Interreligious Movements in Brazil: Human Rights, Decoloniality, and Pluralism in Debate

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

160 the value of introducing a new term “pluralist principle” over “principled pluralism” does not become clear. Why not simply redefine or expand “principled pluralism”?

259s: It is in no way clear, how “decolonial approaches” “distinguish themselves” from “decolonial perspectives”

Ch. 4 does not explain in which sense this analysis or this method are “intersectional” as the subtitle says. 

 

Overall, it is quite disappointing to see at the end, that the article only presents the framework of a research, not the research itself nor its results. This limitation should be clearly set out in the summary and at the very beginning of the article.

 

 

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. I have accepted most of them, which will certainly improve the quality of the text.

 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author(s),

I read your contribution with great interest, since it attempts to both empirically tackle in theoretically conceptualize the pressing issue of religious pluralism, a topic which is well-fitted to be researched and addressed in this journal. While the authors are clearly versed in the topic, I take some issue with the presentation of their argument and study. In what follows, I will go section-by-section in order to provide my remarks and suggestions.

1. Introduction

The introduction needs some work in setting out both the research background of studying religious pluralism as well as defining the key research questions/goal of the discussions and the methods used to select and gather data (this can also be done later on in the empirical part of your paper). Furthermore, the lines 34-36 need revising, especially the phrase "up to this point".

Additionally, it's unclear where the subchapter (line 40) fits in - is a subchapter of the introduction or a stand-alone chapter? Also, while the characterization of the problem is welcomed, it is hard to say what specific problem the paper is trying to address, which is why the reader gets the impression that problem encompasses everything and nothing specifically - is the question formulated in lines 56-60 key? Additionally, lines such as 73-76 need rephrasing due to lack of clarity. 

2. Religious Pluralism, Human Rights and Democracy

In line 27, you say that you will initially overview the main issues of religious diversity in Brazil, which is why I assume you set out to do this chapter. In this light, it might be useful just briefly, in one paragraph, to lay out Brazil's religious landscape in terms of its plurality. Additionally, the paragraph of lines 137 and 144 is an overview paragraph, meaning additional citations of appropriate literature would be welcomed.

3. The Pluralist principle

I would argue that this chapter is vital for your paper, as is the concept, which is why it might be useful to set it out differently (see also below). I think it would be better to first define the concept, laying out its core principles, before expanding on them in the following paragraphs. As it is, the reader finds hard to follow the relevant elements or dimensions of the pluralist principle. For example, some of its characteristics seem fuzzy - take for example the decolonial perspective (lines 255-268). Is the pluralist principle a decolonial concept or not? Lines 259-261 seem to contradict themselves. 

Furthemore, the emphasis mentioned in lines 290 and 294 seem to be missing. 

4. Intersectionality in Sociopolitical Struggles

What is the "Empire" mentioned in line 303? Needs defining.  Line 354 needs a revision, especially the phrase "it is enough to remember". 

5. Interfaith Experiences

This I take to be the paper's core empirical part, in which the authors present four interfaith organizations. This part raises a number of issues: firstly, what are the criteria on which these specific organizations were selected? Secondly, what does it mean to analyze "various interfaith experiences" (line 400)? Do you mean organizations - what are interfaith experiences? Thirdly, as you point out in the footnotes, these descriptions are based on publicly available information, provided by the organizations themselves - however, these descriptions don't seem to be scholarly evaluated. Why are these organizations significant, how do the relate to the pluralist principle? What is missing is authors' own analysis of their actions as related to the core conceptual framework of you article, bridging all chapters. As it stands, these descriptions seem to be merely added on top of the extensive conceptual discussion. Since you admit from the outset that these descriptions are inconclusive and preliminary, it might be worth to consider whether you can drop the from your article entirely. This would free up space for a rephrasing of your conceptual framework.

6. Final considerations

While a part of your conclusions summarizes your paper, the final part lacks clarity (lines 567-585). Which organizations fit which of the two perspectives you mention? Additionally, the two perspectives, especially the first one, needs to be more clearly stated. Furthermore, the closing paragraph seems to be a repetition of already mentioned themes - do you wish to say that further analysis needs to take these aspects into account?

In sum, a restructuring of the article can perhaps be considered (this is suggestion, not a necessary step). The core conceptual principle of your paper is the pluralist principle. It might be useful to state this on the outset, defining it in the first chapter following the introduction (or in the introduction itself), clearly pointing out those characteristics that define it, and then proceed by focusing on each of them in a separate (sub)chapters, before finally showcasing how the selected groups seem to work (or not to) within the pluralist principle. 

Overall, I hope that my comments help the authors flesh out their intentions and delivery in a better way, since they clearly display a high level of understanding of the topics at hand. I'm looking forward to reading the revised version.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

While the quality of English is mostly fine, there are a number of sentences or passages which lack clarity. I strongly advise a native speaking level of proofreading in order to smooth out your delivery. See general comments for details.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. I have accepted most of them, which will certainly improve the quality of the text.

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a very important topic, both theoretically and practically, as to the extremely necessary - given its controversiality - analysis of the presence ofin the public sphere in Brazil and elsewhere, and the contribution of selected interreligious movements in Brazil towards human rights, decoloniality and pluralism. The author draws on lang-standing research and reflection on the pluralist principle. This in itself deserves being brought to the attention of a wider, English reading public. The article has two main parts: a lengthy conceptual one (p. 1-9) and a comparatively short presentation of "interfaith experiences" in four organizations and programmes. The text reads very well. I has its inner logic and consistence.

While the constatation of the "seductive force of globalized capitalism" (line 65) is certainly important and pertinent, its presentation and discussion is very short and, despite the good references quoted, very generic. Also the concept of "diasporic hybridity" (line 78) would gain from a more thorough discussion and presentation, even more so considering the mainly non-Brazilian public of readers. The role of religions in the public sphere - extensively discussed in a host of contributions both to "public religions" (i.e. José Casanova, the Princeton/Vitória series of publications under this title) and to "public theologies" (i.e. IHU Unisinos, Rudolf von Sinner, Jefferson Zeferino, and others), which are not mentioned or referenced, but could be with gain - is ambiguous, as the analytical literature suggests. In the present article, only the positive public presence is mentioned, in its interface with counter-hegemonic tendencies, which is important given the usually merely negative portrayal that can be seen in the midia and also academic publications, but it should at least indicate also the other side, very visible currently in religious support for the political right, seeking to construct a new hegemony. As the author refers to the "spirit of the World Social Forums", it would make sense to also refer to the "World Forum on Theology and Liberation" that has been taking place alongside the WSF since 2005.

The decolonial and borderland perceptions and conceptions in section 3 on the "Pluralist Principle" are very important. It is also true that it questions and seeks to overcome "Western dominant thinking" (line 270) and "Eurocentric thought" (line 392). However, this is just taken for granted and only very sketchily presented (e.g. in lines 392-396). The article would benefit from a clearer presentation of which (as there is also a very diverse host of Western thinking today!) forms of Western dominant thinking it seeks to attack, represented by whom, with some reference(s), and how exactly decoloniality is able to overcome this - while the principles stated are valid, it is very vague how this concretely plays out - the "buen vivir" concept (that even entered into constitutions) could be named. One or two examples would be very helpful here. 

The presentation of the four initiatives is, despite the whole theoretical and conceptual apparatus exposed in the first part, descriptive more than analytical. If the aim was to present their "reaches and limitations" (23), the latter do not come out very clearly. One would expect a more critical analysis. This might be due to an ongoing research which is still at an early stage ("Up to this point", line 34), but as it is a central part of the main title ("Interreligious movements"), there should be a more advanced discussion. In what way, for instance, is a programmatic "seeks to", important as it is - and as highly qualified an institution the article may refer to here -, enough to contribute (effectively? How so?) "to the construction of a broadly participatory and democratic society" (lines 438-39)? 

In what follows, I offer a number of specific questions and suggestions:

 line 28: the "of course" sounds odd here, I would take it out

line 40: this (sub-)section stands oddly in the sequence and is wrongly numbered (with a 2 and in italics, but there is section 1 line 18 and then section 2 line 121)

line 463: "They are called to", i.e. "religions today" (line 463) - by whom? The challenges faced? The secular state? Their constituency? Their spiritual/theological resources?

line 491: for the non-Brazilian public it will not be clear what "ecumenical journeys" are; the same is true for line 515: "remaining quilombo communities"; a short explanation would help. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. I have accepted most of them, which will certainly improve the quality of the text.