the hegemony of world capitalism, the intensiWcation of cross-national reli-
gious movements, and a growing awareness in Euro-American states that the
‘‘Judaeo-Christian tradition’’—a neologism coined in the aftermath of the
Nazi Holocaust—covers less than 30 percent of the globe’s population.
Although theWeld boundaries between international relations and political
theory are still jealously guarded by many, a signiWcant minority now crosses
it. From the side of political theory there is Benhabib ( 2002 ); Connolly
( 2002 ); Dallmayr ( 2002 ); Held ( 2004 ); Honig ( 2001 ); and Tully ( 1995 ).
From the side of IR theory there is Campbell ( 1998 ); Grovogui ( 1996 ); Der
Derian ( 2001 ); Shapiro ( 1997 ); and Walker ( 1993 ). The consolidation of this
nexus may transform the operational categories and assumptions of political
theory, producing new studies of sovereignty, territory, cross-state citizen
activism, global capitalist processes, and international organization.
There is a related development. Perhaps because of the heightened visibil-
ity of radical religious movements within and across states, increasing atten-
tion is now paid to the role that ontology, metaphysics, faith, and/or religious
traditions play in theory and practice. In the 1960 s many theorists either
assumed that secularism would gradually shuZe religious faith safely into the
private realm or, less often, pursued a state governed by one fundamental
religious tradition. In the immediate decades following, many purported to
be post-metaphysical (Habermas 1992 ; Villa 1996 ), more or less shuZing
religion into the category of metaphysics. Supporters of post-secular plural-
ism today, however, assert that citizens do not really leave faith in the private
realm when they enter the public realm. We seek a public ethos that allows
citizens to bring chunks of their faith with them into public life when it is
relevant to the issue while recoiling back upon their own faith with a degree of
relational modesty out of respect for its deep contestability in the eyes of
others.
The contestable metaphysic/faiths that infuse political theories themselves
are also explored more actively today. One study by Jane Bennett ( 2001 )
brings out the incorrigibility of the ontological and spiritual dimensions of
theory, as she herself draws upon a Deleuzian spirituality of vital materiality
to inform a positive sensibility. Stephen White ( 2000 ) presses the issue hard.
He once sought to abide by the post-metaphysical strictures of Habermas,
but he now concludes that such a call is impossible to sustain. He thus
excavates the active role of ontology in several theories, using the occasion
to propose criteria to inform the ethos of engagement between them. He
doubts whether all contests at this level will be resolved deWnitively, and he
836 william e. connolly