Fundies And Facists
So you want to be a fundamentalist. It's easy if you try and there are only five rules you must abide. Read more about The Fundamentalist Agenda and don't miss Digby's take on it.
From 1988 to 1993, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences sponsored an interdisciplinary study known as The Fundamentalism Project, the largest such study ever done. More than 100 scholars from all over the world took part, reporting on every imaginable kind of fundamentalism. And what they discovered was that the agenda of all fundamentalist movements in the world is virtually identical, regardless of religion or culture.
They identified five characteristics shared by virtually all fundamentalisms. The fundamentalists' agenda starts with insistence that their rules must be made to apply to all people, and to all areas of life. There can be no separation of church and state, or of public and private areas of life. The rigid rules of God—and they never doubt that they and only they have got these right—must become the law of the land. Pat Robertson, again, has said that just as Supreme Court justices place a hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution, so they should also place a hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible. In Khomeini's Iran, and in the recent Taliban rule of Afghanistan, we saw how brutal and bloody this looks in real time.
The second agenda item is really at the top of the list, and it's vulgarly simple: Men are on top. Men are bigger and stronger, and they rule not only through physical strength but also and more importantly through their influence on the laws and rules of the land. Men set the boundaries. Men define the norms, and men enforce them. They also define women, and they define them through narrowly conceived biological functions. Women are to be supportive wives, mothers, and homemakers.
A third item follows from the others. (Indeed each part of the fundamentalist agenda is necessarily interlocked, and needs every other part to survive.) Since there is only one right picture of the world, one right set of beliefs, and one right set of roles for men, women, and children, it is imperative that this picture and these rules be communicated precisely to the next generation. Therefore, fundamentalists must control education by controlling textbooks and teaching styles, deciding what may and may not be taught.
Fourth, fundamentalists spurn the modern, and want to return to a nostalgic vision of a golden age that never really existed. Several of the scholars observed a strong and deep resemblance between fundamentalism and fascism. Both have almost identical agendas. Men are on top, women are subservient, there is one rigid set of rules, with police and military might to enforce them, and education is tightly controlled by the state. One scholar suggested that it's helpful to understand fundamentalism as religious fascism, and fascism as political fundamentalism. The phrase “overcoming the modern” is a fascist slogan dating back to at least 1941.
The fifth point is the most abstract, though it's foundational. Fundamentalists deny history in a radical and idiosyncratic way. Fundamentalists know as well or better than anybody that culture shapes everything it touches: The times we live in color how we think, what we value, and the kind of people we become. Fundamentalists agree on the perverseness of modern American society: the air of permissiveness and narcissism, individual rights unbalanced by responsibilities, sex divorced from commitment, and so on. What they don't want to see is the way culture colored the era when their scriptures were created.
Comments
It is sad that we are beginning to resemble this.
All politics is gender politics, politics of anxious masculinity - the re-occuring theme onmy blog, e.g.,:
http://sciencepolitics.blogspot.com/2004/08/moral-politics-in-context-of-history.html
http://sciencepolitics.blogspot.com/2004/08/definition-semantics-and-future-of.html
http://sciencepolitics.blogspot.com/2004/09/moral-order.html
http://sciencepolitics.blogspot.com/2004/09/bush-is-girlie-man.html
http://sciencepolitics.blogspot.com/2004/10/femiphobia.html
http://sciencepolitics.blogspot.com/2004/11/two-americas-past-present-and-future.html
http://sciencepolitics.blogspot.com/2004/10/links-ignorance-faith-fear-of.html
I am familiar with the Fundamentalism Project. It produced many books and even documentary films, several of which I have read and used in teaching.
The reverend's reference to this project is strange, since his description of fundamentalism is closer to the popular definition that the one developed in the Fundamentalism Project.
A few observations from the Fundamentalism Project:
1) Not all fundamentalisms have political aspirations. The Haredim in Israel, for example have for the most part been apolitical (even refusing to sing the Israeli national anthem), and have historically tended to be dovish.
2) Fundamentalism is indeed theologically selective--it typically denies some parts of the tradition but exalts others. But fundamentalists share this charatceristic with many religious liberals. Where fundamentalists are most unique, however, is that they deny the broad mainstream religious tradition and insist on a segment of it only. The question is: why should we care about this unless we are a party to the internal theological debate?
3) Fundamentalists indeed have a critique of modern society. But some of these criticisms are good! It's not just lax sexual norms and women's rights that they are concerned about, but the displacement and rootlessness associated with modern economic development, and the loss of common values to the market in the commodification of everything. In some ways the fundamentalists respond to the same aporias of modernity that socialists and other radicals do--even if the fundamentlists don't frame these critiques as critiques of political economy. The lesson: if liberals decide that they're all New Democrats now, and ignore the real problems of modern, capitalist America, they may indeed lose people to fundamentalist kinds of politics. It's not who is to the right and left of you, but who is responding to the felt problems of modern society. Even if fundamentalists do it poorly they may still do better than the liberals.
Finally, I don't think that fundamentalism (in its true, social-scientific sense) is something that the average American should get very worked up about. Maybe we don't like it that people believe in false ideas. But this problem is not confined to fundamentalism. Perhaps we don't like religious political conservatism. But this phenomenon is much bigger than fundamentalism, and it's still an open question whether religious fundamentalism or extreme devotion really leads to extreme right wing politics. In one study of Nigerian Muslims, those who prayed more often were actually more likely to give responses which were tolerant to other faiths. The least tolerant Muslims in these studies were the least devout. Perhaps people who have sincere devotion to God are more concerned about righteousness and salvation than about sticking it to their neighbor.
I think that the left, and individual leftists, need to ask the question: are we fighting against religion, or certain kinds of religion, or are we more fundamentally trying to defeat arbitrary power, intolerance and injustice? If it's the latter, you can disagree with fundamentalists inasmuch as they are part of these problems, but find them unobjectionable in other areas. But if it's the former, you want to marginalize the fundamentalists no matter what they do politically, so you attack them for being intolerant and reactionary simply because that's the best way to defeat them.
Good points dende. It is easy to overgeneralize on fundmentalism as it is on any ism. The goal is to defeat arbitrary power, intolerance and injustice. I would like to think that is possible without resorting to those things we despise. The end justifies the means is a slippery slope I don't want to venture upon. The fight is never won. It is a process that is ongoing. Progress is made in fits and starts but that is, in my opinion, better than the alternative.
Not that anyone asked me, but I have to disagree with Dende Blogger's typically knowledgeable comments. I believe fundamentalism is something that right thinking americans should get worked up about, for several reasons.
First, fundamentalism is increasingly prevalent in all three major religions, not just Christianity; after all, Islamic fundamentalists perpetrated 9-11. I found Karen Armstrong's book, "The Battle for God," to be instructive as to the influence fundamentalism also exerts on Judaism and Islam.
Second, you speak about fundamentalism almost as if it is an absract concept, a set of harmless beliefs held by a minority, which have no noticeable effect on politics. In my view, nothing could be farther from the truth. Surely I don't need to link to the innumerable articles which address the interplay between Bush's faith and his Middle East policies. Surely I don't have to remind you that fundamentalism-influenced "abstinence only" policies are unquestionably misleading our youth. Do you really believe that textbook labels questioning evolution or legislation mandating the teaching of creationism don't contribute to a rejection of science that will ultimately be harmful? Stem cell research and global warming come immediately to mind, although I'm sure there more. True, I think it's ridiculous to hold many of the fundamentalist beliefs, but that's by no means the basis of my objection to this movement. I don't give a rat's ass about your theology as long as it doesn't harm others, but Christian fundamentalism's potential harm is global in scope. Clearly, the introspective question you suggest leftist pose in your last paragraph does not include all the valid reasons for fighting fundamentalism. In my circle, those most opposed to Christian fundamentalism aren't concerned either with fighting religion, a part of religion or arbitrary intolerance: They're concerned with fighting a specific set of beliefs which have a demonstrably harmful effect on american policy and society.
Finally, with respect, I can't see how anyone could imply that fundamentalists are responding to modern society better than the liberals. Moral issues are one thing, and we can debate gay marriage all day, but the wholesale rejection of science, and the formulation of policy based on the belief that the Rapture's going to save us all any way, is not a valid reaction to modernity. And do you really believe that it's an "open question" as to whether fundamentalism actually leads to extreme right wing politics? I'll defer to your expertise regarding Nigerian muslims, but recent experience in this country and in the Middle East would seem to indicate that statement is just plain silly.
shoveldog: Perhaps I was being a bit too cryptic. I do believe that many fundamentalist movements are dangerous and we should be aware for them. But my point was that what makes a fundamentalist a fundamentalist is a particular kind of religion rather than a particular kind of politics or a particular kind of social life. Perhaps the "fundamentalist mentality" is something we should guard against, but some aspects of that mentality are similar to aspects of secular political radicalism, and are not all bad. The point is not that fundamentalism is good politics, but that itself is not the root cause of bad politics.
I didn't mean to say that liberalism as a set of ideas is a worse response to the problems of modernity than fundamentalism. But liberals (as opposed to socialists, other left radicals and even the right) have a blind spot to ideology and belief. They tend to believe that an open marketplace of ideas will lead to enlightenment. More recently, "third way" liberals have adopted the view that social justice can be achieved through economic growth rather than more fundamental economic change. In adopting this view they begin to ignore the social-spiritual upheavals that accompany capitalist development, especially in the developing world, where most of these fundamentalist movements arise. Finally, liberals often ignore the importance of identity since they focus on the autonomous individual. As a set of ideas, liberalism is more coherent than say, the Moral Majority, by far. But the Moral Majority recognizd the importance of belief, spoke to people who were displaced by economic and social change, and recognized the role of identity. Fundamentalists in power would surely rule much more poorly than liberals--that's clear. But their movements can teach liberals a thing or two about politics.
The man with outward courage dares to die. While the man with inward courage dare to live.
But either of these men has a better and a worse side than the other.
And who can tell exactly to which qualities the heavens objects?
The universe does nothing to win the day. Says nothing--- Is echoed, Orders nothing--- Is obeyed Advises nothing--- Is right
And which of us, seeing that nothing is outside the vast wide-meshed net of the heaven, knows just how it is cast?