In an interview with khabaronline, Nicholas Onuf, a professor of the Florida International University, says, “In the field of International Relations, there has been a surge of interest in religion. This is hardly surprising.”
He added that “Even realists have been forced to take religion into account in their assessments of national power and interest.”
Following is the text of the interview:
International Relations theories are based in secular and liberal values. How can these theories explain the role of religions as international phenomena?
As with Western social theories in general, IR theories take for granted that religions are institutional expressions of systems of beliefs. These beliefs may well be at odds with the beliefs of the scholars who propose such theories, but this does not automatically discredit the claim that religions are institutionalized in ways that can be subject to comparison and generalization. Nations are also institutional expressions of systems of beliefs. I personally find some nationalist beliefs reprehensible (for example: my country, right or wrong). That I espouse cosmopolitan values does not mean that I am incapable of studying nationalism as a phenomenon with many complex institutional manifestations. It does mean that I should be careful not to let my values prejudice what I say about a phenomenon that I do not wholeheartedly endorse. In other words, I honor the so-called fact-value distinction as a particular ‘secular’ value. I also realize that many nationalists, Christians, Jews, Muslims etc. do not count this distinction as a fact to which they attach any value.
Some theories such as constructivism emphasize on values and meanings. But these values are not theological values and are humanistic values. According to this, can constructivism explain the behavior of religious political movements in international system?
I would never segregate values into the two categories you name because many values properly belong in both. Just for example, the so-called cardinal virtues of wisdom, courage, justice and seemliness have their origin in classical Greek thought, their full development in Roman Stoicism, their enshrinement in Medieval scholasticism thanks especially to St Thomas, and their adoption by humanist Christians in the early modern era. I don’t doubt you can find close equivalents to all four of those virtues in every major religion and civilization, including Islam and Persian civilization. Constructivists do not purport to explain why particular values drive behavior. They do link values to goals, and goals to agents who act on, and within, institutional settings to achieve those goals.
Which theory(ies) can explain the role of religions in international phenomena?
In the field of International Relations, there has been a surge of interest in religion. This is hardly surprising. Even realists have been forced to take religion into account in their assessments of national power and interest. Quite a few liberal scholars have turned their attention to normative theory, ethics, and thus to religion. As for constructivists, many think their work on values, norms and identity suit them especially well to the task. Some constructivists whom I know well are motivated by life-long religious concerns to study the role of religions in international relations
In an interview with khabaronline, Onuf, a professor of the Florida International University, says, “In the field of International Relations, there has been a surge of interest in religion. This is hardly surprising.”
News ID 185535
