AD ALTA
JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH
PRACTICES FOR ENSURING RELIGIOUS SECURITY: PSYCHOLOGICAL AND LEGAL
ASPECTS
a
YULIA VIKTOROVNA GAVRILOVA,
b
ALEXEY P.
ALBOV,
c
ZHANNA ROBERTOVNA GARDANOVA,
d
MARINA ANATOLEVNA ZHIRONKINA
a
Plekhanov Russian University of Economics, 36 Stremmyanny
Lane, Moscow, 117997, Russian Federation
b
Russian Customs Academy, 4 Komsomolsky Ave., Lyubertsy,
Moscow region, 140015, Russian Federation
c
Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University, 1
Ostrovityanova Str., Moscow, 117997, Russian Federation
d
e-mail:
julia.voitsuk@yandex.ru
Plekhanov Russian University of Economics, 36 Stremmyanny
Lane, Moscow, 117997, Russian Federation
Abstract: Today, it is important to understand that normative conflicts are at the root
of the destruction of the existing system of religious security. The essential features of
normative conflicts lie in the contradictions between parts of a separate system of
norms and values, or between normative value systems of a different nature, but
included in one dominant culture. The authors determine that to ensure religious
security, it is necessary to minimize the destructive effects of normative conflicts
through the removal of contradictions. The study proposes a classification of practices
that make it possible to remove the severity of normative conflicts, including in the
sphere of the “secular” – “religious” segments. Based on the principles of the
anthropological approach, conflict functionalism, and marginal anthropology, the
authors identify a system of authoritarian and humanistic practices of religious
security. The authoritarian type of practice includes stigmatization and legal protection
of the feelings of believers. Humanistic practices should include tolerance,
nonviolence, and calls for a peaceful resolution of conflicts. The classification of
religious security practices is based on the interpretation of the concept of norm
represented by two paradigms: classical and nonclassical. The authors conclude that
all types of religious security practices are actively used in the modern world.
Keywords: mental health, aggression, empathy, authoritarian practices, humanistic
practices, religions, religious consciousness, normative conflicts, rule of law.
1 Introduction
Modern society is characterized by the presence of a large
number of heterogeneous communities and social groups with
their systems of values, worldview guidelines, and norms.
Within the framework of a particular society, such a variety of
normative systems aggravates the contradictions between
individuals and social groups, leading to confrontations, clashes,
and even wars based on the inconsistency of group cultural
norms. Particularly irreconcilable positions in such conflicts are
held by adherents of systems of norms and values of a religious
and secular nature, which actualizes the task of ensuring
religious security as one of the aspects of national security.
The scientific discourse is characterized by fragmented ideas
about religious security. The provision of religious security is
considered by researchers mainly in the aspects of countering
political and religious extremism and terrorism as types of
deviant behavior [1], removal of interfaith tensions [2],
functioning of religious syncretism in cross-border regions [3],
prevention of the destructive influence of nontraditional religious
movements [4] and discrimination, as well as restrictions on
religious freedom [5]. Moreover, in many studies, there is a bias
towards the analysis of measuring and predicting the spread of
Islam [6, 7] and antireligious legislation as a mechanism for
ensuring religious security [6, 8].
The problem of ensuring religious security concerns all
countries. At present, the leading practices for ensuring religious
security are, on the one hand, civic, patriotic, spiritual, and moral
education as a mechanism of value identification and, on the
other, social control of deviations from norms, including legal
authorization. At the same time, such an aspect of religious
security as minimizing the negative effects of normative
conflicts, which are based on the contradictions of moral and
aesthetic values and legal norms, is on the periphery of
researchers’ attention. Traditionally, the safety of society was
associated with the conscious and purposeful observance of the
majority of generally accepted norms, as well as predictability of
the behavior of the majority [9, p. 186]. However, in the
conditions of the “mobility” of norms and renewal of the
normative order, the concept of security, including religious,
requires its rethinking, first, in terms of studying the system of
religious security practices.
2 Methods
The theoretical and methodological basis of the study is the
anthropopractic approach developed in the works of J.R. Wikse,
B. Root, T. Burrow, and D. Bohm [10-13]. This approach allows
considering social and religious security not only as a concept,
but as a practice. Based on the principles of conflict
functionalism by L.F. Coser [14] and the marginal anthropology
of J.M. Cooper and M.A. Czaplicka [15-17], we believe that the
problem of religious security needs additional philosophical
research, taking into account the demarcation of the normal and
abnormal and the assessment of functionality and
dysfunctionality of normative conflicts.
By the practices of religious security, we mean the established
(both at the level of trends and rare case) ways of creating
conditions that ensure stability and preservation of the religious
system within a certain paradigm in understanding the norm.
From the position of antireductionism, it is proposed to abandon
the reduction of marginality and relativity of norms to negative
and destructive, the threat to security, and the practice of
religious security to neutralize such threats.
The material for the analysis was provided by individual cases
describing normative conflicts, which corresponds to the
methodology of qualitative philosophical and conflictological
research.
3 Results and Discussion
Normative conflicts lie at the root of the violation of religious
security. They are the result of contradictions between different
parts of a single normative system or between different
normative value systems of one dominant culture. To remove
contradictions and minimize conflict factors, various religious
security practices are used. At present, in accordance with the
existing paradigms of interpreting the concept of norm, opposite
practices and religious security are being built.
The classical paradigm of understanding the norm (Aristotle,
Thomas Aquinas, G. Hegel, etc.) corresponds to authoritarian
practices of religious security, which include: stigmatization and
legal protection of the feelings of believers. The analysis of these
practices deserves special attention.
Stigmatization is a violation of the identification of religious
groups, communities, or individuals, expressed in the public by
“labeling” them, endowed with negative connotations in public
discourse. Stigmatization is most commonly used in
multiconfessional societies where there is one dominant
religious system that is considered historically traditional for the
given society. Recognizing the right to be able to adhere to any
religion, representatives of the dominant religion “label”
adherents of other religious cults and teachings. This is largely
due to the fact that stigmatization was originally embedded in
the normative value systems of religions, which recommend and
encourage people to renounce infidels, publicize their unwanted
apostate deeds, and label them as “apostate”, “henchman of the
devil,” “antichrist”. For example, in the books of the New
Testament, the Bible says: “Whoever makes a practice of sinning
is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the
beginning” [18, pp. 181-182], “and every spirit that does not
confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist”
[18, p. 182]. Unfortunately, situations often arise in which
religious groups or individual believers fall under stigmatization
without any action/incentive. This is especially true of adherents
of new religious movements and adherents of autochthonous
- 80 -