Network Governance of Global Religions

Michel S. Laguerre

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2012
• ISBN:
  9781136775390
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Sociology
• Index: Social Sciences

This study seeks to explain three models of network governance embedded in digital practices that the mainstream monotheistic religions—Judaism, Catholic Christianity, and Islam—have used to lead and manage the worldwide distribution of their local nodes, exploring the connection between network governance and its digital embeddedness and showing how the latter enhances the performance of the former.

1 Network Governance of Global Religions

For many years, Jerusalem, Rome, and Mecca have played important roles in the lives of the faithful throughout the global landscape, both directly and indirectly.¹ As global cities, they contain religious and sacred sites that attract pilgrims every year, serve as official or symbolic headquarters of a global religion, are used as a major or the principal seat of governance of a multinational religious organization, and function as a central spiritual or administrative node of the global network of Jewish, Catholic, or Islamic practitioners. Although the history, geography, institutional organization, and theological meaning of these sites are well investigated and documented, very few attempts have been made thus far to compare their forms of governance and inscriptions in the global networks of nations and states apart from their role as holy cities.²

Through missionary work and as a consequence of immigration and diasporization, each of these monotheistic religions has expanded beyond its national borders as a way to spread and share the faith with potential overseas converts.³ The Catholic Church, in particular, has been the most successful in its global outreach and has developed, in the course of its history, an entire department in the Curia in Vatican City devoted to missionary endeavors. This age-old practice of proselytizing in faraway lands led to the creation of a global governance structure that allows the central administrative site to develop a hierarchical organization that networks with, interacts with, and provides leadership to satellite sites.⁴ Just as Jerusalem represents the principal site in the practice of Judaism at home and abroad because of its geographic centrality to the faith, Mecca represents the center of Islamic faith. Muslims face toward Mecca during daily prayer performances and are required to participate in a pilgrimage to the holy city at least once in their lifetime. In this sense, each of these holy cities contributes in many different ways to the governance of a global network and, therefore, constitutes a privileged site for the study of the globalization process, in general, and network governance, in particular.

The exegesis of the global inscription of Jerusalem, Rome, and Mecca will be carried out in this book from the perspective of “network governance” in an effort to compare how each undertakes this essential task in daily practice. Under this rubric, I will stress and investigate three issues: the administrative governance that sustains, reproduces, and expands the interpretation and practice of each faith; the spread of each faith and religious movement throughout the world; and the global infrastructure developed for the network governance of this global religious formation. In the process of transglobalization, these three dimensions are intertwined in such a way that they tend to sustain each other. For example, a historical religious event ties a religion to a physical place and transforms it into a sacred site that commands the attention of brethren located in diverse national sites. The specific place is significant because it becomes the site of an epiphany that feeds subaltern and satellite sites spiritually and because it creates a meaningful physical anchor as a point of geographical reference for the religion or religious movement.

It is my view that for too long, the comparative analysis of the three monotheistic religious systems—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—has been conducted from a doctrinal standpoint, in terms of the similarities and differences of their theological contents and hierarchical clerical architectures. This top-down theological approach is limited by its normative doctrinal orientation. In contrast, this study proceeds from a different angle and analyzes the institutional infrastructures of these multinational organizations that make networked global governance possible, manageable, and efficient. The organizational infrastructure is a key factor that may enhance or impede the practice of good governance, tolerance, and ecumenism.

A series of mechanisms, not all of which are common to Judaism, Catholicism, and Islam, affect global governance at a central site. These administrative seats of governance serve as the depository or organization endowed with authority to preserve the covenant. This is accomplished in myriad ways: through the policing of orthodoxy and orthopraxis of adherents worldwide by silencing theologians, criticizing or even banning unorthodox practices, and upholding ritual practices; through expansion of the faith by proselytizing with the help of missionary work in foreign countries; through the multinational make-up of institutions such as the Curia and the College of Cardinals who elect the popes; through the encadrement of immigrants by transferring homeland priests, imams, or rabbis to take care of them while living in diaspora; through Roman universities (the Gregorian University in Rome, for Catholics), Islamic universities (the Islamic University of Medina, for Muslims), or rabbinical seminaries (the Schechter Institute of Jewish Studies in Jerusalem, for Jews) for the training of future leaders of the religious institution; through the transnational transfers of cadres (assigning a foreign bishop to the Curia, a Curia bishop to a foreign diocese, an imam or a rabbi to an overseas congregation, moving nuncios from one territory to another); through the pope’s “Urbi et Orbi” blessing, on Christmas and Easter Day, to the city of Rome (in his capacity as the bishop of Rome) and to the rest of the globe (in his capacity as the pontiff of the universal church); through the collection, management, redistribution, or reallocation of finances; through the protection of religious sites in the holy cities or lands, the maintenance of old sites, including pilgrimage centers, and the building of new churches, mosques, or synagogues; through the definition of the doxa by councils and synods; through guidance on moral and political issues on world affairs addressed to Christians, national governments, and international organizations; through the periodic publication of papal encyclicals; through a centralized corporate (Catholicism), network (Judaism), or distributed cellular (Islam) governance structure; through the establishment, staffing, or financing of religious organizational structures in foreign lands; through disciplinary actions (the dismissal of priests and bishops, or the excommunication of foreign dignitaries)⁵; through the system of religious taxes (tithes) imposed on or voluntarily given by the brethren for the maintenance of infrastructure, geographical expansion of the faith, defense against individual groups or state detractors or persecutors, sustaining the work of the charitable organizations of the faith, and financial redistribution to communities in need; through the religious legal system established to sustain the faith and resolve conflicts or disputes (canon law for Catholics, shariah law for Muslims, or halakha law for Jews); through the lunar-solar (Judaism), solar (Catholicism), and lunar (Islam) calendar systems (the Gregorian calendar, Muslim calendar, or Jewish calendar) that differentiate these religions’ tempo from that of the civil week and that provide a cadence to religious life; through the land they own throughout the globe; through the hierarchy of positions they establish and that is reproduced in every country in which they operate; through the newspapers, radio and television programs, and websites they operate or sponsor; and through the liturgical or ritual practices they endorse or impose on local synagogues, churches, or mosques.⁶

Governance of the global network implies different modes of practice, depending on the hegemonic or subaltern status of the religion in society, the time period, and historical or contextual circumstances. Such differences include, for example, different methods undertaken for the expansion of the membership of the faith, whether through recruitment (proselytism or forced conversion), competition, annexation, subjugation, or elimination of other religious bodies (through colonization, crusade, or concordat); different strategies for the protection of some sites, whether by paid or volunteer security forces and collaboration with the municipal police or other means, different methods for achieving the global coordination of representative agents and systems (apostolic nuncios, the appointment of bishops, rabbis, or imams, annual visitations via delegates); and different regional or hemispheric bodies or organizations that mediate between the global network and local units or between the administrative religious center and its peripheral offshoots in different ways.

This study documents and explains how the organization of infrastructures is a key factor in understanding the global governance structure of these religious institutions; how these religious bodies operate as multinational corporations with a religious and missionary purpose that allows them to help, educate, and evangelize; how they diversify their techniques and procedures while maintaining the same doctrine throughout the globe; and how they have shifted from transnational and multinational postures to global and multicultural postures. For example, the Catholic Church at first used the same rituals, language, and liturgical musical instruments everywhere; since the Vatican II, it uses indigenous languages and musical instruments and accommodates different national traditions, even in matters related to fasting days. In other words, global governance in the history of these religious institutions has evolved from a homogeneous to a heterogeneous structure of practice. In all of these scriptural religions, network governance has contributed both to the splintering of these religious institutions and to collaboration between diverse groups.

NETWORK

A network is an interconnected set of units constituting a distinct aggregate or forming a pattern sustained by the mode of relations that incorporate them in the same universe. Networks, which depend on the geographical locations of units, the goal a local group wants to accomplish, or the use of an infrastructure, can be local, regional, national, transnational, or global.

In the scholarly literature, network analysis has been put to use in a variety of ways and has been the basis for the development and application of a number of theoretical models. One can think, for example, of random graph models, small-world models, scale-free network models, and preferential attachment models as developed in such diverse fields as biology, physics, mathematics, chemistry, and sociology.⁷ Furthermore, network has been invoked as a metaphor, a method, a theory, and even a science, “the science of networks.”⁸

The basic features of network analysis that physical, biological, and social scientists have grappled with are many.⁹ Analysts have used the network approach to attempt to resolve issues of connectedness between nodes, establish group parameters, unveil the trajectories of flows, interpret the intensity of relational ties, identify nodes, evaluate actor centrality, map communication patterns between nodes, assess the formation of clusters, and analyze relations between clusters. The network approach stresses the importance of focusing on relationships between nodes as a way of unpacking different aspects of social reality.

The network perspective provides an ideal method to uncover the matrix of relations between nodes; define the boundaries of clusters of nodes; follow the direction of communicational, monetary, and travel flows between nodes; and unravel the making, unmaking and remaking of nodes.

GLOBAL NETWORKS

Global religions operate on the basis of the global networks that constitute their membership and that stretch their activities beyond the borders of the territory where they first appear. Linkages between dispersed nodes form these global networks and inform us about the geography covered and the types of activities in which the rank and file are engaged.¹⁰ The globality of such networks must be seen in terms of the universalism of the faith as it is welcomed and accepted by people across the globe, in terms of its geographical spread, but also in terms of the relations these various nodes maintain among themselves.¹¹

Global religious networks have their own peculiarities because each follows specific ground rules, partakes in the same religious ideology, and remains prone to expansion, diversification, a multiplicity of relations, and reproduction over time. These global networks are polyvalent in the sense that they comprise more than one single network and have many strands. One also may distinguish inward from outward networks and dormant from active networks.¹²

Inward networks deal with activities within the membership of the faith and can be local, regional, national, transnational, or global. These networks are established for various reasons, such as to collaborate on projects, to enhance learning, or simply to help brethren in need. Internal networks involve the vibrancy of relations among members of the faith, irrespective of their place of residence.

In contrast, outward networks address issues of the relations of nodes with groups of people who do not belong to the faith or do not hold the same interpretation of the faith. Most established religions maintain such networks to sustain a dialogue that can benefit all parties involved, to collaborate on issues of importance to multiple faiths, or to participate in humanitarian endeavors.

Both inward and outward networks can remain permanently active, be cyclically or sporadically in operation, or be dormant at times.¹³ This is a way of saying that global networks have their own life cycles, and any analysis of their behaviors must attend not simply to space or geography, but also to time and history. These vary from one global religion to another in the deployment of each’s tentacles, the composition or multiplicity of nodes within a given network, and the contents of the relations between sites.

Global religious networks function on formal, informal, and virtual bases and can operate using one or all of these means of communication. The myriad ways in which networks intersect each other or form specialized aggregates reflect the complexity of multiple webs of relationships and the existence of plural global circuits. Clearly, all nodes in this universe do not have the same weight and therefore do not influence the circuit in the same fashion.

Global networks are useful for the global sustenance of a faith, not only for communication among members and the sharing of resources, but also because they feed or create conflict that must be managed globally. The legal system that each global religion establishes provides a frame of reference for the resolution of conflicts generated within its internal or external networks. Therefore, the global governance of the networks includes the governance of the borders of the networks, including tensions and crises that may develop as a result of the relations of the network’s nodes with external entities.

MULTIFORM NODES

Nodes display diverse characteristics, depending on their position and weight in a global network. A node may be part of more than one subnetwork, and its role depends on whether it is called upon to provide “narrow” or “broad” performances. Global religious networks operate with controlled, autonomous, and interdependent nodes. The Catholic Church is a good example of a global network with controlled nodes. Its headquarters and worldwide structure are hierarchically organized, and its global networks function within these constraints. In contrast, Judaism provides a model of embedded nodes. Here, each religious movement is autonomous but may collaborate with others to discuss and fix problems internal to the cosmonation, to propose solutions to external problems, and to enhance the security of the State of Israel. Islam presents yet another model, that of interdependent nodes within global circuits. These transnational nodes compete against each other to attract more converts and resources to their groups, but they also collaborate with each other, for example, for the purpose of sharing the sacred sites of Medina and Mecca in Saudi Arabia.

The global network concept must be understood from the standpoint of multiple and multiform nodes that constitute the landscape of practitioners. By virtue of the linkages they develop and sustain among the faithful, nodes behave differently and fulfill different tasks. In light of this observation, it is clear that a global network of nodes does not imply uniformity of practice, but rather a multiplicity of relational arrangements. Therefore, it is necessary to study the mode of operation of some nodes to understand their relational linkages and differential behaviors.

Saudi Arabia, an important node in the global networks of Wahhabi Islam, provides us with some clues regarding the multiple ways in which nodes may operate. The Saudi reli...