Abstract
Beginning with the main theoretical and methodological assumptions of political science of religion, this chapter proceeds to conceptualizations of religion as a subject of study for social sciences and religious groups as actors within a functionally defined political system. Religious actors, perceived as communities or institutions, are analysed in terms of their ability to change the status quo (veto players vs. stakeholders) and their structure, resources and modus operandi. Finally, three main research perspectives within the discipline are outlined: economic, viewing religious actors as institutions maximizing their profits in transactions with other social actors; social movements theory (SMT), looking at religious actors through motives, resources and external constrains bearing on their potential for mass mobilization; and “cultural”, discussing individual sources of religion-driven political commitment. These three perspectives could be combined into a relatively coherent chain of causal explanations to provide a comprehensive account of political significance of religion.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The term is borrowed from T. C. Lewellen who used it to describe similar difficulties in classifying social systems in cultural anthropology (Lewellen 2003, 15).
- 2.
Compare Robert Bellah, who, following in the footsteps of Durkheim, defines religion as a “system of beliefs and practices relative to the sacred that unite those who adhere to them in a moral community” (Bellah 2011, 1). I find this formula too exclusive: it leaves out private, individual beliefs which do not find communal expression; and it implies that religion is necessarily a source of moral obligation, when some religions, such as Vedism (early Hinduism) or animistic or shamanistic religions may lack strongly articulated moral principles. “Supernatural” is preferable to “sacred”, since it leaves out quasi-religious, functional equivalents.
- 3.
Interestingly, Michael Sandel advanced a similar, on the face of it, case against treating religion as a matter of choice. He demonstrated how liberalism subsumed freedom of religion under individual liberty or freedom of expression, which resulted in US Supreme Court decisions restricting public expression of religious convictions in some contexts, notably in the military (e.g. Goldman v. Weinberger, U.S. 503, 1986). Instead, Sandel argues for interpreting religious liberty, consistently with the understanding of the Founding Fathers, as a freedom to express beliefs that are “the dictates of conscience” and were not chosen in the same way as one chooses a lifestyle or a hobby (Sandel 1993, 492–495). Sandel’s critique, however, bears only superficial resemblance to Mitchell’s. The former argues from a consistently philosophical position, addressing his claims to decision-makers who shape public policy, while the latter targets social scientists who study the impact of religion on politics. Thus, from the point of view of political science of religion, Sandel’s argument is inconsequential, but Mitchell’s is wrong.
- 4.
The mistake of ascribing the religiosity of educated elites to ordinary believers is typically made in relation to Buddhism. Buddhism is often described as a religion without gods, atheistic religion or simply a philosophical system. However, for the rank-and-file Buddhists the universe is filled with superhuman, semi-divine figures, adopted from Buddhism itself (bodhisattvas) and local religions preceding it, such as Tibetan bon (demons etc.), while Buddha is often accorded a divine status. The lively rituals, cult practices and festivities are also very different from long, silent meditations of the virtuosos.
- 5.
Such an approach assumes a narrower understanding of political system as consisting of specialized institutions of power (government organs, political parties), with all other actors influencing their activity placed outside (in the environment) of the system.
- 6.
This and the following paragraph are adapted from Potz 2019a.
- 7.
The categories from Table 2.1 are useful for political analysis not only because they help conceptualize political behavior of social actors by reference to a certain general framework for studying politics. No less importantly, they allow a researcher to ascribe power and agency to actors by introducing a distinction between potential and actual players. If the outcome B would not have occurred in the absence of actor’s A consent, then A was actual veto player in the situation under analysis. If, on the other hand, A’s consent is merely perceived or expected to be necessary for the occurrence of B, but this assertion has not been put to the test, this actor is a potential veto player. Referring to the theory of power, the distinction between potential and actual veto players accurately captures the difference between political power as a general capacity and political agency as the ability to make things happen or prevent them from happening (Barnes 1988, 57–59). A potential veto player—a power holder—may, and often is, but needs not be the actual veto player—a political agent—with regard to a particular event. This kind of analysis can be fruitfully applied to both political activity of religious actors within larger political systems and for internal political dynamic inside religious groups (for the elaboration of this line of analysis and an example including power relations within the Mormon Church, see Potz 2019b; for the discussion of three distinct levels at which agency may be exercised and its application to the Catholic Church in Poland, see 6.2).
- 8.
In fact, he mentions a religious organization—the Catholic Church—only once (p. 133).
- 9.
Even this, however, is not so clear from an economic perspective, since fewer abortions equal, on average, more new members for the church (Ekelund et al. 1996, 111) with the accompanying economic benefits.
- 10.
She states so at least implicitly when claiming that interest groups are institutions, “not just diffuse social movements” (Warner 2001, 6).
- 11.
Thus “interest group” is effectively equivalent to “pressure group”, although one can argue for a broader understanding of interest groups, where pressurizing (or lobbying) the decision-makers is only one among the actor’s possible tactics (Ćwiklińska 2007, 139).
- 12.
Some authors make the unitary character of religious actors very explicit. Thus, for Kalyvas writing about the Catholic Church, “first, the leadership of the church can be treated as the church; second, the church can be treated as a unitary actor; and third, the church can be equated with the Vatican (or Roman Curia)” (31).
- 13.
Wald et al. (2005) accept this fully with regard to the latter (“Political opportunities are exogenous resources”, 138), but are less unequivocal as to the former. They quote approvingly Wildavsky on the restraining function of culture (126), but, at the same time, treat it as one of the “means”—endogenous resources of a movement (132).
- 14.
In fact, della Porta and Diani regard shared identity, and not ideology or some common social characteristics of the members, a defining feature of a social movement.
References
Alford, J. R., & Hibbing, J. R. (2004). The Origin of Politics: An Evolutionary Theory of Political Behavior. Perspectives on Politics, 2(4), 707–723.
Arendt, H. (1970). On Violence. New York: Harcourt.
Atran, S. (2016). The Devoted Actor, Unconditional Commitment and Intractable Conflict Across Cultures. Current Anthropology, 57(Supplement 13).
Barnes, B. (1988). The Nature of Power. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Bärsch, C.-E. (2009). Basic Outlines of the ‘Political Science of Religion’. In R. Sonnenschmidt & B. C. Labuschange (Eds.), Religion, Politics and Law: Philosophical Reflections on the Sources of Normative Order in Society. Leiden and Boston: Brill.
Bellah, R. (2011). Religion in Human Evolution: from the Paleolithic to the Axial Age. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611–639.
Böckenförde, E.-W. (1989). Stellung und Bedeutung der Religion in einer “Civil Society”. In E.-W. Böckenförde (Ed.), Staat, Nation, Europa: Studien zur Staatslehre, Verfassungstheorie und Rechtsphilosophie (pp. 256–275). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Carter, S. L. (1993). The Culture of Disbelief. New York: BasicBooks.
Corning, P. (2017). The Evolution of Politics: A Biological Approach. In S. A. Peterson & A. Somit (Eds.), Handbook of Biology and Politics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Ćwiklińska, J. (2007). Grupy interesu w semantycznej przestrzeni publicznej. International Journal of Management and Economics, 21.
Della Porta, D., & Diani, M. (2006). Social Movements: An Introduction (2nd ed.). Malden: Blackwell.
Downs, A. (1957). An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
Durkheim, E. (1995). The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. New York: Free Press.
Easton, D. (1965). A Systems Analysis of Political Life. New York; London; Sydney: Wiley.
Ekelund, R. B., et al. (1996). Sacred Trust: The Medieval Church as an Economic Firm. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Enyedi, Z. (2003). Conclusion: Emerging Issues in the Study of Church-state Relations. West European Politics, 26(1), 218–232.
Fink, S. (2009). Churches as Societal Veto Players: Religious Influence in Actor-Centred Theories of Policy-Making. West European Politics, 32(1), 77–96.
Gill, A. (2001). Religion and Comparative Politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 4, 117–138.
Goldman v. Weinberger, U.S. 503, 1986.
Góra-Szopiński, D. (2015). Czym może, a czym nie powinna być politologia religii? In R. Michalak (Ed.), Polityka jako wyraz lub następstwo religijności. Zielona Góra: Morpho.
Griffiths, P. J. (2000). The Very Idea of Religion, First Things, May, pp. 30–35.
Grzymała-Busse, A. (2015). Weapons of the Meek. How Churches Influence Public Policy. World Politics, 68(1), 1–36.
Habermas, J. (2006). Religion in the Public Sphere. European Journal of Philosophy, 14(1), 1–25.
Hayes, J. (2007). The Theory and Practice of Change Management. Basingstoke, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Haynes, J. (Ed.). (2006). The Politics of Religion. A Survey. London and New York: Routledge.
Herr, P. E., & Young, J. (2003). Evolutionary Thinking Within Political Science: Addressing Some Feminist Concerns. Women & Politics, 24(4).
Hertzke, A. (2009). Religious Interest Groups in American Politics. In C. E. Smidt, L. A. Kellstedt, & J. L. Guth (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Religion and American Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Iannaccone, L. (1990). Religious Practice: A Human Capital Approach. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 29(3), 297–314.
Ivakhiv, A. (2006). Toward a Geography of ‘Religion’: Mapping the Distribution of an Unstable Signifier. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 96(1), 169–175.
Jevtić, M. (2007). Political Science and Religion. Politics and Religion Journal, 1(1), 59–69.
Kalyvas, S. N. (1996). The Rise of Christian Democracy in Europe. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.
Kasianiuk, K. (2018). A System-cybernetic Approach to the Study of Political Power. Introductory Remarks. Kybernetes, 47(6), 1262–1276.
Kehrer, G. (1988). Einführung in Die Religionssoziologie. Darmstad: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Kettell, S. (2016). Do We Need a ‘Political Science of Religion?’. Political Studies Review, 14(2).
Klandermans, B., & Van Stekelenburg, J. (2013). Social Movements and the Dynamics of Collective Action. In L. Huddy, D. O. Sears, & J. S. Levy (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Konrad, K. (2002). Racjonalność i konflikt wierzeń religijnych. WUWr.: Wrocław.
Kowalczyk, K. (2014). Kościół katolicki jako podmiot oddziałujący na system polityczny. Wrocławskie Studia Politologiczne, 17.
Lewellen, T. C. (2003). Political Anthropology. An Introduction. Westport, CT and London: Praeger.
Lopez, A., & McDermott, R. (2012). Adaptation, Heritability, and the Emergence of Evolutionary Political Science. Political Psychology, 33(3), 343–362.
Mahoney, J. (2008). Toward a Unified Theory of Causality. Comparative Political Studies, 41(4–5), 412–436.
Malinowski, B. (1948). Magic, Science and Religion. In B. Malinowski (Ed.), Magic, Science and Religion and Other Essays. Glencoe: Free Press.
Mann, M. (2012). The Sources of Social Power (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Michalak, R. (2016). Wstęp. Implementacja zasad religijnych w sferze politycznej jako podstawowy cel badan w zakresie politologii religii. In R. Michalak (Ed.), Polityka jako wyraz lub następstwo religijności. Zielona Góra: Morpho.
Mitchell, J. (2007). Religion Is Not a Preference. The Journal of Politics, 69(2), 351–362.
Olson, M. (1965). The Logic of Collective Action. Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press.
Ormrod, R. P. (2017). Stakeholders in the Political Marketing Context. Journal of Public Affairs, 17.
Parsons, T. (1963). On the Concept of Political Power. In M. Haugaard (Ed.), Power: A Reader (2002) (pp. 70–112). Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press.
Peoples, C. D. (2019). Classical and Contemporary Conventional Theories of Social Movements. In B. Berberoglu (Ed.), The Palgrave Handbook of Social Movements, Revolution, and Social Transformation (pp. 17–34). Cham: Palgrave.
Peterson, S. A., & Somit, A. (Eds.). (2017). Handbook of Biology and Politics. Cheltenham and Northampton: Edward Elgar.
Potz, M. (2016a). A Contemporary Religious Political Movement: LDS Church’s Nation-wide Political Campaigns. Annales UMCS. Sectio K; Politologia, 23, (1).
Potz, M. (2016b). Teokracje amerykańskie. Źródła i mechanizmy władzy usankcjonowanej religijnie. Łódź: Łódź University Press.
Potz, M. (2019a). Religion in Public Life. In S. P. Ramet, K. Ringdal, & K. Dośpiał-Borysiak (Eds.), Civic and Uncivic Values in Poland. Value Transformation, Education and Culture. Budapest: CEU Press.
Potz, M. (2019b). Political Agency and Violence: Understanding the Causes of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Religion, State & Society, 47(3), 290–306.
Powałka, D. (1996). Psychologiczna charakterystyka uczestników wybranych ruchów religijnych. In T. Doktór (Ed.), Ruchy pogranicza religii i nauki jako zjawisko socjopsychologiczne. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo UW.
Rucht, D. (1996). The Impact of National Context on Social Movement Structures: A Cross-movement and Cross-national Comparison. In D. McAdam, J. McCarthy, & M. Zald (Eds.), Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sandel, M. (1993). Freedom of Conscience or Freedom of Choice? In T. Eastland (Ed.), Religious Liberty in the Supreme Court. The Cases That Define the Debate Over Church and State (pp. 483–496). Grand Rapids and Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans.
Sarfati, Y. (2014). Mobilizing Religion in Middle East Politics. A Comparative Study of Israel and Turkey. London and New York: Routledge.
Schumpeter, J. (1943). Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. London: Allen and Unwin.
Schwartz, M. S. (2006). God as a Managerial Stakeholder? Journal of Business Ethics, 66, 291–306.
Skarzyński, R. (2011). Mobilizacja polityczna. Warszawa: Elipsa.
Smith, J. Z. (1998). Religion, Religions, Religious. In M. C. Taylor (Ed.), Critical Terms for Religious Studies. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Sosis, R., & Bressler, E. R. (2003). Cooperation and Commune Longevity: A Test of the Costly Signaling Theory of Religion. Cross-Cultural Research, 37(2), 211–239.
Spiro, M. E. (1994). Culture and Human Nature. London: Transaction Publishers.
Stark, R., & Bainbridge, W. S. (1987). A Theory of Religion. New York: Peter Lang.
Stark, R., & Finke, R. (2000). Acts of Faith. Explaining the Human Side of Religion. Berkley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Storr, A. (1997). Feet of Clay: A Study of Gurus. New York: Free Press.
Tsebelis, G. (2011). Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Wald, K. D., Silverman, A. L., & Fridy, K. S. (2005). Making Sense of Religion in Political Life. Annual Review of Political Science, 8(1).
Warner, C. (2001). Confessions of an Interest Group: The Catholic Church and Political Parties in Europe. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Weber, M. (1978). Economy and Society. An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Berkeley; Los Angeles; London: University of California Press.
Wilcox, C., & Robinson, C. (2010). Onward Christian Soldiers. The Religious Right in American Politics (4th ed.). Boulder: Westview Press.
Wilcox, C., Wald, K., & Jelen, T. (2008). Religious Preferences and Social Science: A Second Look. The Journal of Politics, 70(3), 874–879.
Wildavsky, A. (1987). Choosing Preferences by Constructing Institutions: A Cultural Theory of Preference Formation. American Political Science Review, 81(1), 3–22.
Wilson, D. S., & Green W. S. (2007). Evolutionary Religious Studies (ERS): A Beginner’s Guide. Retrieved October 21, 2017, from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9420/abd2874d10746d86c1e7a8c285e50c02dfc3.pdf.
Zuba, K. (2010). The Political Strategies of the Catholic Church in Poland. Religion, State & Society, 38(2), 115–134.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Potz, M. (2020). Political Science of Religion: Demarcating the Field. In: Political Science of Religion. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20169-2_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20169-2_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-20168-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-20169-2
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)