In the last decade there has been heightened awareness of the relationship between religions and violence in the popular imagination, as well as amongst academics and policy makers. Academic research and media portrayals of religion have emphasised its violent manifestations.
Much less attention has been paid to the role of religions in reconciliation processes. However, in the last years some academic studies have emerged which explore how religions are contributing to reconciliation. This research is important in the context in which reconciliation in and after violent conflicts is becoming an international security priority. Within the currently intense discussion of peacebuilding, security and development, reconciliation must not be overlooked. At the same time theologians and members of almost every religion claim that peace, forgiveness, and reconciliation are important topics and central values in their religious traditions. This leads to the question how religions are related to violence and reconciliation.
Accordingly, our main research question is: How do religions contribute to violence and/or reconciliation? Is there an impact at all? We will answer this question through empirical, social scientific case studies and through ethical and philosophical enquiry. It is our aim to develop a framework for better understanding the role of religions in conflicts and post-conflict societies. This framework will bring together insights from all the disciplines working together in the project.
Our work will critique and build on the already existing approaches to the relationship between religion and violence, of which there are – from a logical point of view – not more than four:
| 1. Religion is irrelevant to politics and does not directly contribute to violence. Some scholars have framed this in instrumentalist terms, claiming that religion is used as a supplementary argument for achieving social and political goals. Other scholars see religion simply as a symbolic boundary marker. Opposing actors may define themselves in religious terms (i.e. Catholic vs. Protestant, Muslim vs. Jewish), but in reality they are only using these terms to draw boundaries between themselves and other groups.
2. Religion is an agent of violence. This is often rooted in the idea that at least some forms of monotheism seek to gain social and political power in order to ensure the earthly reign of their ‘one true God.’ Social scientists have bolstered this perspective by arguing that fundamentalism arose as a reaction to modernisation and secularisation, as religious actors sought to compensate for their loss of power and identity. |
3. Religion is an agent of reconciliation. In the popular imagination, this idea is linked with prominent figures such as Desmond Tutu, the Dalai Lama and John Paul II. Anthropologists have stressed the importance of religious actors in mediating grassroots conflict and contributing to healing after conflict, particularly in traditional societies. But amongst contemporary social scientists this is a minority view, although the role of religion in contributing to the integration of society has a long sociological history (Durkheim, Parsons).
4. Religion is both an agent of violence and reconciliation. This approach is beginning to emerge as social scientists and theologians pay more attention to how religions function not only in specific contexts, but also as compared to religions in other contexts. |
