Religeopolitics and the Affective Spatialities of Faith: Rethinking Religion in Geopolitical Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This article introduces religeopolitics as a conceptual framework for analyzing how religious actors participate in the production of geopolitical space through affective, embodied, and relational practices. It positions religion as a constitutive element of geopolitical analysis rather than an exceptional or marginal category within it. While recent developments in political and cultural geography have embraced feminist, moral, and affective‐oriented approaches, religion often remains unevenly integrated—typically reduced to ideology, identity, or extremism despite substantial existing scholarship. This article reframes religeopolitics through a synthesis of feminist and affective geographies with work on the spatialities of religion, moral geographies, congregational territoriality, and affective spatiality. Rather than presenting new empirical data, the article draws on illustrative cases from evangelical transnational networks alongside comparative examples from Islamic geographies to highlight how evangelical Christian communities (and, in other contexts, other faith communities) generate territorial imaginaries, cultivate moral attachments, and enact everyday geopolitical practices. It also foregrounds the ambivalence of religious spatial agency—its capacities for care and solidarity alongside exclusions, racialized and gendered hierarchies, and colonial reproduction. The concept of religeopolitics offers geographers a tool for engaging religion not as an anomaly within spatial analysis, but as a routine force in world‐making. The article concludes with a research agenda that positions religeopolitics within broader debates about non‐state agency, postsecular urbanism, and affective geopolitics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.058 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".