对贝恩《国际秩序政治神学》的反思

IF 1.1 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Daniel Philpott
{"title":"对贝恩《国际秩序政治神学》的反思","authors":"Daniel Philpott","doi":"10.1177/17550882221144469","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"William Bain sustains his audacious claim to write a landmark in international relations thought. His view that the medieval theological debate between imposed order and immanent order structures contemporary thought about international order is largely compelling, especially in light of his demonstration that certain thinkers such as Hobbes and Grotius served as transmission belts, carrying this debate into modernity. He also persuasively shows that imposed order, or nominalism, dominates today’s schools of international relations thought, while immanent order only whispers its dissent. I raise two questions in critical conversation. First, while Bain argues persuasively that political theology persists after Westphalia, which he seeks to debunk as a milestone in secularization, nevertheless Westphalia stands as a milestone in the marginalization of religion (though not political theology) as an influential force in politics. Second, while Bain demurs from choosing between imposed and immanent order on normative grounds, his claim that the choice is a matter of faith appears to be a choice for imposed order. Clarifying this normative question is an apposite task for this important author’s next book.","PeriodicalId":44237,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Political Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reflections on Bain, <i>Political Theology of International Order</i>\",\"authors\":\"Daniel Philpott\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17550882221144469\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"William Bain sustains his audacious claim to write a landmark in international relations thought. His view that the medieval theological debate between imposed order and immanent order structures contemporary thought about international order is largely compelling, especially in light of his demonstration that certain thinkers such as Hobbes and Grotius served as transmission belts, carrying this debate into modernity. He also persuasively shows that imposed order, or nominalism, dominates today’s schools of international relations thought, while immanent order only whispers its dissent. I raise two questions in critical conversation. First, while Bain argues persuasively that political theology persists after Westphalia, which he seeks to debunk as a milestone in secularization, nevertheless Westphalia stands as a milestone in the marginalization of religion (though not political theology) as an influential force in politics. Second, while Bain demurs from choosing between imposed and immanent order on normative grounds, his claim that the choice is a matter of faith appears to be a choice for imposed order. Clarifying this normative question is an apposite task for this important author’s next book.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44237,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of International Political Theory\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of International Political Theory\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17550882221144469\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Political Theory","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17550882221144469","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

威廉·贝恩(William Bain)坚持自己大胆的主张,要在国际关系思想史上写下一部里程碑式的著作。他认为中世纪关于强加秩序和内在秩序之间的神学辩论构成了当代国际秩序思想,这一观点在很大程度上是令人信服的,特别是考虑到他论证了霍布斯和格劳秀斯等思想家充当了传送带,将这种辩论带入了现代性。他还令人信服地表明,强加的秩序或唯名论主导着当今的国际关系思想流派,而内在秩序只是低声表示异议。我在批判性的谈话中提出两个问题。首先,尽管贝恩令人信服地认为政治神学在威斯特伐利亚之后仍然存在,他试图揭穿它作为世俗化的里程碑,但威斯特伐利亚仍然是宗教(尽管不是政治神学)作为政治中有影响力的力量被边缘化的里程碑。其次,尽管贝恩反对在规范性的基础上在强加秩序和内在秩序之间做出选择,但他关于选择是信仰问题的主张似乎是对强加秩序的选择。澄清这个规范问题是这位重要作者下一本书的一个适当任务。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reflections on Bain, Political Theology of International Order
William Bain sustains his audacious claim to write a landmark in international relations thought. His view that the medieval theological debate between imposed order and immanent order structures contemporary thought about international order is largely compelling, especially in light of his demonstration that certain thinkers such as Hobbes and Grotius served as transmission belts, carrying this debate into modernity. He also persuasively shows that imposed order, or nominalism, dominates today’s schools of international relations thought, while immanent order only whispers its dissent. I raise two questions in critical conversation. First, while Bain argues persuasively that political theology persists after Westphalia, which he seeks to debunk as a milestone in secularization, nevertheless Westphalia stands as a milestone in the marginalization of religion (though not political theology) as an influential force in politics. Second, while Bain demurs from choosing between imposed and immanent order on normative grounds, his claim that the choice is a matter of faith appears to be a choice for imposed order. Clarifying this normative question is an apposite task for this important author’s next book.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
10.00%
发文量
11
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信