The burning of a heretic, the dismemberment of an apostate’s body, the flogging of a woman in a town square, the pogrom of a whole community, a liturgy around the walls of a city before a siege, the ritual bathing of crusaders in the Jordan river after the conquest of Jerusalem, what they have in common? Sacred implications of countless episodes of violence lead to the theory that religion and violence are inextricable. Does religion cause violence or, rather, does it behave in a specific way inside the groups and societies? Or, better, can religious violence be used to fix roles, gender, hierarchies or power struggles?
Almost two decades have elapsed since September 11, 2001. During this time, considerable progress has been made in research on characteristics and reasons for violence in the name of God, and now it’s time to face up to the argument from new interpretative paradigms, from a global perspective crossing different religious groups. The main objective of a scientific research should be to define interpretative tools based on historical and anthropological criteria, rather than on theological and cultural ones. The general aim should be to create methodological models applicable to different societies. The focus is the symbolic public use of “sacred” violence. A comparative analysis has to be carried out on monotheistic Abrahamic traditions, whose mutual interactions are the basis of contemporary European culture. A sample of historical case-studies referring to Mediterranean urban environments dating between7thand 17th centuries can be organized and analyzed. In particular, the objects of the survey are: sacrifice and sublimation, punishment of transgression and apostasy, the clash between different identities, uses of violence to mark gender roles and sexual behaviors, psychological violence such as mockery or ridicule, symbolic implications of different forms of torment (e.g. fire, water, beheading, blood); ritual violence perpetrated on children to establish male supremacy.
The starting point are the current scientific debate in Religious Studies on religious identities and the definition of what is specifically religious in contemporary societies.
Studies on Religious Violence
Today, almost two decades on from September 11, 2001, it’s necessary to interpret the binomial Religion/Violence according to a new paradigm, in a global, cross cultural and cross religious perspective. Since then, the academic context has been inundated with studies oriented toward explaining the features and the causes of religious activities connected with warfare and violent attitudes.
From one side, the value that each religion puts on a source of violence is overtaken and exceeded.
From the other, the differences in the ways in which violence is exercised between different traditions have become less and less; as well as a rigid discrimen between what is religious and what is secular has to be considered insignificant out of Western modern and contemporary cultural assets.
In particular William T. Cavanaugh[1] has challenged the conventional wisdom about religion as a dangerous tendency leading to violence. By dismantling the idea of a transhistorical and transcultural essence of religion, his scholarship argues that such a transhistorical and transcultural concept of religion as non-rational and violence-oriented is one of the fundamental myths of western society. The same goes for a clear distinction between what is religious and what is secular. Thus, this “mythes” can be used to give validity to political neo-colonial violence and must be reconsidered in the context of the Religious Studies.
Charles Kimball’s book When Religion becomes Evil[2] aims to distinguish between a religious sphere and “political institutions”, including tribes, empires, kingdoms, fiefs and, finally, states. Nevertheless a total theoretical separation is not possible if we consider events and societies from an historical point of view.
Martin Marty[3] argues that religion has a specific tendency to be divisive and therefore violent, but he has to admit that a definition of Religion remains at least problematic, if not impossible, and that religion and politics share some defining features. In other words warfare and violence spread in an intricate humus, hard to define in its components.
Richard Wentz[4] admits that the borderline between what is secular and what is religious is very blurred and ends up emphasizing the tendency of Religion towards absolutism. The same absolutism is the root of violence: its origin – secular or religious – can be of secondary importance, in contrast to its theological consistency. The point of the analysis is what is absolute and its theological description and definition.
Mark Juergensmeyer[5] approaches the argument from a sociological perspective, and demonstrates that religion exacerbates the tendency to divide people into friends and enemies, us and them. He argues that religious violence has a specific non-rational, ferine, absolute character: it is not only absolutist and unrestrained by historical time, but his specific dimension is symbolic. This feature makes religious violence very close to war: warfare is itself like a ritual, a participatory drama that exemplifies the most profound aspects of life.
Relating to the general debate, Andrew Murphy[6] provides a coherent state of the art overview of the complex relationship between religion and violence, starting with a definition of religious violence: his survey can be considered a synthesis and a basis for further analysis.
Religious Studies in the current debate
These essays are relevant in the general scientific discussion on the object and specificity of the Religious Studies: an argument as problematic and tough as the relationships between religion and violence becomes central for the future of these disciplines.
The current debate inside International Association for the History of Religions and the European Association for the Study of Religions is focused on the concept of Interpretation: indeed, it is the very concept that may protect Humanities from the loss of their specific character. It may also stop the tendency to take the practices and methods of natural sciences as models (for example by focusing on quantitative aspects or by employing cognitivism instead of an historical approach). The concept of interpretation allows us to reflect on the historical and social aspect of any research[7].
In recent years more essays and monographic studies have brought innovations in the approach to religious phenomena: patterns and methods as a result have now drastically changed.
The concept of Identity (together with its historical implications) remains crucial: it is the cross roads pointing out the relationships between social and cultural aspects, religious belongings and beliefs, and family assets[8]. Creating, modifying, destroying or “fabricating” identities are processes which are extremely relevant in the contemporary globalized world[9]. The study of historical roots of these processes is also essential[10].
This discussion involves a different paradigm for the distinction between religious items and secular ones in the political and judicial domain[11]. New perspectives require taking a cross cultural and interdisciplinary view keeping the religious aspect in a central position[12].
The role of violence in such general social processes is crucial, as it marks indelibly the society: the symbolic code related with the human body has an extraordinary powerful impact force, persisting across generations.
Rome, December 2020
Renata Salvarani © All rights reserved
______
[1] Cavanaugh, W. T.: The Myth of Religious Violence: Secular Ideology and the Roots of Modern Conflict. New York, 2009.
[2] Kimball, Ch.: When Religion becomes Evil. New York NY, 2002.
[3] Marty, M.: Politics, Religion and the Common Good. New York NY, 2000.
[4] Wentz, R.: Why People do bad things in the name of Religion. New York NY, 1993
[5] Juergensmeyer, M.: Terror in the Mind of God. New York NY 2003.
[6] Murphy, A.: The Blackwell Companion to Religion and Violence. Malden MA,2011.
[7] Altini, C. – Hoffman, Ph. –Ruepke J.: Issues of interpretation. Texts, Images, Rites.Stuttgard, 2018.
[8] See: McCutcheon, R. T.: Fabricating Identities. University of Alabama, 2017; Miller, Monica R. (ed.): Claiming Identity in the Study of Religion. Social and Rhetorical Techniques Examined. Sheffield, 2015; Touna, V. (ed.): Strategic Acts in the Study of Identity Towards a Dynamic Theory of People and Place. Sheffield, (in press).
[9] Sheedy, M. (ed.):Identity, Politics and the Study of Islam. Current Dilemmas in the Study of Religions. Sheffield, 2018.
[10] Consider as model of integrated interdisciplinary survey: Adams, J. – Hess, C. (edd.): The medieval roots of Antisemitism.Continuities and discontinuities from the Middle Ages to present day. New York 2018.
[11] Ingman, P. – Utriainen, T.–Hovi, T. and Broo,M. (eds): The Relational Dynamics of Enchantment and Sacralization: Changing the Terms of the Religion Versus Secularity Debate. Sheffield, 2016.
[12] The most up-to-date systematic report about the scientific critical debate is: Antes, P. – Geertz, A. W. – Rothstein, M. (edd.): Contemporary Views on Comparative Religion. In Celebration of Tim Jensen’s 65th Birthday. Sheffield, 2016.