https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6865-900X
![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
Abstract
This paper explores whether interreligious dialogue (IRD) is employed by state actors that may be perceived as authoritarian as a form of window dressing, or dialogue washing. Two examples are chosen, the King Abdullah International Centre for Intercultural and Interreligious Dialogue (KAICIID), and Singapore’s International Conference on Cohesive Societies (ICCS). It is argued that such examples exemplify IRD as track 1.5 diplomacy, and the context means they veer towards performing dialogue as social cohesion. While criticisms of each are raised, it is argued that the accusation of dialogue-washing is unfounded and that useful IRD, social cohesion, or peacebuilding work emerges from each which accords with the interests of the countries involved and aligns with the nature of IRD under track 1.5 diplomacy.
Notes
1 Many conceptual and practical problems arise when we assume that there are discrete things we can identify as “religions”, or that there is an a priori “religious” domain, especially in contradistinction to a “secular” domain. The usage here is more descriptive of how “religion” appears within policy and IR contexts, but a critical lens should underlie this, see Hedges (Citation2021b, 19–43, 373–97, 422–24).
2 It is not the paper’s task to determine whether they are or not, rather that such a perception exists is important. Certainly, the author would argue that such a characteristic may not apply to Singapore. While paternalism has, arguably, marked the ruling party since independence, it has been described as having a “competitive” system (Ortmann Citation2011), while others term it a “soft authoritarianism” (Roy Citation1994). It is beyond the scope of this paper to address this at length.
3 This is not state backed, but has arguably some aspects of 1.5 track diplomacy as figures such as Queen Rania of Jordan (2018, Toronto) and the Dalai Lama (1993, Chicago; 2018, Toronto) have given prominent speeches.
4 An earlier version of this paper included this example.
5 The author wishes to thank the three anonymous reviewers and the journal editor for useful feedback in shaping a more focused paper.
6 Patrice Brodeur and Mohamed Abu-Nimer were initially attached as Senior Advisors, and hold the role of Senior Consultants. Karsten Lehmann was Head of Social Sciences and Statistics.
7 Some notes on IRD and IR as performative are made in this paper, but for a fuller discussion on this, see (Hedges Citation2023).
8 I have been told by academic colleagues that they would refuse to work with KAICIID because of its association with the Saudi regime. Names and locations are reserved for anonymity.
9 A Christian and Western dynamic shape IRD, see (Halafoff Citation2013, 35–54; Amos Citation2015; Hedges Citation2021b, 327–33).
10 The current author was the key academic consultant for ICCS in both 2019 and 2022.
11 The ten religions of Singapore are those recognised by the Interreligious Organisation of Singapore (as listed: Bahai Faith, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Sikhism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism), relating also to those on the Presidential Council on Religious Harmony which advises the government on religious and interreligious relations.
12 A survey released at ICCS 2022 undertaken by RSIS showed how representative thought leaders from the ten ASEAN member states viewed the state of social cohesion both in their own countries and across the region, and it indicated that, overall, Singapore was seen as the most cohesive nation (Jerard, Suresh, and Hedges Citation2022).
13 In 2022, the plenaries went under the titles of “How Faith Can Bridge Divides”, “How Diversity Can be Harnessed for the Common Good”, and “How Technology can be Leveraged to Foster Mutual Trust,” and they remained targeted in terms of Faith, Identity (with the nomenclature “diversity”), and cohesion (technology being the lens to see how cohesion or “mutual trust” could be built).
14 It was a conscious decision of the organizers not to replicate speakers, and so while some speakers moved between plenary and breakout sessions between 2019 and 2022, for instance the British Sikh leader Jasvir Singh was a breakout speaker in 2019 and on the Cohesion plenary in 2022, or moved between being speakers and moderators, excepting Alderdice, no other replication took place (the current author also moderated in both 2019 and 2022, but in the latter in his role as a standby due to one moderator becoming ill).
15 See note 3.
16 My usage is very different from Pilon’s. Moreover, the quote is not actually Zhuangzi but Thomas Merton’s rendering of a poem Zhuangzi (possibly apocryphally) ascribes to Confucius (Merton Citation1965, 53).
17 It is notable that Singapore’s IRO was actually founded post-WWII with an explicit peacebuilding agenda (Hedges and Mohamed Taib Citation2019).
18 To further exemplify this with an anecdote, one local interfaith activist told the author that until undertaking a course he teaches entitled “Dialogue: Interreligious Encounters and Peacebuilding”, she did not realised that there was a theological component to IRD and that it did not simply mean social cohesion work.
19 Details of this can be found here: https://www.iccs.sg/programme-and-speakers/sessions/breakout-identity-3/.
20 Information from the author’s role in both events.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Paul Hedges
Paul Hedges is Associate Professor in the SRP Programme, RSIS, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. He has been a Visiting Fellow at Clare Hall, Cambridge, and Visiting Lecturer at Uppsala University. His research areas include interreligious studies and theory and method in the study of religion. He has published fourteen books and over eighty academic papers. His latest books are: Understanding Religion: Theories and Methods for Studying Religiously Diverse Societies (2021) and Religious Hatred: Prejudice, Islamophobia, and Antisemitism in Global Context (2021).