My Plan by MJB

In this essay I will propose my plan to end religious terror and violence and achieve lasting peace. My plan is designed to be a general one; therefore I refer mainly to the second half of Juergensmeyer’s book. The goal of the essay is to take the theoretical notions developed in the second half of the book and apply them to a practical plan aimed at reducing religious violence.

My plan contains both micro and macro levels of action which corresponds roughly to the internal and external causes of religious violence. I believe that one of the greatest insights of Juergensmeyer’s book is that the phenomenon of religious violence in the modern era is in one way or another a product of globalization, and therefore its causes operate on both the global and local levels. Thus, for Juergensmeyer, “what makes the terrorism of recent years significant is the breadth of its audience, a scope that is in many cases virtually global” (p. 144). Juergensmeyer has also noted the ways in which globalization, whether it be global communications (Chapter 7-Theater of Terror), political globalization (proliferation of secular society-a theme present in every chapter), or economic globalization in the form of American economic dominance (p. 184) play a role in religious violence. It seems to me that these issues require a global policy (macro level) which largely consists of members external to the particular religious traditions in question.

Micro-level policy will be authored by moderate voices within the particular religious tradition in question and will address causes that operate at the local level. In addition to noting the global scope of modern religious violence, Juergensmeyer is also keen to note the prevailing local or societal conditions which facilitate religious violence. Invariably, a micro-level policy must isolate those notions which we have found are common among violent religious traditions, and it must treat the particulars of each religious tradition. For example, “what is strikingly similar about the cultures of which they are apart is their view of the contemporary world at war” (p. 153). Here Juergensmeyer is referencing the notion of cosmic war, which has negative and violent effects at both local and global levels. However, the sources of the problem are the micro and internal conditions of the given tradition. What is key here is to ask what conditions within the specific tradition make the notions of cosmic war and the idea of martyrs and demons so effective. This is a micro war of ideas. What will be paramount in the micro and internal battle is being able to proliferate different interpretations of religious texts; ones which are less hostile and more conducive to tolerance.

The logic of this proposal is that the idea that religious violence is a complex phenomenon which has multiple causes and multiple affects at different levels (micro and macro). Internal and external causes have affects on both the micro and macro levels. Therefore, what we are dealing with here is a social system of religious violence; with a system being defined generally as a set of interrelated parts.

I agree with Robert Jervis in his System Effects: Complexity in Political and Social Life that in a system relationships are never simply one to one linkages, and “this means not only that behavior rarely has one effect, but, more importantly here, that in order to produce a desired change, the actor must do several things” (Jervis 1997, 291). For Jervis, this applies to all social life in general terms, and the policy implications are simple: “effective action is often made possible by employing multiple policies that constrain and work with the dynamics of the system” (Jervis 1997, 291).

Thus what we are doing with a macro-level policy addressing external causes, and a micro-level policy addressing specific internal causes, is attempting to account for the multiple levels, causes, and effects witch are operating in the specific events we have studied this year. However, though the macro-level and micro-level are separate policies aimed at addressing different causes (macro-level addressing the issues of a secular world order along with globalization and its various components; micro-level largely trying to redefine the symbolism embedded within each tradition, namely cosmic war, satanization, and redefining martyrs and demons), because we are dealing with a system, we must not forget that macro and micro levels interact, and thus communication and coordination between them will be essential. We can forget the macro-level causes, such as western economic dominance (form of globalization) have both macro and micro level effects, and in turn micro-level causes, such as the monopolization of interpretation of religious texts, have both micro and macro-level effects.

Therefore, I propose that an international body, most likely the United Nations, establish a council on religious violence with the aim of reducing religious terrorism through non-violent means, while upholding a mutual respect for both secular and religious life. Members of this council would meet to draft binding, multilevel, coordinated policy to address religious violence. Such a council would not only consist of members of sovereign political states (traditional members of the United Nations), but it would also include respected members of the various religious traditions, as well as, members of academia who have studied these phenomena and are best able to facilitate the forthcoming policy. For such a council to be effective, the nation-states would have to accept that the religious and academic community has a right and a place in authoring policy. This will be essential for a comprehensive approach, and it will also be good for avoiding the fear, that such a project is nothing more than a “war on religion.’

Obviously, this policy requires the “willingness to accept the notion that there are flaws on one’s own side as well as on the opponents” among members of both the secular and religious tradition (p.152). The premise of this council with “the aim of reducing religious violence through non-violent means, while upholding a mutual respect for both secular and religious life” means that Juergensmeyer’s final solution, that of healing politics with religion would be the underlying goal of this endeavor. Juergensmeyer’s first three solutions either involve explicit violence, or implicitly (in his third solution) recognize violence a legitimate means to a strategic end. Therefore, the commitment to non-violent means rules them out. His fourth solution, separating politics and religion, although it may be the long run outcome of such a policy, is ruled out in practice because it violates the commitment to respect both religious and secular life equally.
Thus, healing religion with politics is bound to be the most feasible and longest lasting solution, and addressing the different causes at different levels simultaneously will allow us to grasp the complexity of the problem and will eventually lead to a system level tendency, that of a reduction of religious violence across the globe.

Thank you, I have enjoyed the class.

Jervis, Robert. System Effects: Complexity in Social and Political Life. Princeton University Press, 1997.