A distinction is drawn between'religious geopolitics' and the 'geopolitics of religion' research published thus far has limited thematic and topical scope. Tristan sturm argues there is more to religion and geopolitics than this single dualistic event.
Original Description:
Original Title
Sturm, Tristan - The Future of Religious Geopolitics - Towards a Research and Theory Agenda
A distinction is drawn between'religious geopolitics' and the 'geopolitics of religion' research published thus far has limited thematic and topical scope. Tristan sturm argues there is more to religion and geopolitics than this single dualistic event.
A distinction is drawn between'religious geopolitics' and the 'geopolitics of religion' research published thus far has limited thematic and topical scope. Tristan sturm argues there is more to religion and geopolitics than this single dualistic event.
Tristan Sturm Geography Main Ofce, N430 Ross Building, York University, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M3J 1P3 Email: tristan.sturm@gmail.com Revised manuscript received 21 February 2013 In this introduction to a special section on the future for research on the topic of religion and geopolitics, some terminological, theoretical, methodological and analytical possibilities are set out. A distinction is drawn between religious geopolitics and the geopolitics of religion. Research published thus far on this intersection has limited thematic and topical scope. I further this critique by suggesting new theoretical and methodological possibilities by pointing out the poverty of thinking in the dualistic terms, religion/ secular. I conclude this introduction by providing four analytical approaches to the intersection between religion and geopolitics. The essays in this special section are attempts to present future coherence to this growing literature but also illustrate the many divergent possibilities. Key words: religious geopolitics, geopolitics of religion, international relations, critical geopolitics Reassembling religion and geopolitics This short special section concerns the nascent interest in religion in political geography generally and critical geo- politics specically (Secor 2001; Nyroos 2001; Agnew 2006 2010; Dittmer 2007; Dittmer and Sturm 2010; Megoran 2010). Such interest has emerged on the coat- tails of similar concerns in international relations, speci- cally in the wake of 11 September 2001 and the so-called war on terror (Philpott 2002; Hatzopoulous and Petito 2003; Fox and Sandler 2006). I argue there is more to religion and geopolitics than this single dualistic event. The interest recently in critical geopolitics has been one focused on both practical-governmental inuence on domestic and foreign imaginations of borders, attributions of enchantment, motive and signicance (especially eco- nomic and post-colonial) to and by different social groups, and how national imaginations have been imbri- cated into religious doctrine. What is lacking is any kind of sustained research agenda that takes religious move- ments seriously rather than reporting on the newest fashionable geopolitical worldview or event that needs to be debunked of its geographical assumptions. David Newman, the co-editor of the journal Geopolitics, recently echoed this concern for incorporating religion as a category of analysis in geopolitics. When asked about the future of geopolitics, he wrote, We dont understand enough about the geopolitical and global underpinnings of religion and, more recently, religious fundamentalism (2012, np). But to suggest religion is merely an instru- mental underpinning is to forget its own rich histories, texts, performances, cultures and the way secular moder- nity attempts to temporalise religion by separating it from politics as tradition. This is not to advocate a purely cultural perspective that ignores the working of power behind and beyond religion, but rather to allow a per- spective that also understands religion as power in its own discourse and therefore its own geopolitics as well as the powerful underpinnings of religious politics inseparably related to it. While much has been written recently, there has been little in the way of framing the subject, dening its terms and potential subject matter, reviewing the literature and especially proposing new lines of inquiry (cf. Dijkink 2006; Dittmer 2007). The rst two sections of this intro- duction attempt to dene the terms of analysis, frame the subject matter and illustrate how the essays in this issue contribute to the enrichment of the intersection of religion and geopolitics. In the last section of this introduction, the terms reli- gion and geopolitics, what has been variously called religeopolitics or religious geopolitics, are explored analytically. It is argued that there are at least four ways to study religious geopolitics at a broad analytical level, bs_bs_banner Area (2013) 45.2, 134140 doi: 10.1111/area.12028 Area Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 134140, 2013 ISSN 0004-0894 2013 The Author. Area 2013 Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) each having its own promise and pitfalls. This introduction rst provides some terminological suggestions as well as a critique of the literature thus far, and some methodologi- cal and theoretical suggestions for future research. A terminological distinction should be made between the geopolitics of religion and religious geopolitics (Sturm and Wilford forthcoming). The former refers to conicts between actors who are clearly and rather unproblematically concerned with theologically inspired representations of how the world should be divided. The latter refers to plainly secular geopolitical discourse and action (the underpinnings Newman refers to above) that nevertheless can be seen to employ political-theological vocabularies, symbols and action. Concerning the latter, I draw on the well-known formulation of the German political and legal theorist Carl Schmitt that all signicant concepts of the modern theory of the state are secularised theological concepts (1985, 36; cf. Asad 1999; Taubes 2009 [1947]). At least four elements have emerged to date that have pigeonholed religious geopolitics and the geopolitics of religion. First, researchers have begun to pay serious attention to apocalyptic forms of religion and their geo- political consequences. Second, American evangelical Christian foreign policy has begun to serve as a template for religious geopolitics in a post-secular Western interna- tional system. Third, religion has come to be seen as another type of political and cultural phenomenon for critical geopolitics, with researchers often employing the same theories used to unveil the motivations of all other social movements; and fourth, religion has come to be seen as a binary opposite to a perceived secular moder- nity. A rise in religious geopolitics, then, is seen to portend a diminution in secular democracy (Mignolo 2002; Yorgason and Della Dora 2009; Wilford 2010). Dittmer and Sturms (2010) edited volume is in some ways a culmination of these trends in empirical form and because of this it should be clear that new lines of inquiry are necessary. Neglected questions, theories, methods and topical matter are addressed in this special section by Nick Megoran, Elizabeth Olson, Janette Habashi and Fiona McConnell, including concerns with transnationalism, children, postcolonialism and the geopolitics of gender, Revelation as resistance, imperial secularisation, and other religions besides Christianity Islam and Buddhism. New methods like ethnography and interviews, as well as new lines of inquiry, are introduced in this special section. These new explorations need to enter the literature to open up new paths of theoretical and empirical inquiry for this burgeoning interest in religion and geopolitics. I briey introduce each paper below as they help expand the literature of religious geopolitics and the geopolitics of religion. While Schmitts secularisation theory of political lan- guage serves our terminological distinction above, he took this theory too far by seeing the revolutionary powers of apocalyptic thinking as limited only by the katechon, the restrainer [who] holds back the end of the world, which to him was the Third Reich, thus justifying fascist power by naturalising history through religious idiom (Schmitt 2003, 59). Nick Megorans paper in the special section sees no such limit. Making messy the neat cat- egorical division between religious geopolitics and the geopolitics of religion, Megoran argues that the critical geopolitics scholarship thus far criticising apocalyptic thought might better be turned around to see the progres- sive force of apocalyptic and millennial thinking. Short of suggesting apocalyptic thought is the spirit of history as Karl Lowith (1949) would have it, he argues the eschato- logical visionaries of the Bible had rather progressive revolutionary ideas, ones that have been misinterpreted to justify violence today by more fundamentalist groups. But on the whole if contextualised, such future millennial thinking could break through Schmitts katechon. Paral- leling Megorans argument, Jacob Taubes criticised Schmitt, If revolution points to nothing beyond itself, it will end in a movement, dynamic in nature but leading into the abyss (2009 [1947], 11). Elizabeth Olson also contributes to the literature by critiquing its topical focus, especially in how gender ques- tions have been ignored. Olsons contribution pushes open the geopolitics of gender a vastly under theorised and discussed issue within critical geopolitics by using Judith Butlers recent deconstruction of how state institu- tions discipline Muslim bodies by gendering them tempo- rally through a dualism of tradition/progress. Judith Butlers claim is that state secularism authenticates reli- gious practices as foundationally civilisational and perhaps universal as it is cast as progressive, thereby disciplining bodies through a geopolitics of modernity. But Olson does so by expanding Butlers claim to recog- nise the way multinational religious institutions like the Catholic Church also enact disciplinary mechanisms on the gendered body. Olson provides an empirical explana- tion both using a discourse analysis of the Holy Sees recent Letter to the Bishops . . . (2004) as it represents the progressive ideas of the Church and also expanding the methodological boundaries of the geopolitics of religion by incorporating a short ethnographic sketch of how the gender logic of the Catholic Church plays out between Latin American nuns and priests. Janette Habashis paper points out the limits to topics available for discourse analysis by offering an ethnogra- phy of yet another under-discussed topic: childrens geo- politics. She does this by discussing the relationship between Islam and the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and how the lived experience of both produces a specic The future of religious geopolitics 135 Area Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 134140, 2013 ISSN 0004-0894 2013 The Author. Area 2013 Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) geopolitical worldview of the war among young people. Further, and unlike much of research on the geopolitics of religion that has thus far privileged secular thought by criticising religious geopolitics, Habashi shows how Islamic idioms give children agency to resist the geopo- litical agenda of the occupation. Fiona McConnells paper, like Habashis, pushes the topical envelope from the common Christian geopolitics that is most often studied, to other religions like Islam, in the case of Habashi, and Buddhism for McConnell. McConnell takes an historical approach to illustrate that Tibetan Buddhism is not underpinned by politics but rather how Buddhist values and political policies are inseparably entwined. McConnell argues that Buddhism is not a foil for politics and that Tibetan policy is de facto confessionalism, therefore she is studying religion on its own terms despite the Chinese governments attempts to separate the two in an attempt to delegitimise the Dalai Lama and his successor as the religio-political leader of Tibet. By exploring questions of legitimacy, agency and authority, McConnell refuses the Western modern secular penchant to geopolitically transpose a separation of reli- gion and politics, especially in so far as this is done by temporalising Buddhism as traditional practice and (geo)politics as modern reason. Religion, geopolitics and the secular The subeld of religion and geopolitics is relatively incho- ate, not least because the category of religion(s) is too broad as a designation because each religion is made up of divergent interpretations and performances. This vari- ance makes it difcult to write of Christianity, for example, and therefore requires methodological and theoretical care. The inclusion in this volume of anthro- pological methods and themes has helped focus attention on racial and ethnic geographical difference as well as the locality of global ows of religion. Within the geography of religion literature such ethnography and participant observation has been utilised but the focus has been on community and identity formation and in particular the urban manifestation of these relations. This literature rarely engages with the political or power relations that concerns work in critical geopolitics and therefore could be seen as apolitical, apologetic or even anti-political. This despite religion having real political inuence, effects and, depending on ones theoretical perspective, under- pinnings. As an example of this geopolitics, the political scientist, Stuart Croft (2007, 692) argues that the Christian Right has developed its own views on foreign policy that challenge Realist, Liberal and Marxist positions, what he terms evangelical foreign policy. Indeed religion is returning to the public sphere or rather never left; perhaps the secular public is even a product of religious vocabu- laries, norms and values (Cloke 2010; Calhoun 2011). This imbrication of religion and politics should suggest the need for a focused analysis of religious geopolitics and the geopolitics of religion. This volume attempts to make present the political and power-laden manifestations of religion and its production of geographies of fear, danger, power, (in)security and ultimately qualications of/on difference. Modern concerns with geopolitics have excluded the study of religion generally because of the assumption that the modern world is a secular one and that religion is a backwater on decline (Berger 1999). Recent work on secularism and secularisation theory has challenged this assumption, although with limited engagement within geography (cf. Wilford 2010; Kong 2010). The assumption is that by replacing religious faith with reason, modernity has empowered us to interpret and contest meaning as opposed to merely accepting religions supposedly sanctied directives. Essentially this secularisation-as- differentiation argument views religious reasons as ille- gitimate in the political sphere and thus need secular justication (Wilford 2010). Such a conception assumes that politics is uncertain, so that any claims of religious knowledge or inuence in politics are spurious (Rosenberg and Harding 2005). Recent concerns have shifted toward the postsecular, a move beyond the secu- lars reductive assumptions about modern political thoughts and specically the growing visibility of religions in the public sphere, particularly as we might imagine an anti-geopolitics critical of imprisonment, torture and war that sees religious belief as multiple, pervasive and com- plementary. As part of the postsecular turn, there has been an explosion of interest on the concept of enchantment that breaks with the Weberian iron cage of secularism by positing that religion is much more pervasive in moder- nity and (geo)political forms than the last 50 years of social science has allowed. This includes renewed interest in Adorno and Horkheimers (1979) theorisations that attempt to collapse the binary modernity/myth (cf. Bennett 2001; McAlister 2008; Saler 2006) and also a renewed interest in the supposedly secular academy of theology and theological insights (Connolly 2008). Religion is not lived as a thing apart from other socio- cultural phenomena; it can be studied analytically sepa- rate from politics, for example, but it is always connected to it. It is intimately wrapped into political systems and domains, society and economy. It does not operate in daily life as an independently separate variable, yet it can still be analytically separated. Therefore it is not essential- ist to talk about typical features of religion; we can speak of regularities without metaphysical classication of time- less or geographically static ontological things. We can speak, then, of characteristic features. Typically theories of religion in religious studies followed four main pursuits: 136 Sturm Area Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 134140, 2013 ISSN 0004-0894 2013 The Author. Area 2013 Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) 1 the specicity of religions (modes of operation); 2 the origins of religions (their emergence); 3 the functions of religions (the way they relate); and 4 the structure of religion (mechanisms and regularities). The concern for geographers is generally not why but rather how religions now appear to be the way they are, and how they perform a geopolitics of difference. The concern for the authors within this special section has been with performances rather than beliefs, which sug- gests that almost anything, geopolitics included, can be performatively religious. Recent work in interdisciplinary religious studies sug- gests that the eld of political geography has much to gain and much to offer by opening up pathways between reli- gion and geopolitics. For example, an emphasis on prac- tice as opposed to doctrine, using both Pierre Bourdieu (1977) and Talal Asad (1993) among others, has led to some fruitful engagements with religion that see it as a more legitimate and complex movement than the relent- less knife of critical geopolitics that often focuses on text would allow. Furthermore, non-representational theory and affect disseminating from geography in the last 10 years have received short shrift in political geography generally and have much to offer religious geopolitics and the geopolitics of religion, this despite the clear interaction between religion, affect and politics (Carter and McCormack 2006; Sturm and Wilford forthcoming). Four analytical frames: explanation, element, typology, analogy As a general contribution to the analytics of religion and geopolitics, this introduction considers four analytical lines of inquiry for future research at the intersection of religion and geopolitics. This is not to encourage future research to be slotted into these categories but rather to have writers acknowledge the epistemology of their research. I borrow three of these categories from Roger Brubakers (2006) analytical approach to the connection between religion and nationalism. The rst is that religion might be able to explain something about geopolitics, particularly its origins. The second would explore how religion is integral to geopolitical imaginations, that it is often an element of geopolitical constructions. The third would be that there is a particular religious typology of geopolitics analytically separate from the tripartite practi- cal, formal and popular that requires new methods and theories. And the fourth approach is an analogous con- struction religion as geopolitics. Such an analytical strat- egy might prove helpful to organise future research by illustrating new analytical paths and old pitfalls. In no way should religion and geopolitics be conned to these ana- lytics, nor are these analytics mutually exclusive. This is merely an attempt to widen discussion and debate and perhaps bring some coherence to this exciting line of inquiry in critical geopolitics. Explain: origins and power The rst way to study the relationship is that religion explains something about geopolitics. This of course can take many forms depending on what it is about geopoli- tics that is being explained and what part of religion is doing that explanation. Here I focus on the origins of geopolitics. Geopolitical imaginations long preceded its coining by Rudoph Kjellen in 1899. In Kjellens time, geopoliticians most commonly employed geography for military and/or nationalistic purposes. Geopolitics was used to make stra- tegic predictions based on what was perceived to be rooted in physical geographical features, distance, and territory. The socio-cultural elements like religion were not seen as variables within the practice of geopolitics, despite reli- gious assumptions entering their calculations through per- sonal beliefs or cultural norms about other places (see Megoran 2013, this issue, on what might be called the historical beginnings of apocalyptic geopolitics). I use Hobbess Leviathan to illustrate this point. Hobbes is often read in a selective and presentist way to claim that decisions of the state should not be decided by moral inuence but rather by rational interest. However, Hobbes Leviathan devoted two of the four books to reli- gion. While Books I and II, Of Man and Of Common- Wealth are most often read and quoted, the little read and much less studied Books III and IV, Of a Christian Common-Wealth and Of the Kingdome of Darknesse, receive little attention. Realist scholarship has long ignored how Hobbes himself was stuck in a theist millen- nial trap within the temporal frame of his time. Time was still thought of as contiguous, not progressing forward, but stuck in a cycle of life that could only change with Christs disrupting return (Koselleck 2004). Following Martel (2004), Hobbes himself called into question absolute sov- ereignty, seeing the inter-state system and absolute terri- torial sovereignty as one point en route to a cosmopolitan, and Christian, Kingdom of God. Therefore, rather than a presentist reading of Hobbes secular perspective, we must understand the beginnings of geopolitical thought as having its roots in religious thought. This said, we should not confuse the result with the origin of the phenomenon, that is, just because geo- politics arose from a Hobbesian world on the verge of Renaissance humanism, Enlightenment imaginations of nature and Hegelian ideas of history, all of which are movements toward a theory of secularism. Geopolitics, as John Agnew (2003) points out, may precede not only its name but also may have its roots in religious methods of exclusion and division. The future of religious geopolitics 137 Area Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 134140, 2013 ISSN 0004-0894 2013 The Author. Area 2013 Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) An element of geopolitics Analysing the connection between religion and geopoli- tics sees religion not as something outside of geopolitics that helps to explain it, but as something that is inter- twined with geopolitics as to be part of the phenomenon. Religion does not necessarily dene the geopolitical imagination, but it supplies myths that are central to geo- political imaginations. But it may not make sense to sepa- rate out religion from geopolitics, as it is often an essential part that makes up geopolitical thought, as is language, race, environment, economics and ethnicity. To remove one or more of these would leave geopolitics empty (see McConnell 2013, this issue, on the inseparability of reli- gion and politics). Perhaps the most obvious way to study religion as being part of geopolitics is through language. It has long been hinted at that religion has had much inuence from American geopolitical and security regimes to wider European assemblages. In Carl Schmitts formulation, he writes, all signicant concepts of the modern theory of the state are secularised theological concepts . . . the omnipotent God became the omnipotent law giver. (1985, 36) Thus Schmitt, although not talking about geopolitics, argues that religious ideas can be secularised, in his case, the theory of the state had a theological pedigree. But beyond the analogies that Schmitt makes clear here, it is necessary to outline the social formations in which they occurred. It is not necessarily then, as Asad (1999) avers, that secular ideas are just transplanted religious ideas. Using religious tropes and motifs for political purposes is not new, from Cromwells declaration of the English nation by the hand of God to Hitlers use of Christianity, there are political consequences hiding under a veil of religious language often as a last resort for legitimacy (Shapiro 1984). We must ask, what authority does reli- gious voice have in geopolitics, does it simply enrich the language? And how is religious language merely a meta- phor in a language inseparable from religious references? Therefore, at what point is religiously tinged language secular? And how is religious language, beyond the inten- tions of the speaker, received? If anything, we can surmise that a binary between religious and secular is far too simplistic, especially in pluralistic societies like the USA. One cannot remove religion or relegate it to the private sphere; this only puts a foil on a persistent and present connection (see Olson 2013, this issue, on the religiosity of the secular). To avoid the question of what is meant by employing religiously tinged language we can move to questions of reception and affect. Compassion, fear, anger, anxiety and other performances can mobilise opinion and action. Ahmed (2004) further argues that emotions are integral to the analysis of politics because they are not individual but are rather historically and culturally contingent. Therefore they are not universal, but rather have very specic geog- raphies and geo-politics (cf. Moisi 2010). To conclude, while there will always be elements of religion within a geopolitical make up, what counts as religion is not always apparent and requires different methods and theories. Religious geopolitics: typology The claim that there can be a typology called religious geopolitics does not simply mean that geopolitical rheto- ric is infused with religious imagery, or that geopolitical imaginations are cast and created in religiously inspired language. It is not simply a claim about religeopolitical interpenetration or resonance. Thus the concern here is not necessarily rhetorical, but rather the composition and subject matter. The claim would be that there is a type of religious geopolitics, fundamentally different from secular geopolitics. While such a formulation is fraught with problems from the start concerning what counts as reli- gious and what secular, we can assume a religious actor claims to speak in the name of their religion is performing for that cause (see Habashi 2013, this issue, on Palestinian childrens Islamic geopolitics). Implicit in ignoring religion in international relations and geopolitics is a theory of secularisation that posits that the roots of the sovereign state system emerged from the differentiation of religion. Subsequently it is thought that the fertile ground of Enlightenment-led modernity was dened by a rise in non-religious ethics and the decline of religious actors. However, recent challenges to secular modernity by cultural theorists point out that modernity is founded on its own religious myths and that there is a pervasive enchantment that runs through all modernity at every scale from the body to the state. The distinctions between myth/modernity, religion/secular, enchantment/ enlightenment, rational/emotional are largely set up against their binary to justify their own foundation (Saler 2006). So-called secular society, and by extension geo- politics, is infused with enchanted and mythical beliefs. Modernity itself is built on Christian myths not necessarily by contrast, but assumed within itself. Given Western societys pervasive enchantment, the typology of what might be called religious geopolitics can be read as almost anything. Analogous constructions: religion as geopolitics The last way to study the connection is through analogy. Geopolitics and religion are both ways of seeing the world. Geopolitics is a perspective on the world, a way of seeing the world, not a thing in the world: a way of expressing interests, categorising the world and signifying events. Religion too, analogous to geopolitics, can serve these same functions. 138 Sturm Area Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 134140, 2013 ISSN 0004-0894 2013 The Author. Area 2013 Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) Durkheim argued that religions essence is its sacrali- sation of the social itself. Therefore religion has attached itself to another kind of social object, that of geopolitics. However, are the social processes of cohesion, identica- tion, othering the same as in the geopolitical imagination? Geopolitics satises a simple psychological function for understanding the world and its processes. It, like religion, is an arena for grand narratives that are bigger than an individuals everyday life. Religion, like geopolitics, can be a mode of identifying with and excluding others. While geopolitics is not a performative arena for overcoming death or achieving heavenly salvation, it is often a site for formulating an earthly or immanent redemption, that if the worlds processes can be dened and mapped in this or that way, then we can save ourselves. One could characterise the similarities between the terms as worldviews that are inevitably politicised and called upon to interpret world processes and how to act in the world religion as a form of geopolitics. Both derive from and form a set of myths and truths about the world, for which one must have faith. This analogous analytic may potentially be fruitful at the level of identity, where both geopolitics and religion rely on a way of seeing the world and a way to identify others at a cognitive level. Acknowledgements The author would like to thank Jay Joshi, Tyler McCreary, Rob Sullivan and Justin Wilford for edits and the reviewers for their helpful suggestions. All mistakes or misrepresentations are the authors alone. References Adorno T and Horkheimer M 1979 Dialectic of enlightenment Verso, London Agnew J 2003 Geopolitics: re-visioning world politics 2nd edn Routledge, New York Agnew J 2006 Religion and geopolitics Geopolitics 11 183 91 Agnew J 2010 Deus vult: the geopolitics of the Catholic Church Geopolitics 15 3961 Ahmed S 2004 The cultural politics of emotion Routledge, New York Asad T 1993 Genealogies of religion: discipline and reasons of power in Christianity and Islam The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore MD Asad T 1999 Religion, nation-state, secularism in van der Veer P and Lehmann H eds Nation and religion: perspectives on Europe and Asia Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ 17896 Bennett J 2001 The enchantment of modern life: attachments, crossings, and ethics Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ Berger P 1999 The desecularization of the world: a global overview in Berger P ed The desecularization of the world: resurgent religion and world politics William B Eerdmans, Grand Rapids MI 118 Bourdieu P 1977 Outline of a theory of practice Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Brubaker R 2006 Religion and nationalism: four approaches. Presented to the conference on Nation/religion, Konstanz, 68 July 123 Calhoun C 2011 Afterword: Religions many powers in Mendieta E and Vanantwerpen J eds The power of religion in the public sphere Columbia University Press, New York 11834 Carter S R and McCormack D P 2006 Film, geopolitics and the affective logics of intervention Political Geography 25 22845 Cloke P 2010 Theo-ethics and radical faith-based praxis in the postsecular city in Molendijk A, Beaumont J and Jedan C eds Exploring the postsecular: the religious, the political, and the urban Brill, Leiden 22341 Connolly W E 2008 Capitalism and Christianity, American style Duke University Press, Durham NC Croft S 2007 Thy will be done: the new foreign policy of Americas Christian Right International Politics 44 692710 Dittmer J 2007 Intervention: religious geopolitics Political Geog- raphy 26 7379 Dittmer J and Sturm T eds 2010 Mapping the end times: American evangelical geopolitics and apocalyptic visions Ashgate, Farnham Dijkink G 2006 When geopolitics and religion fuse: a historical perspective Geopolitics 11 192208 Fox J and Sandler S 2006 Bringing religion into international relations Palgrave Macmillan, New York Habashi J 2013 Childrens religious agency: conceptualising Islamic idioms of resistance Area 45 15561 Hatzopoulous P and Petito F eds 2003 Religion in international relations: the return from exile Palgrave Macmillan, New York Kong L 2010 Global shifts, theoretical shifts: changing geogra- phies of religion Progress in Human Geography 34 75576 Koselleck R 2004 Futures past: on the semantics of historical time Columbia University Press, New York Lowith K 1949 Meaning in history: the theological implications of the philosophy of history University of Chicago, Chicago IL Martel J 2004 Strong sovereign, weak messiah: Hobbes and the rhetoric of the Christian Commonwealth Theory and Event doi:10.1353/tae.2005.0051 McAlister M 2008 What is your heart for? Affect and internation- alism in the evangelical public space American Literary History 20 87095 McConnell F 2013 The geopolitics of Buddhist reincarnation: contested futures of Tibetan leadership Area 45 1629 Megoran N 2010 Towards a geography of peace: pacic geopoli- tics and evangelical Christian crusade apologies Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 35 38298 Megoran N 2013 Radical politics and the Apocalypse: activist readings of Revelation Area 45 1417 Mignolo W D 2002 The enduring enchantment: (or the epistemic privilege of modernity and where to go from here) South Atlan- tic Quarterly 101 92754 Moisi D 2010 The geopolitics of emotion: how cultures of fear, humiliation, and hope are reshaping the world Anchor, New York Newman D 2012 IsraelPalestinian conict, peace studies, borders, academia politics Interview by Lv Efferink Explor- ingGeopolitics.org The future of religious geopolitics 139 Area Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 134140, 2013 ISSN 0004-0894 2013 The Author. Area 2013 Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) Nyroos L 2001 Religeopolitics: dissident geopolitics and the fundamentalism of Hamas and Kach Geopolitics 6 13557 Olson E 2013 Gender and geopolitics in secular time Area 45 14854 Philpott D 2002 The challenge of September 11 to secularism in international relations World Politics 55 6695 Rosenberg D and Harding S 2005 Histories of the future Duke University Press, Durham NC Saler M 2006 Modernity and enchantment: a historiographic review The American Historical Review 111 692716 Schmitt C 1985 Political theology MIT Press, Cambridge MA Schmitt C 2003 The Nomos of the Earth in the international law of the Jus Publicum Europaeum Telos Press, New York Secor A 2001 Islamist politics: antisystemic or post-modern movements? Geopolitics 6 11734 Shapiro M J ed 1984 Language and politics New York University Press, New York Sturm T and Wilford J forthcoming Interventions between affect and religious geopolitics Political Geography Taubes J 2009 [1947] Occidental eschatology Stanford University Press, Stanford CA Wilford J 2010 Sacred archipelagos: geographies of seculariza- tion Progress in Human Geography 34 32848 Yorgason E and Della Dora V 2009 Editorial: geography, religion, and emerging paradigms: problematizing the dialogue Social and Cultural Geography 10 62937 140 Sturm Area Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 134140, 2013 ISSN 0004-0894 2013 The Author. Area 2013 Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers)