政治、宗教、希望:当代理论视角

IF 0.7 0 RELIGION
M. Sharpe, M. King
{"title":"政治、宗教、希望:当代理论视角","authors":"M. Sharpe, M. King","doi":"10.1177/20503032221124548","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this period of pandemics, the environmental crisis, and fraying of political consensus, the question of hope is especially pressing. Is hope reasonable or is it necessary, and for what and for whom? Is it only the property now of right-wing populists, using the rolling economic, immigration, and pandemic crises, and the new affordances of social media, in the cause of reactionary revolt against the social and cultural gains of the last centuries, such as the inclusion of women and other minorities, as well as awareness of ecological depredation? Dowe find ourselves in a Yeatsian time, wherein proverbially, “The best lack all conviction, while the worst / are full of passionate intensity” (Yeats 2016, 33), or does the stretching and failing of contemporary paradigms announce new, more affirmative possibilities? What resources for hope can we find in the great religious and political traditions, whether Islamic, Jewish, Christian, or other? Does the instrumental and ideological use of these traditions disqualify them as sources of renewal and reorientation? Likewise, are there existing resources within the political paradigms of liberalism, democracy, republicanism, or socialism which can be looked to resolve the present symptoms of despair, alienation, and incivility, or must entirely new political models be imagined or looked to? Are more two-sided theoretical assessments of these traditions, as sources of both corruption and catharsis, dominion and liberation, needed if we are to build new coalitions capable of addressing the crises, or is hope necessarily open or blind, committed to holding open the possibility that something absolutely Other must occur? Critical theorising in the last decades has been engaged in a significant process or processes of rethinking, as Marxist-Leninism’s credibility as the alternative to regnant capitalism declined, and then failed after 1989. At the same time, the absence of any serious systematic opposition has enabled parties of business globally to prosecute their neoliberal ambitions, of universal commodification and marketisation, with unprecedented success. Societies have become increasingly economically unequal, wealth has become more concentrated, organisational structures have become more corporatized, and as the pandemic has shown in countries like the US, the state has been divested of its democratic capacities to better the lives of citizens. The resulting alienation has produced pools of discontent from which right-wing populists draw, promising a simple solution to these widespread problems by scapegoating minorities, targeting the remnants of the social democratic “elites” in the educational, governmental, and community sectors, conducting vitriolic","PeriodicalId":43214,"journal":{"name":"Critical Research on Religion","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Politics, Religion, Hope: Contemporary Theoretical Perspectives\",\"authors\":\"M. Sharpe, M. King\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/20503032221124548\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this period of pandemics, the environmental crisis, and fraying of political consensus, the question of hope is especially pressing. Is hope reasonable or is it necessary, and for what and for whom? Is it only the property now of right-wing populists, using the rolling economic, immigration, and pandemic crises, and the new affordances of social media, in the cause of reactionary revolt against the social and cultural gains of the last centuries, such as the inclusion of women and other minorities, as well as awareness of ecological depredation? Dowe find ourselves in a Yeatsian time, wherein proverbially, “The best lack all conviction, while the worst / are full of passionate intensity” (Yeats 2016, 33), or does the stretching and failing of contemporary paradigms announce new, more affirmative possibilities? What resources for hope can we find in the great religious and political traditions, whether Islamic, Jewish, Christian, or other? Does the instrumental and ideological use of these traditions disqualify them as sources of renewal and reorientation? Likewise, are there existing resources within the political paradigms of liberalism, democracy, republicanism, or socialism which can be looked to resolve the present symptoms of despair, alienation, and incivility, or must entirely new political models be imagined or looked to? Are more two-sided theoretical assessments of these traditions, as sources of both corruption and catharsis, dominion and liberation, needed if we are to build new coalitions capable of addressing the crises, or is hope necessarily open or blind, committed to holding open the possibility that something absolutely Other must occur? Critical theorising in the last decades has been engaged in a significant process or processes of rethinking, as Marxist-Leninism’s credibility as the alternative to regnant capitalism declined, and then failed after 1989. At the same time, the absence of any serious systematic opposition has enabled parties of business globally to prosecute their neoliberal ambitions, of universal commodification and marketisation, with unprecedented success. Societies have become increasingly economically unequal, wealth has become more concentrated, organisational structures have become more corporatized, and as the pandemic has shown in countries like the US, the state has been divested of its democratic capacities to better the lives of citizens. The resulting alienation has produced pools of discontent from which right-wing populists draw, promising a simple solution to these widespread problems by scapegoating minorities, targeting the remnants of the social democratic “elites” in the educational, governmental, and community sectors, conducting vitriolic\",\"PeriodicalId\":43214,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical Research on Religion\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical Research on Religion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/20503032221124548\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Research on Religion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20503032221124548","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在这个流行病、环境危机和政治共识破裂的时期,希望的问题尤其紧迫。希望是合理的还是必要的,为了什么,为了谁?它现在只是右翼民粹主义者的财产吗?他们利用滚动的经济、移民和疫情危机,以及社交媒体的新启示,对过去几个世纪的社会和文化成果进行反动反抗,比如包容妇女和其他少数群体,以及对生态掠夺的认识?我们发现自己处于一个叶芝时代,众所周知,“最好的人缺乏所有的信念,而最坏的人充满激情”(叶芝2016,33),或者当代范式的延伸和失败是否预示着新的、更肯定的可能性?我们能在伟大的宗教和政治传统中找到什么样的希望资源,无论是伊斯兰的、犹太的、基督教的还是其他的?这些传统在工具和意识形态上的使用是否使它们失去了更新和重新定位的来源的资格?同样,在自由主义、民主、共和主义或社会主义的政治范式中,是否有现有的资源可以用来解决目前绝望、疏远和不文明的症状,或者必须想象或期待全新的政治模式?如果我们要建立能够应对危机的新联盟,是否需要对这些传统进行更多的双边理论评估,这些传统既是腐败和宣泄的来源,又是统治和解放的来源,还是希望必然是开放的或盲目的,致力于保持绝对其他事情必须发生的可能性?在过去的几十年里,批判理论一直在进行一个或多个重要的反思过程,因为马克思列宁主义作为统治资本主义的替代品的可信度下降,然后在1989年后失败。与此同时,由于没有任何严重的系统性反对,全球商业党派得以实现其新自由主义野心,即普遍商品化和市场化,并取得了前所未有的成功。社会在经济上变得越来越不平等,财富变得更加集中,组织结构变得更加公司化,正如疫情在美国等国所表明的那样,国家被剥夺了改善公民生活的民主能力。由此产生的异化产生了右翼民粹主义者的不满情绪,他们承诺通过将少数群体作为替罪羊,针对教育、政府和社区部门的社会民主“精英”残余,进行尖酸刻薄的抨击,来简单解决这些普遍存在的问题
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Politics, Religion, Hope: Contemporary Theoretical Perspectives
In this period of pandemics, the environmental crisis, and fraying of political consensus, the question of hope is especially pressing. Is hope reasonable or is it necessary, and for what and for whom? Is it only the property now of right-wing populists, using the rolling economic, immigration, and pandemic crises, and the new affordances of social media, in the cause of reactionary revolt against the social and cultural gains of the last centuries, such as the inclusion of women and other minorities, as well as awareness of ecological depredation? Dowe find ourselves in a Yeatsian time, wherein proverbially, “The best lack all conviction, while the worst / are full of passionate intensity” (Yeats 2016, 33), or does the stretching and failing of contemporary paradigms announce new, more affirmative possibilities? What resources for hope can we find in the great religious and political traditions, whether Islamic, Jewish, Christian, or other? Does the instrumental and ideological use of these traditions disqualify them as sources of renewal and reorientation? Likewise, are there existing resources within the political paradigms of liberalism, democracy, republicanism, or socialism which can be looked to resolve the present symptoms of despair, alienation, and incivility, or must entirely new political models be imagined or looked to? Are more two-sided theoretical assessments of these traditions, as sources of both corruption and catharsis, dominion and liberation, needed if we are to build new coalitions capable of addressing the crises, or is hope necessarily open or blind, committed to holding open the possibility that something absolutely Other must occur? Critical theorising in the last decades has been engaged in a significant process or processes of rethinking, as Marxist-Leninism’s credibility as the alternative to regnant capitalism declined, and then failed after 1989. At the same time, the absence of any serious systematic opposition has enabled parties of business globally to prosecute their neoliberal ambitions, of universal commodification and marketisation, with unprecedented success. Societies have become increasingly economically unequal, wealth has become more concentrated, organisational structures have become more corporatized, and as the pandemic has shown in countries like the US, the state has been divested of its democratic capacities to better the lives of citizens. The resulting alienation has produced pools of discontent from which right-wing populists draw, promising a simple solution to these widespread problems by scapegoating minorities, targeting the remnants of the social democratic “elites” in the educational, governmental, and community sectors, conducting vitriolic
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
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: Critical Research on Religion is a peer-reviewed, international journal focusing on the development of a critical theoretical framework and its application to research on religion. It provides a common venue for those engaging in critical analysis in theology and religious studies, as well as for those who critically study religion in the other social sciences and humanities such as philosophy, sociology, anthropology, psychology, history, and literature. A critical approach examines religious phenomena according to both their positive and negative impacts. It draws on methods including but not restricted to the critical theory of the Frankfurt School, Marxism, post-structuralism, feminism, psychoanalysis, ideological criticism, post-colonialism, ecocriticism, and queer studies. The journal seeks to enhance an understanding of how religious institutions and religious thought may simultaneously serve as a source of domination and progressive social change. It attempts to understand the role of religion within social and political conflicts. These conflicts are often based on differences of race, class, ethnicity, region, gender, and sexual orientation – all of which are shaped by social, political, and economic inequity. The journal encourages submissions of theoretically guided articles on current issues as well as those with historical interest using a wide range of methodologies including qualitative, quantitative, and archival. It publishes articles, review essays, book reviews, thematic issues, symposia, and interviews.
×
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