{"title":"宗教与战争:一个综合","authors":"A. Strathern","doi":"10.1080/02757206.2022.2060212","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This chapter draws on the papers in this volume to help develop a global comparative perspective on religion and war. It proceeds by establishing two forms of religiosity: immanentism, versions of which may be found in every society; and transcendentalism, which captures what is distinctive about salvific, expansionary religions such as Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism. This chapter does not suggest that either immanentism or transcendentalism enhance the likelihood of collective violence in themselves. It does, however, argue that these types of religiosity are distinctive in how they drive war, allow enemies to be identified, and rationalize or legitimize collective violence. Some of the paths by which societies may become more bellicose (prone to war) or martial (heavily shaped by a military ethos) are sketched out and certain elective affinities between imperial expansion and transcendentalist systems are proposed. The place of Confucianism in this interpretative schema is discussed towards the end. Many scales of comparison are considered throughout, especially whether the categories of ‘transcendentalism’, ‘monotheism’ or ‘Christianity’/‘Islam’ afford the most comparative insight in understanding patterns of violence.","PeriodicalId":46201,"journal":{"name":"History and Anthropology","volume":"38 1","pages":"145 - 174"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Religion and war: A synthesis\",\"authors\":\"A. Strathern\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/02757206.2022.2060212\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT This chapter draws on the papers in this volume to help develop a global comparative perspective on religion and war. It proceeds by establishing two forms of religiosity: immanentism, versions of which may be found in every society; and transcendentalism, which captures what is distinctive about salvific, expansionary religions such as Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism. This chapter does not suggest that either immanentism or transcendentalism enhance the likelihood of collective violence in themselves. It does, however, argue that these types of religiosity are distinctive in how they drive war, allow enemies to be identified, and rationalize or legitimize collective violence. Some of the paths by which societies may become more bellicose (prone to war) or martial (heavily shaped by a military ethos) are sketched out and certain elective affinities between imperial expansion and transcendentalist systems are proposed. The place of Confucianism in this interpretative schema is discussed towards the end. Many scales of comparison are considered throughout, especially whether the categories of ‘transcendentalism’, ‘monotheism’ or ‘Christianity’/‘Islam’ afford the most comparative insight in understanding patterns of violence.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46201,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"History and Anthropology\",\"volume\":\"38 1\",\"pages\":\"145 - 174\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"History and Anthropology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/02757206.2022.2060212\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ANTHROPOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"History and Anthropology","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02757206.2022.2060212","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
ABSTRACT This chapter draws on the papers in this volume to help develop a global comparative perspective on religion and war. It proceeds by establishing two forms of religiosity: immanentism, versions of which may be found in every society; and transcendentalism, which captures what is distinctive about salvific, expansionary religions such as Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism. This chapter does not suggest that either immanentism or transcendentalism enhance the likelihood of collective violence in themselves. It does, however, argue that these types of religiosity are distinctive in how they drive war, allow enemies to be identified, and rationalize or legitimize collective violence. Some of the paths by which societies may become more bellicose (prone to war) or martial (heavily shaped by a military ethos) are sketched out and certain elective affinities between imperial expansion and transcendentalist systems are proposed. The place of Confucianism in this interpretative schema is discussed towards the end. Many scales of comparison are considered throughout, especially whether the categories of ‘transcendentalism’, ‘monotheism’ or ‘Christianity’/‘Islam’ afford the most comparative insight in understanding patterns of violence.
期刊介绍:
History and Anthropology continues to address the intersection of history and social sciences, focusing on the interchange between anthropologically-informed history, historically-informed anthropology and the history of ethnographic and anthropological representation. It is now widely perceived that the formerly dominant ahistorical perspectives within anthropology severely restricted interpretation and analysis. Much recent work has therefore been concerned with social change and colonial history and the traditional problems such as symbolism, have been rethought in historical terms. History and Anthropology publishes articles which develop these concerns, and is particularly interested in linking new substantive analyses with critical perspectives on anthropological discourse.