Civilizational States, Secularisms and Religions

By Peter J. Katzenstein (pjk2@cornell.edu)

 

Paper prepared for the Meeting of the Working Group on Religion, Secularism and International Affairs, Social Science Research Council, New York, May 11-12, 2007 and presented at Columbia University January 23, 2008

 

Introduction

This paper cuts against the grain of much writing on international relations. It does not start with the assumption that, by privatizing religion, the Peace of Westphalia left international politics fully secular.  Furthermore, it does not assume that secularism should be conceived of in the singular. Secularism in international relations is central to substantively different arguments about international relations – realist power politics, liberal cosmopolitanism, and Marxist class struggle. All three view religious conflicts as relics of a bygone era, a sideshow to the struggle over primacy, the coordination of conflicting objectives, and the dynamics of class conflict. There is something appealing and implausible about this view. Appealing is the search for simplification and a parsimonious understanding of international politics. Implausible are the denial of the continued relevance of religion for world politics and a view of secularism in the singular despite the fact that many aspects of secular politics – state, capitalism and democracy –  are so variegated empirically.

Globalization And Governance: Definition, Variation, And Explanation

By Miles Kahler and David A. Lake

 

Introduction

Contemporary debate over globalization casts its political effects as both revolutionary and contradictory. In a “power shift” of historic proportions (Mathews 1997), some analysts claim that we are entering an age of the “virtual state” (Rosecrance 1996).  Globalization, they argue, drains political authority from nation-states, long the dominant form of political organization in world politics.  The state’s monopoly of familiar governance functions is ending, as governance migrates up to supranational organizations; down to newly empowered regions, provinces, and municipalities; and laterally to such private actors as multinational firms and transnational non-governmental organizations (NGOs), that acquire previously “public” responsibilities.  In this view, globalization not only transfers governance in conflicting directions, it also forces a convergence of state institutions and policies.  In exercising their residual authority, states are constrained to look and act alike. Although a transfer of governance to sub-national units may increase democratic accountability, these governance changes and the accompanying pressures for convergence are more often seen as a threat to the ability of societies to chart their own democratically determined courses.

World Conflict over Religion : Secularism as Flawed Solution

By Ole Wæver

Paper presented at the 48^th annual convention of International Studies Association in Chicago USA, Feb 28- March 3, 2007; panel WA04 “Religion and Secularism in IR I: Theoretical Approaches”.

 

Written for Knud Erik Jørgensen & Per Mouritsen (eds.) Constituting Communities: Political Solutions to Cultural Conflict, London: Palgrave 2007.

 

‘Political solutions to cultural conflict’ is the unifying theme of this book. ‘The security problems of a political “solution” to cultural/religious conflict’ could have been the title of this chapter.

A global flare of anger and violence triggered by 12 cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in a Danish newspaper showed in 2005-6 how religion has become able to generate political conflicts that follow particularly easily the globalised patterns connecting local struggles in one place to local action in distant parts of the world (Wæver 2006). This specific incident clearly gained such momentum because it was both fed by and fed back into a pattern of global conflict, where Muslims and Western publics cumulate mutual grievances and concerns. The present chapter tries to analyse the nature and dynamics of this wider conflict and its implications for the political concepts to guide interaction within and among societies. As an aside the analysis below will argue that it was far from coincidence that this crisis started in a country like Denmark, and that it was mishandled so thoroughly there.  Except for that, the chapter will not analyse the specific Prophet Crisis as such, but the reader is welcome to think about this case once a page, and I am certain, the analysis and the case will illustrate each other nicely.

Reflexivity and Subjectivity: A Dialogical Perspective for and on International Relations Theory

By Xavier Guillaume

 

Abstract: The aim of this essay is to discuss the places of the notions of subjectivity and reflexivity within International Relations (IR) theory by contrasting the classical perspective inspired by positivism with a dialogical perspective which tries to fully integrate these notions in its examination of the specific nexus between identity and alterity. This dialogical perspective proposes a reflexive tool, the hermeneutical locus, which is intended to provide a way to assess the subjectivity of the cognised without falling into reification and a reflexive archaeology of the discipline of IR itself. In this sense, a dialogical approach wishes to offer a reflexive tool for and on IR theory.

Key words: subjectivity, reflexivity, dialogism, Mikhail M. Bakhtin, International Relations theory, identity-alterity nexus, reification, archaeology

 

1. Introduction

The general theme of this FQS special issue on reflexivity and subjectivity is of great interest and significance in social sciences today and more particularly in the field of International Relations (IR). IR is the field of study that attempts to understand and/or explain interactions between state-based and/or non state-based actors on a level that is not limited to the domestic realm and which is often termed “international politics”. In IR the traditional positivist perspective has proved either to be a failure in its pretensions to provide the only theoretical and scientific framework for social sciences or it has shown its limits as an epistemic research programme (see LAKATOS 1970). In IR theory, the struggle during the late eighties and early nineties against the dominant positivist research programmes resulted in the emergence, among other currents, of a “middle ground” meta-theory known as constructivism. This emergence lead to a reflection in the discipline which specifically tackled not only the ontological, but more specifically the epistemological and axiomatical dimensions of the different IR research programmes (ADLER 1997; LAPID 1989). [1]