Abstract
There has been a growing realization among international relations theorists that religion plays an important role in world affairs. Many of them began criticizing international relations theory for neglecting the role of religion in international relations; some of these critics have also developed alternative theoretical approaches to account for religion. A prominent critic is Scott Thomas, who argues against current mainstream international relations theories and presents an alternative theory. One of the thinkers who is criticized by Thomas is Kenneth Waltz, the main representative of neorealism—a prominent and influential theory of international relations. One could say that Waltz and Thomas are complete opposites when it comes to religion and theorizing: where Waltz ignores religion almost entirely, Thomas explicitly sets out to incorporate it in his work. I will demonstrate that the opposite positions of Waltz and Thomas can be explained by three points: their view on the possibility and meaning of a religious explanation; their respective views on a interpretative versus an explanatory approach; and their positions on what a theory of international relations should address. On the basis of these differences, I will also argue that each approach has its weaknesses and strengths. I will also demonstrate that the practice-based theory that I propose overcomes the weaknesses of both theories and combines their strengths.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In the context of this chapter, I use religion according to the definition international relations scholar Daniel Philpott who defines religion as: “a set of beliefs about the ultimate ground of existence, that which is unconditioned, not itself created or caused, and the communities and practices that form around these beliefs.” See Philpott (2002), 68
- 2.
Thomas 2005. I use the term theory loosely in this chapter to include Thomas’s interpretative as well as Waltz’s explanatory approach.
- 3.
“The most important international relations theorist of the past half century,” “the pre-eminent international relations theorists of the post-World War II era,” the pre-eminent theorist of international politics of his generation,” and “the King of Thought.” See Ken Booth (2009), 179.
- 4.
I follow Waltz in his description of Spinoza’s thinking as secular, and I consider Waltz’s description of Spinoza’s idea that God has become nature as a secularizing move.
- 5.
Fred Halliday and Justin Rosenberg (2000), “Interview with Ken Waltz,” 372.
- 6.
The Q&A session during the Waltz Conference “King of Thought” at the Aberystwyth University in 2008. https://hml.aber.ac.uk/Play/5857, consulted at 24 November 2015.
- 7.
This view leads me to the question in what way Waltz is able to defend “that men are defective” in a natural immanent reality. Is defectiveness possible from the perspective of natural immanency or does it still point at a kind of transcendence?
- 8.
Kamminga (2012) convincingly argues that Waltz’s neorealism strongly relies on certain theological motions of Niebuhr”s Christian Realism.
- 9.
Cf. Kamminga (2012) who states the following: “Whereas Waltz insists that theory is to be built ‘creatively’ from a ‘brilliant intuition’ or ‘creative idea’, and so is ‘artifice’, the doctrine of original sin entails the foundational ‘creative’ assumption for his neorealism to work. ‘Original sin’ cannot claim conclusive proof - although Niebuhr suggested strong empirical evidence for this ‘obvious fact’ - but it should be no problem for Waltz to ‘see’ a sin-constituted human nature without being able to prove its existence. Presuming its presence gives him the ultimate explanation of international-political action”.
- 10.
Thomas (2005), 57. Thomas also gives other reasons why religion has been neglected by international relations theory. Ibid., 47–69. At another place, Thomas argues that the so-called “theologians of a new world order” such as Niebuhr have shaped the goals and nature for U.S. hegemonic leadership and foreign policy in the early years of the Cold War. ibid., 158.
- 11.
Institute of International Studies, Conversation with Kenneth N. Waltz, 2. http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people3/Waltz/waltz-con0.html, consulted at 1 December 2015 and Halliday & Rosenberg, Interview with Ken Waltz, 377.
- 12.
Waltz (1959), 238. The term image is important here because Waltz uses the term for “it suggests that one forms a picture in the mind; it suggests that one views the world in a certain way” Waltz (1959), ix.
- 13.
Self-help means: “No other state can be relied upon to guarantee your survival. In international politics the structure of the system does not permit friendship, trust, and honour; only perennial condition of uncertainty generated by the absence of global government. Coexistence is achieved through the maintenance of the balance of power, and limited co-operation is possible in interactions where the realist state stands to gain more than other states.” Tim Dunne and Brian C. Schmidt, “Realism,” in The globalization of world politics. An introduction to international relations, ed. John Baylis and Steve Smith, 2nd ed. (Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press, 2001), 155.
- 14.
The English School is a distinct academic tradition on international relations which originated at the London School of Economics and Political Science in the 1950s. It consists of scholars influenced by the earlier works of Martin Wight, C.A.W. Manning, Hedley Bull, F. H. Hinsley, Michael Donelan and others and focuses on the societal aspects of international relations rather than seeing politics in purely abstract, systemic terms. Power, law, customs, institutions, and rules based on enlightenment self-interest and emergent global norms are all part of an anarchical international society. See Evans and Newnham (1998), 148 and Viotti and Kauppi (1998), 477.
- 15.
- 16.
Jochemsen and Glas use the philosophy of the Dutch philosopher Herman Dooyeweerd here. Dooyeweerd distinguishes fifteen irreducible aspects, modalities or ways of being which are ontological structures that determine how things exist and how can experience them. Many of the aspects agree with the various practices that MacIntyre distinguishes. The aspects stand in a successive order and they presuppose each other. All aspects have a governing kernel. Over time, these kernels have been debated so the list that follows is open for changes. Natural side of reality: numerical (discrete quantity), spatial (continuous extension), kinematic (movement), physical (energy), biotic (life), and psychical (feeling, emotion). Cultural side of reality: logical (analytical distinction), historical (mastery, control), lingual (meaning, symbolic signification), social (interaction), economic (frugality), aesthetic (harmony), juridical (retribution), ethical (moral, love), and pistical (certitude).
- 17.
It seems that Dooyeweerd ’s ideas about international relations have not been fully developed. In his book, he states that the subject would require a separate study, but that he included a passage about the subject in order to avoid the misunderstanding that he was absolutizing the internal structural principle of the individual body politics at the expense of the international public relations between the various states, Dooyeweerd 1984, 475.
- 18.
The Q&A session during the conference The King of Thought: Theory, Subject, and Waltz at the Aberystwyth University in 2008.
- 19.
I know that Dooyeweerd did not distinguish a political aspect. However, as the physicist M.D. Stafleu has made clear in his article, this is not convincing. In his view, the state is qualified by the political aspect and founded in the social aspect. M. D. Stafleu, “On the character of social communities, the state and the public domain,” Philosophia Reformata (2004). I differ from him on the latter point and found the state in the historical aspect.
References
Booth, Ken. 2009. Introduction. International Relations 23 (2): 179.
Buijs, G.J., and H. Jochemsen. 2001. Op weg naar een herijkt ontwikkelingsbegrip. In Als de olifanten vechten... : denken over ontwikkelingssamenwerking vanuit christelijk perspectief, ed. Govert J. Buijs. Amsterdam: Buijten & Schipperheijn.
Dooyeweerd, Herman (1984), A new critique of theoretical though, Vol. III and IV. Ontario: Paideia Press.
Dunne, Tim, and Brian C. Schmidt. 2001. Realism. In The globalization of world politics. An introduction to international relations, ed. John Baylis and Steve Smith, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Evans, Graham, and Jeffrey Newnham. 1998. The Penguin dictionary of international relations. London: Penguin Books.
Goudzwaard, Bob. 1997. Capitalism and progress. A diagnosis of Western society. Carlisle: Paternoster Press.
Guilhot, Nicolas. 2010. American Katechon: When political theology became international relations theory. Constellations 17 (2): 224.
Halliday, Fred, and Justin Rosenberg. 2000. Interview with Ken Waltz. Review of International Studies 24 (3): 371.
Jochemsen, H., and G. Glas. 1997. Verantwoord medisch handelen. Proeve van een christelijke ethiek. Amsterdam: Buijten & Schipperheijn.
Kamminga, M. 2012. Structure and sin: The Niebuhrian roots of Waltz’s neorealist theory of international politics. PHILICA.COM Article number 335.
MacIntyre, Alasdair C. 2003. After virtue: A study in moral theory. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Manenschijn, Gerrit. 1979. Moraal en eigenbelang bij Thomas Hobbes en Adam Smith. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Morgenthau, Hans J., and Kenneth W. Thompson. 1985. Politics among nations: The struggle for power and peace. 6th ed. New York: Knopf.
Philpott, Daniel. 2002. The challenge of September 11 to secularism in international relations. World Politics 55 (1): 66.
Popper, Karl R. 1972. The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.
Rice, D. 2008. Reinhold Niebuhr and Hans Morgenthau: A friendship with contrasting shades of realism. Journal of American Studies 42 (2): 260.
Stafleu, M.D. 2004. On the character of social communities, the state and the public domain. Philosophia Reformata 69: 125.
Thomas, Scott M. 2005. The global resurgence of religion and the transformation of international relations: The struggle for the soul of the twenty-first century. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Van Woudenberg, René. 1992. Gelovend denken. Inleiding tot een christelijke filosofie. Amsterdam: Buijten & Schipperheijn.
Viotti, Paul R., and Mark V. Kauppi. 1998. International relations theory: Realism, pluralism, globalism, and beyond. 3rd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1959a. Man, the state and war. A theoretical analysis. New York: Columbia University Press.
———. 1959b. Political philosophy and the study of international relations. In Theoretical aspects of international relations, ed. William T.R. Fox. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
———. 1979. Theory of international politics. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
———. 1986. Reflections on theory of international politics: A response to my critics. In Neorealism and its critics, ed. Robert O. Keohane. New York: Columbia University Press.
———. 1993. The new world order. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 22 (2): 187.
———. 2008. The emerging structure of international politics. In Realism and international politics. New York: Routledge.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Polinder, S. (2018). A Practice-Based Theory to Explain Religion in International Relations. In: Buijs, G., Mosher, A. (eds) The Future of Creation Order. New Approaches to the Scientific Study of Religion , vol 5. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92147-1_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92147-1_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-92146-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-92147-1
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)