Search results

The aim of this chapter is to survey present globally present societal trends in the era of globalization, which are creating a new context for education and for the field of Comparative and International Education. The trends include the ecological crisis, the population explosion and demographic dynamics, increasing mobility, the technological revolution, especially the ICT revolution, growing affluence, the neo-liberal economic revolution, the rise of a knowledge society, the fourth industrial revolution, changing social relations, democratization, the demise of the once omnipotent nation-state, the persistent but new presence of religion, and the rise of the Creed of Human Rights. These powerful, interrelated set of societal changes, which are getting spread worldwide on the wings of globalization, is creating a new world, of (in Comparative Education nomenclature) an unprecedented new context, forcing the scholars in the field to tread unknown territory. These forces depicted in this chapter constitute a framework for subsequent chapters in the book, where the response of humanity in the education sector, to meet the challenges these forces constitute, will be the theme.

Discussion of religion and education continues to evoke conceptions of confessional teaching; however, research and educational practices in recent decades illustrate an expanded understanding that relates to the teaching of, about, and from religion across formal and non-formal educational spaces in secular and religious spheres. An expanded understanding also illustrates various intersections between religion and education that extend beyond religious or non-sectarian instruction, to include everything from the recognition and accommodation of religious student identities in K-12 public school settings, to the internationalization of religious higher education. Drawing on the Comparative and International Education Society’s Religion & Education Special Interest Group’s programing and activities, this paper aims to present a brief summary of trends observed both in research and practice concerning religion and education among educators worldwide, and highlights the place of religion in our growing recognition of intersectionality, one that occurs between academics and the community.

This article examines Max Weber’s theory of value spheres as a basis for a polytheistic religious sociology of institutional life. Weber’s approach implies institutional theory as a form of comparative religion. Two problems present themselves. If the values of the spheres are to be considered as “gods,” they do not align easily with Weber’s sociology of religion. Given that love was central both as a driver and a constituent in Weber’s understanding of salvation religions, it also implies that love be incorporated into our theorizing of institutional life, something entirely absent in the way we think about enduring forms of social organization. Taking the second seriously may enable us to fabricate a solution to the first.

This article reviews the historical development of the treatment of religious organizations in journals centered on religion.

The article asks four questions: (1) Are religious organizations different from other kinds of organizations? (2) What factors produce differences or similarities between religious and other organizations? (3) Are religious organizations different from each other?

Differences from other kinds of organizations are based in beliefs/theology. But there is a constant concern with the bureaucratization of religious organizations as they are subject to general organizational influences such as scale and geographical dispersion. However, it is argued that these general influences emanate from belief systems. We suggest the need for a renewed attention to a comparative organizations perspective in organization theory – one that appreciates the similarities and differences between sectors and within sectors.

Not only are there differences between religious and nonreligious organizations, but there are also substantial differences between religious organizations. There are also similarities between religious and nonreligious organizations, as well as similarities between religious organizations. The way forward for both the study of religious organizations and organizational theory in general is to look for explanations for these similarities and differences.

To reexamine the Weber Thesis pertaining to the relationship between ascetic Protestantism – especially Calvinism – and modern capitalism, as between an economic “spirit” and an economic “structure,” in which the first is assumed to be the explanatory factor and the second the dependent variable.

The chapter provides an attempt to combine theoretical-empirical and comparative-historical approaches to integrate theory with evidence supplied by societal comparisons and historically specific cases.

The chapter identifies the general sociological core of the Weber Thesis as a classic endeavor in economic sociology (and thus substantive sociological theory) and separates it from its particular historical dimension in the form of an empirical generalization from history. I argue that such a distinction helps to better understand the puzzling double “fate” of the Weber Thesis in social science, its status of a model in economic sociology and substantive sociological theory, on the one hand, and its frequent rejection in history and historical economics, on the other. The sociological core of the Thesis, postulating that religion, ideology, and culture generally deeply impact economy, has proved to be more valid, enduring, and even paradigmatic, as in economic sociology, than its historical component establishing a special causal linkage between Calvinism and other types of ascetic Protestantism and the “spirit” and “structure” of modern capitalism in Western society at a specific point in history.

In addition to the two cases deviating from the Weber Thesis considered here, it is necessary to investigate and identify the validity of the Thesis with regard to concrete historical and empirical instances.

The chapter provides the first effort to systematically analyze and distinguish between the sociological core and the historical components of the Weber Thesis as distinct yet intertwined components.

Based on the keynote address given at the conference on “Organizing Institutions: Creating, Enacting and Reacting to Institutional Logics” held at the Banff Springs Hotel in June 2012, this essay analyzes the relationship between Max Weber's polytheistic theory of value spheres and institutional logics, proposing that the latter project entails studying institutional logics through a framework of comparative religions. I argue that God, love, transcendence, and immanence are all potentially useful analytic categories by which to understand institutional logics.

In this chapter on “Teaching About Religious and Spiritual Difference in a Global Society,” Robert J. Nash and Vanessa Santos Eugenio present a broad religio-spiritual overview of the world, complete with current statistics of religious affiliation across all countries, ethnicities, cultures, and races. The authors’ claim is that a well-developed religio-spiritual literacy in each person is necessary in order to be a productive, pluralistic member of an interdependent global community. In order to become increasingly pluralistic in our worldviews, we must look at how educators at all levels of schooling facilitate conversations about religion. We must learn how to become “cosmopolites” – citizens of the world who are not only genuine sociocultural pluralists, but who are also literate, and understanding, regarding the core religio-spiritual differences that often divide, rather than unite, people. In their concluding section, the authors summarize their personal educational beliefs through two letters written to teachers. These letters provide a number of practical tips and tools for teaching about religion and spirituality in classrooms at all levels of education.

Systematic, consistent, and holistic reflection on comparative methodologies across different disciplines and fields is rare. This chapter, however, develops a framework for both understanding and operationalizing comparative research. First, the basic characteristics of comparison and how it is used in social science research is described. Then, the benefits of comparing for identifying similarities versus differences and the contexts that determine the appropriateness of comparison are discussed. Next, several questions are posed that serve as guides in the operationalization of both the promises and the pitfalls of comparison. Finally, these questions are used to frame both conceptual and practical approaches to inter- as well as intra-disciplinary comparative research.

Philip S. Gorski's “Barack Obama and Civil Religion” offers a number of important contributions to the study of American culture generally, and American Civil Religion (ACR) more specifically. Gorski's appreciation of the deep diversity in contemporary American society is a welcome development in ACR analysis. I ask whether the term “civil religion” remains most adequate for describing the sort of cultural phenomenon that Gorski, following Bellah, attempts to capture, and offer some methodological and interpretive comments on the promise and challenge of studying ACR in the twenty-first century United States. I close with some more particular remarks on Barack Obama and the contours of ACR as sketched by Gorski.

One might begin by clarifying the title, which could as well have read: A Hindu Perspective on Religion and Management. It could of course be argued that there are good prudential reasons for preferring the word “spirituality” to “religion.” In a recent probe of the attitudes of several hundred managers, only 30% had a positive view of religion and spirituality. More than half, 60%, had a positive view of spirituality and a negative view of religion.¹ In the case of Hinduism, however, although prudential concerns apply, other reasons also come into play. It could be plausibly argued that Hinduism is better described as a “spirituality” or “wisdom”² rather than religion in the Western sense, a tendency which is already apparent in attempts to describe it as a “state of mind,”³ and even the “mind of India.”⁴ The title, therefore, appropriate as it is, is particularly apposite in the case of Hinduism.⁵ Thus, rather than why spirituality, the first question one must address is: What is Spirituality?