Abstract

The following article tries to react to the study by Joanildo Burity entitled "The evangelical people: hegemonic construction, minority disputes and conservative reaction", which deals with the construction of "evangelical politics" from the notions of "people" and "logic populist ”, from the work of Ernesto Laclau. The objective is to highlight the relevance of its contribution in the resignification of some analysis matrices on the evangelical identity and its relationship with the public space. For this, Burity's proposal will be complemented with the use of other categories within the Laclausian scaffolding itself, together with the contributions of production from the Southern Cone around the evangelical field.

Keywords: agonism, evangelical field, identity, populist logic, politics

the evangelical as an agonistic force: hegemonic disputes in the face of latin american political transition

The following article attempts to react to the study by Joanildo Burity titled "The evangelical people: Hegemonic construction, minority disputes and conservative reaction", about the construction of "evangelical politics" from the notions of the "people" and "populist logic" from the works of Ernesto Laclau. The aim is to highlight the relevance of his contribution in re-signifying some analysis matrices on the evangelical identity and its relationship with public spaces. In order to do so, Burity's proposal will be complemented with the use of other categories within the same Laclausian framework, complementing with contributions from the production in the Southern Cone regarding the evangelical field.

Keywords: Evangelical field, populist logic, agonism, identity, politics.

The increasing visibility of evangelical groups in the public sphere has fueled, as never seen before, a strong interest in trying to understand the phenomenon represented by the place that this religious sector is taking within the zigzagging Latin American social dynamics. This repositioning of the evangelical in the new scenarios of the regional political field has put in tension some visions and conceptualizations installed in the matter, especially those referring to secularism, secularization, religious pluralism, among others. Who are “the evangelicals”? From where they come? How have they achieved such power? They are questions that are frequently repeated and that show not only the interest in discerning these dynamics, but also the prejudices, generalizations and even the lack of precision when answering them.

Joanildo Burity's text, "The Evangelical People: Hegemonic Construction, Minority Disputes and Conservative Reaction", helps us to critically analyze various approaches to the relationship between the evangelical field and politics. Using Ernesto Laclau's approach to the construction of social identities based on populism as political logic (Laclau, 2005), Burity displays two significant elements to highlight around the ways in which the evangelical field is analyzed. First, that the evangelical identity is far from being a categorical nucleus with fixed features; rather it inscribes the conjunction of an agglomeration of expressions, narratives, practices and determinations, many of them antagonistic. The author specifies that the diversity of memories related to the evangelical should not be interpreted only as emanations from a "radiating center", but rather it must be understood that "the evangelical" embodies a constitutively open and internally divided signifier. In other words, evangelical plurality does not simply describe an external structural diversity but rather a constitutive characterization of what is properly evangelical as an internally fissured identity. In Laclaussian terms (Laclau, 2005: 64), the evangelical field is built from a internal border that articulates various equivalent chains that enable constant internal displacement, and in turn institute instances of union with other social subjects.

From the latter, the second important element that Burity underlines is that there is no telos (historical or phenomenological) in the evangelical political act, as can be shown by a phrase such - in fact widely publicized - as "evangelicals enter politics." This opinion, in reality, expresses not only a homogenizing image of the mobilization of this sector but also a corporatist and institutionalist vision of its political actions.

Burity presents the concept of minoritization (a term taken from Connolly, 2008) to account for two types of configuration that institute evangelical political action: a network of modes of institutionalization (organizations, churches, groups, people) and a counter-hegemonic logic in front of other subjects or discourses that monopolize (or pretend to do so) both the social and religious spheres. In other words, the evangelical mobilization matrices are not analogous, but rather respond to articulation dynamics based on the various agents and discourses that inhabit and circulate in the countryside. Evangelical groups enter the public space with the purpose of obtaining recognition and legitimacy as social actors, in addition to contesting hegemony around signifiers such as "the people", "the nation", "politics", "morality", among others.

These two elements of Burity's proposal are opposed, as we mentioned, to some common places in which certain academic, journalistic and political analyzes fall about the evangelical field, namely, the idea of a homogeneous religious identity (which ignores its very broad internal diversification) and a type of political identification limited to the incidence in spaces of institutional power, associated with a conservative and right-wing ideology (which also leaves aside the multiple practices and political reappropriations present, as well as the tension between bricolajes ideological that inhabit it).

We can say that many of these readings and analytical proposals were already present, incipiently or from other theoretical anchors, in the studies of the evangelical field in the Southern Cone since its origins. Let us remember, for example, the nomination of Matt Marostica (1994), who in the early 1990s called the evangelical field a new social movement, arguing that said religious expression at that time achieved a strong consolidation in terms of "cultural identity", that is, as a "space for social expression". We also see it in the studies of Hilario Wynarczyk (2009, 2010) with the concept of force field, from which he identifies the tensions and conflicts within the evangelical sector, especially between the two poles that, according to this author, make up this group: the historical liberationist and the biblical conservative. Wynarczyk also speaks of evangelical groups as social movements whose identity configuration is projected in the step from being an excluded sector within monopolistic social and ecclesiastical spheres, towards the creation of action strategies and public visibility, reflected in the formation of political parties and their participation in public debates on socially sensitive issues, such as the review of the religious freedom project and the registry of cults in Argentina (Wynarczyk, 2010).

In the same way, we find an extensive bibliography that clearly demonstrates that evangelical political practices are extremely heterogeneous, where the mutations that establish the bridge between the religious and the public are identified and analyzed (Algranti, 2010; Carbonelli, 2008, 2009, 2011 ; Carbonelli and Mosqueira, 2010; Frigerio, 1994; Bahamondes and Alarcón, 2013; Burity, 2006, 2008a, 2008b, 2011, 2015, 2016, 2017; Fediakova, 2013; Mansilla and Orellana, 2018; Míguez, 2000; Panotto, 2014 , 2016a, 2016b; Parker, 2012; Semán, 2000, 2001, 2010, 2013; Wynarczyk, 2009, 2010, 2014, 2018). This production develops, among other aspects, the territorial and institutional diversity of the advocacy processes (urban and popular sectors; municipalities, neighborhoods and States), the plurality of groups and social classes involved, the different types of agency (institutional lobbying, programs neighborhoods, party affiliation, advocacy from civil society organizations, presence in political networks), the various objectives set (intervention in the treatment of public policies, addressing issues such as religious freedom laws, making visible the social place of the church), the different fields of action, demand and reaction (secularism, sexual and reproductive rights, religious plurality, political and economic stability, human rights) and the performances and militancies used (that is, an incidence that is traced from the institutionalist towards a sociocultural ethic). All this, finally, unfolds from very varied ideological expressions that inhabit and coexist in the same evangelical bosom: conservatism, neo-conservatism and progressivism, right and left, added to the extensive combination between all of them, and at the same time the existence of many expressions that they escape from these demarcations.

If we contrast this wide spectrum of studies (covering a development of at least four decades) with the predominantly stereotyped images, conceptualizations and nominations that we find in current political and journalistic analyzes, we wonder where this gap lies between the existing rigorous and complex approaches and the generalizations grounded in a certain “common sense” circulating in some spaces. As several academics have stated in recent analysis columns (Seman and Viotti, 2019; Panotto, 2019; Mosqueira, 2019; Bahamondes, 2020), the lack of depth regarding the analysis of the evangelical field not only promotes methodological inaccuracies but also erroneous modes of address the socio-political dynamics, both of this group in particular and of the religious world in general.

Hence, it is important to focus on two questions related to two underlying axes in Burity's proposal that provide us with some inputs to address these identified epistemic discrepancies; namely: the impact of internal disputes within the evangelical field on the ways of analyzing their political identifications and the factors that come into play in the reappropriations of the evangelical by the public space and the different political agents. The first would be: how to make the analysis of the identity constitution of the evangelical field more complex? Something that has been discussed for a long time in the area of religious studies is at stake in this matter, and it has to do with the criticism of the static ways of understanding believing identities based on an essentialist definition of religion as a sociological concept, that is that is, as a category with determined axioms and applicable to all cases, but more specifically that inscribes immobile ontological identifications (Ceriani, 2013). In this sense, "the evangelical" also runs the risk - as in fact repeatedly happens with its use - of becoming a classification that homogenizes groups, reduces the types of connection and circulation between agents (internal and external), and limits their action sociopolitical in common places.

This brings us to the debate about the tension between frames of meaning and processes of identification, or what the use of the category of identity implies for religious studies (cfr. Asad 1993: 27-54). Alejandro Frigerio (2007) talks about the importance of differentiating between the personal identity of individuals, their social identities and the collective identity proposed by the group, as intersecting instances that not only determine how the believing subject reappropriates the religious, but, in fact, how the religious (and all its irradiations in the social, cultural and political) is transformed into a circulating practice, rather than objectified or objectifying. As Foucault (2003) affirmed, we cannot speak of subjects in themselves but rather of subjective positions that cross our identity as a heterogeneous set, and that manifest as a plot that divides us and at the same time places us in different territories, according to the contingencies, spaces, historical moments and practices within our locus sociocultural.

The same happens with the religious: this universe can be assumed in multiple ways by each subject (individual or collective) according to contexts, moments, processes, contingencies. Therefore, in the evangelical plane (as well as in all religious identification) we have to speak of what Benjamin Arditi (2009: 38) calls metastable identity planes, that is to say, malleable interpretive surfaces that are legitimized from a certain historical and discursive density acquired in the course of time, and that are put into play within the identification processes. These surfaces do not symbolize static definitions, but rather allow the circulation of even opposing representations.

Within the evangelical field we can identify at least five surfaces that come into play in this process, namely: 1) denominational genealogies (Pentecostal, Lutheran, Baptist, among others; adding, in addition, internal diversifications); 2) socio-historical and environmental contexts; 3) theological currents (reformed, Calvinist, liberationist, Anabaptist, and all possible confessional strands); 4) political-ideological positions (conservative, neo-conservative, progressive, critical evangelical, among others); and 5) generational processes (framed in tensions between different age groups and institutional conflicts due to socio-historical adaptation). All these surfaces intermingle in extremely varied ways, since it is impossible to make a correlation between a denominational genealogy and a theological current, or a socio-historical context and a socio-political position. There can be metastable positioning, but from as many nodal points as their possible combinations. It is not my intention to systematize these axes (which are in fact much more complex and varied) but rather to emphasize that the evangelical concerns an identity framework that, beyond the historical guidelines that we can find (although, going to the At the beginning, the original opposition between Magisterial Reform and Radical Reform already involves a constitutive break in itself), it has diffuse borders, extremely porous and completely flexible.

To this we have to add that when we speak of evangelical sectors influencing the public space, we cannot speak without more of “the church”, as if said institutionality - already extremely ambiguous and diverse - represented all the modes of appropriation of the evangelical advocacy. In another work (Panotto, 2020) I present the existence of different institutional inscriptions that respond to the evangelical spectrum within the public space, each representing different agents and types of political identification. For example, while in ecclesial spaces the agents (believing subjects) are extremely diverse (depending on the community configuration) and the types of identification are more fluid, plural and even antagonistic (since it is impossible to affirm that a local church responds to a unique theological framework and ideological position), in Faith-Based Organizations (obf) or what we could call Religious Political Networks (that is, organizations of regional scope or networks of obf and churches whose objective responds to an advocacy agenda on national public policies or within multilateral organizations) we find ourselves with much more homogeneous agents (not only laity or pastors but professional believers in the field of political advocacy, many of them with partisan militancy specific) and more concrete, limited and ideologically directed agendas.

Following another cardinal term of the Laclausian theory on populist logic (Laclau, 1996: 69-86), the evangelical as a frame of identification is far from being a sutured location that supports delimited subjects. Rather, it represents a empty signifier, that is, a particular nomination whose nominating power is deposited not precisely in demarcating specific characterizations but in enabling floating reappropriations in discursive, practical and contextual terms of the most varied, in this case, processes of political incidence, identification with social ideals, re-readings from various ideological frameworks, among others.

The second question - speaking, now, of the factors that come into play in the reappropriations of the evangelical by the public space and different political agents - is the following: why has "the evangelical" acquired so much relevance in recent decades? ? In other words, what are the factors that have made evangelical communities more visible in the last twenty years, given that this religious expression has been taking a noticeable boost in demographic terms for several more decades now? Is it just because of internal transformation factors or numerical extension, or are there other underlying components in the current context?

To answer this we can return to two other categories within the Laclausian scaffolding: the relationship between demand and articulation. According to Laclau (2005: 158ff), demands are the epicenter of the construction of a political space. The public does not originate in the simple confrontation of particular forces that compete for an identity legitimacy (in the sense of an antagonistic "war of positions" due to the mere fact of an ideological opposition), but from demands, that is, of points of insufficiency or needs within the broader social field, which summon the different voices and perspectives that make up the political spectrum in order to respond to them. Furthermore, the demands not only embody concrete needs, but also indicate shortcomings within the hegemonic symbolic frameworks to read and face reality. The dislocations that occur in the social sphere from these demands drive the need to find new equivalency chains between the senses and established practices, with the purpose of mobilizing towards new worldviews, practices and modes of institutionalization. For this reason, the demands do not entail an absolute change in the way in which the social space and its agents are understood, but rather mobilize displacements that facilitate other symbolic and material articulations within the same space.

Turning these elements into the subject that concerns us, we ask ourselves: what were, then, the demands that emerged in recent years and prompted new movements both within the evangelical field and from the agents and socio-political subjects in the public space, which induced the construction of new fabrics with this religious expression? Burity hypothesizes, in the Brazilian case, that the construction of the Pentecostal identity as a “general identity of the Protestants” responded to an “agonistic effect” at the juncture of the emergence of new political subjectivities in the post-dictatorship process, from the 80s. We find similar proposals in other countries (Wynarczyk, 2009; Mansilla and Orellana, 2018).

This phenomenon can also be transferred to other historical moments, especially to the regional political transformation processes that took place between the late 90s and early 2000s, especially in two fields: the deepening of the reconfigurations of the religious field (especially the monopoly of the Catholic Church) and changes in political agendas, with the emergence of new progressive governments. Regarding the first element, the Catholic Church, although it has not lost its political hegemony, has been challenged not only by evangelical growth but also by the loss of social trust it faces, due both to its internal crises as well as to the tensions that have developed between the intransigence of ecclesial orthodoxy and the emerging social demands in terms of new rights and inclusion processes. The new “Francisco era” has moved this board a bit, but it has not been able to change the course of movement (Renold and Frigerio, 2014)

In this context, the evangelical field emerges as a new “mediator of social religion”, as Burity mentions, in the face of a new set of popular demands, where we can identify: 1) the need for a change in the understanding of religion and its place social, especially from the growing processes of hybridization, post-secularization and deinstitutionalization of the religious; 2) a reconfiguration of micropolitical dynamics (or "day-to-day politics", as Esteban de Gori calls it), which responds to the crisis of traditional institutionalist political worldviews and practices, and where the evangelical responds in a strategic way from its dynamic configuration (Semán, 2010); and 3) a presence and performance more effective of evangelical groups in sectors with strong social demands.

The second element to highlight in this context of transformation is the impact of the emergence within the public space of new political subjectivities, and the debates that this brought about demands and themes such as feminism, sexual diversity, religious freedom and the State. secularism, sexual education and sexual and reproductive rights, and with it, the treatment of bills in these areas, which were authorized by the governments in this period. This prompted various groups linked to the evangelical field to become more strongly visible, in terms of what José Casanova (1994, 2012) calls public religion, responding to three characteristics that the author describes as: 1) mobilization of religious groups as social movements, 2) lobby institutional at the local, state and federal levels, and 3) electoral mobilization of religious sectors and the possible organization around political parties. This sparked activism focused on the moralization of politics (Carbonelli, 2008), both in relation to a value agenda that confronts these sensitive areas, and in what is understood as a constitutive problem in the institutional political spectrum, commonly referred to as “corruption”.

As stated by Burity (2016), the logic of minoritization of the evangelical field –reflected in strategies of resistance and involvement in the public arena based on rhizomatic logic from the twists and turns that the political institutionality itself makes possible–, made “the evangelical” transform in a signifier that articulates not only an innovative form of religious experience (and its effects on social life), but also new militancies, ways of reconfiguring social imaginaries (under the contrast of the universality of the moral versus "harmful relativism" which implies an ideological position) and performances charismatic leadership, which mirror, to a large extent, with the emerging political leaderships in the region of a charismatic and personalistic nature. This is how we could say, by way of example and in line with what Burity proposed, that the empowerment of conservative evangelical groups is born from the articulation processes gestated with the “new rights” (that is, the set of governments that emerge in the last ten years, as a reaction to the crisis of the progressive models that shaped regional politics from the late 1990s to 2015), which rose to oppose public agendas from human rights organizations and dispute political hegemony, and that They found in the evangelical field a symbolic reservoir to fight not only for projects and agendas, but also for political logic.

The force with which the emergence of the evangelical is manifested today, then, derives from its ability to attend to a set of social demands in a context of agonism (Mouffe, 2014) manifested in the tensions that it aroused in civil society and the political class the management of new social agendas. In this sense, it must be understood that the treatment of these agendas did not necessarily create a pendulum movement in terms of positions within society, but rather a scenario of deep tensions, discrepancies and conflicts that not even the governments of the day could resolve. For this reason, various evangelical groups rose up as agents of moralization, social restructuring and political positioning in the face of adversary sectors, responding to this void of meaning that occurred in the symbolic ways of enunciating and understanding political dynamics from the hegemonic discourses and agencies both progressive and conservative.

In this way, they gave rise to the creation of new discourses, worldviews from the sacred, mechanisms of articulation, human resources and advocacy strategies for a new "interlude" gestated between agendas in tension, which requires other modes of political action (opposite to the crisis of the hegemonic imaginaries) and other ways of living the faith (in the face of the crisis of Catholic orthodoxy and the emergence of various religious expressions). In addition, the different evangelical sectors served to articulate with emerging political subjects within the context of hegemonic dispute, as we can see in each country, from different junctures: in Brazil, we see the so-called "evangelical bench" on the one hand, with a strong conservative agenda, together with the monopoly sectors of the country, and the Frente de Evangélicos pelo Estado de Dereito as a critical and progressive side; In Argentina, governments have prioritized which evangelical federation to approach according to their political agenda: while the Kirchnerist governments approached the Argentine Federation of Evangelical Churches (faie), which brings together more open communities with inclusive perspectives and from human rights, the macrismo had a greater relationship with the Christian Alliance of Evangelical Churches of the Argentine Republic (aciera), with a more conservative cut; In Chile, the spectrum of political parties is linked to evangelical groups due to the rejection or approval of the constitutional process, according to their particular agenda.

To conclude, we could say that in this period it is no longer possible to speak only in ways reactive to do politics within the evangelical field, as ways of contesting and opposing the emergence of other political agendas opposed to the historical moral matrices (Cf. Vaggione, 2005). Rather, we must speak of much more complex and profound processes, where no longer only an antagonistic frontier is demarcated, but the construction of a new one is disputed. ethos sociocultural and moral, related, for example, to what Burity mentions in his article about the translation of a national project promoted by the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God in Brazil, more specifically proposed by its leader, Edir Macedo. Hence the relevance of talking about a agonist politics, that is, of a framework that goes beyond the inscription of friend-enemy antagonisms, but rather, as Burity suggests referring to the idea of populist moment (Mouffe 2018: 23-39), of a logic that evidences the bifurcation inwards of the evangelical spectrum and its possible ramifications in terms of hegemonic dispute for constitutive demands of society: the nation, the people, the social order, education , the family, among so many more.

This questions the existence of a unidirectional path of the performance evangelical politics. There are multiple voices and guidelines, which in turn enable a diversity of modes of political articulation in the social field, with an extremely broad spectrum of subjects, ideologies, historical conjunctures and socio-political projects. Here, then, lies the importance of making the approach to the internal configuration of the evangelical more complex, to understand that its political relevance does not come from a counterattack action en bloc in front of a determined set of discourses or agents, but from its articulation capacity. , hybridity, fluidity and malleability to make viable and catalyze, from the multipurpose sense that constitutes "the evangelical", different demands, practices and opposing identity constructions.

Bibliography

Algranti, Joaquín (2010). Política y religión en los márgenes. Buenos Aires: Ciccus.

Arditi, Benjamín (2009). La política en los bordes del liberalismo. Diferencia, populismo, revolución, emancipación. Barcelona: Gedisa.

Asad, Talal (1993). Genealogies of Religion. Londres: John Hopkins University Press.

Bahamondes, Luis (2020, 9 de marzo). “Ser evangélico no es ser de derecha: las complejidades de un credo usualmente desestimado por la izquierda”, en ciper. Recuperado de https://ciperchile.cl/2020/03/09/ser-evangelico-no-es-ser-de-derecha-las-complejidades-de-un-credo-usualmente-desestimado-por-la-izquierda/, consultado 13 de mayo de 2020.

Bahamondes, Luis y Nelson Marín Alarcón (2013). “Neopentecostalismos en Chile: transformación y resignificación del pentecostalismo criollo”, en Luis Bahamondes (ed.), Transformaciones y alternativas religiosas en América Latina. Santiago de Chile: cisoc, pp.175-919.

Burity, J. A. (2006) “Cultura e identidad nas políticas de inclusao social”, en Aécio Amaral, Jr. y Joanildo Burity (org.), Inclusao social, identidades e diferença. Sao Paulo: Annablume.

— (2008a) “Religião, política e cultura”, Tempo Social, vol. 20, núm. 2, pp. 83-113.

— (2008b) “Cultura, identidades e inclusao social: o lugar da religiao para seus atores e interlocutores”, Debates do Ner, vol .2, núm.14,
pp. 23-43.

— (2011). Fé na revoluçao. Protestantismo e o discurso revolucionario brasileiro. Sao Paulo: Novos diálogos.

— (2015). “A cena da religião. Contingência, dispersão e dinâmica relacional”, Novos Estudos, núm. 102, pp.89-105.

— (2016). “Minoritization and Pluralization. What is the “People” that Pentecostal Politicization is Building?”, Latin American Perspectives. vol. 43, núm. 3, pp.116–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/0094582X16639238

— (2017). “Autoridad y lo común en procesos de minoritización. El pentecostalismo brasileño”, Revista Latinoamericana de Investigación Crítica, vol. 6, núm. 6, pp.99-125.

Casanova, José (1994) Public Religions in the Modern World. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226190204.001.0001

— (2012). Genealogías de la secularización. Madrid: Anthropos.

Carbonelli, Marcos (2008). “Evangélicos y política en Argentina: entre la institucionalización y la autonomía”, Mitológicas, vol. 23, pp. 47-65.

— (2009). “Desde el barrio: perspectivas acerca de la actividad política de pastores evangélicos en el conurbano bonaerense”, Ciencias Sociales y Religión, vol. 11, núm 11, pp. 107-129. https://doi.org/10.22456/1982-2650.8368

— (2011). “Ciencias Sociales, evangélicos y política. Una lectura sobre la producción científica acerca de la participación política evangélica en la vida democrática argentina (1983-2010)”, Revista Cultura y Religión, vol. 5, núm. 2, pp. 96-116.

Carbonelli, Marcos y Mariela Mosqueira (2010). “Militantes del Señor: cosmología y praxis evangélica sobre el espacio público”, Sociedad y religión, vol. 20, núm. 32-33 , pp.108-123.

Ceriani, Cesar (2013). “La religión como categoría social: encrucijadas semánticas y pragmáticas”, Cultura y Religión, vol. 7, núm. 1, pp.10-26.

Connolly, William (2008). Capitalism and Christianity, American Style. Durham: Duke University Press.

Fediakova, Evguenia (2013). Evangélicos, política y sociedad en Chile: dejando “el refugio de las masas”. 1990-2010. Santiago: ceep, idea / Universidad de Santiago.

Frigerio, Alejandro (1994). “Estudios recientes sobre el pentecostalismo en el Cono Sur: problemas y perspectivas”, en Alejandro Frigerio (ed.), El Pentecostalismo en Argentina. Buenos Aires: Centro Editor de América Latina, Biblioteca Política Argentina, pp. 10-28.

— (2007). “Repensando el monopolio religioso del catolicismo en la Argentina”, en Julia Carozzi y Cesar Ceriani (ed.), Ciencias sociales y religión en América Latina. Buenos Aires: Biblos, pp. 87-116.

Foucault, Michel (2003). Tecnologías del yo. Madrid: Editora Nacional.

Laclau, Ernesto (1996). Emancipación y diferencia. Buenos Aires: Ariel.

— (2005). La razón populista. Buenos Aires: fce.

Mansilla, Miguel y Luis Orellana (2018). Evangélicos y política en Chile 1960-1990. Santiago: unap-rill.

Marostica, Matt (1994). “La Iglesia Evangélica en la Argentina como nuevo movimiento social”, Sociedad y Religión, vol. 10, núm. 12 , pp. 3-21

Míguez, Daniel (2000). “Modernidad, posmodernidad y la transformación de la religiosidad de los sectores medios y bajos en América Latina”, Revista Ciencias Sociales, núm. 10, pp. 56-68.

Mosqueira, Mariela (2019, 16 de noviembre) “Exorcizar el imaginario anti-evangélico”, en Grupo de Estudios Multidisciplinarios sobre Religión e Incidencia Pública (gemrip). Recuperado de http://www.gemrip.org/exorcizar-el-imaginario-anti-evangelico/, consultado el 13 de mayo de 2020.

Mouffe, Chantal (2014). Agonística. Pensar el mundo políticamente. Buenos Aires: fce.

— (2018) Por un populismo de izquierda. Buenos Aires: Siglo xxi.

Panotto, Nicolás (2014). “Pentecostalismos y construcción de identidades sociopolíticas”, Desafíos, vol. 26, núm. 2, pp. 73-96. https://doi.org/10.12804/desafios26.02.2014.03

— (2016a). “Rostros de lo divino y construcción del ethos sociopolítico: relación entre teología y antropología en el estudio del campo religioso. El caso del pentecostalismo en Argentina”, Debates do Ner, vol. 2, núm. 28, pp. 69-97. https://doi.org/10.22456/1982-8136.61268

— (2016b) “Fe que hace la diferencia: prácticas religiosas, ontología(s) y construcción de lo público. Un caso dentro del pentecostalismo argentino”, Liminales. Escritos sobre psicología y sociedad, vol. 1, núm. 10, pp. 29-45

— (2019, 15 de noviembre) “De evangélicos, generalizaciones y teorías de la conspiración”, en Grupo de Estudios Multidisciplinarios sobre Religión e Incidencia Pública (gemrip). Recuperado de http://www.gemrip.org/de-evangelicos-generalizaciones-y-teorias-de-la-conspiracion/, consultado el 13 de mayo de 2020.

— (2020). “Incidencia religiosa en clave multilateral: la presencia de redes políticas evangélicas en las asambleas de la oea”, Revista Cultura y Religión, vol.14, núm.1, pp. 100-120.

Parker, Christian (2012). “Religión, cultura y política en América Latina: nuevos enfoques”, en Christian Parker (ed.), Religión, política y cultura en América Latina: nuevas miradas. Santiago de Chile: Universidad de Santiago de Chile, pp. 13-73.

Renold, Juan Mauricio y Alejandro Frigerio (comp.) (2014). Visiones del Papa Francisco desde las Ciencias Sociales. Rosario: unr Editora.

Semán, Pablo (2000). “El pentecostalismo y la religiosidad de los sectores populares”, en Maristella Svampa (ed.), Desde abajo: La transformación de las identidades sociales. Buenos Aires: Biblos, 155-180.

— (2001). “La recepción popular de la teología de la prosperidad”, Scripta Ethnologica, vol. 23, pp.145-162.

— (2010). “De a poco mucho: las pequeñas iglesias pentecostales y el crecimiento pentecostal. Conclusiones de un estudio de caso”, Revista Cultura y Religión, vol. 4, núm.1, pp.16-35.

— (2013). “Pentecostalismo, política, elecciones y poder social”, Sociedad y Religión, vol. 7, núm. 1, pp.60-81.

Semán, Pablo y Viotti, Nicolás (2019). “Todo lo que usted quiere saber de los evangélicos le contaron mal”, Revista Anfíbia. Recuperado de http://revistaanfibia.com/ensayo/todo-lo-que-quiere-saber-de-los-evangelicos-le-contaron-mal/, consultado el 13 de mayo de 2020.

Vaggione, Juan Marcos (2005). “Reactive Politicization and Religious Dissidence. The Political Mutations of the Religious in Social Theory and Practice”, Social Theory and Practice, vol. 31, núm. 2, pp. 233-255. https://doi.org/10.5840/soctheorpract200531210

Wynarczyk, Hilario (2009). Ciudadanos de dos mundos. El movimiento evangélico en la vida pública argentina 1980-2001. Buenos Aires: unsam Edita.

— (2010). Sal y luz a las naciones. Evangélicos y política en la Argentina (1980-2001). Buenos Aires: Instituto Di Tella / Siglo xxi.

— (2014). Tres evangelistas carismáticos: Omar Cabrera, Héctor Aníbal Giménez y Carlos Annacondia. Buenos Aires: Diversa.

— (2018). “Argentina: ¿Vino nuevo en odres viejos? Evangélicos y política”, en José Luis Pérez Guadalupe y Sebastian Grundberger (ed.). Evangélicos y poder en América Latina. Lima: Konrad Adenauer Stiftung / Instituto de Estudios Social Cristianos, pp. 107-140.

Nicolas Panotto He has a degree in Theology (iu isedet), Master in Social and Political Anthropology and Doctor in Social Sciences (flaccid Argentina). Associate researcher at the Institute of International Studies (inte) of the Arturo Prat University, Chile. Director of the Multidisciplinary Studies Group on Religion and Public Advocacy (gemrip). Specialist in the areas of religion and politics, Latin American evangelical field and public theology. Author of Faith made public (2019), Decolonize Latin American Theological Knowledge (2018), Religions, politics and the secular state in Latin America (2017), Religion, politics and postcoloniality in Latin America (2016), among others. orcid: 0000-0002-0513-7175