Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T07:21:40.626Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dag Hammarskjöld's Religiosity and Norms Entrepreneurship: A Post-secular Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 January 2016

Filippo Dionigi
Filippo Dionigi*
Affiliation:
The London School of Economics and Political Science
*
Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Filippo Dionigi, The London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London, Greater London WC2A 2AE. E-mail: f.dionigi1@lse.ac.uk.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In 1953, the United Nations (UN) General Assembly elected a low-key and relatively unknown personality as the second Secretary General of the UN. Dag Hammarskjöld, nonetheless, turned out to be one of the most entrepreneurial and innovative Secretary Generals that the UN has ever had. He invented peacekeeping, radically reformed the administrative structure of the UN, and promoted a crucial multi-lateral diplomatic role for the UN Secretariat. Behind this innovative approach to the politics of the UN, there was a personality with a deep and complex religious discernment that emerged occasionally in public speeches, as well as in private writing. This article interprets Hammarskjöld's norms entrepreneurship through the lens of post-secular theory and the concept of Habermasian institutional translation. It shows how — in contrast with merely secularist assumptions — Hammarskjöld's religiosity shaped and advanced international political processes consistently with the principles of the UN Charter.

Type
Articles
Information
Politics and Religion , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , March 2016 , pp. 162 - 186
Copyright
Copyright © Religion and Politics Section of the American Political Science Association 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aulén, Gustaf. 1969. Dag Hammarskjöld's White Book; An Analysis of Markings. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press.Google Scholar
Baldwin, Lewis V., ed. 2002. The Legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr.: The Boundaries of Law, Politics, and Religion. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame.Google Scholar
Barbato, M. P. 2010. “Conceptions of the Self for Post-Secular Emancipation: Towards a Pilgrim's Guide to Global Justice.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 39:547–564.Google Scholar
Barbato, Mariano, and Kratochwil, Friedrich. 2009. “Towards a Post-Secular Political Order?” European Political Science Review 1:317–340.Google Scholar
Barbato, Mariano, and Kratochwil, Friedrich. 2012. “Postsecular Revolution: Religion after the End of History.” Review of International Studies 38:1079–1097.Google Scholar
Bettiza, Gregorio, and Dionigi, Filippo. 2015. “How do Religious Norms Diffuse? Institutional Translation and International Change in a Post-Secular World Society.” European Journal of International Relations 21:621–646.Google Scholar
Casanova, José. 1994. Public Religions in the Modern World. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chesterman, Simon, and Annan, Kofi A., eds. 2007. Secretary or General?: The UN Secretary-General in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cox, Robert W. 1969. “The Executive Head: An Essay on Leadership in International Organization.” International Organization 23:205–230.Google Scholar
Dallmayr, Fred. 2012. “Post-secularity and (Global) Politics: A Need for Radical Redefinition.” Review of International Studies 38:963–973.Google Scholar
De Witte, Ludo. 2001. The Assassination of Lumumba. London: Verso.Google Scholar
De Witte, Ludo, Legum, Colin; reply by Urquart, Brian. 2001. “The Tragedy of Lumumba: An Exchange.” http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2001/dec/20/the-tragedy-of-lumumba-an-exchange (Accessed on January 7, 2016).Google Scholar
Erskine, Toni, ed. 2003. Can Institutions have Responsibilities?: Collective Moral Agency and International Relations. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Fernée, Tadd. 2014. “Gandhi and the Heritage of Enlightenment: Non-Violence, Secularism and Conflict Resolution.” International Review of Sociology 24:309–324.Google Scholar
Franck, Thomas M. 1985. Nation against Nation: What Happened to the U.N. Dream and what the U.S. Can Do About It. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Franklin, Robert Michael. 1990. “In Pursuit of a Just Society: Martin Luther King, Jr., and John Rawls.” The Journal of Religious Ethics 18:57–77.Google Scholar
Fröhlich, Manuel. 2007. Political Ethics and the United Nations: The Political Philosophy of Dag Hammarskjöld. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 2006. “Religion in the Public Sphere.” European Journal of Philosophy 14:1–25.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 2008. “Notes on Post-Secular Society.” New Perspectives Quarterly 25:17–29.Google Scholar
Hammarskjöld, Dag. 1953a. Address at the Dinner in His Honor given by the American Association for the United Nations in Cooperation with the New York University Institute for Review of the United Nations Affairs. New York, NY: United Nations.Google Scholar
Hammarskjöld, Dag. 1953b. Installation of the Secretary-General of the United Nations. New York, NY: United Nations.Google Scholar
Hammarskjöld, Dag. 1955. Address by the Secretary-General at John Hopkins University Commencement Exercises. New York, NY: United Nations.Google Scholar
Hammarskjöld, Dag. 1956. “The United Nations- Its Ideology and Activities” Address before the Indian Council of World Affairs. In UN Department of Public Informationa Pamphlet, edited by UN Department of Public Information. New York, NY: United Nations.Google Scholar
Hammarskjöld, Dag. 1957. “Meditation Room Presentation”.http://www.un.org/depts/dhl/dag/meditationroom.htm (Accessed on January 7, 2016).Google Scholar
Hammarskjöld, Dag. 1964. Markings. New York, NY: Knopf.Google Scholar
Hatzopoulos, Pavlos, and Petito, Fabio, eds. 2003. Religion in International Relations: The Return from Exile. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Hawkins, Darren G., and Jacoby, Wade. 2006. “How Agents Matter.” In Delegation and Agency in International Organizations, eds. Hawkins, Darren G., Lake, David A., Nielson, Daniel L., and Tierney, Michael J.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huls, Jos. 2006. “From Theology to Mystagogy. The Interiorisation of the Protestant Tradition by a World Citizen: Dag Hammarskjöld.” Acta Theologica 8:84–98.Google Scholar
Huls, Jos. 2010. “Hammarskjöld's Interpretation of the Bible.” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 66 (1).Google Scholar
Jackson, Elmore. 1957. “The Developing Role of the Secretary-General.” International Organization 11:431–445.Google Scholar
Johnstone, Ian. 2007. “The Secretary-General as Norm Entrepreneur.” In Secretary or General?: The UN Secretary-General in World Politics, ed. Chesterman, Simon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lash, Joseph. 1962. “Dag Hammarskjold's Conception of His Office.” International Organization 16:542–566.Google Scholar
Lipsey, R. 2011. “Dag Hammarskjöld and Markings: A Reconsideration.” Spiritus 11:84–103.Google Scholar
Lipsey, Roger. 2013. Hammarskjöld: A Life. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Lyon, Alynna. 2007. “The UN Charter, the New Testament, and Psalms.” In The UN Secretary-General and Moral Authority: Ethics and Religion in International Leadership, ed. Kille, Kent J. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Mavelli, L., and Petito, F.. 2012. “The Postsecular in International Relations: An Overview.” Review of International Studies 38:931–942.Google Scholar
Oestreich, Joel E. 2012. International Organizations as Self-Directed Actors: A Framework for Analysis. Abingdon, IN: Routledge.Google Scholar
Philpott, Daniel. 2012. Just and Unjust Peace: An Ethic of Political Reconciliation, Studies in Strategic Peacebuilding. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 2005. Political Liberalism. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Shakman Hurd, Elizabeth. 2008. The Politics of Secularism in International Relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Shakman Hurd, Elizabeth. 2011. “A Suspension of (Dis) Belief: The Secular-Religious Binary and the Study of International Relations.” In Rethinking Secularism, eds. Calhoun, Craig J., Juergensmeyer, Mark, and VanAntwerpen, Jonathan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stolpe, Sven. 1966. Dag Hammarskjöld, a Spiritual Portrait. New York, NY: Scribner.Google Scholar
Traub, James. 2007. “The Secretary-General's Political Space.” In Secretary or General?: The UN Secretary-General in World Politics, ed. Simon, Chesterman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Troy, Jodok. 2010. “Dag Hammarskjöld: An International Civil Servant Uniting Mystics and Realistic Diplomatic Engagement.” Diplomacy & Statecraft 21:434–450.Google Scholar
Urquhart, Brian. 1984. Hammarskjold. New York, NY: Harper & Row, W. W. Norton. Google Scholar
Wałęsa, Lech, and Rybicki, Arkadiusz. 1992. The Struggle and the Triumph: An Autobiography. New York, NY: Arcade Pub.Google Scholar
Wendt, Alexander E. 1987. “The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory.” International Organization 41:335–370.Google Scholar
Williams, A. Susan. 2011. Who Killed Hammarskjöld: The UN, the Cold War and White Supremacy in Africa. London: Hurst & Co.Google Scholar