IR THEORY AS AN ‘ARELIGIOUS’ RESEARCH FIELD: THE SOURCES OF AND CRITICAL PROSPECTS TO OVERCOME THE INTELLECTUAL FAILURE

Öz

This study is built on an observation that ‘religion’ along with many other factors has a significant impact on international relations. However, religious factors are not incorporated in International Relations (IR) theoretical analysis. Hence, it is deemed necessary to ask: ‘When did IR scholars lose the track of religion in their theories and how to bring religion back in?’ An answer is provided through an analysis of the literature to find out the sources of such neglect and possible ways to overcome it. The study does so in two parts. First, it is argued that the adoption of natural sciences’ methodology in IR- the so-called ‘Behavioralist revolution’- has been quite influential in the lack of interest on religion. Secularism has been an unquestioned part of Behavioralism - the ‘positive science’ update package adopted by scholars of IR theory. The end of the Cold War brought ideational variables back in to the study of IR theory. This process is directed mainly by the emergent ‘Critical’, ‘Constructivist’ or ‘postpositivist’ turn in IR. Therefore, the second part focuses on the critical approaches to IR theory in the post-Cold War era with a specific focus on Critical Theory (CT) in order to develop a possible way to incorporate religion in IR theoretical analysis.

Kaynakça

1. ASHLEY, Richard K. “Political Realism and Human Interest”, International Studies Quarterly, 1981, 25, p. 204-236.
2. BULL, Hedley, “International Theory: The Case for a Classical Approach”, World Politics, 1966, 18(3), p. 361-377.
3. BURTT, E. A., The Metaphysical Foundations of the Modern Science, New York, Dover Publications, 2003.
4. COX, Robert, “Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory”, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 1981, 10(2), p. 126-55.
5. FOX, Jonathan, The Multiple Impacts of Religion on International Relations: Perceptions and Reality in Religion and International Relations, 2006, http://www.cairn-int.info/article-E_PE_064_1059-- the-multiple-impacts-of-religion-on.htm (03.09.2015).
6. FOX, Jonathan and Shmuel Sandler, Bringing Religion into International Relations, New York, Palgrave- Macmillan, 2004.
7. GÜNER, Serdar, “Religion and Preferences: A Decision-theoretic Explanation of Turkey’s New Foreign Policy”, Foreign Policy Analysis, 2012, 8(3): 217-230.
8. GRIFFITHS, M., S. C. Roach, and M. S. Solomon, Fifty Key Thinkers in International Relations, London, Routledge, 2009.

9. HABERMAS, Jurgen, Knowledge and Human Interests, Boston MA, Beacon Press, 1971.
10. HABERMAS, Jurgen, Moral Consciousness and communicative Action, Cambridge, Polity, 1990.
11. HABERMAS, Jurgen, Justification and Application: Remarks on Discourse Ethics, Cambridge, MIT Press, 2001.
12. HANNAM, James, God’s Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of the Modern Science, London, Icon Books, 2009.
13. HURD E. S., “The Political Authority of Secularism in International Relations”, European Journal of International Relations, 2004, 10(2): p. 235-62.
14. HUTCHINGS, Kimberly, “Happy Anniversary Time and Critique in International Relations Theory”, Review of International Studies, 2007, 33, p. 71-89.
15. HOBSON, John M. “Is critical theory always for the white west and western imperialism? Beyond Westphalian towards a post-racist critical IR”, Review of International Studies, 2007, 33, p. 91- 116.
16. KAPLAN, Morton A. “The New Great Debate: Traditionalism vs. Science in International Relations”, World Politics, 1966, 19(1), p. 1-20.
17. MILL, John Stuart, Auguste Comte and Positivism, London, N. Trübner, 1865.
18. PHILPOTT, D. “The Challenge of September 11 to Secularism in International Relations”, World Politics, 2002, 55(1), p.66-95.
19. LAUSTSEN C. B. and Ole Waever, “In Defense of Religion: Sacred referent Objects for Securitization”, Millennium, 2000, 29(3), p. 705-739.
20. LINKLATER, Andrew, “The Achievements of Critical Theory”, International Theory, Eds: S. Smith, K. Booth, and M. Zalewski, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 279-298.
21. RENGGER, Nicholas and Ben Thirkel-White, “Still Critical After all These Years? The Past the Present and Future of Critical Theory in International Relations”, Review of International Studies, 2007, 33, p. 3-24.
22. SANDAL, Nükhet Ahu and Jonathan Fox, Religion in International Relations Theory: Interactions and Possibilities, New York, Routledge, 2013.
23. SANDAL, Nükhet Ahu and Patrick James, “Religion and International Relations Theory: Towards a Mutual Understanding”, European Journal of International Relations, 2011, 17(1), p. 3-25.
24. SNYDER, Jack, Religion and International Relations Theory, New York, Columbia University Press, 2012.