The Violent Potential of Unconditional Claims in Conflict: Reflections on the Discourse concerning the Destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

My problems with this article concern primarily the writing.  The hyperbole is just prodigious, so much so that I could barely perceive any argument at all until you get to section 3, which actually covers the Banyan Buddhas, the destruction of the Babri Masjid, and other such incidents and historical rationales for them.   My suggestion to the author is that (1) s/he might try to rephrase this entire argument so that, as we used to say in introductory philosophy courses, anyone at all can follow your thinking.  Otherwise the prose is purely insider discourse.  (A more tolerant set of readers might be found here: https://sophere.org/) and (2) s/he might focus on section 3, develop the comparative analogies and also the historical arguments.

The following are just some brief reflections on the arguments from section 3 on.  Section 3 is much better in part because it aims to explain historical arguments.  I think I understand but absolutely do not support the iconoclasm argument.  It would appear that that Mullah Omar is using the notion of “sacrifice” in a western conception, as in giving something up.  But you also mention the sacrifice of cows, so this is not straightforward.  In any case, you need to be clear what you mean by sacrifice:  are you using it in the reflexive way westerners do or are you arguing from some knowledge about the practice as anthropology sees it?  Similarly, Habbermas does not seem to be anthropologically enlightened on this, to my surprise.  The Hazara relevance is absolutely worth developing as I doubt most westerners know it. The historical-religious material is more interesting than the philosophical and post-modern over all.

On the whole, historical arguments are much more likely to appeal to religious studies readers, I think, than philosophical ones.  This needs radical rethinking in parts 1 and 2, and then hopefully parts 3 and 4 will fall into place.

Author Response

The author wishes to express gratitude to this reviewer for pointing out several weaknesses of the paper. I have taken the criticism regarding language and argument seriously and have attempted to improve the writing in general, rephrase the argument for the sake of clarity, and make the overall hypothesis more intelligible to the reader. Chapters 1-2 have respectively been reworked and been improved in terms of structure and argumentation.  

As far as revisions are concerned, however, a caveat has to be mentioned. Whereas I do understand that historical arguments/rationales may be more suitable for readers from “religious studies” and neighboring disciplines, this paper has been conceived as a basically philosophical/Phenomenological one.  This may explain why this reader sees an insider discourse at work.  As the CFP to the respective special issue stated with a view to various issues of “religious violence” and related problems, “we invite reference to the whole phenomenological movement, including post-phenomenology, hermeneutics, and deconstruction; historical and contemporary research with the engagement of phenomenology, theological phenomenology, experienced-based comparative studies like cultural anthropology of experience, qualitatively based sociology of religion; as well as theological and psychological perspectives that utilize phenomenological research methods.”  (Religions | Special Issue : In the Shadows of Religious Experience: Hostility, Violence, Revenge (mdpi.com))

I have responded to this specific call and have attempted to bring together reflections undertaken in the spirit of phenomenological philosophy with material analyses gathered from political theory, cultural anthropology, and IR, especially.  This reflects recent attempts at applying phenomenology, developing a “critical phenomenology,” etc., a topic that has in recent years been discussed increasingly in interdisciplinary research on violence.  In order to further contribute to this field, I have elaborated this piece with the intention to shed novel light on the topic at hand, i.e., “religious violence,” its jnterpretations, and justifications in a given context and with a view to the complex interrelations between religious narratives, socio-political orders, and intersecting global discourses.  In light of the revisions undertaken, I  feel convinced that the argument proposed as well as the exemplification that I offer by way of confronting the case of the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddha statues, will prove helpful for thinking through the relationship of “religious violence,” social order, and its contextual justifications. Overall, it strikes me as useful to expose an often hidden interrelation that pertains between the seemingly justified violence of secular orders and global discourses and the proclaimed irrationality of so-called “religious violence,” which I explain to be, at least partially, (re)produced by Western politics and the self-righteous brand of reason it gave birth to.  

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

·        This is an interesting article contributing to the field of critical theory and religion.

·        There are still many typos in the article and sometimes grammatically incorrect sentences. This should be solved.

·        The article is argumentative. Therefore, a methodological note at the beginning is important: the domains that the author describes and criticizes are clear, but from what perspective is the author describing and criticizing and how does the author use what theory and why?

·        The author uses jargon from critical philosophers and sometimes mingles this a bit up. That is not per se a problem, but it doesn’t serve the readability. This is especially the case in the first few pages. The case discussion is well written!

·        The author uses a very wide definition of violence. As this is subject to debate it would be good to articulate this.

·        The article reflects an activist stance. This is ok, but the ‘opponent’ in this article is constructed by making claims about what this imaginary opponent holds as irrational, violent (!), religious. The way this perspective is developed is by referring to critical thinkers. The opponent has only a very limited voice in the case discussion. This is a way of reasoning inherent to many critics of Western rational frames and not really a huge problem but the article could benefit from a few more quotes that the author identifies as examples of the way of reasoning the author so vehemently criticizes. For example, already on p.1 the author writes: .“… proliferating news and images communicating the Taliban’s backwardness, cruelty, and irrationality.” No doubt, but the argument becomes stronger if you could add some references here. The same goes for mentioning “security discourses” on the same page, with reference to Butler. Would be good if you could add a few references to these discourses you and Butler criticize.

·        There is an amount of literature dealing with similar questions as the author that is nor referenced, like the publications by Talal Asad, Stacey Gutkowski (nota bene writing on western habitus that the author is also discussing in a less analytical way), William Cavanaugh and some others. Although these authors are scholars of religion and not philosophers, the author could benefit from their insights.

Author Response

The author wishes to wholeheartedly thank this reviewer for sharing comments, raising critique and offering further ideas regarding this submission.  First of all, the writing in general has been improved, following up on remarks by another reviewer the argument has been sharpened and made more accessible; typos and grammar issues have been resolved.  For the sake of readability and the intelligibility of the argument, I have (1) have attempted to reduce jargon in the beginning pages and soften its hyperbole; (2) have added a section that is designed to explain my wide conception of “violence,” and (3), and perhaps most importantly, have included some exemplifications of the “opponent’s voice.” .Since “the opponent” is not only a concrete political hegemony, an operative discourse, but also a habit and embodied in ourselves (including myself) and our “social imaginaries,” I have attempted to flesh out the opponent’s broader gestalt also by way of clarifying my own perspective and involvement as the author; (2) .

Thanks, too, for reminding me of the work of Cavanaugh and Asad, which indeed is relevant here and was indeed not included in this version; the other work mentioned (Gutkowski) is most precious and I am very appreciative that you drew my attention to it.  

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf