Introduction
The aim of this essay is to comprehend why fundamentalism is a feature of religion today. In order to reach an understanding of this matter, we will attempt to answer the following questions: What is fundamentalism? Why do religious fundamentalist movements occur? What are the common aspects amongst fundamentalist groups? To answer these questions, we will use an array of academic references which refer to both Christian fundamentalism and Muslim fundamentalism groups. Some sociologists argue that the only people who can weigh in on fundamentalism or study fundamentalism are outsiders because they are the only ones who can have a clear understanding of the argument. Therefore, this essay wants to stay away from moral judgment and focus on the reality of the phenomenon.
Understanding Fundamentalism
Understanding fundamentalism can be hard for some of us since the concept has been constantly loosely used by media outlets and scholars. According to Henry Munson, “the use of ‘fundamentalist’ as an analytical category for comparative purposes remains controversial. In fact, one good reason to avoid the term as much as possible is to avoid having to waste time defending it.” (Referencehttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezproxy.brighton.ac.uk/doi/10.1111/j.1749-8171.2008.00088.x/full) Furthermore, Munson states that the term is rejected by both right and left of theology and political science. For the right, liberals use the term to discredit groups that wish to adhere to traditional doctrines of their faith, while, for the left, Westerners use “Islamic Fundamentalism” to discredit movements in the Middle East who struggle against the imperialism of the West. The word fundamentalism has been thrown around like a baseball by journalists as well, who use it mostly as a pejorative term. For instance, the term “Islamic fundamentalism” often serves merely to discredit certain movements. In a New York Times editorial, the Turkish government was categorized as a regime of “secular fundamentalists” whereas the Iran regime was labeled as “Islamic fundamentalists”. It would make as much sense to use “secular” for Iran, however, the author wanted to characterize the Iranian government in a more negative manner.” http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezproxy.brighton.ac.uk/doi/10.1111/j.1949-3606.1999.tb00779.x/epdf “( http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.brighton.ac.uk/docview/220275978?pq-origsite=summon&http://ezproxy.brighton.ac.uk/login?url=accountid=9727)
Consequently, we thought it would be wise to look back to when the term was originally coined in order to get a better grip on what the word was intended to mean. According to John A. Dick, the term “fundamentalist” began to be used in the early 1920s to identify those who believed and defended the fundamentals of their faith. To be more exact, it was a word related to certain Protestant groups in America who were very much against the changes brought about with modernity (Darwinism, industrialization, shifts in social mores) since these were in discordance with these groups’ literal views of the Bible’s teachings. (DICK, J. A. dfkjgkdn http://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/part-four-made-in-america-christian-fundamentalism) It is important to highlight that these groups referred to themselves as fundamentalists. By the end of the twentieth century, media outlets and scholars used the term fundamentalist to refer to many groups of religious conservatives, who wished to restore traditional Christian values and protect the younger generation from anti-American and anti-Christian tendencies. ( http://sk.sagepub.com.ezproxy.brighton.ac.uk/books/globalization-east-and-west/n6.xml)
To this day the way the word is used is similar to its 1920s definition: it is a term designed to particular groups of people who take their faith very seriously or who react against changes that clash with their religious-based worldview. However nowadays we tend to relate fundamentalism to cultures in the Middle East, partially due to the fact that the Middle East, in general, appears to hold more conservative values and to have many religious fundamentalists within its territory, and partially due to the fact that the media will mostly only refer to Islamic fundamentalist as an occurrence of fundamentalism. As we see most of the time, the region’s instabilities and violence are often linked to groups of religious backgrounds, mainly Islamic groups, which are viewed as violent and opposed to modernity. Interestingly enough, this “concept [that] was developed in the heart of the Western world as a proud and positive self-definition, […] is now being used to brand the “barbarians” who live outside of the Western world, and who prefer to call themselves Islamists.” (Reference). Some sociologists argue that fundamentalism is not just a characteristic of one country or one religion. In fact, most religions have fundamentalist groups who believe they are right in reacting against a “sinful”, modern societies. As R Scott argued “for all the current focus on fiery Islamic extremism, a religious fundamentalist is not confined to any particular faith or country nor to the poor and uneducated. Instead, they are likely to spring up anywhere people perceive the need to fight a godless, secular culture” (R.Scott and Martin E. Marty p16 2002).
From what we have seen, then, we can relate fundamentalism to those individuals or groups who think the only truth lies within their holy books, in other words, we can relate fundamentalism to the right wings of religion (and that would mean any religion). Although many will try to correlate fundamentalism with violence it is not always true. They are neither necessarily all blood-thirsty, nor necessarily all peaceful. As we have seen throughout history, fundamentalists have indeed made use of violent methods to achieve their goals. To name a few, we had Hindu groups in India who opposed Gandhi, we have Christian fundamentalists who were involved in shootings of abortion clinics, and we have Muslim fundamentalists in the Middle East. Still, there are many religious fundamentalists that express their views peacefully. For instance, the Westboro Baptist Church in America (who, despite their cruel words, never really resorted to violent acts of protest), Madkhalism in parts of Europe (who are against violence against non-believers), the Protestant fundamentalists, and Nakhda in Tunisia. Nonetheless, the general image of fundamentalism is that of violence. S. Hunt argues that fundamentalism is not a neutral term and most fundamentalists received bad “press”.”– “This bad press is not mainly a result of the acts of the so-called fundamentalist, but rather because the public and governments choose to only see the negative attributes of fundamentalism (they focus on religious bigotry, fanaticism, and anti-modernist outlook). While some adherents might be proud of their reputation, for others “fundamentalists” is just a term, indeed, a label applied by the outside world to those who would earnestly seek to uphold the beliefs and practices of their faith as they see fit.”
What leads people to fundamentalism, however? It is often said that fundamentalism is a response to changes brought about by modernity. Those who form the right wing are in fact from the educated masses who were eventually alienated from the system. “They are frustrated science teachers, unpaid civil servants, disillusioned doctors, and underemployed engineers. In short, fundamentalists are recruited from social groups that have failed to benefit from secular nationalist governments and aborted modernization projects.” (Reference) http://sk.sagepub.com.ezproxy.brighton.ac.uk/books/globalization-east-and-west/n6.xml. The next part of this essay seeks to understand the correlation between fundamentalism and modernity better.
Fundamentalism and Modernity
As we have gone over a few of the definitions for fundamentalism at the beginning of the essay, we now want to find out why this kind of movement occurs. At the start of modernity, classical sociologist (such as Durkheim, Marx, and Weber) were concerned about modernization consequences in the division of labour and public life. “Social life would no longer be a cohesive whole, but divided into distinct spheres.” (Reference) What happened in America in the early 20th century may serve as proof that they were right to be concern. During this time US society was on the peak of what is so called modernity and as we have mentioned before, desired to take Americans back to their Christian, traditional values. They felt as if their religion was losing its important role in how society functioned. Since the first self-entitled fundamentalists came about because of modernity, we cannot talk about fundamentalism without talking about modernity and its reaction to religion, because modernity was attacking religion and its followers.
It can be argued that fundamentalism is a reaction to modernization and secularization, “without modernization and secularization there would be no fundamentalism” since the aim of modernity is to erase religion’s role in public life. Fundamentalism can be seen as “an urban movement directed primarily against the dissolution of personalistic, patriarchal notions of order and social relations and their replacement by depersonalized principle” (Reference http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.brighton.ac.uk/stable/29737734?pq-origsite=summon&seq=4#page_scan_tab_contents). According to Hartman and Emerson, modernity has affected religion and its role in everyday life in many ways. It has greatly diminished religious influence over certain spheres in society, even completely erasing that influence over others. In the modern society, there is a continuous individualizing and relativizing of the world. There is no such thing a single core truth and consequently, there are fewer and fewer values that are shared amongst all. The top main values of modern society are tolerance and acceptance which renders it difficult for societies to reject many behaviours and ideas. Turner and Khondker have a similar view on the matter. They perceive modernity as something that is fragmentizing social institutions and that is rushing fundamentalists to give up their values, communities, social ties and traditions in order to become integrated into modern societies. Modernization “undermines tradition, it cuts off the communal and social foundations that supported religion as a traditional institution.” On the other hand, religion will continue to have its role in supporting national, regional or class identities. Nationalism often seems to require the aid of religion to form an identity. http://sk.sagepub.com.ezproxy.brighton.ac.uk/books/globalization-east-and-west/n6.xml “Modernism becomes an ideology that values change over continuity, quantity over quality, and commercial efficiency over traditional values.” (Reference http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.brighton.ac.uk/stable/29737734?pq-origsite=summon&seq=4#page_scan_tab_contents) Modernity is, therefore, a threat to religion, as it can eventually reduce it to nothing more than individual beliefs. It can be said, then, that fundamentalism is a consequence of modernity.
It is important to point out that, whilst modernity is an important factor that makes fundamentalist tendencies arise, that it is not the sole factor at play, especially if we are talking about Islamic fundamentalists. If we take Hamas as an example that becomes quite clear. It does wish for a state that is in strict conformity to Islamic law with followers that are expected to follow such rules. Nonetheless, it is also a movement that was created also to fulfill traditional demands of the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Therefore, nationalism is also a factor for Islamic fundamentalists and not only religion and its opposition to modern values (or lack of thereof). (Reference http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezproxy.brighton.ac.uk/doi/10.1111/j.1749-8171.2008.00088.x/full)
If we go back to the early fundamentalism we can see that it was not initially against the secular state, it was more a reaction against other kinds of religious organizations and against changes in social mores (for example. the US Protestants in the early 20th century). Therefore, it is different from today’s fundamentalism in the Middle East, which can be seen as a reaction to the state power and west imperialism in the region. The Iranian revolution was against the state because the latter was tied to the West, and with that, the social values and the norms of the state were forced to be more Western. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt had a similar relationship with the state. In one of her many arguments, the author of the (¬¬¬¬¬¬) talks about Muslim fundamentalism and relates it to the decline of the Muslim Caliphate in the Middle East in the early 20th century, which lead to the invasion of the territory by western powers such as Britain and France. She argues that after the collapse of the Caliphate major changes were brought to the region as the western powers tried to impose their ideology on the region and establish monarchies which were tied to western values, thereby replacing many social traditions and values, such as marriage divorce any social economic. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezproxy.brighton.ac.uk/doi/10.1111/j.1478-0542.2005.00125.x/full
In his book Fundamentalism, Steve Bruce says that fundamentalism in the US “was first and foremost a religious movement” initiated in the late 19th century. While the main Protestant denominations adapted their views to new scientific discoveries, many groups inside the Protestant faith reacted in a different fashion, holding on to the Bible as it was, for them, the only truth. Fundamentalism in America was all about protecting a religious-based way of life. (BRUCE, S. Fundamentalism ….). Meanwhile, the Muslim fundamentalism can be traced back to the early twentieth century when secular governments failed to provide political stability in the Muslim World and not only has a religious aspect to it, but also a political one. According to Itzchak Weismann, “’Islamic fundamentalism’ refers to the contemporary religion-political discourse of return to the scriptural foundations of the religion as developed by Muslim scholars, mystics, and increasingly lay persons and movements, which reinterpret these foundations on the basis of their living traditions for application to the socio-political and cultural realities of the modern world.” http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.brighton.ac.uk/docview/1114066898?pq-origsite=summon&http://ezproxy.brighton.ac.uk/login?url=accountid=9727
http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.bright
on.ac.uk/stable/29737734?pq-origsite=summon&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.brighton.ac.uk/stable/3183353?pq-origsite=summon&seq=4#page_scan_tab_contents kaka soran this article is very useful
http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.brighton.ac.uk/stable/29737734?pq-origsite=summon&seq=2#page_scan_tab_contents this is very important
http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.brighton.ac.uk/stable/3183353?pq-origsite=summon&seq=6#page_scan_tab_contents I need to use this as well because very important
What is common among all fundamentalists and fundamentalist groups?
The only question left for us to go through is: what characteristics fundamentalist groups have in common? Throughout this discussion on fundamentalism, taking Christian and Islamic fundamentalism as examples, many differences could be spotted between the two types presented. However, we now want to focus on the common characteristics one can find between the many fundamentalist groups. There are many scholarly opinions on this matter.
For most of the fundamentalist, the true way of life is following the gaudiness of the holy books and acting against modernity; that applies to all different type of religious fundamentalist. In Dr. John Dick’s talk about fundamentalism in America, he defends that all fundamentalist are selective since they use only part of the holy books as a means to achieve their goals. “Religious fundamentalists place such a high priority on doctrinal conformity and obedience to doctrinaire spokespersons that they sacrifice values basic to the great religious traditions: love, compassion, forgiveness, tolerance, and caring.” Most of the fundamentalist view the world as divided into two groups: the good and the evil. So if you are not the follower of the religion or accept the sort of religious ideas that they identify as truth, you are evil and are against them. Fundamentalists see the world as black and white, you are either with them or against them; they have sharp boundaries. Most of the religious fundamentalist groups are against modernity, but fundamentalist uses some aspects of modernity, such a communication technologies or more, in order to pursue their own agenda. According to the writer’s argument we should be clear when we talk about the common feature within fundamentalist groups; what places them in the same category is not the use of violence. In John Dick’s own words: “Not all fundamentalist groups are violent. In fact, most are not. Despite the many fundamentalist people and groups in the United States, for example, there has been less violence than, for example, in many nations of the Middle East. And most often, when violence has occurred in the United States, it was the work of an individual operating alone, without the organized support of a religious group”. http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/29737734.pdf?acceptTC=true
Emerson and Hartman believe that there are many points in common between the arrays of fundamentalist groups, both ideological and organizational. They are in agreement with Dr. John when it comes to the following aspects: they are a reaction to modernity; they are selective with their holy texts, they have a dualistic worldview, sharp boundaries, absolutism and inerrancy (the use of the only holy book as the whole truth). They do, however, make additional points. To them all fundamentalists narrate a story of millennialism and messianism, in which their followers should expect a nearing end of the world or judgment day; they believe their followers are the elected or chosen by God; these organizations are often built around a charismatic leader; rules on social behaviour are both detailed and strict. http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.brighton.ac.uk/stable/29737734?pq-origsite=summon&seq=8#page_scan_tab_contents
Martyn Percy’s view on this does not even include almost any of the features before mentioned. He believes there are five core features of fundamentalism: “backward-looking legitimisation for present forms of ministry and belief, opposition to trends in modernist society, a set of core beliefs, cross-denominationalism, and finally, an impact on the material world” http://www.tandfonline.com.ezproxy.brighton.ac.uk/doi/full/10.1080/13569310701622176. Nevertheless, he does defend the idea that fundamentalists hold on to certain core values of their religion in the face of changes imposed by modernity.
http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.brighton.ac.uk/stable/29737734?pq-origsite=summon&seq=8#page_scan_tab_contents.
Riza Aslan argued that we can deny that all religion promote peace or violence religion contain violence and peace however the people action of fundamentalist is the action of particular group who want to achieve something through violence