How Religion and the Internet are Weakening the Nation-State

[UTK007]

As scholars of religion like Mark Juergensmeyer have alleged in the past, social change on a global level has weakened the nation-state. One of the main consequences of this weakening is a likewise weakening of secular politics. This weakening has created a “political” vacuum, and, within this vacuum, religious politics have had a worldwide revival. This is due in no small part to the fact that the internet is changing religion globally.

The remarkable growth in computer technology has allowed for the electronic mediation of religion across the world. The ramifications of this religio-electronic globalization are still being debated, but internet studies indicate that people do online pretty much the same as they do offline, but they work within a global space instead of their traditional local spaces. The internet has removed boundaries and made borders irrelevant.

Not only is religious information disseminated online, but the internet is commonly used for evangelism and proselytization, which are standard religious activities. The internet is therefore used as a tool for the expansion of religious knowledge and also as a tool for religious practice.

Read the rest at: The Coming Challenges « Not Theology: a Religious Studies blog on religion, conflict, and the Middle East

 

[Iti oj]

Interesting but what is it you wishes to discuss here?

 

[cataway]

have no fear your nation-state will only take it for so long and it will be like a great beast that attacks its un-wanted rider.

 

[Tarheeler]

As scholars of religion like Mark Juergensmeyer have alleged in the past, social change on a global level has weakened the nation-state. One of the main consequences of this weakening is a likewise weakening of secular politics. This weakening has created a “political” vacuum, and, within this vacuum, religious politics have had a worldwide revival. This is due in no small part to the fact that the internet is changing religion globally.

The remarkable growth in computer technology has allowed for the electronic mediation of religion across the world. The ramifications of this religio-electronic globalization are still being debated, but internet studies indicate that people do online pretty much the same as they do offline, but they work within a global space instead of their traditional local spaces. The internet has removed boundaries and made borders irrelevant.

Not only is religious information disseminated online, but the internet is commonly used for evangelism and proselytization, which are standard religious activities. The internet is therefore used as a tool for the expansion of religious knowledge and also as a tool for religious practice.

Read the rest at: The Coming Challenges « Not Theology: a Religious Studies blog on religion, conflict, and the Middle East

It's an interesting concept, and you might have an argument that the internet (as a vehicle for globalization and reduced nationalistic sentiment) is weakening the idea of the nation-state.

But that's about it from what I can see. Neither access to information nor religion, in general, pose any threat by themselves to political unity, and there are many examples throughout history where religion has been used to solidify the nation-state.


Care to flesh it out a little more?

 

[UTK007]

Care to flesh it out a little more?

Sure! I think it is rather easy to argue that religion is posing a challenge to the traditional secular state. Look at the resistance the American military experienced in Iraq and continues to experience in Afghanistan. Many of the groups and individuals fighting for autonomy in these two countries identify as religious, and they often assert that they are defending Islam as they understand their faith as somehow being under attack by America.

Buddhist monks breaking up a peace rally in Sri Lanka or the Catholic Church lobbying against same-sex marriage indicates a passion for religious activism. But what is striking to me about such movements is that their union of religion and politics seems to only enhance their power. Targeting secular politicians and secular political issues seems to consolidate the religious identities of those activists involved.

What is religious activism and what is political activism? In Islamist narratives, these two disciplines are understood as being indistinguishable. The line isn't just blurred, it is removed all together.

The Taliban was only one of the major Islamic parties fighting the Soviet-backed regime in Afghanistan when that regime fell in 1978. The Soviet Union was a very secular state, and the mujahadin (religious fighters) ousted the Soviet Union and expelled the Soviet's secular influences from the region. The mujahadin forces literally transformed Afghanistan's politics.

Since the creation and wide-spread use of the internet, searchable interfaces have aided like-minded individuals to not only communicate with, but to even join movements like the ones that I've mentioned. Often these are groups that were previously closed to them due to location restrictions. Say you're a jihadist sympathizer in North America, but you cannot travel to training camps in Yemen or Pakistan. In theory, you can now connect with other jihadists in those far off places through the internet and you can learn from them; although, in reality you're either communicating with security professionals or at the very least being monitored by them.

Not only have searchable interfaces aided individuals in overcoming issues with locality, but the internet has even provided new spaces where like minded individuals can get together and form groups around religious and political interests. This very website would be one example!

Does that help?

 

[Tarheeler]

Does that help?

Well, it expands on your idea, but I don't think it helps your argument much.

First, there really isn't a "traditional" secular state. Until relatively recently, states were religious by default. And, even today, there isn't any requirement for a state to be secular.

Your own examples can be used to illustrate how a common religion can be used to solidify the members of society and cement the foundations of a nation-state. In the US, religious groups often advocate for the advancement of secular ideas, and a "civil" religion has been credited by some as fostering cohesion (independent of one's religious affiliation) and shoring up the polity.

It seems that your argument lies with activism, and while both religion and information can act as a catalyst for it, they aren't the only source. And, even then, activism doesn't necessary destabilize or weaken the state. In many cases it acts to remove sources of internal conflict or perceived injustices and result in a stronger unit going forward.

 

[Skwim]

I think it is rather easy to argue that religion is posing a challenge to the traditional secular state. Look at the resistance the American military experienced in Iraq and continues to experience in Afghanistan.

Ah, both Iraq and Afghanistan are religious "states." Each having adopted Islam as the official state religion. So I see no secular state being challenged.

Buddhist monks breaking up a peace rally in Sri Lanka or the Catholic Church lobbying against same-sex marriage indicates a passion for religious activism. But what is striking to me about such movements is that their union of religion and politics seems to only enhance their power.

Can't speak to the Buddhist monks in Sri Lanka, but the Catholic church in America is certainly not making any headway in their opposition to same-sex marriage. In France, a very Catholic country, recent legislation was introduced to allow gay couples to marry and adopt children. And last November Spain's Constitutional Court rejected a bid to repeal the country's 2005 gay marriage law (Spain is also a very Catholic country).

Targeting secular politicians and secular political issues seems to consolidate the religious identities of those activists involved.

Which is quite normal for any such undertaking. No biggie.

 

[UTK007]

Well, it expands on your idea, but I don't think it helps your argument much.

You make some valid points, but the conception of the nation-state that I am presenting here, like almost all constructs in social science, is not meant to be a complete model or an absolute definition of the real world. I'm merely presenting a framework for the purpose of creating a jumping-off point where other readers and myself can deconstruct topical issues.

Now, on to your assertions. There are many scholars of religion that would vehemently disagree with what you have said in this thread. Dwight N. Hopkins has rightly pointed out that Western Neocolonialism has created a radical qualitative change to the nature of state politics. Furthermore, a major assumption in Realist theory, as pointed out by Paul R. Viotti, is that a state is a "unitary actor for the purpose of analysis", and most Realist theorists had all but written off religion before the events of 9-11. An all too common narrative had been that religion had ceased being a driving force in international politics. In fact, in the academy's ongoing debate regarding international relations, many Realists still assume that any internal state differences (religious or otherwise) will be ultimately dealt with authoritatively so that, in the end, the government of the state will speak with only one voice. Could that voice be religious? Of course. Could that voice be secular? Yes once again.

There are alternative images of what a state is. Theory building is often analogous to puzzle solving, and you have presented a valid and well thought out image. But your analysis and alternative image appears to be unhelpful for the patterns of behavior I'm currently trying to explore in this thread.

Other than Mark Juergensmeyer, whom I have already mentioned, there are countless scholars who are interested in how religion reacts with secular politics. Manfed B. Steger, Jessica Stern, Steve Bruce, Rosalind I. J. Hackett, and Benjamin R. Barber are but a few.

To sum up, I find your arguments both cogent and intriguing, but I'm slightly baffled at your complete rejection of other theoretical state models.

 

[LuisDantas]

(...) Furthermore, a major assumption in Realist theory, as pointed out by Paul R. Viotti, is that a state is a "unitary actor for the purpose of analysis", and most Realist theorists had all but written off religion before the events of 9-11.

In that sense, the concept of nation-state is probably overdue a serious refurbishing. An analysis that assumes that any state is "unitary" is glossing over way too many important facts to be particularly useful.

An all too common narrative had been that religion had ceased being a driving force in international politics. In fact, in the academy's ongoing debate regarding international relations, many Realists still assume that any internal state differences (religious or otherwise) will be ultimately dealt with authoritatively so that, in the end, the government of the state will speak with only one voice. Could that voice be religious? Of course. Could that voice be secular? Yes once again.

That seems to miss the actual point of the crisis of the concept of nation-state, however. It is not so much that religion is weaking the nation-state, but rather more that it is among the first candidates to fill the space left by its disintegration.

It seems to me that no model that centers on the idea of glossing over the variety of internal perspectives in any given state is worth a lot of consideration, anyway.

 

[UTK007]

Ah, both Iraq and Afghanistan are religious "states." Each having adopted Islam as the official state religion. So I see no secular state being challenged.

You're missing the fact that the state mechanism being opposed by religious actors in both of those case studies is the United States military. Are you suggesting that the U.S. military is an inherently religious institution?

 

[UTK007]

In that sense, the concept of nation-state is probably overdue a serious refurbishing. An analysis that assumes that any state is "unitary" is glossing over way too many important facts to be particularly useful....

It seems to me that no model that centers on the idea of glossing over the variety of internal perspectives in any given state is worth a lot of consideration, anyway.

There are MANY people who agree with you. Reductionist, Constructivist, and Systemic theories are but a few of the theories that scholars have attempted to use as a replacement for Realist theory. I, however, still find Realist theory helpful for a maximalist view of the international landscape. Is it possible to properly nuance such complicated and multifaceted issues at a maximalist level? I honestly don't know, but theorists have been attempting it for generations.

Thanks to everyone for the constructive criticism thus far. I'm really enjoying this, and you've all given me much to think about.

 

[Skwim]

You're missing the fact that the state mechanism being opposed by religious actors in both of those case studies is the United States military.

And your equivocation doesn't wash or do your assertion any favor. A state, as in a body politic of a country, is not the same as an arm of government; your "state mechanism."

Are you suggesting that the U.S. military is an inherently religious institution?

No, and neither is the U.S. military a state of any kind: religious, secular, socialist, slave, or police.

 

[Tarheeler]

You make some valid points, but the conception of the nation-state that I am presenting here, like almost all constructs in social science, is not meant to be a complete model or an absolute definition of the real world. I'm merely presenting a framework for the purpose of creating a jumping-off point where other readers and myself can deconstruct topical issues.

Now, on to your assertions. There are many scholars of religion that would vehemently disagree with what you have said in this thread. Dwight N. Hopkins has rightly pointed out that Western Neocolonialism has created a radical qualitative change to the nature of state politics. Furthermore, a major assumption in Realist theory, as pointed out by Paul R. Viotti, is that a state is a "unitary actor for the purpose of analysis", and most Realist theorists had all but written off religion before the events of 9-11. An all too common narrative had been that religion had ceased being a driving force in international politics. In fact, in the academy's ongoing debate regarding international relations, many Realists still assume that any internal state differences (religious or otherwise) will be ultimately dealt with authoritatively so that, in the end, the government of the state will speak with only one voice. Could that voice be religious? Of course. Could that voice be secular? Yes once again.

This is where your arguement falls apart: you are arguing that any impact is going to be necessarily destructive to the state. And that simply doesn't hold water.

Study after study has shown that religion does have an impact on the polity and the state. I'm certainly not arguing otherwise. But there isn't any indication that that impact must be detrimental to the state, and there is a large body of scholarship that states the opposite.

There are alternative images of what a state is. Theory building is often analogous to puzzle solving, and you have presented a valid and well thought out image. But your analysis and alternative image appears to be unhelpful for the patterns of behavior I'm currently trying to explore in this thread.

Other than Mark Juergensmeyer, whom I have already mentioned, there are countless scholars who are interested in how religion reacts with secular politics. Manfed B. Steger, Jessica Stern, Steve Bruce, Rosalind I. J. Hackett, and Benjamin R. Barber are but a few.

To sum up, I find your arguments both cogent and intriguing, but I'm slightly baffled at your complete rejection of other theoretical state models.

You haven't presented any theoretical models for discussion.

 

[UTK007]

And your equivocation doesn't wash or do your assertion any favor. A state, as in a body politic of a country, is not the same as an arm of government; your "state mechanism."

No, and neither is the U.S. military a state of any kind: religious, secular, socialist, slave, or police.

The better ordered a society and the more competent and respected its government, the less force a state is required to employ. Similarly, in international politics states supreme in their power have to use force less often. But states do use force, variables in use aside. They project force through both soft power as well as hard power. A mechanism for hard power projection is a state's military.

Any non-state actors (religious or otherwise) engaged in challenging a state's military are in effect challenging the power projected by that state and ultimately they are challenging the state itself. If you can cite authors that would argue otherwise, I would love to read some of their work. I am always open to different academic approaches, but a state's military is an entity that engages in concert (on a social level) with other entities. This is the CLASSIC definition of a mechanism as found in Machamer, Darden and Craver (2000).

This is where your argument falls apart: you are arguing that any impact is going to be necessarily destructive to the state. And that simply doesn't hold water.

I never said any impact would be destructive. That is your word, not mine. I merely used the word weaken. Surely you understand the difference. I was being nowhere near as provocative as you are alleging.

You haven't presented any theoretical models for discussion.

I've already asserted that I am working within a Realist theoretical framework.

 

[LuisDantas]

The better ordered a society and the more competent and respected its government, the less force a state is required to employ. Similarly, in international politics states supreme in their power have to use force less often. But states do use force, variables in use aside. They project force through both soft power as well as hard power. A mechanism for hard power projection is a state's military.

Any non-state actors (religious or otherwise) engaged in challenging a state's military are in effect challenging the power projected by that state and ultimately they are challenging the state itself.

That is how one theory goes. But one wonders how accurate that theory really is.

Once upon a time military was a natural extension of the political power of its own state. These days they aren't necessarily or even often. When actually employed, particularly overseas as de-facto invaders, they don't represent the state itself but rather its interventionist and expansionist urges. Any resistance from locals and allies shouldn't be automatically considered an act of political defiance to the aggressor state.

If you have can cite authors that would argue otherwise, I would love to read some of their work. I am always open to different academic approaches, but a state's military is an entity that engages in concert (on a social level) with other entities. This is the CLASSIC definition of a mechanism as found in Machamer, Darden and Craver (2000).

Then maybe it is a worry that military gained so much autonomy and has so little external checks these days. It may have grown itself out of being a proper mechanism.

I never said any impact would be destructive. That is your word, not mine. I merely used the word weaken. Surely you understand the difference. I was being nowhere near as provocative as you are alleging.

Something that comes to mind is that religious groups face much the same challenges that states do, and for similar reasons of representativity and need for political action and collective identity-building.

While they are natural candidates to try and take control of failing states, that doesn't mean that they are not failing themselves, even for the very same reasons. It stands to reason that often enough they in fact will be.

I've already asserted that I am working within a Realist theoretical framework.

This?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relations)

The second principle ("States are the most important actors") seems to make it not really adequate to significant questioning the role of states.

 

[Tarheeler]

I never said any impact would be destructive. That is your word, not mine. I merely used the word weaken. Surely you understand the difference. I was being nowhere near as provocative as you are alleging.

Your rebuttal is an argument of semantics?

Very well. Yes, you said weaken. And in your argument, you've clearly indicated that you see that effect as being detrimental to the nation-state. I therefore categorized it as being destructive. But if you see that as being unreasonable, I will refrain from calling it so in the future.

I've already asserted that I am working within a Realist theoretical framework.

You stated it in the same post that you accused me of dismissing alternate models.

Either way, nothing I have posted is dismissive of or contradicts the realist framework.
Religion is just one of many factors that can influence the actions and forces within the state.

 

[UTK007]

The second principle ("States are the most important actors") seems to make it not really adequate to significant questioning the role of states.

Yeah, many people assert that, and in that case I tend to agree with you; but, I'm not sure I'm even interested in questioning the role of states as much as I am interested in questioning the causalities that interrupt the international system that states co-exist in.

Theories of international politics can be sorted out in a number of ways. I tend to focus on the causes of war and to define the conditions of peace, according to the level at which I think the causes are located. On the level of exploring the international landscape, I find Realist theory helpful. On an individual state level or even in an inter-state system, reductionist or systemic theories could almost certainly help one to unpack causalities better than Realist theory could do. Having said that, I wasn't and am not focusing on a particular state or inter-state system with the hypothesis that I have proposed. I was merely generalizing about how religion and the internet may be affecting the average state. If I were to focus only on Afghanistan, for example, I would probably employ a different approach because one cannot be as broad when working with a specific case study.

 

[UTK007]

Your rebuttal is an argument of semantics?

My rebuttal is a restatement of my original hypothesis. I felt it needed to be restated since you took something that I wrote, ran with it, and took it into a direction that I neither claimed nor intended.

You stated it in the same post that you accused me of dismissing alternate models.

I apologize if I misread or misinterpreted what you wrote.

 

[Skwim]

The better ordered a society and the more competent and respected its government, the less force a state is required to employ.

So what?

Similarly, in international politics states supreme in their power have to use force less often. But states do use force, variables in use aside. They project force through both soft power as well as hard power. A mechanism for hard power projection is a state's military.

So how is Islam, the state religion of Iraq and Afghanistan (the two countries you cite), "posing a challenge to the traditional secular state"?

Any non-state actors (religious or otherwise) engaged in challenging a state's military are in effect challenging the power projected by that state and ultimately they are challenging the state itself.

But you're talking about religion itself, "it is rather easy to argue that religion is posing a challenge to the traditional secular state," and I fail to see where this is happening. Please cite an example: the religion, the traditional secular state, and how.

The religion is: ____________________________________________.

The secular state is: _______________________________________.

And this religion is challenging this state by:______________________________________________________________________________ .
​

 

[Tarheeler]

My rebuttal is a restatement of my original hypothesis. I felt it needed to be restated since you took something that I wrote, ran with it, and took it into a direction that I neither claimed nor intended.

My use of word "destructive" did nothing to alter your argument or the direction of our discussion thus far.

It is simply semantics.

You have yet to provide a valid defense to your claim that religion weakens the nation-state.