RELG 7-Should religious freedom be a foreign policy concern

Critics of the Religionization of Foreign Policy

Introduction: The "New Critics"

This topic explores contemporary academic critiques of how religion is integrated into foreign policy, particularly by Western states. The "New Critics" challenge the assumptions and consequences of prioritizing religious identity and freedom in international relations.

• Key Figures: Elizabeth Shakman Hurd, Saba Mahmood, Winnifred Sullivan, Lori Beaman, Talal Asad

• Focus: The construction and governance of religion in policy, and the implications for global politics.

Defining and Prioritizing Religious Identity

Critics argue that foreign policy often treats religious identity as a fixed, singular category, which can oversimplify complex personal and communal affiliations.

• Religious Identity: Often assumed to be stable and exclusive, forcing individuals to choose one tradition over others.

• Implications: This approach can marginalize those with multiple or fluid religious identities and reinforce rigid boundaries between religions and between religious and nonreligious identities.

• Example: International advocacy may require individuals to declare a single religious affiliation to access rights or protections.

Mapping Religious Communities

Foreign policy tends to map religious communities as discrete, bounded groups, privileging established religions and their authorities.

• Community Mapping: Treats faith groups as having clear leaders and orthodoxies, which may not reflect lived realities.

• Governance: Engagement often focuses on clerical leadership, overlooking lay perspectives and local diversity.

• Example: Policy programs may require buy-in from senior religious leaders, potentially excluding grassroots voices.

Imposing a Western Conception of Religion as Belief

Western foreign policy frequently defines religion primarily in terms of belief, which may not align with global or indigenous understandings.

• Belief-Centric Model: Assumes that belief is the essence of religion, shaping advocacy and legal protections.

• Critique: This model may exclude practices, rituals, and other forms of religious expression.

• Example: International religious freedom advocacy often centers on the right to choose and express belief, rather than broader religious life.

Privileges Established Religions and Religious Authorities

Policy frameworks tend to recognize and privilege established religions and their official representatives, potentially marginalizing new or non-traditional movements.

• Authority: Official religious leaders are often seen as the legitimate voice of their communities.

• Exclusion: New religious movements or lay practitioners may struggle for recognition.

• Example: Military recognition of religious symbols may exclude groups like Wicca or Scientology.

Religion as a Modern Technique of Governance

Guarantees for religious freedom are viewed as tools of modern governance, used to manage and surveil religious communities.

• Securitization: Religion is monitored for violations of freedom, often in the context of security concerns.

• Governance: Religious freedom advocacy can serve broader political interests, especially those of Western regimes.

• Example: Surveillance of religious groups in the name of protecting freedom may also serve state security agendas.

Problems of Religious Freedom Advocacy

Critics highlight several issues with the current advocacy for religious freedom in foreign policy.

• Sanctification of Religion: Religion is elevated above other social identities, potentially increasing factionalism and sectarian strife.

• Suppression of Diversity: Local or regional religious expressions may be suppressed in the quest to categorize and regulate religions.

• Example: Indigenous traditions may be misclassified or excluded from protections due to narrow definitions of religion.

Case Studies

Several case studies illustrate the complexities and consequences of religion-focused foreign policy.

• Afghanistan: U.S. aid initiatives in the 1980s mobilized religion to support the Mujahideen, aiming to instill a spirit of jihad in youth. Engagement focused on senior religious leadership, sometimes at the expense of local voices.

• Rohingya: Emphasis on religious identity in advocacy can obscure other factors in marginalization and oppression, such as ethnicity or statelessness.

• K'iche (Guatemala): Application of religious freedom frameworks to indigenous traditions often fails to appreciate the sacred significance of land and diverse conceptions of the supernatural.

• New Religious Movements: Groups like Wicca and Scientology face challenges in gaining recognition as legitimate religions, affecting rights such as the use of religious symbols on military gravestones.

Critics of the Critics

Some scholars respond to the "New Critics" by defending the value and universality of religious freedom advocacy.

• Key Figures: Daniel Philpott, Monica Toft, Jonathan Shaw

• Arguments:

  • Religious freedom remains a core element of human rights traditions.

  • Evidence for a hegemonic Western strategy is limited; advancing religious freedom is often difficult.

  • Recognition of complex variables in conflict and discrimination should enrich, not undermine, the conception of religious freedom.

Summary Table: Critiques of Religionization in Foreign Policy

Critique	Key Points	Example
Prioritizing Religious Identity	Assumes fixed, singular identities; marginalizes fluid affiliations	Individuals forced to choose one religion for advocacy
Mapping Communities	Privileges established leaders; overlooks lay/local diversity	Policy engagement with senior clerics
Western Conception of Belief	Defines religion as belief; excludes practices/rituals	Legal protections focus on belief, not broader religious life
Privileges Authorities	Recognizes official religions; marginalizes new movements	Military recognition of religious symbols
Governance Technique	Religion used for surveillance and control	Monitoring religious freedom violations

Conclusion

Religious freedom advocacy is a pervasive form of global governance, often shaped by Western geopolitical interests. Critics argue for a more nuanced, inclusive approach that recognizes the diversity of religious life and avoids imposing narrow definitions. There is no single solution, but expanding conceptions of religious freedom may help address the limitations identified by the "New Critics."