Matching Items (2)
Filtering by
Description
Evangelicals (particularly American evangelicals) have largely been seen historically as a monolithic group with similar viewpoints and actions across the board. The group has been tied to historically conservative values and is often held most responsible for the election of President Donald J. Trump. Additionally, American evangelicals have, as a whole, supported the modern State of Israel (both financially through individual donations and/or lobbying efforts and spiritually through prayer). Preliminary research suggested, however, that not all evangelicals have adopted this pro-Israel stance. After conducting 10 interviews (with subjects in the United States, Israel and the Palestinian territories) and researching the history of evangelicalism in these areas, it becomes apparent that evangelicals who are from or are currently living in the United States are much more likely to support the State of Israel than those who are from Israel or the Palestinian territories - though it should be emphasized that they claim their support is not unconditional, as several polls and general attitudes toward evangelicals may imply. Above all else, this essay seeks to prove that evangelicals are not a monolithic entity wherein all of its members harbor the same beliefs and attitudes. As the remainder of this essay will show, there is a wide spectrum of perspectives as it pertains to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which suggests that this conflict is not as polarizing within the evangelical community as one might think. Polls with numbers indicating that a majority of evangelicals support Israel might imply that there must then be conflict between those evangelicals and people who do not support Israel. Such polls neglect to highlight the nuance among members of the evangelical community, a fact that this essay will attempt to rectify.
ContributorsFrank, BrieAnna Joy (Author) / Bruner, Jason (Thesis director) / Lattouf, Mirna (Committee member) / Historical, Philosophical & Religious Studies (Contributor) / Walter Cronkite School of Journalism & Mass Comm (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2019-05
Description
The concept of recognition developed through the 20th century as a form of political legitimation has served a central if problematic role in understanding international politics. On the one hand, recognition aims toward establishing essential collective identities that must be conceived as relatively stable in order to then gain respect, receive political protection, and occupy both physical and discursive space. On the other hand, recognition tacitly accepts a social constructivist view of the subject who can only become whole unto itself – and in turn exercise positive liberty, freedom, or agency – through the implied assent or explicit consent of another. There is an inherent tension between these two understandings of recognition. The attempt to reconcile this tension often manifests itself in forms of symbolic and systemic violence that can turn to corporeal harm. In order to enter into the concept, history, politics and performativity of recognition, I focus on what is often viewed as an exceptionally complex and uniquely controversial case: the Israel-Palestine conflict. Undergoing a discourse analysis of three epistemic communities (i.e., the State/diplomatic network, the Academic/intellectual network, the Military-Security network) and their unique modes of veridiction, I show how each works to construct the notion of ethno-nationalism as a necessary political logic that holds the promise of everything put in its right place: Us here, Them there. All three epistemic communities are read as knowledge/power networks that have substantial effect on political subjects and subjectivities. Influenced by the philosophy of Hegel and Levinas, and supported by the works of Michel Foucault, Wendy Brown, Alphonso Lingis, Jacques Derrida, Patchen Markell, and others, I show the ways in which our current politics of recognition is best read as violence. By tracing three discursive networks of knowledge/power implicated in our modern politics of recognition, I demonstrate forms of symbolic violence waged against the entire complex of the Israel-Palestine conflict in ways that preclude a just resolution based on mutual empathy, acknowledgment, and (re)cogntion.
ContributorsBar, Eyal (Author) / Doty, Roxanne L (Thesis advisor) / Ashley, Richard K. (Thesis advisor) / Walker, Stephen (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2016