Paper short abstract:

Religions theorized as vestigial (i.e. once and future) states….governments uneasy use of category of religion to contain violence and justify sovereignty

Paper long abstract:

I begin with the conviction that "religion" as an ahistorical, eternal, impossible-to-define category that Roland Barthes labeled 'depoliticized' speech warrants energetic critique.

I will argue that religions function as vestigial states within contemporary states. By 'vestigial states' I mean institutions and practices originating in particular histories as remainders of former sovereignties. These remnants are tolerated as attenuated jurisdictions within fully functioning states. Because vestigial states (religions) compete with contemporary states, they are always somewhat problematic - especially if the present state's right to control violence is challenged. However, religions also work to ground the governments that authorize them by recalling earlier, mystified forms of sovereignty. Furthermore, religions are useful because they can be depicted as less progressive versions of power. Thus do 'religions' understood as vestigial states both disturb and maintain current regimes.

The hypothesis that religions can be productively thought of as vestigial states - that can also be described as 'once and future' states in regard to their narratives about origins and ambitions - is a prelude to future theory. Cases illustrating how the modern category of religion evolves to name and contain displaced governments will be cited from the following histories: ancient Greece, Druids, Judaism, and Christianity. The Dalai Lama's use of 'religion' to limit his office and thus stymie Chinese plans for Tibet will also be discussed as a strategic contemporary use of the category.