حول هذه المادة التدريسية لكي نفسّر كيف أن العولمة تعيد بناء السياسات العامة والسلوكيات الاجتماعية، ندرس التبادلات والتفاعلات بين مختلف الجهات الفاعلة السياسية والاقتصادية، والاجتماعية - العامة أو الخاصة، الفردية أو الجماعية- والطريقة التي تعيد فيها صياغة العلاقات الدولية. هذه المادة التدريسية تعتمد على المقاربات السوسيولوجية والتاريخية الفرنسية العائدة للعلاقات الدولية. وهي متوفرة أيضاً في نسخة باللغة الإنجليزية (www.coursera.org/learn/global-studies)، وأخرى باللغة الفرنسية (www.coursera.org/learn/espace-mondial-fr)
من دوركهايم (Durkheim) إلى يومنا هذا
Loading...
来自 Sciences Po 的课程
"Espace mondial" الرؤية الفرنسية للدراسات العالمية
16 个评分
从本节课中
الأديان
يُنظر الى الدين كمعلمة رئيسية في النظام العالمي المعاصر، لكن هذه النظرة تحتوي على الكثير من التبسيط.
与讲师见面
Bertrand BadieProfessor
Marie-Françoise DurandProfessor
Jana JabbourLecturer
[MUSIC]
Religion in Espace Mondial can be proved at three different levels.
We have to distinguish between these three levels of analysis.
The first one would be the level of actors, how actors are socialized.
What are the real influence of religion in the social and
political behavior of individuals and how these behaviors are organizing,
shaping the main issue and the main mobilization around the world?
The second level would be the system and the political system.
Commonly, we hear from medias and from public opinion or opinion leaders.
We hear some sentences like the Muslim political system,
the Christian political system, Islam in politics,
as if religion was able to shape and organize a political system.
In reality, in fact, the difference is much more important that we can imagine.
It's very difficult to coin a system as a Muslim political system or
as a Christian political system, as it is obvious that many,
many kinds of Islam do exist around the world.
And it's not possible to conceive a single model of Islam and
politics, or of Christianism and politics, so we have to debate about it.
And the third level is the level of mobilization,
is religion able to mobilize and to create,
to generate a particle mobilization?
Or is religion only an emblema of a political mobilization?
Is religion a [FOREIGN] or is it a [FOREIGN]?
And this is probably one of the main points we have to discover together.
But the first question is the most important because not so
easy to solve is what is a religion?
What is a religion,
we have to go back to the famous french sociologist, Emile Durkheim,
who published a very important book dealing with religion in our world.
And Durkheim in this book opposes sacred to profane.
And this opposition is considered by Durkheim as
a main founding opposition for descending and
approaching the manifestation and the expressions of religion and politics.
Sacred is the country of profane as sacred
is considered as out of reach for human beings.
Sacred is the field which is not able to be
shaped and organized by human beings,
when profane is the real
field of the human action and human creation.
If now, sacred is considered as out of reach,
we can imagine our sacred is a very strong argument for
mobilizing people in a society.
If sacred is conceding illegitimacy which is out of reach of individuals,
it's very strong useful and successful instrument for
mobilizing and convincing individuals.
That's why sacred is so used in politics.
Using a formula which is coming from a field
which is out of reach of individuals is very
good instrument for convincing people.
Inside sacred, there came distinguishes,
rituals, and beliefs.
And religion is the combination of rituals and beliefs.
Now the question is why sacred is so
important in our modern or even post modern world.
If we follow Durkheim, sacred is supposed to
decline when modernization takes place.
And so Durkheim was writing in a positivist time, positivist period.
Consider that religion was to be
faded when modernization takes place.
And however, we can observe something which is quite
different from what you came for so.
So, three hypothesis can be modernize.
If sacred is so present in our modern or post modern world,
it's first because maybe sacred
is now creating a new modernity, that is the first hypothesis.
And even we can consider that [FOREIGN] would
be something like a new secular religion.
But in [FOREIGN], you can also find
something like beliefs and even rituals.
Can we consider that we are now facing a new sacred modernity,
that's the first hypothesis.
Our second one, we need to consider that sacred is a kind of substitute.
That's to say, in our modern world, some structure are not really operating,
sometimes states doesn't work, sometimes political parties doesn't work,
sometimes ideologies don't work anymore.
And when these instruments of governing, ruling,
mobilizing, protesting are not working, religion and
sacred can be a very useful and functional substitute.
The third hypothesis would be to consider religion as a culture.
Different religions are also expressing different cultures
as I define them in my previous lecture.
And so religions will be back for expressing
this diversity of cultures which is really at stake in our present world.
So now, how can we consider religion, religious actors?
Religious actors must be considered as individuals because, first of all,
we have to take into account the fact that religion belongs to the individual.
And that every individual, each individual is shaping his own religion.
So there is an individual level for approaching,
this a very important notion of religious actor.
And the second level will be the level of religious entrepreneurs.
Religions are organized as structures by entrepreneurs as Max Weber defined then,
that's to say as organized group with an administrative interaction.
And so we have to build up a typology
of these religious actors and to consider that this
religious entrepreneurs are not working in the same manner.
Because all the religious entrepreneurs are different and
must be considered separately.
For instance, if you take into account the Roman Catholic Church.
This is a religious entrepreneurs which is strongly centralized and
which can be compared with the nation state.
There is some similarities between the issue of the church,
this very centralized organization, and the nation state.
But now, if we move to the Protestantism,
to the Christian reform, we are facing
another model in which the individual is much more important.
And in which the church is fading as a transnational structure and
don't exist as a unified church like the case
in the Roman Catholic Christianism.
A third example would be the Orthodox Christianism in which
church was merging with empire when politics and
religions are combined in the kind of dual structure.
And now if we move to Islam, we are facing another model in which there is no church,
no centralization, no organization,
but a very complex network of preachers.
And in which the Muslim community, the ummah, is playing the role of integration.
Now if we move to other religions from Asia like Hinduism,
we are facing another feature which is
a kind of depreciation of power, a depreciation of politics.
When on the contrary, Buddhism is contesting power,
was created as a kind of protest gain of power and
which is creating new structures especially around Monarchism.
And so, that's why when we consider religion and
politics in the Espace Mondial,
we have to take into account this diversity of actors.
[MUSIC]
