Religion in an Age of Empire: The Salvation Army and British Imperialism, 1878–1914

Debates about the British Empire continue to rage, especially those concerned with its impact on domestic affairs during the Victorian and Edwardian periods. The degree to which empire mattered to average Britons at home has tended to generate polarised responses from historians. Some have sought to downplay its overall significance, whereas others have been prone to argue that its effects on society were widespread. The present article speaks into this debate by examining one notable British organisation — the Salvation Army — which came into being in the second half of the nineteenth century. While a number of scholars have addressed the imperialist implications of Army work in the colonies, much less work has been done to scrutinise the empire's influence on Salvationists within Britain itself. Looking at three characteristics frequently associated with imperialist ideology — militarism, racial othering, and devotion to the monarchy — this article contends that the Salvation Army's relationship to the British Empire was remarkably dynamic and complex during the timeframe under review. Demonstrating that Salvationist thinking and practice could both help and hinder the aims of imperialism, it points to the need for more balanced and nuanced approaches to the study of the empire in the metropole.     

A Response to Clayton Crockett and Jeffrey Robbins,Religion, Politics and the Earth: The New Materialism1

Crockett's and Robbins' significant and groundbreaking book falls short of a genuinely liberating future, one that can put in place alternative social and institutional forms to sustain a comprehensive freedom from structural domination. This major claim is sustained by tracing four deficiencies in the book: (a) its sanguine trust to a developmentalist sensibility that underestimates political antagonism; (b) another neglect of political antagonism in its trust to transformative powers of a “multitude” and its cooperative activity, (c) its failure to build social and political formation into its theory of emergent complexity, and (4) its failure in reflexivity, to interrogate the “we” discourse that proliferates in authors' senses of crisis and calls for transformation.