Why was there no religious war in premodern East Asia?

Abstract

In premodern East Asia, Korea, Japan, Vietnam, and China rarely experienced anything like the type of religious violence that existed for centuries in historical Europe, despite having vibrant religious traditions such as Confucianism, Buddhism, Daoism, and numerous folk religions. How do we explain a region in which religion was generally not a part of the explanation for war and rebellion? A unique data set of over 950 entries of Chinese and Korean violence over a 473-year span allows granular measurement of religious violence. I argue that the inclusivist religions of historical East Asia did not easily lend themselves to appropriation by political leaders as a means of differentiating groups or justifying violence. Addressing the paucity of religious war in historical East Asia is theoretically important because it challenges a large body of scholarly literature that finds a universal causal relationship between religion and war that is empirically derived mainly from the experience of only Christianity and Islam. In contrast, it may be that certain types of religious traditions are less amenable to mass mobilization for violence. Moving beyond Christianity and Islam to include East Asian religious traditions promises both to address a potentially serious issue of selection bias and also to be a rich field for theorizing about the relationship between religion and war.

Myths of military revolution: European expansion and Eurocentrism

“…Events like the Ottoman conquest of South-East Europe and North Africa, the Mughal conquest of most of the Indian subcontinent, and the Manchu conquest of China are seen as fleeting and unrepresentative historical curios, while relatively brief periods of success like those of the Dutch and Swedes are seen as being of epochal and enduring importance. Quantitative IR works that are based on explicitly Eurocentric data sets, such as the Correlates of War and Great Power Wars 1495–1815, have been shown to be profoundly misleading in the conclusions they suggest about international systems (Butcher and Griffiths, forthcoming; Fazal, 2007; Kang, 2014).…”

Interpreting the Maritime and Overland Trade Regulations of 1882 between Chosŏn and the Qing: How logics of appropriateness shaped Sino–Korean relations

“…Previous research on Sino–Korean relations within international relations (IR) often viewed the tribute system through constructivism (Kang, 2012, 2013, 2014; JY Lee, 2016a; F Zhang, 2015). Other scholars discussed the instrumental (Zhou, 2011) and symbolic importance (Y Zhang and Buzan, 2012) of the tribute system.…”

Does religion matter to dividend policy? Evidence from Buddhism and Taoism in China

“…1. Kang (2014) argues that Buddhism and Taoism have non-exclusion characteristics. That is, Buddhism and Taoism do not openly exclude other religions.…”