Silberman6

540 PSYCHOLOGY OF RELIGION AND APPLIED AREAS

Wuthnow, 2003). This is clearly true in the conrext of national and International rela-tions where religion has been described as the "missing dimension” because of the unfor-tnnate tendency of scholars, policymakers, and diplomats to disregard the role of religion in facilirating both confiicts and their resolutions {Johnsron, 2001; Johnston &C Sampson, 1994; Rubin, 1994). This neglect is particuiarly surprising and disturbing considering the following fncts: (1) religiously morivated national and International confiicts are very prevalent (Fox, 2004), and religious vio!ence is described by experts on terrorism as being morę incense and leading to morę fatalities than the reiatively morę discriminating and less lethal incidents of vio!ence committed by secular terrorist organizations (Appleby, 2000; Hoffman, 1998; Stern, 1999); (2) the number and impact of national and interna-tional intervention mediation and reconciliation efforts based on religious values is in-creasing (Silberman et al., 2005), and (3) religious leaders such as the Dalai Lama, Pope John Paul II, and Osama bin Laden are being viewed as some of the most influential peo-ple in the world today [Time, 2004).

Research and Policy Recommendatlons

First, it seems to me that the productivity of the meaning-system approach to the study of religion, as demonstrated in this chapter and in the Journal of Social Issues special inter-disciplinary, multi-method issue on religion (Silberman, 2005b), suggests the use of this approach for futurę interdisciplinary theoretical and applied research on the role of religion in national and international relations and in many other contexts {Silberman, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c). Since there might be few, if any, important political events that are morivated purely by religion (Fox, 2001), it is important to continue to explore in a sys-tematic way and from an interdisciplinary multimethod perspective the contextual factors (e.g., the social, political, cconomic, and historical factors, and rhe psychological vari-ables) that influence the role of religion as a meaning system in national and international relations. For example, futurę research needs to further exp!ore the context variables that facilirate religions’ support of the status quo or their opposition to it (Martin, 2005; Roccas, 2005; Roccas &£ Schwartz, 1997; see Fox, 1999, and Silberman et al., 2005 for revie\vs). In a simśiar way it is necessary to shed morę light on conditions that can influence whether religious systems develop in violent or peaceful ways (Appleby, 2000; Nepstad, 2004; Silberman et al., 2005 for a review). In this context Eidelson and Eidelson (2003) identified fivc belief domains, namely, superiority, injustice, vulnerability, distrust, and helplessness, as particuiarly important for further study of beliefs thafrpropel groups toward confiicts. Some forms of religious meaning systems may be related positive!y to beliefs regarding superiority (e.g., Allport, 1966) and negatively to beliefs regarding hopelessness (Silberman et al., 2001; Silberman, 2004). It would be very interesting to ex-plore the relations of religion to the other three beliefs and the extent to which the contri-bution of religion to confiicts is mediated by these beliefs.

Such research on contextuai and psychological factors that influence the role of religion in national and international relations could contribute to a variety of fields within the psychology of religion and beyond. For example, it could contribute significantly to both research on religious violence and terrorism (e.g., Juergensmeyer, 2003; Kimball, 2002) and to generał research on processes involved in violent group confiicts and their resolutions (e.g., Adams, 2000; Coleman, 2000; de Rivera, 2004; Gaertner, Dovidio, Nier, Ward, & Banker, 1999; Moghaddam, 2005; Moghaddam Marsella, 2004; Staub, 2004; Sternberg, 2003; Yolkan, Julius, & Monmlle, 1990; Zimbardo, 2001).

541

Religious Vio!ence, Terrorism, and Peace

The second recommendation is for intensive national and international collaboration between researchers, policymakers, and religious leaders for the benefir of the larger soci-ety. For example, such collaboration could be productive in activi$m for rhose most in need in society (Maton et al., 2005; Pargament et a!., 2005), as wel! as in national and in-rernacional efforts to so!ve ethno-religious confiicts and to react to religious violence and rerrorism. Several morę specific recommendations are mentioned below. (See also Silberman, 2005a, 2005b; Silberman et al., 2005).

Conflict Resolution Efforts

Psychologists could contribute very significantly to the understanding and resolution of national and international confiicts where rtligion is a factor. First, they could combine existing knowledge of conflict and conflict resolution theories wich knowledge about religion as a meaning system to deve!op conflict resolution theories and strategies that take into account the religious background of the participants (Gopin, 2000). For example, third-party mediators (Kressel, 2000) should be encouraged to learn about the religious systems of the involved parties so that the mediators can help the parties understand the role of their religions both in the facilitation of the confiicts and as one source for mutu-ally acceptable Solutions for their confiicts. Morę specifically, mediators could, on the one hand, inerease the awareness of the parties to patterns within their religions that may fa-cilitate the confiicts, such as the selection of targets for exclusion. On the other hand, they could encourage the parties to search their religious systems for values such as reci-procity, human equality, shared community, fallibility, and nonvio!ence rhar, according to Deutsch (2000), underline constructive conflict resolution. They could also help rhem find common ground (Bunker, 2000; Sraub, 2004) for goals regarding desired world change or means to achieve them. Beyond that, psychologists as mediators of confiicts could be particuiarly helpful in developing crcative ways ro stop morał disengagement processes that are facilitated by religion. For exampte, by emphasizing ro the parties the religious message that life is sacred and that ail people are created in the image of God, they could overcome religious messages of prejudice and discrimination. Finally, they could further explore the psychological processes that are involved in religiously based rituals of reconciliation such as the Arab sulb, and incorporate variations of such riruals into the conflict resolution process (Gopin, 2002).

Second, psychologists could help evaluate exisring national and international inter-faith dialogue programs, which have become an increasingly popular response to religious confiicts, as was done recently by the Religion and Peacemaking lnitiative of the U.S. Institute of Peace (Garfinkel, 2004).

Third, psychologists could contribute to the shaping of foreign policies by eyaluating their effectiveness from a psychological point of view and by shedding light on the way these policies are perceived withih different religious systems. They could also help the evaluation of different meaning systems (e.g., the four major ideological positions in the Musłim world today: fundamentalist, traditionalist, moderate, and secularist; Benard, 2004) in terms of their potential to communicate peacefully wirh the Western world.

Prevention of Religious Terrorism and Fighting against It

Psychologists, through their analyses of the conditions and the processes that facilitate religious terrorism, could contribute both to the prevention of religious rerrorism and to

!

i i

i i

• i

^; i i i