Scholarly Contributions | Peace and Conflict Resolution

RELIGION AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION

Observing a changing world of diminishing borders, increasing cultural pluralism, as well as growing threats of religious and other identity-based conflict, Professor Said was particularly attuned to the “profound need for cross cultural and multi religious studies of peace, peacemaking, coexistence, and reconciliation.”¹ While dominant theoretical and policymaking approaches overlooked the impact of religious identities and values, Said was among the first of a growing number of scholars calling for greater attention to the powerful role of religious and spiritual beliefs in conflict resolution. Said introduced an affirming yet nuanced approach to religion that expands our understanding of peace and conflict resolution in a multireligious world, including how to counter different forms of fundamentalisms.

According to Said, the dominant approaches in the international relations (IR) field – which equate peace with stability and the order of hegemonic power – reflect a modern Western tendency with an underlying assumption that conflict resolution is predicated upon reason and expediency.² In other words, according to this perspective “peace can only reign if reason continues to achieve triumphal victories in an ongoing war against passion – for example, against tribalism, ethnic conflict, and ideologically based competition.”³ Said argues that this approach is dangerous and untenable for two reasons. First, “it breeds complacency, lack of vision and reliance on dominant paradigms which presuppose that peace and human development ‘take care of themselves’ so long as self-interested actors pursue such mundane, minimalist goals as economic growth and physical security.”⁴ Second, such a perspective is often treated as universally valid, implying that non-Western and religious approaches are somehow dangerous and invalid.⁵ Said warns that by not acknowledging the diversity of traditional religious and cultural resources for peace and conflict resolution, such an approach denies “an essential component of healing and social restoration.”⁶

Said was among the first scholars to take religion seriously in their studies of global politics and peace. In his earliest writings, he acknowledged that politics is a cultural activity, and thus not objective but reflecting deeply rooted, unspoken cultural understandings about the nature of human aspirations and relationships (see International Relations Theory). Indeed, religion itself “is a powerful constituent of cultural norms and values.”⁷ As he explained at a 2002 symposium of the US Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Agency on the role of religion in information operations, religion “addresses the most profound existential issues of human life (e.g., freedom and inevitability, fear and faith, security and insecurity, right and wrong, sacred and profane), religion is deeply implicated in individual and social conceptions of peace.”⁸ Said helped develop and held the Mohamed Said Farsi Chair of Islamic Peace at the American University from 1996-2015, one of the very few, if not only, endowments focused on such a theme in an academic setting. During this time, Said led the creation of courses and organized numerous conferences on the topic of spirituality and global politics and religion in conflict resolution, engaging with a growing body of scholars and practitioners who were finding that “religion is a perennial and perhaps inevitable factor in both conflict and conflict resolution.”⁹

Professor Said writes that “religion profoundly influences goal-seeking behavior in conflict situations, by establishing the criteria or frames of reference for determining the rightness and wrongness of events.”¹⁰ While religious and cultural identities can mark perceived differences among people and can be co-opted to fuel conflict, as is seen in the growth of identity-based conflicts, these identities can also provide motivation for forgiveness, reconciliation, and healing. “When utilized constructively,” Said explains, “religion can affect individual and social responses to triggering events through (a) placing the event in a historical, goal-seeking context, (b) providing meaning for events in light of values, goals, and religious identity and (c) offering roles for dealing with conflict through appropriate, affirmative responses based on religious precepts and idealized models or precedents.”¹¹ In Said’s edited volume on reconciliation with Mohammed Abu-Nimer and Saji Prelis, the authors consider the often underutilized but powerful tool of religious and spiritual resources within processes of reconciliation, finding that the use of symbols and rituals, such as mutual prayers, “takes the interaction beyond words and tangible exchanges.”¹² Similarly, in their article on localizing peace, Said and Nathan Funk explain that “peacemaking is not first and foremost a cerebral, analytical process; emotional engagement, symbolism, and ritual play a significant and openly acknowledged role … [creating] a context within which relational transformation becomes both possible and expected.¹³ Religious texts and traditions can provide a powerful framework and vocabulary for peace that draws from a relatable cosmology or worldview, serving as “among the most basic of raw materials for peacebuilding.”¹⁴

Said was particularly interested in Islamic values and traditions of peace, especially given the “persistent frictions” between Muslim and Western societies that long predated the 9/11 terrorist attack. Indeed, having studied these tensions and associated fears of religious fundamentalisms for decades, Said was frequently called upon by policymakers for his in-depth insights and advice (see Middle East and Africa and US Policy Approaches in the Middle East and Africa). Yet despite “the preponderance of studies of religious radicalism and militancy in academic and popular literature,”¹⁵ Said finds that “Islam has much to contribute to intercultural and inter-religious dialogue on the advancement of peace and related humanistic and spiritual values.”¹⁶ His work on Islam and peacemaking identifies approaches that draw on values, social networks, rituals, and historical guidance that have meaning in people’s lives, including historical practices of communal and inter-communal coexistence. While dominant Western approaches to conflict resolution prioritize “problems to be abstracted and solved,” Said finds that “distinctively Islamic approaches resemble other non-Western approaches insofar as they frame conflicts as matters of communal, and not just individual concern and underscore the importance of repairing and maintaining social relationships.”¹⁷ Said’s leadership on the topic helped to build a new subfield on Islamic Peace, which was not an easy task in the years leading up to and following 9/11. Along with other colleagues at American University, he hosted the first international conference on the theme followed by multiple other conferences and meetings that brought critical voices from the Middle East to meet with American scholars and policy makers.

Said also applied his nuanced approach to religion to understand the role of different fundamentalisms. He explained that while “the essence of all the great world religions – Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Taoism, Christianity, Judaism, and others – is mystical unity with the Infinite,” within all these religions one can find “fundamentalist parties who focus on the means and forms rather than the infinite realization, and hence violate unity and peace.”¹⁸ Rejecting the clash of civilizations thesis that portrays “other” cultures as ahistorical and static, in a 2007 paper Said and Funk recognized the importance of understanding “reactive postures of certain religious groups … in relation to the structural and ideological contexts which provoke reaction.”¹⁹ In other words, while religious fundamentalisms are undoubtedly problematic, Said stressed their presence “as a symptom and not a root problem deserving of special stigmatization.”²⁰ Rather, it arises out of frustration as the dominant, globalizing culture does not meet “human needs for meaning, bonding in community, development, and participation.”²¹

Yet Said was quick to point out that fundamentalism is not solely found within the religious domain. Largely secular “political” fundamentalism can be found “when powerful nations in the international system – such as the United States at the present time – tend to react under pressure by adopting reductionist stances.”²² Particularly when it exists within dominant Western culture, this form of fundamentalism emphasizes “materialistic science and its enthusiasm for shaping the world in its own image.”²³ Political and cultural systems of thought are simplified through a “with us or against us” framework that accepts as correct the politically powerful nation’s perspective.²⁴ Whether religious or not, therefore, “fundamentalism is a kind of pathology of culture that arises when a group takes a subset of the basic tenets of a tradition … [and] uses them either to seek security by sealing off others, or to maintain dominance.” Said and Funk explain, “fundamentalism closes off the ability to hear and communicate.”²⁵

To counter fundamentalism, especially between Western and Muslim civilizations, Said points to the possibility of dialogue (see Theory and Practice and Middle East and Africa) and his principles for Cooperative Global Politics, recognizing that cooperation requires identification of shared objectives and an expectation of receiving benefits from the cooperation of others.²⁶ In response to the question of “where do we go from here?” within the emotionally-charged post-9/11 climate, Said talks of the importance of experiencing ourselves in relationship to “a world of collapsing boundaries.”²⁷ To move from a state of hostility and isolation to cooperation and unity, “we need to stimulate reflection, find meaning in mutual tragedies and share our most sacred values, including our conceptions of peace.” Discovering shared experiences and values helps to make reconciliation possible, including through core values within religious narratives. “In the process, we may also derive common responses to shared human suffering.”²⁸

For Professor Said, achieving a new, cooperative global system is indeed possible. But “the essence of such a vision must be felt as well as rationally argued, because it involves both the head and the heart.”²⁹ Said shows that religious and spiritual resources are among the tools that can help people bridge their head and heart.

Notes