| Abstract
|
:
|
From the various contingent cases of interreligious dialogue (IRD) across European countries presented at the conference, a systematic cross-regional comparison and system-theory informed analysis is suggested from a cultural study of religion understanding. Along the coordinates of system integration, social integration and cosmopolitanism (as developed in political sciences by U. Beck, E. Grande, N. Sznaider) an interpretation of the specific way of governance is proposed and delineated from other explanations like IRD as part of a neoliberal regime or a type of secularism. The paper concludes how IRD initiatives, besides other effects, form cosmopolitan values of open coordination, risk management, and mutual recognition and by this contribute to their institutionalization. Cosmopolitanism is favoured as policy paradigm for religious diversity as it allows for multi-level communication in-between global localities, changes perspectives with marginalized and draws conclusions from that for regulating diversity without regulating individuals. From the various contingent cases of interreligious dialogue (IRD) across European countries presented at the conference, a systematic cross-regional comparison and system-theory informed analysis is suggested from a cultural study of religion understanding. Along the coordinates of system integration, social integration and cosmopolitanism (as developed in political sciences by U. Beck, E. Grande, N. Sznaider) an interpretation of the specific way of governance is proposed and delineated from other explanations like IRD as part of a neoliberal regime or a type of secularism. The paper concludes how IRD initiatives, besides other effects, form cosmopolitan values of open coordination, risk management, and mutual recognition and by this contribute to their institutionalization. Cosmopolitanism is favoured as policy paradigm for religious diversity as it allows for multi-level communication in-between global localities, changes perspectives with marginalized and draws conclusions from that for regulating diversity without regulating individuals. From the various contingent cases of interreligious dialogue (IRD) across European countries presented at the conference, a systematic cross-regional comparison and system-theory informed analysis is suggested from a cultural study of religion understanding. Along the coordinates of system integration, social integration and cosmopolitanism (as developed in political sciences by U. Beck, E. Grande, N. Sznaider) an interpretation of the specific way of governance is proposed and delineated from other explanations like IRD as part of a neoliberal regime or a type of secularism. The paper concludes how IRD initiatives, besides other effects, form cosmopolitan values of open coordination, risk management, and mutual recognition and by this contribute to their institutionalization. Cosmopolitanism is favoured as policy paradigm for religious diversity as it allows for multi-level communication in-between global localities, changes perspectives with marginalized and draws conclusions from that for regulating diversity without regulating individuals. From the various contingent cases of interreligious dialogue (IRD) across European countries presented at the conference, a systematic cross-regional comparison and system-theory informed analysis is suggested from a cultural study of religion understanding. Along the coordinates of system integration, social integration and cosmopolitanism (as developed in political sciences by U. Beck, E. Grande, N. Sznaider) an interpretation of the specific way of governance is proposed and delineated from other explanations like IRD as part of a neoliberal regime or a type of secularism. The paper concludes how IRD initiatives, besides other effects, form cosmopolitan values of open coordination, risk management, and mutual recognition and by this contribute to their institutionalization. Cosmopolitanism is favoured as policy paradigm for religious diversity as it allows for multi-level communication in-between global localities, changes perspectives with marginalized and draws conclusions from that for regulating diversity without regulating individuals.
|