Silberman1

530 PSYCHOLOCY Or REUGION AND APPLIED AREAS

Keeping rhis in mind, ir is also importanr ro reaiize that exeraplary figures of faith, such as Martin Luther King, jr., Abraham Joshua Heschel, Mohandas Gnndhi, and Mother Theresa, and major organizations of faith have contributed significantly to social change that aims at the correction of injustice and that may be interpreted as a spiritnai attempt to transform the world into a religiously ideał world, that is, to reaiize “God’s kingdom” on earth. Religiously based social action to change society for the better is evi-denced by numerous examples of religiously based charitable activities (e.g., Evans, 1979; Spilka & Bridges, 1992; Waizer, 1982), as well as by polirical acrivism. The latter is cx-emplified in the significant contribution of people of faith and organizations of faith to the mobilizatton of major movements such as the black civil rights movement, Poland’s Solidarity movement, the South African antiapartheid movement, and the movement for Indian independence (Smith, 1996). It can also be seen in interfaith diaiogues among reli-gious leaders in both national and inrernational arenas in order to facilitate the resolution of conflicts and bring about world peace (Appleby, 2000; Carroll, 2002; Gopin, 2000; Silberman er al., 2005).

The above description suggests that the role of religion in national and international relarions is complicated. It raises the issue of how it is possible for religion to play the roles of both vil!ain and hero in national and international relations. Morę specifically, it raises questions such as “What are the agents or the venues through which religion affects national and international relations?” and “What are the processes through which religion can facilitate violence, terrorism, and peace in these contexts?”

This chapter explores these ąuesnons by focusing on the role of religion as a unique system of meaning in national and international conflicts and their resolutions. It starts with a short introduction to the concept of religion as an individual or coilective system of meaning and continues with an analysis of ditferent agents and venues through which religion as a source of meaning can influence national and international relations. Next, it describes processes through which religion as a meaning system can influence either vi-olence or peace. Finally. relevant implicarions for research and policy in the arena of religion are discussed.

RELIGION AS A UNIQUE MEANING SYSTEM

Within the psychological literaturę, meaning systems are usuaily defined as the idiosyn-cratic systems of beliefs that individuals consrruct about themselves, abou^others, about the world, and about their relations to the world. These beliefs or theories allow individu-als to give meaning to the world around them and to their experiences, as well as to set goals, plan activities, and order their behavior (e.g., Eidelson & Eidelson, 2003; Epstein, 1985; Fox, 2001; Higgins, 2000; Park 5C Folkman, 1997; see Silberman, 1999, 2003a, 2005a for reviews).

The idiosyncratic religious meaning system of an individual, in similar ways to non-religious meaning systems, functions as a lens through which reality is perceived and interpreted (Mclntosh, 1995). It can influence the formation of goals for self-regulation, af-fecr emotions, and influence behavior (e.g., Batson, Schoenrade, 6c Ventis, 1993; Emmons, 1999, 2005; Geertz, 1973; James, 1902/1982; Paloutzian 6c Silberman, 2003; Pargamcnt, 1997; Park & Folkman, 1997; Park, 2005, Chapter 16, this vó!ume; Silberman, Higgins, & Dweck, 2000, 2001; Silberman, 1999; see Silberman, 2003a, 2005a, for reviews). Yct religion as a meaning system is unique in that it centers on what

531

Religious Violence, Terrortsm, and Peace

is perceived ro be the sacred (i.e., it centers on concepts of higher powers, such as the divine, God, or the transcendent, which are considered holy and worthy of spccial vener-ation and respect) (cf. Pargament’s definition, 1997, p. 32; Pargament, Magyar, &c Murray-Swank, 2005). Religion as a meaning system is also uniquc both in irs compre-hensiveness (i.e., the rangę of issues to which the system gives meaning) and in its ąuality (i.e., the type of meaning that it offers) (see Silberman, 2005a, 2005b, for reviews). In terms of comprehensiveness, religion offers meaning to history frorn the moment of cre-ation unti! the end of rime, as well as to every aspecr of human life from hirth to death and beyond (Emmons, 2005; Pargament et al., 2005). In terms of quality, religion has been described as unique in its ability to propose answers to life’s deepest questions (Myers, 2000; Pargament et al., 2005; Park, 2005, Chapter 16, this volume). At rimes religion provides answers that offer hope and a-sense of significance to people. However, at other times, it answers these questions in ways that can cause unique difficulties and dis-tress (Kushner, 1989; Pargament et al., 2005). For additional discussion of the nniqueness of religion, see Emmons, 2005; Martin, 2005; Maton, Dodgen, Sto. Domingo £c Larson, 2005; Pargament et al., 2005; Silberman, 2005a; and Silberman et al., 2005).

Religion, as a meaning system that centers on what is perceivcd as sacred, can give special contenr and value to any object (Pargament et al, 2005), as well as to cach of the components of the meaning system, that is, to any belief, contingency, expectation, or goal, as well as ro prescriptive postulates regarding any emotion or action (see Silberman, 2003a, 2005a, for reviews). For exampie, religious systems may include beliefs about hu-mans as being sinful or pious, and of the world as being evil or holy. They can include the contingency that righteous people should be rewarded for their good deeds, while sinners should be punishcd for their bad actions, or contingencies that describe differential rules for trenting ingroup versus outgroup members (Hunsberger 8c Jackson, 2005; Tsang, McCullough, & Hoyt, 2005). They can also give special sacred meaning to any positive or negative emotion (Silberman et al., 2001), as well as to any goal or action ranging from benevolent (Batson et al., 1993; Schwartz Sc Huismans, 1995; Tsang et al., 2005) to destructive ones (e.g., Hunsberger Sc Jackson, 2005; Martin, 2005; see Silberman et al., 2005 for a review).

Religion, like other meaning systems, can be viewed as a malleable system that can be learned, developed, and changed (e.g., see Dweck, 1999; Epstein, 1985; Higgins, 2000 on psychological meaning systems in generał; see Firestone, 1999; Gopin, 2000; Lewis, 2003; Park, 2005; Park, Chapter 16, this volume; and Paloutzian, Chapter 18, this vol-umc on religion; see Silberman, 2003a, 2004, 2005a for reviews). The basie postulates of religious meaning systems can be learned and modified in several ways that can be either conscious or nonconscious (see Silberman, 2004, for a review). For examp!e, individuals can learn beliefs about God and about the naturę of the world chrough the explicit orał or written teachings of religious leaders or through observarion of persons serving as ex-emplars of how to live a spiritually meaningful life (Oman 8c Thoresen, 2003; Silberman, 2003a). Individuals can also change and develop their religious meaning systems in a way similar to that of scientific theories (Kuhn, 1962), by accommodating to observed phe-nomena that seem to disconfirm the basie, often subconscious, postulates of the system (Park, 2005; Park, Chapter 16, this volume). See Silberman (1999, 2005a, 2005c) for excel!ent discussions on the integrative power of the meaning system approach to religion, and Silberman (2005b) for a comprehensive demonstration of this power.

In the context of national and international relations, it is often important to con-sider not only the idiosyneratie meaning systems of individuals but also the religious and

lii