Primordialists and Constructionists: a typology of theories of religion

This article adopts categories from nationalism theory to classify theories of religion. Primordialist explanations are grounded in evolutionary psychology and emphasize the innate human demand for religion. Primordialists predict that religion does not decline in the modern era but will endure in perpetuity. Constructionist theories argue that religious demand is a human construct. Modernity initially energizes religion, but subsequently undermines it. Unpacking these ideal types is necessary in order to describe actual theorists of religion. Three distinctions within primordialism and constructionism are relevant. Namely those distinguishing: a) materialist from symbolist forms of constructionism; b) theories of origins from those pertaining to the reproduction of religion; and c) within reproduction, between theories of religious persistence and secularization. This typology helps to make sense of theories of religion by classifying them on the basis of their causal mechanisms, chronology and effects. In so doing, it opens up new sightlines for theory and research

Why More Civil Society Will Not Lead to Less Domination : Dealing with Present Day State Phobia through Michel Foucault and Neo-Republicanism

The notion of civil society, as an ontologically distinct sphere, separated from the state thereby serves as an antidote to the sovereign power of the state. Since the 1990s, we have seen reforms and organizational structures that advances the role ofthe market as well as the civil society along with a voluntary sector, often with the deliberate attempt to disrupt the power of the stateand to tame the Leviathan through the promotion of networks,partnerships, co-governance and collaboration. This can be understoodin terms of a present day state phobia and builds on a liberal conception of negative freedom understood as non-interference.Yet if we take Foucault‘s theorizations of power as omnipresent as itdisrupts the power/freedom dichotomy we need to find alternativeways to cope with relations of power in order to not let themdeteriorate into relations of domination. I argue in this article that neo-republican ideal of non-domination can be combined with Foucault’s insights on the nature of power. If correct, a continued promotion of more civil society involvement and partnerships between public and private actors provides a false insurance to diminish domination in contemporary societies