Some Thoughts on Fundamentalism
Fundamentalism is not a sign of a society in ascension.
Fundamentalist tendencies, whether they are religious or political, tend to develop among cultures under perceived threat. One way to force a movement towards fundamentalism is to create a sense of external threat to the group.
Ascension within fundamentalist structures requires blind devotion to principles. Once the momentum of a fundamentalist movement is formed, increasingly extreme statements and acts of devotion are required. Fundamentalist structures tend to create fanatics.
The fundamentalist mindset is prone towards absolutist views of the world, making clear black and white distinctions between those in the group and those outside the group. This strict division often manifests itself as a perceived battle of purity versus heresy. Challenges to the fundamentalist belief set are often met with overly aggresive response.
Fundamentalist organizations frequently throw up leader imbued with mythical characteristics which represent the purest ideals of the fundamentalist movement.
Over time, fundamentalist structures tend to destroy themselves either through exclusion or infighting over increasingly narrow doctrinal disputes.
Frequently, one group will splinter off preaching a more radical version of the fundamentalist belief. This fracturing often creates a smaller extremely radical sect of the fundamentalist movement constituted of individuals who believe that the original group was not stringent enough.
Fundamentalist structures often end after some excessive act carried out in the movement's name.
(These are just random thoughts this afternoon. Any additions, comments, or corrections would be welcomed.)
Fundamentalist tendencies, whether they are religious or political, tend to develop among cultures under perceived threat. One way to force a movement towards fundamentalism is to create a sense of external threat to the group.
Ascension within fundamentalist structures requires blind devotion to principles. Once the momentum of a fundamentalist movement is formed, increasingly extreme statements and acts of devotion are required. Fundamentalist structures tend to create fanatics.
The fundamentalist mindset is prone towards absolutist views of the world, making clear black and white distinctions between those in the group and those outside the group. This strict division often manifests itself as a perceived battle of purity versus heresy. Challenges to the fundamentalist belief set are often met with overly aggresive response.
Fundamentalist organizations frequently throw up leader imbued with mythical characteristics which represent the purest ideals of the fundamentalist movement.
Over time, fundamentalist structures tend to destroy themselves either through exclusion or infighting over increasingly narrow doctrinal disputes.
Frequently, one group will splinter off preaching a more radical version of the fundamentalist belief. This fracturing often creates a smaller extremely radical sect of the fundamentalist movement constituted of individuals who believe that the original group was not stringent enough.
Fundamentalist structures often end after some excessive act carried out in the movement's name.
(These are just random thoughts this afternoon. Any additions, comments, or corrections would be welcomed.)
posted by mikevotes at
3:23 PM
8 Comments:
Fundamentalist tendencies, whether they are religious or political, tend to develop among cultures under perceived threat.
I was nodding in agreement at that; then started to think – generalization, careful. Of course it is, but your thought doesn’t necessarily limit the phenomenon to that one cause.
More curious are the essentially well off, middle class fundamentalist groups in our countries. Not to mention the poverty ridden, progressive religious groups.
You bit off a big one there, a lot to think about in the dynamics of the whole issue. Thanks
By
Cartledge, at 4:56 PM
Generalization was kinda the point.
And fundamentalist movements do, almost always, come in response to a perceived threat. (Key word perceived.) The fundamentalist religious movement currently under way in my country chooses issues which almost exclusively attempt to control the actions of others outside the group. It stems from a genuine feeling that society is somehow slipping away from them. That is the entire basis of the Republican culture wars.
It has very little to do with economics or direct physical threat of some kind, but instead it's a response to an underlying feeling that America is not going in a direction they're comfortable with.
The "threat" is that America is being undermined by a loss of values setting up the situation where their purity as fundamentalists is the only source of salvation.
Perhaps another example from further back might cover it. Look at the political fundamentalism of McCarthyism and the Red Scare in the US in the 50's. There was a real threat, but the real threat was minor compared to the manifestation of the political response. The Communists weren't about to take over the country, there was some infiltration, but the response was a purge of sorts that destroyed many innocents.
I think I could realistically argue that any fundamentalist movement in the US was a a response to stress or threat, from the original stringent Calvinism of the US colonies in response to British oppression, to the early industrialization christian fundamentalism which responded to shifts in the economic structure.
I'm certain the generalization can be proved wrong, but fundamentalism generally rises up as a response to something else.
And, perhaps I was too vague or imprecise in the use of the word threat. Perhaps stress would have been a better choice, including economic stresses, cultural stresses, etc. Fundamentalism is often a response to change.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 5:23 PM
Oh, and let me say that I recognize that I may be entirely wrong on any or all of these points. For the most part this is forcing a particular set of associations and interpretations on history.
To the point we were discussing above, the fact that fundamentalist movements develop or amplify at the same time there are stresses does not automatically indicate that the threats or stresses are the cause of a particular fundamentalist movement.
That's my argument, but I do recognize that it does require an open step to get there.
This was just rattling around in my head watching the gay marriage thing, and I figured that even if you don't agree with one or all of these, this might prove thought provoking.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 5:39 PM
All I know is this..I look at the 12 points pointing to Facism and..WE ARE THERE.
By
Unknown, at 6:47 PM
It's a meaty subject, to be sure. I get your drift on the US brand, and I guess they are similar in Canada.
The Aussie brand, in my experience, is more opportunistic. Though even so there is a disproportionate homophobia among the breed.
I guess there is some kind of threat there, but what I'm not sure. Most I've dealt with personally (well personally in the sense of involved confrontation) seem to be fairly asexual.
Still, that might be generalizing a little.
By
Cartledge, at 7:17 PM
I agree Dusty, but I don't think we're in a direct parallel to the past, it's sort of a weird marketed fascism where control is exerted through the idea space rather than through brownshirts at the door. At least not yet if you're not a minority.
And Cartledge, I really don't know. America has a very unique influence of protestantism from the beginnings of the culture which makes it more prone to perceptions of good vs evil that might not translate to other cultures.
If you haven't noticed, we are not a particularly subtle people.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 9:10 PM
Superlative post, Mike!
By
-epm, at 10:12 PM
Thanks.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 7:54 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home