Moral Pressure for Responsible Globalization

Steiner, Sherrie M

doi:10.1163/9789004365018

Cited by 6 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 157 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Except for the G8/20 IFS (e.g. Adams, 2021;Steiner, 2018;Steiner, 2019) and the work of the Vatican (e.g. Barbato, 2020;Barbato, Joustra, and Hoover, 2019), there are relatively few studies of IRD in international relations, and few of these are from religious studies standpoints, so much field and archival work may be done.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In recent years, there has been a growing literature on the role of interreligious dialogue (IRD) within the political sphere, including in international relations (e.g. Barbato, 2017;Fahy and Haynes, 2018;Grung, 2017;Gusha, 2022;Guzansky and Marshall, 2020;Steiner, 2018;Steiner and Christie, 2021). 2 From a situation where IRD was marginal even within most religious institutions (Hedges 2018a), it moved, post 9/11, to become central to policy conversations (Brodeur 2005).…”

Section: Interreligious Dialogue In/as International Relationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Abraham Accords provides another example, where the peace deal within the Middle East involving developing relations between Israel and Arab states such as the UAE and latterly Saudi Arabia has been framed in relation to Abrahamic dialogue (Guzansky and Marshall, 2020;Magid, 2022). 7 Finally, the activity of the G8/ G20 Shadow Interfaith Summit could also be viewed through this lens (Steiner 2018). This list is far from comprehensive, but notes some examples which will be referenced in this paper.…”

Section: Interreligious Dialogue In/as International Relationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…15 The G8/20 IFS also represents the tendency of religious groups to be involved in the dialogue of action. Explored in depth by Sherrie Steiner as both a participant and an academic (Steiner 2018;Steiner 2019;Steiner and Christie 2021), it started in 2005 from the Make Poverty History campaign which was directed by the then Archbishop of Canterbury, now Emeritus Cambridge Professor, Rowan Williams and the long-time interreligious advocate Jim Wallis of Sojourner's Magazine (Steiner 2018: 101). Partly through this global and concerted activist movement, the G8 meeting in 2005 announced 15-20 billion US dollars in poverty relief.…”

Section: The Performance Of Ird In International Relationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…18 Within international relations, at least two questions arise: the question is often the acceptability of certain traditions to political powers, which may be associated with discourse on such things as "good" and "bad" Muslims, itself an Islamophobic trope (see Hedges, 2021b); and the other is the prestige (often, but not always, size) of traditions, that they are seen as partners a government may wish to engage, especially on a prime inter/national stage. With ICCS, this is in part determined by Singapore having what is generally seen as ten official religions, each with a representative apex body or leadership who are then partners with government, 19 while KAICIID has an advisory board of religious leaders which maps on to what are seen as major traditions (KAICIID, N.D.), and the G8/20 IFS has often worked in coordination with the Vatican and Al-Azhar University alongside what are seen as leading partner institutions in host countries (see Steiner, 2018).…”

Section: A Critical Reflection On the Performance Of Ird As Internati...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The Performance of Interreligious Dialogue in the Realm of International Relations

Hedges

2023

JBASR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interreligious Dialogue (IRD) is neither a simple concept, nor a simple practice. Even before we consider the issues of such things as the ethics, hermeneutics, and praxis of understanding across diverse worlds of meaning, it is something that is enacted and performed according to social, cultural, and political discourses. The agendas of participants, sponsors, and any supposed audience all have consequences for the performativity of IRD. This paper will specifically focus on the concept of performance in relation to IRD in the political sphere, most particularly the way that IRD has become part of international relations. Attention will be given to typologies and framings of IRD, including what does, or does not, get classed as being IRD, or “true” dialogue, but herein no definition is prescribed, taking a broad approach. We will look at some specific examples of IRD in relation to track 1.5 diplomacy, noting how it relates to a securitised framing of dialogue and to what Oddbjørn Leirvik has termed “necessary dialogue”. The whole paper will be framed within the concept of performance, or performativity, which will be the main analytical approach, but taking a wider critical religious studies approach to considering how IRD is performed, or operates, within international relations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%