A Theory of Religion as a Technology of Governance: Why Religions Ought to Be Described as Vestigial States

The paper will present the argument that religions function as vestigial states that are attenuated - often problematically - within the jurisdictions of contemporary dominant states. “State,” cited here, accords with the concept as employed and defined in international law. By “vestigial states” I mean institutions and practices originating in particular histories as remainders of former sovereignties. These remnants are tolerated as contained, limited sites of governance within fully functioning states. Because vestigial states (i.e. religions) compete to varying degrees with the states that encompass them, they can be restless and troublesome – especially if the dominant state’s control of violence (police, martial and/or enforcement of court decisions) is challenged. However, religions can also work to legitimate the governments that authorize them by nostalgically referencing roots in predecessors as mystified forms of sovereignty. Such interpellation of deities or ancestors happens through rhetoric in documents, on coinage and during ceremonies. Thus, religions understood as vestigial states, or ‘once and future’ states can both disturb and sustain current regimes. The argument that religion is a relatively modern category of governance that is protean, unstable and distinguished from its putative opposites such as “secular” and “politics” chiefly as a matter of managerial strategy will be supported by references to contemporary scholarship in Religious Studies. In addition, examples and applications of my hypothesis drawn from Biblical studies, Classics, and Jewish and Buddhist studies will be cited. A case will be made for using the theory to open up productive approaches to current issues pertaining to rights, law and conflicting freedoms. I will contend that If ‘religion’ is understood as a contingent, ‘political’ construct rather than as a prediscursive eternal and universal phenomenon, disagreements between and among institutions and ideologies can be addressed more effectively. Research that continues, however ambivalently, to frame religion as separate from politics even under the guise of offering helpful redescriptions cannot deliver comparable insight and direction.