Religion and International Relations in Today's Marketplace (or Industry?) of Ideas

The many scholarly contributions by Daniel Philpott beg comparison with ideas of one of the founding fathers of the International Relations (IR) field, Hans Morgenthau, his seldom quoted ideas on moral crisis of modernity, religion, and the crisis in International Relations discipline. Using the distinction by Daniel Drezner between public intellectual and opinion influencer (with academics sadly absent from the latter category), this concluding essay in a special symposium of essays in honor of Philpott encourages him to chart his ideas of the future of IR in general, the subfield of religion and IR, and his future work

ESSAYS IN HONOR OF DANIEL PHILPOTT: AN INTRODUCTION IN TWO PARTS

Annual competitions for Distinguished Scholar Award are a highlight of activities of sections and caucuses of the International Studies Association (ISA). The 2021 award by the Religion and International Relations section (REL) of the ISA to Professor Daniel Philpott generated unusual enthusiasm. This was expressed during the ISA convention roundtable event honoring Dr. Philpott, and also in the ten essays in this special symposium of essays. They identify Dr. Philpott's multifaced contributions, each singling out important aspects of his work, which are also summarized in an introductory video. The essays are followed by an article from Dr. Philpott reflecting on the study of religion and the future of the field

The ‘New Cold War’ in ‘critical International Relations studies’

In the historiography of the Cold War a small but active group of American historians influenced by New Left radicalism rejected the view prevailing in the USA at the time in regard to the assignation of responsibility for the beginning and continuation of the Cold War.1 Although their reasoning took them along different routes and via different perceptions as to key dates and events, there were certain features all US revisionists had in common (some more generally recognized than others). Heavily involved as they were in the analysis of the US socio-economic system, the Soviet Union was largely left out of their concerns and it was the United States who had been found the ‘guilty’ party. The revisionists, of course inadvertently, corroborated Soviet conclusions, a fact gratefully acknowledged by Soviet writers.