Religion and Diplomacy: The ‘Clash of Civilizations’ as Historical Libel

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you very much for the opportunity to review "Religion and Diplomacy: The 'Clash of Civilizations' as Historical Libel" for Histories. Building on an analysis of theological debates on inter-faith relations and treaty-making, the study seeks to debunk Samuel Huntington's argument that the end of ideological conflict would lead to a return to "an older historical pattern of hatred and conflict based on 'civilizational' difference (p. 1).

I enjoyed reading the manuscript. I also agree that the literature would benefit from more analyses of historical patterns of treaty-making. However, I have a series of critical comments that the authors may want to consider before publication. They principally concern (a) the framing of the study as a response to the "Clash of Civilization"; and (b) the study’s engagement with the historiography on religion and treaty-making.

The Clash of Civilizations

First, the authors rightly note that a large body of scholarship has refuted the "Clash of Civilizations" thesis. There is hardly any disagreement amongst academics that the thesis is wrong since the "debate" started in the 1990s. As the authors suggest, it may well be the case that "the hypothesis is being kept alive primarily by its critics" (2). This raises the question why we must continue to beat the proverbial "dead horse." I agree that existing analyses tend to focus on more recent periods, but if the aim is to expose the thesis as a historical myth, perhaps we would be better served by concentrating on historiographical debates on religion and treaty-making rather than Huntington's "libel." This observation is not to undermine the contribution of the manuscript, I merely wonder what is substantively gained from the study in these terms.

Second and related, Huntington's argument is not that inter-civilizational interaction would be uncommon but that deep-seated cultural differences bread conflict. The finding that states from different religions frequently sign treaties has no bearing on the thesis. In fact, if we consider that, before the mid-nineteenth century, most agreements dealt with peace-making in the aftermath of war ("treaties of peace and amity"), the ubiquity of inter-civilizational treaty-making could also support the "Clash of Civilization thesis (as more war-making would correspond with more treaty-making). Of course, given that the dataset contains information on treaty content, this common assumption can easily be proven wrong.

Religion and treaty-making

This brings me to my third point. I am not an expert on world religions and I cannot assess the study's discussion of theological debates. I am familiar with the literature on the canon-law origins of international law, though, which suggests that the study understates the importance of these prohibitions, at least in the Christian case (Muldoon is cited twice in a different context, and only included once in the bibliography; his "Popes, Lawyers, and Infidels: The Church and the Non-Christian World" might be helpful on this point). Alexandrowicz (1968) argued that canon-law proscriptions were often more honored in the breach than the observance and that their importance decreased as maritime trade increased. However, this does not mean that they did not exist (as the discussion of Grotius and Vattel, two Protestant thinkers, suggests).

Fourth, treaty-making has a regulative and constitutive function. Alexandrowicz's central argument was that European conceptions of international legal subjectivity narrowed as Europeans became more powerful, starting in the late eighteenth century. European denied the legitimacy of many non-European polities during the height of colonialism (Edward Keene's and Lauren Benton's work comes to mind here). The analysis misses this shift because (i) it is limited to treaties adopted after 1750, and (ii) it treats Christian confessions as separate religions (which was not Huntington's point in the "Clash of Civilization," although he does draw such as distinction in "Who are we?" to argue for the incompatibility of Latinos with the "American creed"; in any case, canon-law proscriptions focused on the relations between Christian and non-Christians). In short, the study overstates the degree of (relevant) religious difference between Europeans, while understating the true extent of religious differences that existed/s globally.

The authors note on several occasions that shifting patterns of religious homogeneity would be puzzling. For example, on p. 12 they note that "[t]here is a slow upward trend in homogeneity from 1829 onward. We believe this is an artifact of growing secularity." This is an intra-European account. Another explanation is that polities became more homogenous as treaty-making with non-Christian polities decreased (as Alexandrowicz or Keene would suggest). I have no doubt that inter-faith treaty-making was common (and, perhaps, more common than generally assumed); but I also believe that the manuscript should pay closer attention to historical shifts in treaty-making practices, especially in the context of European colonialism (On this note, I am not sure why the analysis focuses on the post-1750 period if the MATRS database contains information on treaties signed since 1595; this seems like a lost opportunity to me).

Fifth and lastly, there is some literature that discusses why we should expect treaty-making to cluster regionally and/or across world regions that author may want to consult. Powell, for example, examines how Islamic law informs a conception of international law that differs “Western” international law (whose development was heavily influenced by Catholic doctrine and Protestant contestations). Considering these differences, the observations that "religious injunctions against breaking agreements" (6) or different trust levels may deter treaty-making seem less important than the fact that international law (and the legal effects of treaties) may be understood differently by different legal traditions.

Minor points

- The two sections (theological debates and MATRS data) are not well integrated and read disjointed (both in content and style)

- The paper would benefit from a short discussion section before the conclusion; it concludes abruptly; note also that the conclusion is excessively short.

- The idea of a "historical libel" is unclear and, in my view, adds little to the analysis.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is clearly written, challenges many commonly accepted views, is very well-documented with numerous notes and citations, and it has a very lengthy list of references. It has many strengths, and in my view, some serious weaknesses. I recommend publication with some revisions that in my view, would improve the publication. The authors need not make all of the suggested changes, but they can be selective in deciding what would improve their essay.

In the Abstract and especially in the Introduction, and as later developed in the article, the authors convincingly challenge Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” hypothesis after and before the Cold War, traditional religious doctrines and views about religions entering treaties and breaking or keeping them, and related topics. They offer Interesting valuable formulations. I would add that from my research, publications, and interpretations, I agree that explicit references to the Clash of Civilizations Hypothesis have diminished or disappeared. But I’d submit that it is still embraced in different forms in many dominant U.S. and western-centric hegemonic, corporate, capitalist, militaristic, political, cultural, educational, environmental, etc. assumptions, principles, theories, and practices in diverse ways (albeit usually without explicit Huntington language).

My major reactions arise from my long career and experiences in philosophy, history and phenomenology of religion, comparative philosophy, comparative religion, much of Asia and especially 5 years in India, and as an activist scholar working on issues of religion, war, peace, violence, and nonviolence. Relevant to this submission, for over a year, I have been serving as the Editor of a different MDPI volume on Issues of War and Peace in Religious 

Culture. The contributors to that volume have written very diverse articles on topics that overlap with topics in this submission.

My major reactions involve the need to situate and contextualize scriptures and other texts, authors and their interpreters, dominant religions, other religions, and non-religious views and practices, etc. For example, in the volume for which I’m the editor, a recent publication is by a devout believing Muslim who provides extensive documentation and analysis of Muhammad at Mecca, Muhammad at Medina, the similarities and major differences on Muhammad’s approaches to war, peace, treaties, etc. Similarly, a Catholic priest scholar has a recent publication in the volume focusing on the Pope and Vatican doctrines. Both of these publications (and others I could mention on Religion and Pacifism and other topics) are very sympathetic to the formulations in Religion and Diplomacy. But they also present more of the contextualized complexity, tensions, and ambiguities in doctrines and practices, contradictions, unity and sameness with significant differing changes over the centuries, etc.

My contextualized reactions are also obviously related to the very brief sections: a little on Judaism, a little on Christianity, a little on Islam, one paragraph on India and Hinduism, one paragraph on China, etc. Obviously, such brief sweeping generalizing will necessarily result in oversimplifications in formulations without the more contextualized analysis. For example, under India, only Kautilya is mentioned (in a sentence). I immediately thought of the long and current scholarly debates on Kautilya’s Arthashastra with regard to treaties, agreements, intentions, conflicts, the versions of the enemy of my enemy is my friend on pragmatic grounds, etc. I can easily agree that the brief formulations are okay, even necessary, oversimplifications, but I think that the resulting sweeping claims and interpretations are sometimes not convincing if left unqualified as is.

I’ll make one other suggestion that the authors may find interesting. In my work and that by others, there is the central scholarly question: What is Religion? Similarly, what is the Political and what is the State? Similarly, what is Culture and what is Civilization? These are key questions open to foundational and essential interpretations, debates, etc. The authors will probably not address any of this and it may be more fruitful for some of their future research. I only mention it because these questions repeatedly arose for me as I read their formulations.

In conclusion, I think that this is an innovative and challenging article that should be published after the authors consider some of the above suggestions and use them to revise and improve their article.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf