Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T10:40:16.482Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The secularism of post-secularity: religion, realism, and the revival of grand theory in IR

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2013

ADRIAN PABST
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

How to theorise religion in International Relations (IR)? Does the concept of post-secularity advance the debate on religion beyond the ‘return of religion’ and the crisis of secular reason? This article argues that the post-secular remains trapped in the logic of secularism. First, a new account is provided of the ‘secularist bias’ that characterises mainstream IR theory: (a) defining religion in either essentialist or epiphenomenal terms; (b) positing a series of ‘antagonistic binary opposites’ such as the secular versus the religious; and (c) de-sacralising and re-sacralising the public square. The article then analyses post-secularity, showing that it subordinates faith under secular reason and sacralises the ‘other’ by elevating difference into the sole transcendental term. Theorists of the post-secular such as Jürgen Habermas or William Connolly also equate secular modernity with metaphysical universalism, which they seek to replace with post-metaphysical pluralism. In contrast, the alternative that this article outlines is an international theory that develops the Christian realism of the English School in the direction of a metaphysical-political realism. Such a realism binds together reason with faith and envisions a ‘corporate’ association of peoples and nations beyond the secularist settlement of Westphalia that is centred on national states and transnational markets. By linking immanent values to transcendent principles, this approach can rethink religion in international affairs and help revive grand theory in IR.

Type
Articles
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 38 , Issue 5: The Postsecular in International Relations , December 2012 , pp. 995 - 1017
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 2012

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

1 Recent surveys of the growing IR literature on the global religious resurgence include Haynes, Jeffrey, ‘Religion and International Relations in the 21st Century: Conflict or Co-operation?’, Third World Quarterly, 27:3 (2006), pp. 535–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bellin, Eva, ‘Faith in Politics: New Trends in the Study of Religion and Politics’, World Politics, 60:2 (2008), pp. 315–47, esp. 315–19 and 338–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Philpott, Daniel, ‘Has the Study of Global Politics Found Religion?’, American Review of Political Science, 12 (2009), pp. 183–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the secularist assumptions of mainstream IR theory, see Doyle, Michael W., Ways of War and Peace: Realism, Liberalism and Socialism (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1997)Google Scholar; Philpott, Daniel, ‘The Challenge of September 11 to Secularism in International Relations’, World Politics, 55:1 (2002), pp. 66–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hurd, Elizabeth Shakman, The Politics of Secularism in International Relations (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008), pp. 1–45, 134–54Google Scholar; Wilson, Erin K., After Secularism: Rethinking Religion in Global Politics (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), pp. 1–90Google Scholar.

2 For a useful discussion of how religion might fit into existing IR traditions, see Snyder, Jack, ‘Introduction’, in Snyder, J. (ed.), Religion and International Relations Theory (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011), pp. 1–23Google Scholar. On combining several IR theories, see in the same volume, Daniel H. Nexon, ‘Religion and International Relations: No Leap of Faith Required’, pp. 141–67; in contrast, see Bellin, ‘Faith in Politics’, esp. p. 316. On ‘new paradigms’, see, for example, Huntington, Samuel P., The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996)Google Scholar.

3 Berger, Peter (ed.), The Desecularization of the World: Resurgent Religion and World Politics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999)Google Scholar; see also Pabst, Adrian, ‘The Paradox of Faith: Religion beyond Secularization and Desecularization’, in Calhoun, Craig and Derlugian, Georgi M. (eds), The Deepening Crisis: Governance Challenges after Neoliberalism (New York: New York University Press, 2011), pp. 157–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Barbato, Mariano and Kratochwil, Friedrich, ‘Towards a Post-secular Political Order?’, European Political Science Review, 1:3 (2009), pp. 317–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 On positivism in IR theory, see Kaplan, Morton A., ‘The New Great Debate: Traditionalism vs. Science in International Relations’, World Politics, 19:1 (1966), pp. 1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Knorr, Klaus E. and Rosenau, James N. (eds), Contending Approaches to International Politics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969)Google Scholar; Brown, Chris, Understanding International Relations (2nd edn, Houndmills: Macmillan, 2001), pp. 1–42Google Scholar; Fred Dallmayr, ‘Post-Secularity and (Global) Politics: A Need for Radical Redefinition’, this Special Issue.

6 Recent overviews include Gill, Anthony, ‘Religion and Comparative Politics’, Annual Review of Political Science, 4 (2001), pp. 117–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wald, Kenneth D., Silverman, Adam and Fridy, Kevin, ‘Making Sense of Religion in Political Life’, Annual Review of Political Science, 8 (2005), pp. 121–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Philpott, Daniel, ‘The Religious Roots of Modern International Relations’, World Politics, 52:2 (2000), pp. 206–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cavanaugh, William T., The Myth of Religious Violence: Secular Ideology and the Roots of Modern Conflict (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Smith, Steve, ‘The Forty Years' Detour: The Resurgence of Normative Theory in International Relations’, Millennium, 21:3 (1992), pp. 489–508, at p. 490CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Smith, Steve, ‘Positivism and beyond’, in Smith, Steve, Booth, Ken, and Zalewski, Marysia (eds), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 11–44, at p. 11CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 Jones, Charles A., ‘Christian Realism and the Foundations of the English School’, International Relations, 17:3 (2003), pp. 371–87, at p. 372CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 In addition to Huntington, Clash, see Eisenstadt, Shmuel N., Patterns of Modernity Beyond the West (London: Pinter, 1987)Google Scholar; Eisenstadt, S. N., ‘Multiple Modernities’, Daedalus, 129:1 (2000), pp. 1–29Google Scholar; Kepel, Gilles, La Revanche de Dieu. Chrétiens, juifs et musulmans à la reconquête du monde (Paris: Seuil, 1991)Google Scholar, trans. The Revenge of God: The Resurgence of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism in the Modern World, trans. Braley, A. (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1994)Google Scholar; Barber, Benjamin, Jihad vs. McWorld (New York: Times Book, 1995)Google Scholar; Juergensmeyer, Mark, The New Cold War? Religious Nationalism Confronts the Secular State (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993)Google Scholar; Juergensmeyer, M., Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000)Google Scholar.

12 Fox, Jonathan and Sandler, Shmuel, Bringing Religion into International Relations (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004), pp. 9–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Asad, Talal, Genealogies of Religion: Discipline and Reasons of Power in Christianity and Islam (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993)Google Scholar.

14 Funkenstein, Amos, Theology and the Scientific Imagination from the Middle Ages to the Seventeenth Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986)Google Scholar; Harrison, Peter, ‘Religion’ and the Religions in the English Enlightenment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 Asad, Genealogies, p. 41.

16 On conceptual and methodological reflections about religion in IR theory beyond an instrumental and an essentialist view of faith, see Sheikh, Mona Kanwal, ‘How does religion matter? Pathways to religion in International Relations’, Review of International Studies, 38:2 (2012), pp. 365–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 Thomas, Scott M., The Global Resurgence of Religion and the Transformation of International Relations (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), p. 12CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 Thomas, Global Resurgence, p. 95.

19 Bleiker, Roland, ‘East-West Stories of War and Peace: Neorealist Claims in Light of Ancient Chinese Philosophy’, in Chan, Stephen, Mandaville, Peter, and Bleiker, Roland (eds), The Zen of International Relations (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2001), pp. 177–201, at p. 181CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 Milbank, John, Theology and Social Theory. Beyond secular reason (2nd edn, Oxford: Blackwell, 2006 [orig. pub. 1990])CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Taylor, Charles, A Secular Age (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007)Google Scholar; Dupré, Louis, Passage to Modernity. An essay on the hermeneutics of nature and culture (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993)Google Scholar; Gillespie, Michael Allen, The Theological Origins of Modernity (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 Durkheim, Émile, Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, trans. Swain, J. S. (London: Allen and Unwin, 1915), p. 37Google Scholar.

22 Taylor, Secular Age, p. 15.

23 Asad, Talal, Formations of the Secular: Christianity, Islam, Modernity (Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 2003)Google Scholar.

24 See Taylor, Secular Age, p. 2; Hurd, Politics, pp. 5–13; Shah and Philpott, ‘The Fall and Rise of Religion’, esp. pp. 25–37; Wilson, After Secularism, pp. 13–24; Toft, Monica Duffy, Philpott, Daniel, and Shah, Timothy Samuel, God's Century: Resurgent Religion and Global Politics (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2011), pp. 20–47Google Scholar.

25 See Pabst, Adrian, ‘The Western Paradox: Why the United States is more Religious but less Christian than Europe’, in Leustean, Lucian (ed.), Representing Religion in the European Union: Does God Matter? (London: Routledge, 2012), pp. 168–84Google Scholar.

26 Wernick, Andrew, Auguste Comte and the Religion of Humanity: The Post-Theistic Program of French Social Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; in contrast, see Al-Azmeh, Aziz, Islams and Modernities (London: Verso, 1993)Google Scholar; Gray, John, Al Qaeda and What It Means to Be Modern (London: Faber and Faber, 2003)Google Scholar.

27 Kantorowicz, Ernst H., The King's Two Bodies: A Study in Mediaeval Political Theology (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957), pp. 42–86, 193–313Google Scholar; Agamben, Giorgio, The Kingdom and the Glory: For a Theological Genealogy of Economy and Government, trans. Chiesa, Lorenzo (Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 2011)Google Scholar.

28 Benjamin, Walter, ‘Capitalism as Religion’, in Walter Benjamin: Selected Writings – Volume 1 (1913–1926), eds Bullock, Marcus and Jennings, Michael W. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996), pp. 288–91Google Scholar.

29 Petito, Fabio and Hatzopoulos, Pavlos (eds), Religion in International Relations: The Return from Exile (London: Palgrave, 2003)Google Scholar; Fox and Sandler, Bringing Religion; Thomas, Global Resurgence; Toft, Philpott, and Shah, God's Century; Calhoun, Craig, Juergensmeyer, Mark and VanAntwerpen, Jonathan (eds), Rethinking Secularism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011)Google Scholar; Mendieta, Eduardo and Vanantwerpen, Jonathan (eds), The Power of Religion in the Public Sphere (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011)Google Scholar.

30 Gorski, Philip S., Torpey, John, and Kim, David Kyuman (eds), The Post-Secular in Question. Religion in Contemporary Society (New York: New York University Press, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31 Bretherton, Luke, Christianity and Contemporary Politics. The Conditions and Possibilities of Faithful Witness (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), p. 15, emphasis in originalCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 Habermas, Jürgen, ‘Secularism's Crisis of Faith: Notes on a Post-Secular Society’, New Perspectives Quarterly, 25:4 (2008), pp. 17–29, at p. 29CrossRefGoogle Scholar, originally published in German in Blätter für deutsche und internationale Politik (April 2008), pp. 33–46.

33 Calhoun, Craig, Mendieta, Eduardo, and VanAntwerpen, Jonathan (eds), Habermas and Religion (Cambridge: Polity, 2012)Google Scholar.

34 Taylor, Secular Age, p. 3.

35 Taylor, Secular Age, p. 13.

36 In contrast, see Antonio Cerella, ‘Religion and Political Form: Carl Schmitt's Genealogy of Politics as Critique of the Secular/Post-Secular Dichotomy’, this Special Issue.

37 Habermas, Jürgen, Postmetaphysical Thinking: Between Metaphysics and the Critique of Reason, trans. Hohengarten, William Mark (Cambridge: Polity, 1995)Google Scholar; Habermas, Jürgen, ‘An Awareness of What is Missing’, in Habermas, J.et al., An Awareness of What is Missing: Faith and Reason in a Post-Secular Age, trans. Cronin, Ciaran (Cambridge: Polity, 2010), pp. 15–23Google Scholar.

38 Habermas, ‘Secularism's Crisis’, p. 28.

39 For a critical account of Habermas, see Dallmayr, ‘Post-Secularity’, and Joseph A. Camilleri, ‘Postsecularist Discourse in an “Age of Transition”’, this Special Issue.

40 Habermas, Jürgen, ‘Prepolitical foundations of the democratic constitutional state?’, in Habermas, J. and Ratzinger, J. (eds), The Dialectics of Secularization (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2006), pp. 19–52Google Scholar.

41 Habermas, ‘Awareness’, p. 17; see also Habermas, ‘Secularism's Crisis’.

42 Habermas, Jürgen, ‘Religion in the public square’, European Journal of Philosophy, 14:1 (2006), pp. 1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Habermas, J., ‘On the Relations Between the Secular Liberal State and Religion’, in de Vries, Hent and Sullivan, Lawrence E. (eds), Political Theologies. Public Religion in a Post-Secular World (New York: Fordham University Press, 2006), pp. 251–60Google Scholar.

43 One exception in IR is the debate generated by Wendt, Alexander, ‘Why a World State is Inevitable’, European Journal of International Relations, 9:4 (2003), pp. 491–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

44 Smith, ‘Positivism’, and Martin Hollis, ‘Probing puzzles persistently: a desirable but improbable future for IR theory’, in Smith et al. (eds), International Theory, pp. 11–44 and 301–8.

45 Laïdi, Zaki, Un monde privé de sens (rev. edn, Paris: Fayard, 1996)Google Scholar, trans. A World Without Meaning: The Crisis of Meaning in International Politics, trans. Burnham, J. and Coulon, J. (London: Routledge, 1998)Google Scholar.

46 Connolly, William, Why I Am Not a Secularist (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999)Google Scholar.

47 McLennan, Gregor, ‘The Postsecular Turn’, Theory, Culture & Society, 27:4 (2010), pp. 3–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

48 Milbank, John, ‘The Postsecular and Postcolonial’, Theory, Culture & Society, 29 (2012), in pressGoogle Scholar.

49 Milbank, ‘The Postsecular’.

50 Butterfield, Herbert, The Whig Interpretation of History (London: George Bell, 1949)Google Scholar.

51 Tierney, Brian, Religion, Law, and the Growth of Constitutional Thought, 1150–1650 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Burns, J. H., ‘Introduction’, in Burns, J. H. (ed.), Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), pp. 1–8Google Scholar; Oakley, Francis, Natural Law, Laws of Nature, Natural Rights: Continuity and Discontinuity in the History of Ideas (New York: Continuum, 2005)Google Scholar.

52 Wight, Martin, Systems of States (Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1977), p. 152Google Scholar; see also Dehio, Ludwig, The Precarious Balance. Four Centuries of the European Power Struggle, trans. Fulman, C. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1962), esp. p. 23Google Scholar.

53 See, inter alia, Bartelson, Jens, A Genealogy of Sovereignty (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Philpott, Daniel, Revolutions in Sovereignty. How ideas shaped modern international relations (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001)Google Scholar.

54 See, inter alia, Howard, Michael, ‘War and the nation state’, Daedalus, 108 (1979), pp. 101–10Google Scholar; Ertman, Thomas, Birth of the Leviathan: Building States and Regimes in Medieval and Early Modern Europe (Cambridge: Polity, 1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

55 Wight, Martin, International Theory: The Three Traditions, eds Porter, B. and Wight, G. (Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1991), esp. p. 260Google Scholar.

56 On other conceptual limitations of the English School and new avenues, see Buzan, Barry, ‘The English School: an underexploited resource in IR’, Review of International Studies, 27:3 (2001), pp. 471–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and the response by Hurrell, Andrew, ‘Keeping history, law and political philosophy firmly within the English School’, Review of International Studies, 27:3 (2001), pp. 489–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

57 Dunne, Tim, Inventing International Society. A History of the English School (Houndmills: Macmillan, 1998), pp. 54–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

58 Rosenberg, Justin, The Empire of Civil Society. A Critique of the Realist Theory of International Relations (London: Verso, 1994)Google Scholar; Teschke, Benno, The Myth of 1648. Class, Geopolitics, and the Making of Modern International Relations (London: Verso, 2003)Google Scholar.

59 Manent, Pierre, Les métamorphoses de la cité: Essai sur la dynamique de l'Occident (Paris: Flammarion, 2010)Google Scholar.

60 Ruggie, John G., ‘What Makes the World Hang Together? Neo-Utilitarianism and the Social Constructivist Challenge’, International Organization, 52:4 (1998), pp. 855–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

61 In his article ‘One order, two laws: recovering the “normative” in English School theory’, Review of International Studies, 33:4 (2007), pp. 557–75Google Scholar, William Bain shows that the English School lacks an account of obligation beyond procedural norms. My article draws on Bain's argument to suggest that the common good and other substantive ends are similarly missing from the work of Butterfield, Wight, and other English School members.

62 Jones, ‘Christian Realism’, p. 372.

63 Bull, Hedley, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics (2nd edn, London: Macmillan, 1996), p. 13Google Scholar. This procedural vision is developed in Bull, Hedley and Watson, Adam (eds), The Expansion of International Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984)Google Scholar.

64 Butterfield, Herbert, ‘Christianity and Human Relationships’, in Butterfield, H., History and Human Relations (London: Collins, 1951), p. 39Google Scholar.

65 Wight, Martin, ‘The Church, Russia and the West’, The Ecumenical Review, 1:1 (1948), pp. 25–45, at p. 30CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

66 Herbert Butterfield, ‘The Historic States System’, unpublished paper, quoted in Watson, Adam, ‘Foreword’, in Der Derian, James (ed.), International Theory: Critical Investigations (Houndsmill: Macmillan, 1995), p. xGoogle Scholar.

67 Wight, International Theory, pp. 13–14.

68 Niebuhr, Reinhold, The Irony of American History (New York: Charles Scribner, 1955)Google Scholar; Niebuhr, R., The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness: A Vindication of Democracy and a Critique of Its Traditional Defenders (London: Nisbet & Co., 1945)Google Scholar.

69 Niebuhr, Irony, p. 71.

70 Benedict, Pope XVI, The Regensburg Lecture, trans. Schall, James V. S. J. (Chicago: St. Augustine's Press, 2007)Google Scholar.

71 See, supra, note 12.

72 Pope Benedict XVI, Meeting with the Representatives of British Society, Westminster Hall (17 September 2010), available at: {http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2010/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20100917_societa-civile_en.html}.

73 Benedict XVI, Meeting.

74 In contemporary political thought, the thesis of incommensurable values finds perhaps its clearest expression in the works of Isaiah Berlin, Richard Rorty, and John Gray.

75 Wight, Martin, Power Politics, eds Bull, H. and Holbraad, C. (2nd edn, Hardmondsworth: Pelican Books, 1986), pp. 293–4Google Scholar.

76 Wight, International Theory, p. 38.

77 See, for example, Jackson, Robert, The Global Covenant. Human Conduct in a World of States (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000)Google Scholar.

78 Martin Wight, ‘Western Values in International Relations’, British Committee paper (October 1961), published in Butterfield, Herbert and Wight, Martin (eds), Diplomatic Investigations: Essays in the Theory of International Politics (London: Allen and Unwin, 1966), pp. 89–131Google Scholar.

79 Since Hedley Bull's ‘The Grotian Conception of International Society’, in Butterfield and Wight, Diplomatic Investigations, pp. 51–73, some of the most important interventions in the recent debate include Wheeler, Nicholas J., ‘Pluralist and Solidarity Conceptions of International Society: Bull and Vincent on Humanitarian Intervention’, Millennium, 21:3 (1992), pp. 463–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Brown, Chris, ‘International Theory and International Society: The Viability of the Middle Way?’, Review of International Studies, 21:2 (1995), pp. 183–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jackson, Global Covenant; Buzan, Barry, From International to World Society? English School Theory and the Social Structure of Globalisation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), chaps 5 and 8CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bartelson, Jens, Visions of World Community (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

80 Wight, Systems of States, p. 33.