God Terms and Activity Systems

Abstract

Political science struggles, sometimes more than it knows, to study religion’s relationship with politics, democratic and otherwise. The difficulty is in part theoretical. This paper synthesizes diverse strains in recent scholarship on religion to propose a theoretically attuned definition well suited for empirical political science. Religions are defined as systems of shared activity organized around transcendental signifiers. Transcendental signifiers are readily identifiable in public discourse and are “god terms” that organize (or rest at the center of organized) systems of shared activity. This parsimonious definition admits both belief-oriented and practice-oriented phenomena and allows political scientists to study religion as it shapes political acts, interventions, and possibilities. For illustrative purposes, the paper examines a key speech delivered by Sukarno at Indonesia’s founding moment, in which naturalistically observable transcendental signifiers mark the mobilization of religion. Revising older histories that discover a contest between “secular” and “religious” actors, or that are keen to determine the sincerity of Sukarno’s own belief, we contend that Indonesia’s founding is best understood in terms of competing religious discourses that merge in the development of a new civil religion.

Violence Against Ahmadiyya as Productive Intolerance: Adressing Jeremy Menchik’s Godly Nationalism

“…Ira and Saul Allen present another criticism in their paper titled "God Terms and Activity System: A Definition of Religion for Political Science." They argue that Menchik's idea of the relationship between religion and the state within the framework of nationalism overlooks the possibility that nationalism itself may be an expression of religious characteristics unique to Indonesia (Allen & Allen, 2016). This perspective offers a new interpretation of the formulation of Pancasila, explaining why Islamic nationalist figures willingly removed clauses with Islamic nuances.…”

“…However, Menchik's concept of godly nationalism has also received much criticism. Allen & Allen (2016) note that Menchik's writing explains Indonesia's religious and political situation but fails to describe their interrelation. Meanwhile, Liddle (2014) accuses the implications of Menchik's godly nationalism concept, which refers to violence against Ahmadiyya as productive intolerance, of neglecting religious freedom as a human right.…”