How Religious Are “Religious” Conflicts?

IF 3.1 1区 社会学 Q1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS International Studies Review Pub Date : 2023-06-23 DOI:10.1093/isr/viad029
M. Tabaar, Reyko Huang, Kanchan Chandra, E. Finkel, Richard A. Nielsen, M. Revkin, M. Vogt, E. Wood
{"title":"How Religious Are “Religious” Conflicts?","authors":"M. Tabaar, Reyko Huang, Kanchan Chandra, E. Finkel, Richard A. Nielsen, M. Revkin, M. Vogt, E. Wood","doi":"10.1093/isr/viad029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Despite significant advances in our understanding of the politics of religious ideology and identity across time and space, scholars disagree on how to conceptualize “religious” conflicts and “religious” actors, and how to infer religious motivations from actors’ behavior. This Forum brings together scholars with diverse research agendas to weigh in on conceptual, methodological, and ethical questions surrounding the study of contemporary religious conflicts. We ask: How do we know when individuals and groups are acting on religious, as opposed to other, motivations? To what extent can analysts rely on actors’ own claims about their motivations? How does the “secular bias” affect scholarly research on religion and conflict? Is there a bias over which conflicts and actors come to be labeled and coded as “religious” by scholars, policymakers, and the media? The Forum fosters a debate aimed at identifying gaps within and between academic research and policy as well as media analyses on religion and political violence. The contributors examine contradictory conclusions by academics and policy analysts rooted in diverging assumptions and arguments about “religious” actors, “religious” motivations, and “religious” conflicts. The Forum proposes some ways for scholars to overcome these challenges as well as offers implications for policymakers and journalists who shape the public discourse.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"129 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Studies Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viad029","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Despite significant advances in our understanding of the politics of religious ideology and identity across time and space, scholars disagree on how to conceptualize “religious” conflicts and “religious” actors, and how to infer religious motivations from actors’ behavior. This Forum brings together scholars with diverse research agendas to weigh in on conceptual, methodological, and ethical questions surrounding the study of contemporary religious conflicts. We ask: How do we know when individuals and groups are acting on religious, as opposed to other, motivations? To what extent can analysts rely on actors’ own claims about their motivations? How does the “secular bias” affect scholarly research on religion and conflict? Is there a bias over which conflicts and actors come to be labeled and coded as “religious” by scholars, policymakers, and the media? The Forum fosters a debate aimed at identifying gaps within and between academic research and policy as well as media analyses on religion and political violence. The contributors examine contradictory conclusions by academics and policy analysts rooted in diverging assumptions and arguments about “religious” actors, “religious” motivations, and “religious” conflicts. The Forum proposes some ways for scholars to overcome these challenges as well as offers implications for policymakers and journalists who shape the public discourse.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
“宗教”冲突有多宗教性?
尽管我们对跨越时空的宗教意识形态和身份政治的理解取得了重大进展,但学者们在如何概念化“宗教”冲突和“宗教”行动者,以及如何从行动者的行为中推断宗教动机方面存在分歧。本论坛汇集了具有不同研究议程的学者,就围绕当代宗教冲突研究的概念、方法和伦理问题进行权衡。我们的问题是:我们如何知道个人和团体的行为是出于宗教动机,而不是其他动机?分析师在多大程度上可以依赖行为者自己对其动机的说法?“世俗偏见”如何影响宗教与冲突的学术研究?学者、政策制定者和媒体是否对哪些冲突和行动者被贴上“宗教”的标签和编码存在偏见?论坛促进了一场辩论,旨在查明学术研究与政策之间以及媒体对宗教和政治暴力的分析之间的差距。作者研究了学者和政策分析师基于对“宗教”行为者、“宗教”动机和“宗教”冲突的不同假设和争论而得出的相互矛盾的结论。该论坛为学者们提出了一些克服这些挑战的方法,并为塑造公共话语的政策制定者和记者提供了启示。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
9.10%
发文量
62
期刊介绍: The International Studies Review (ISR) provides a window on current trends and research in international studies worldwide. Published four times a year, ISR is intended to help: (a) scholars engage in the kind of dialogue and debate that will shape the field of international studies in the future, (b) graduate and undergraduate students understand major issues in international studies and identify promising opportunities for research, and (c) educators keep up with new ideas and research. To achieve these objectives, ISR includes analytical essays, reviews of new books, and a forum in each issue. Essays integrate scholarship, clarify debates, provide new perspectives on research, identify new directions for the field, and present insights into scholarship in various parts of the world.
期刊最新文献
Fifty Shades of Deprivation: Disaggregating Types of Economic Disadvantage in Studies of Terrorism Postcards from the Pandemic: Women, Intersectionality, and Gendered Risks in the Global COVID-19 Pandemic Reimagining Comparisons in International Relations through Reflexivity Infrastructures and International Relations: A Critical Reflection on Materials and Mobilities More Women, Fewer Nukes?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1