Abstract
The recent debate on the relation between certain religious traditions and violence has offered us multiple perspectives on this issue. Some scholars accept the conflictual image of religion in the contemporary time projected by the media, seeking the reason for religion’s supposedly violent nature. Some scholars have completely rejected the association between violence and religion, defending religion against what they see as a myth. Faced with difficulty reaching any consensus, R. Scott Appleby addresses the complexity of the phenomenon through the notion of ambivalence. His approach accommodates the revolutionary moments of religion and offers us a comprehensive perspective on the violence used by religious actors. In this paper, however, I will argue that Appleby fails to distinguish between violence on an ontological level and violence as means to achieve justice. I will introduce the notion of ambivalence as it appears in Emmanuel Levinas’s philosophy to construct an alternative theory about religion’s ambivalent attitude towards violence, where violence is limited to its role in justice but is yet transcended by religious infinite love. With this extended meaning of ambivalence, I will be able to confirm that the interhuman encounter implied in one’s relation to the sacred should be prioritised in addressing religious violence.
Highlights
The current debate on the violent nature of certain religious traditions, ongoing for a decade, has immensely enriched our understanding of the role of religion in global conflicts (Kimball 2008, 2011; Juergensmeyer et al 2013; Appleby et al 2015; Selengut 2003; Ward 2006; Cavanaugh 2009; Appleby 2000), yet there remains no consensus among scholars concerning the events when religion is related to violence
I will introduce the notion of ambivalence as it appears in Emmanuel Levinas’s philosophy to construct an alternative theory about religion’s ambivalent attitude towards violence, where violence is limited to its role in justice but is yet transcended by religious infinite love
We can conclude that Levinasian ambivalence—which is more precisely an ambivalence between infinite ethical responsibility for the other and justice for the third parties—establishes an alternative view on religion’s relation with violence, in which violence serves the purposes of justice as telling right or wrong among the subject, the other and the third party, while the excessive charity from Illeity serves to correct the violence
Summary
The current debate on the violent nature of certain religious traditions, ongoing for a decade, has immensely enriched our understanding of the role of religion in global conflicts (Kimball 2008, 2011; Juergensmeyer et al 2013; Appleby et al 2015; Selengut 2003; Ward 2006; Cavanaugh 2009; Appleby 2000), yet there remains no consensus among scholars concerning the events when religion is related to violence. Some scholars consider that religion being violent is merely incidental and that claims of religion’s violent nature call for contextualisation Scholars, such as Keith Ward and William T Cavanaugh, have argued against the “myth of religious violence”, defending religion from the current accusation of being a cause of violence and conflict in present-day society (Ward 2006; Cavanaugh 2009). Among the divided scholarly discussions on the subject, Scott Appleby presents us with a more comprehensive interpretation of religion’s relation to violence through the lens of what he calls “the ambivalence” of religion towards violence He acknowledges the “internal pluralism” in religious phenomena and endeavours to find language to express the ambiguous relation between the militant necessity of prophetic theology in oppressive states and the peaceful pursuit of many religious movements that condemn the wrongfulness of “uncontrollable destructiveness” The encounter with the human other is part of one’s path towards God, and, especially when the relation between religion and violence is at issue, the interhuman encounter implied in one’s relation to the sacred should be prioritised in addressing this violence
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
