Of religion in conflict

‘(1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, 
pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) 
formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) 
clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) 
the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic’ (Geertz 1993, 90).
Yet, he also provides another definition that is perhaps more pertinent 
in attempts to understand how and why religion matters to so many 
people today, and how it motivates some individuals so strongly to act, 
whether for good or for bad. For Geertz, religion ‘tunes human actions 
to an envisaged cosmic order and projects images of cosmic order onto 
the plane of human experience’ (Geertz 1993, 90). 
The desire to attain this ‘cosmic order’ is what engenders political 
theologies, that is, sets of ‘ideas that a religious body holds about 
legitimate political authority’ in the world (Philpott 2007a, 507). This 
global perspective of world order and political authority is what makes 
religion relevant to the study of international relations. Religion offers 
more compelling reasons than do 
Realpolitik
and economic advantage 
for people to put their lives on the line, as it ‘provides a vision of reality 
that transcends temporal and terrestrial life and thus inspires people 
to make the ultimate sacrifice’ (Johnston and Cox 2003, 14).
Some, such as Juergensmeyer (2003), contend that the very idea of 
and the vivid imaginary associated with engagement in a cosmic war 
fought to protect some absolute truth is one of the central drivers of 
faith-based terrorism. However, there are several ways to analyse and 
criticise political arrangements from the perspective of ‘God’s ways with 
the world’ (Scott and Cavanaugh 2007, 2), and different political theolo-
gies stemming from a single faith tradition have proven to generate 
both violence and peace. This means that we need to reconsider rigid 
assumptions about and categorisations of any religion as ‘bad’ (violent) 
and political, or ‘good’ (peaceful) and non-political.
2.2. Conflict
While there is not room in this report to elaborate on theories of conflict, 
a working definition of conflict is nevertheless necessary in the interest 

---

British Academy // 
The Role of Religion in Conflict and Peacebuilding
9
of clarity. For Ramsbotham, Woodhouse and Miall (2005, 13), conflict 
‘is an expression of the heterogeneity of interests, values and beliefs 
that arise as new formations generated by social change come up 
against inherited constraints’. By asserting that conflict is ‘an intrinsic 
and inevitable aspect of social change’ and that ‘the way we deal with 
conflict is a matter of habit and choice’, they seem to imply that under-
standing conflict and conflict resolution requires bypassing approaches 
relying on rational choice that privilege state actors, and instead focus-
ing only on competing material interests and hard power. 
Thus this paper adopts the concept of conflict in its broadest possible 
sense, which includes both symmetric and asymmetric conflicts (i.e. 
involving similar and dissimilar parties) and also Galtung’s (1969, 1975) 
widely accepted view that violence occurs not only in a direct way (the 
act of harming or killing) but is also hidden in societal structures (socio-
economic or juridical systems) and culture (the ideas shaping people’s 
attitudes), and that behaviours, structures and attitudes have to be 
addressed simultaneously to achieve peace. 
Attitudes are, of course, intertwined with perceptions, which are identi-
fied by Juergensmeyer (2003) and many others (e.g. Wolff 2006) as one 
of the factors that can trigger religious and ethnic violence. Perceptions 
are key to the construction and perpetuation of identities and narratives, 
both of individuals and of communities. Thus it is not surprising that per-
ceptions of prejudice, victimhood, and discrimination are central in the 
dynamics of structural, physical and cultural violence, whether religion 
or ethnicity are involved or not. 
Given the fluid and kaleidoscopic nature of conflict, it is difficult to disen-
tangle causes and effects and draw clear conclusions, so a holistic ap-
proach that takes contextual variables into account is required. Religion 
may well be one of these variables, whether as something that may 
contribute to provoking or to solving conflict. However, its role should 
not be taken for granted and is certainly not fixed. 
One of the foremost thinkers on peace is again Johan Galtung. 
His distinction between ‘positive peace’