Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: In recent years, an increasing number of studies have explored how ethnic and communal conflicts are symbolically constructed and sustained. Such analyses are highly applicable to what is commonly referred to as ?Islamic-Western? conflict, in which instrumental as well as fear-predicated reliance upon divisive cultural symbolism plays a powerful role in the social transmission and amplification of hostility and resentment. The result is a ?clash of symbols? ? a richly symbolic conflict environment in which markers of cultural and religious identity are being deployed in ways that suggest the existence of a deep ideational and structural cleavage in international affairs. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how principles of conflict analysis derived from such theorists as Murray Edelman, David Kertzer, Anthony Cohen, and Lisa Schirch can be applied to elucidate the dynamic processes through which ?Western? as well as ?Muslim? politicians, journalists, public intellectuals, and religious figures are infusing messages and actions with the dramaturgy of intense cultural conflict. Attention will be given not only to the decoding of escalatory symbolic practices ? including symbolic forms of aggression, from suicide terrorism to Qur?an denigration ? but also to the formulation of policy prescriptions for mitigating symbolic conflict between Islamic and Western cultural groups.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This discourse study analyzes the Bush Administration’s use of a religious mode of representation to make sense of the 9/11 events and to legitimize military actions against the Taliban, Afghanistan, and terrorism in general. The religious mode of representation is enabled by the construction and application of what we call the “War on Terrorism script,” which was used to imbue empirical events with particular symbolic meanings associated with the American civil religion. Specifically, the script helped created a coherent account for—in the terms of Kenneth Burke’s theory of dramatism—the act (what was done), scene (when or where it was done), agent (who did it), agency (how was it done), and the purpose (why was it done) of the 9/11 events. This paper demonstrates the unique power of this mode of representation to create a coherent account at a time of national crisis and to establish connections between the 9/11 perpetrators, the al Qaeda network, and the Afghanistan government. The grounding of the War on Terrorism script in American civil religion also contributed to its power to defeat competing modes of representing these events, notably intellectual, rational, and legal challenges. Overall, the initially ambiguous situations of 9/11 were defined as a war between the American civil religion and those who were against it; the War on Terror symbolic world was created.

Publication Type: Proceeding

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: In recent years, theories of identity formation, particularly the formation of new ethnic and national identities, have flourished (Laitin 1998). The concept of “essentialized” identities has largely been discredited, and scholars have refocused their attention on the social construction and reproduction of ethnic difference (Calhoun 1993). While most analyses of ethnicity rely on the explicit (or implicit) comparison between two or more groups, this paper examines how symbolic boundaries can be constructed within the same ethnic group. Drawing on a series of qualitative interviews and ethnographic observation, I examine how Russians in Estonia distinguish themselves from Russians in Russia. I conclude that by establishing Russians in Russia as a negative out-group, Estonian Russians are attempting to improve their status vis-à-vis Estonians without sacrificing their identities as Russians.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: In recent decades, societal expectations about marital roles have become generally more egalitarian. Many evangelicals have resisted this contemporary trend. However, some research suggests that a number of evangelicals have softened their husband headship/wife submission marital model to incorporate more egalitarian elements. This paper proposes to contribute to this literature by exploring whether evangelical covenants are significantly more traditional and in greater spousal agreement about traditionalism than non-evangelical covenants and all other newlyweds. I also propose to explore how the perceived sanctity of marriage makes gender and gendered obligations more salient to spouses in evangelical covenant marriages than to spouses in other forms of marriage. I use a symbolic interactionist perspective to explore a potentially unusual contradiction among evangelical covenant marriages. I hypothesize that evangelical covenants, while endorsing the most extreme forms of traditionalism in gender ideologies, also demonstrate a keen awareness about the necessity of nurturing interdependence and mutual respect between husbands and wives.
To explore these issues, I will use the Marriage Matters quantitative and qualitative survey data. I will address gender and religious attitude differences between covenants and standards, evangelicals and non-evangelicals, and husbands and wives using multivariate seemingly unrelated regression techniques with couple-level survey data. I will triangulate these findings with an exploration of the qualitative interviews to illuminate the reasons for potentially significant differences.