (pro-Nicene) doctrine against the false philosophy of non-Trinitarians.These saints’ ascetic feats are recounted as spiritual ordeals fashioned as classical contests: in Athanasius, suffering multiple exiles because of standing up to false (heterousian) teachers; in Basil, countering threats to the Nicene faith by imperial officials; and in Macrina, enduring disease and death with unwavering resolve.In each case,Nyssen or Nazianzen emphasize that character is formed out of struggle; and that voice and speech (as a metaphor for doctrine) have been purified and validated in pro-Nicene theologians, but are corrupted and disingenuous in the untested charlatans they oppose.

Chapter 3 begins by laying out the late-fourth century theological conflict that set the backdrop for the following texts. It then investigates Nyssen’s and Nazianzen’s hagiographic biographies of third-century bishop Gregory Thaumaturgus (c. 210–270), Basil (the Great), Macrina, and Gorgonia; each affiliated with pro-Nicene leadership. In these accounts, the protagonists demonstrate feats of strength and perseverance, modeled on ancient Greek athletes and warriors and biblical heroes; the latter refashioned to accord with characterizations of classical masculinity.The subjects stand out as examples of piety and authority not only for their actions, but also for their appearance.Nyssen and Nazianzen detailed the beauty of each as a testament of their excellence, an example of evaluating the body according to classical Greek norms.As projections of moral superiority and fortitude, these personifications projected Trinitarian supporters as a synthesis of holiness and manhood.By authoring these accounts, Nyssen and Nazianzen enhanced their own capital as theologians associated with saints acquitted through various contests that defended truth.

The preface describes the research methodology and the writing process that led to this book. It begins by explaining how the author collected information from the relevant sources, verified its completeness and accuracy, and analysed it under a unified framework. It then turns to the issue of storytelling style and to the author’s decision to present his findings in the form of a fictionalized account. In so doing, the preface discusses the problem of verifiability of classified information, the issue of trust between the narrator and the audience, and the promises and pitfalls of literary writing when it comes to informing, reporting, or commenting on real life.

Chapter 4 ends Part I of the book with an account of the reaction to Holwell’s and Dow’s ideas throughout Europe, pointing to how, despite their differences, the common ‘philosophical’ quality of their enquiries had a significant impact on numerous intellectual elements of the late Enlightenment period. This includes a discussion of debates on the legitimacy of Company governance and the significance for their work in debates on empire.

Whereas John Locke (1632–1704) is best known for his "way of ideas" and political theory, he was also a skilled theologian. His theological concerns, interests, and ideas permeate his philosophical, political, and moral thought. Locke’s oeuvre in its different areas is indeed the production of a Christian philosopher. But Locke’s religious views are significant for yet another reason, in that his theological reflections resulted in a unique version of Christianity. Although Locke expounded his religious views in an unsystematic manner, given also his dislike of systems of doctrine and his hostility to claims of religious orthodoxy, an original and internally coherent form of Protestant Christianity emerges from his public as well as private writings. Locke's version of Christianity denotes various similarities with heterodox theological currents such as Socinianism and Arminianism, which Locke knew well. Nonetheless, Locke adhered to the Protestant doctrine of "sola Scriptura," according to which the Scriptures contain all that is needed for salvation. Thus, he always made sure that his conclusions were consistent with, and indeed grounded in, Scripture.

In "The Reasonableness of Christianity," Locke aimed to promote the practice of morality and the development of moral character through a Scripture-based theological ethics. He claimed that his account of Christianity was based on Scripture alone, which he regarded as an authoritative source of historical and eschatological truth entailing moral principles. However, his writings on religion denote many similarities with Socinianism and Arminianism. He adopted Socinus’s proof of scriptural authority, highlighting the excellence of Christ’s moral precepts, insisting on the fulfillment of Old Testament Messianic prophecies in the New Testament, and describing Christ’s miracles as confirming his Messianic mission. This proof enabled Locke to develop a historical method of biblical interpretation, which, stressing the internal consistency of the Bible, considered the biblical texts in relation to both their respective historical contexts and the biblical discourse as a whole. In reading Scripture, he followed the Protestant tradition of the way of fundamentals, but he formulated an original doctrine of the fundamentals of Christianity – that is,repentance, obedience, and faith.

The concluding chapter provides a summary of the results reported in the previous chapters, emphasizing the overall preferences in favor of racial/ethnic, gender, and socioeconomic diversity and the broad consensus around these preferences across groups of participants. The chapter then reviews scholarship on how diversity affects campus communities and individual students and faculty, emphasizing that effects at the community level are widely regarded to be positive whereas deeper debates surround impact at the individual level. The chapter concludes by considering current challenges to affirmative action in college admissions in the courts and from those arguing for diversity of viewpoints rather than demographics.