Globalization and Religion in Historical Perspective: A Paradoxical Relationship
AbstractReligion has long been a driving force in the process of globalization. This idea is not controversial or novel thinking, nor is it meant to be. However, the dominant reasoning on the subject of globalization, expressed by authors like Thomas Friedman, places economics at the center of analysis, skewing focus from the ideational factors at work in this process. By expanding the definition of globalization to accommodate ideational factors and cultural exchange, religion’s agency in the process can be enabled. Interestingly, the story of religion and globalization is in some ways the history of globalization, but it is riddled with paradoxes, including the agent-opponent paradox, the subject of this article. Religion and globalization have a co-constitutive relationship, but religious actors are both agents of globalization and principals in its backlash. While some actors might benefit from a mutually reinforcing relationship with globalization, others are marginalized in some way or another, so it is necessary to expose the links and wedges that allow for such a paradox. To that end, the concepts of globalization and religious actors must be defined, and the history of the agent-opponent paradox, from the Buddhists of the Silk Road to the Jubilee campaign of 2000, must be elucidated. View Full-Text
Scifeed alert for new publicationsNever miss any articles matching your research from any publisher
- Get alerts for new papers matching your research
- Find out the new papers from selected authors
- Updated daily for 49'000+ journals and 6000+ publishers
- Define your Scifeed now
Herrington, L.M. Globalization and Religion in Historical Perspective: A Paradoxical Relationship. Religions 2013, 4, 145-165.
Herrington LM. Globalization and Religion in Historical Perspective: A Paradoxical Relationship. Religions. 2013; 4(1):145-165.Chicago/Turabian Style
Herrington, Luke M. 2013. "Globalization and Religion in Historical Perspective: A Paradoxical Relationship." Religions 4, no. 1: 145-165.