Religion as security: an introduction
Religion as security: an introduction
复制标题
宗教作为安全：简介
DOI：
10.1080/21624887.2016.1221194
复制
发表时间：
2016
影响因子：
1.6
通讯作者：
Giorgio SHANI
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Giorgio Shani;Giorgio SHANI;Giorgio SHANI
近年来，国际关系（IR）学科经历了宗教复兴。宗教与世俗、神圣与世俗、本体论与神学之间以前稳定的区别，由于对宗教、文化和身份的兴趣的复苏而失去了中心地位。这不仅反映在侧重于世界各地宗教暴力上升（及其建设和平的能力）的研究激增，而且还反映在更广泛地将宗教定位于国际关系本身作为该学科的构成要素之一的努力中。广义上的宗教可以被看作是威斯特伐利亚和约中当代（以欧洲为基础的）国际秩序的基础，并通过现代殖民主义的“文明使命”对“国际社会的扩张”产生了巨大影响。正如韦伯在世纪前提醒我们的那样，在资本主义的发展中，它也是西方占主导地位的生产方式。因此，资本主义的全球化和威斯特伐利亚国家体系或领土化民族国家的国际社会对具有非常不同的信仰传统和宇宙观的社会提出了深刻的生存挑战。国际关系中的“宗教复兴”不仅可以追溯到9/11和随后的“反恐战争”，而且可以追溯到跨国宗教身份的全球化。许多关于宗教和国际关系的文献都狭隘地集中在“伊斯兰例外论”上，特别是“伊斯兰”恐怖主义所构成的安全威胁。对于解释性的国际关系理论，一般的宗教，特别是伊斯兰教的病理学构成了一个问题，通过建立世俗的安全架构，强调国家建设，自由的和平建设和人权的重要性，由“国际社会”包含。现实主义者赞成建立强大的世俗国家，能够在“国际社会”的帮助下，从其境内“安全化”跨国宗教运动构成的威胁。自由主义者认为，这些世俗的国家结构需要通过定期选举、建立人权机制和法治来合法化，即所谓的“自由和平”（Doyle 2005）。此外，还提醒各国有责任保护其公民免受宗教极端主义暴力的侵害。如果不这样做，就有可能由“国际社会”以定期空袭的形式进行干预。批评性的叙述，尤其是那些受后殖民框架影响的叙述，质疑伊斯兰社会在主流国际关系话语中的代表性是“东方主义者”（Said，1978）。然而，通过引入西方“外部”的声音来“地方化”（Chakrabarty 2000）IR的努力迄今为止一直是世俗的特权。马克思主义启发的批判理论及其在安全研究中的应用，
In recent years, the discipline of international relations (IR) has undergone a religious renaissance. The previously stable distinctions between the religious and the secular, sacred and profane and ontology and theology have been decentred by a resurgence of interest in religion, culture and identity. This is reflected not only in the proliferation of studies focusing on the rise of religious violence in various parts of the world (and its capacity for peacebuilding) but also in efforts more generally to locate religion in IR itself as one of the constitutive elements of the discipline. Religion, broadly defined, may be seen to have been present in the foundations of the contemporary (European-based) international order at the Peace of Westphalia and greatly influenced the ‘expansion of international society’through the ‘civilizing mission’of modern colonialism. It was also, as Weber reminded us over a century ago, present in the development of capitalism as the dominant mode of production in the West. Consequently, the globalization of capitalism and the Westphalian states system or international community of territorialized nationstates has posed profound existential challenges for societies with very different faith traditions and cosmologies.The ‘religious resurgence’in IR can be traced back not only to 9/11 and the ensuing ‘War on Terror’but to the globalization of transnational religious identities. Much of the literature on religion and IR has narrowly focused on ‘Islamic exceptionalism’and, specifically, the security threats posed by ‘Islamic’terrorism. For explanatory IR theories, the pathologies of religion in general and Islam in particular constitute a problem to be contained by the ‘international community’through the establishment of secular security architectures which stress the importance of state-building, liberal peacebuilding and human rights. Realists favour the establishment of strong secular states capable of ‘securitizing’the threats posed by transnational religious movements from within their borders with the help of the ‘international community’. Liberals believe that these secular state structures need to be legitimized through periodic elections, the establishment of human rights mechanisms and the rule of law, the so-called ‘Liberal Peace’(Doyle 2005). States are furthermore reminded of their ‘responsibility to protect’their citizens from religious-inspired extremist violence. Failure to do so opens up the possibility of intervention by ‘the international community’in the form of periodic air-strikes. Critical accounts, most particularly those influenced by postcolonial framings, problematize the representation of Islamic societies in mainstream IR discourse as ‘orientalist’(Said 1978). However, efforts to ‘provincialize’(Chakrabarty 2000) IR by bringing in voices from ‘outside’the West have hitherto privileged the secular. This is noticeably the case with Marxist-inspired Critical Theory and its application to security studies and