Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T13:14:34.839Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A neo-Weberian approach to religion in international politics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 November 2009

Cecelia Lynch
Cecelia Lynch*
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, and Director, Center for Global Peace and Conflict Studies, University of California, Irvine, 3151 Social Science Plaza, Irvine, CA, USA
*
E-mail: clynch@uci.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Current approaches for understanding and analyzing religion in international politics insufficiently incorporate the role of ethics in the practices of religious actors. Primordialist approaches essentialize religion, instrumental approaches consider it to be an epiphenomenon, and cosmopolitan approaches a priori downgrade alternative ethical constructs as insufficiently universalist. An approach to religion that begins with a constitutive understanding of religious belief and economic, social, and political practice as outlined in Weber’s Sociology of Religion, is more helpful. However, because Weber’s method insufficiently addresses ethical intentionality, the ‘neo-Weberian’ approach I advance here incorporates the concepts of ‘common good’ and ‘popular casuistry’ into socio-historical contextualization. This approach provides a way to understand and theorize how religious adherents connect religious guidelines to moral action that avoids the essentialization of religion which is often characteristic of other perspectives.

Keywords

religionWeberconstructivismethicspopular casuistry
Type
Original Article
Information
International Theory , Volume 1 , Issue 3 , November 2009 , pp. 381 - 408
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abou El Fadl, K. (ed.) (2004), Islam and the Challenge of Democracy, Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abou El Fadl, K. (2005), The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the Extremists, New York: Harper San Francisco.Google Scholar
Almond, G.A., Sivan, E.Scott Appleby, R. (2004), ‘Politics, ethnicity, and fundamentalism’, in M.E. Marty and R. Scott Appleby (eds), Fundamentalisms Comprehended, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
An-Na’im, A.A. (2008), Islam and the Secular State: Negotiating the Future of Shari’a, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Asad, T. (1993), Genealogies of Religion: Discipline and Reasons of Power in Christianity and Islam, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asad, T. (2003), Formations of the Secular: Christianity, Islam, Modernity, Palo Alto, CA:Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Berger, P.L. (1999), The Desecularization of the World: Resurgent Religion and World Politics, Washington, DC: Ethics and Public Policy Center.Google Scholar
Brown, C., Nardin, T.Rennger, N. (2002), International Relations in Political Thought: Texts from the Ancient Greeks to the First World War, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrnes, T.A.Katzenstein, P.J. (eds) (2006), Religion in an Expanding Europe, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casanova, J. (1994), Public Religions in the Modern World, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casanova, J. (2008), ‘Public Religions Revisited’. Unpublished paper presented at the Social Science Research Council working group on Religion, Secularism, and International Affairs, New York.Google Scholar
Connolly, W.E. (1999), Why I Am Not a Secularist, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Eisenstadt, S. (2000), ‘The reconstruction of religious arenas in the framework of “multiple modernities” ’, Millenium 29(3): 591–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esposito, J.L.Mogahed, D. (2007), Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think, New York: Gallup.Google Scholar
Fox, J. (2003), ‘Are religious minorities more militant than other ethnic minorities?’, Alternatives 28(1): 91–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, J. (2004), Religion, Civilization, and Civil War: 1945 through the new millennium, Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Gerth, H.Mills, C.W. (eds) (1946), From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. (1979), Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis, Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grovogui, S.N. (1996), Sovereigns, Quasi-Sovereigns, and Africans: Race and Self-Determination in International Law, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, F. (2002), Two Hours that Shook the World, London: Saqi Books.Google Scholar
Hasenclever, A.Rittberger, V. (2003), ‘Does religion make a difference? Theoretical approaches to the impact of faith on political conflict’, in P. Hatzopoulos and F. Petito (eds), Religion in International Relations: The Return from Exile, New York: Palgrave MacMillan, pp. 107–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hathout, M., Jamil, U., Hathout, G.Ali, N. (2006), In Pursuit of Justice: The Jurisprudence of Human Rights in Islam, Los Angeles: Muslim Public Affairs Council.Google Scholar
Hehir, J.B. (2006), ‘The old Church and the new Europe: charting the changes’, in T.A. Byrnes and P.J. Katzenstein (eds), Religion in an Expanding Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huntington, S., et al. (1993), The Clash of Civilizations? The Debate. With responses by Fouad Ajami et al. New York: Council on Foreign Relations.Google Scholar
Jackson, P.T. (2008), ‘Foregrounding ontology: dualism, monism, and IR theory’, Review of International Studies 34(1): 129–153..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jonsen, A.R.Toulmin, S. (1988), The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning, Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Juergensmeyer, M. (2000), Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence, Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Kane, O. (1997), ‘Muslim Missionaries and African States’, in S. Hoeber Rudolph and J. Piscatori (eds), Transnational Religion and Fading States, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Katzenstein, P.J. (2006), ‘Multiple modernities as limits to secular Europeanization?’, in T.A. Byrnes and P.J. Katzenstein (eds), Religion in an Expanding Europe, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kepel, G. (2005), The Roots of Radical Islam, London: Saqi Press.Google Scholar
Klotz, A.Lynch, C. (2007), Strategies for Research in Constructivist International Relations, Armonk, NY and London: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Kratochwil, F. (1989), Rules, Norms, and Decisions: On the Conditions of Practical and Legal Reasoning in International Relations and Domestic Affair, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, B. (1994), Islam and the West, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lincoln, B. (2002), Holy Terrors: Thinking about Religion after September 11, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindbeck, G.A. (1984), The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.Google Scholar
Lynch, C. (2000), ‘Dogma, praxis, and religious perspectives on multiculturalism’, Millenium: Journal of International Studies 23(3): 589–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, C. (2008), ‘Reflexivity in research on civil society: constructivist perspectives’, International Studies Review 10(4): 708–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, C.Loriaux, M. (eds) (2000), Law and Moral Action in World Politics, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
MacIntyre, A. (1990), Three Rival Versions of Moral Inquiry: Encyclopaedia, Genealogy, and Tradition, Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Mapel, D.Nardin, T. (eds) (1992), Traditions of International Ethics, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, D. (1999), ‘The Evangelical upsurge and its political implications’, in P.L. Berger (ed.), The Desecularization of the World, Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Martin, D. (2008), Pentecostalism: The World Their Parish, Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Marty, M. (1997), The One and the Many: America’s Struggle for the Common Good, Cambridge, MA, and London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Marty, M.Appleby, S. (1993a), The Fundamentalism Project, Vol. 2. Fundamentalisms and Society: Reclaiming the Sciences, the Family, and Education, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Marty, M.Appleby, S. (1993b), Fundamentalism Project, Vol. 3. Fundamentalisms and the State: Remaking Polities, Economies, and Militance, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Marty, M.Appleby, S. (eds) (1994a), The Fundamentalism Project, Vol. 1. Fundamentalisms Observed, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Marty, M.Appleby, S. (1994b), The Fundamentalism Project, Vol. 4. Accounting for Fundamentalisms: The Dynamic Character of Movements, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Marty, M., et al. (1995), The Fundamentalism Project, Vol. 5. Fundamentalisms Comprehended, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mearsheimer, J. (1993), ‘Shrink Bosnia to Save It’. New York Times. 31 March.Google Scholar
Miller, D.Yamamori, T. (2007), Global Pentecostalism: The New Face of Christian Social Engagement, Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jr.Moore, B. (2000), Moral Purity and Persecution in History, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, P.Inglehart, R. (2004), Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onuf, N. (1989), World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations, Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Pape, R. (2003), ‘The strategic logic of suicide terrorism’, American Political Science Review 93(3): 343–361.Google Scholar
Petito, F.Hatzopoulos, P. (eds) (2003), Religion in International Relations: The Return from Exile, New York: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
Philpott, D. (2001), Revolutions in Sovereignty, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Price, R.Reus-Smit, C. (1998), ‘Dangerous liaisons? Critical international theory and constructivism’, European Journal of International Relations 4(3): 259–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poggi, G. (2000), Durkheim, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reus-Smit, C. (1999), The Moral Purpose of the State: Culture, Identity, and Institutional Rationality in International Relations, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Reus-Smit, C. (ed.) (2004), The Politics of International Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ricoeur, P. (1976), Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning, Fort Worth, TX: Texas Christian University Press.Google Scholar
Rudolph, S.H.Piscatori, J. (eds) (1997), Transnational Religion and Fading States, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Ruggie, J.G. (1998), Constructing the World Polity: Essays on International Institutionalization, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Salvatore, A. (1997), Islam and the Political Discourse of Modernity, Reading, UK: Ithaca Press.Google Scholar
Salvatore, A.LeVine, M. (eds) (2005), Religion, Social Practice, and Contested Hegemonies: Reconstructing the Public Sphere in Muslim Majority Societies, New York: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz-Shea, P. (2006), ‘Judging quality: evaluative criteria and epistemic communities’, in D. Yanow and P. Schwartz-Shea (eds), Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn, Armonk, NY and London: M.E. Sharpe, pp. 89–114.Google Scholar
Shakman Hurd, E. (2007), The Politics of Secularism in International Relations, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, C. (2007), A Secular Age, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Thomas, S.M. (2003), ‘Taking religious and cultural pluralism seriously: the global resurgence of religion and the transformation of international society’, in P. Hatzopoulos and F. Petito (eds), Religion in International Relations: The Return from Exile, New York: Palgrave MacMillan, pp. 21–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, S.M. (2005), The Global Resurgence of Religion and the Transformation of International Relations: The Struggle for the Soul of the Twenty-First Century, New York: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tibi, B. (2006), ‘Europeanizing Islam or the Islamization of Europe: political democracy vs. cultural difference’, in T.A. Byrnes and P.J. Katzenstein (eds), Religion in an Expanding Europe, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Todorov, T. (1992), The Conquest of America: The Question of the Other, New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Walker, R.B.J. (1991), Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wallis, J. (2008), The Great Awakening: Reviving Faith and Politics in a Post-Religious Right America, New York: HarperOne.Google Scholar
Weber, M. (1963/91), The Sociology of Religion, Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Wendt, A. (1987), ‘The agent-structure problem in international relations theory’, International Organization 41(3): 335–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wendt, A. (1999), Social Theory of International Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wiktorowicz, Q. (ed.) (2004), Islamic Activism: A Social Movement Theory Approach, Bloomington and Indianapolis: University of Indiana Press.Google Scholar
Yanow, D. (2006), ‘Neither rigorous nor objective? Interrogating criteria for knowledge claims in interpretive science’, in D. Yanow and P. Schwartz-Shea (eds), Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn, Armonk, NY and London: M.E. Sharpe, pp. 67–88.Google Scholar