Defining Fundamentalism

[Justified Saint]

I posted this in the debate forum since I thought it had some immediate and practical import there, but I thought I would also put it up here since its tone and purpose is meant to be more conversational than controversial:


I thought it would be helpful to consider the meaning of the word "fundamentalism" since the word has been in use and witnessed here lately (or so I think).

Strictly speaking, fundamentalism refers to a kind of stern literalism (usually in religion) while there is also the Fundamentalist movement of Protestantism in the early 20th century (which is still very strong today). Thus fundamentalism can reside in any religion or set of beliefs, i.e. Islamic fundamentalists, Catholic fundamentalists, political fundamentalists etc.

Another important distinction I think worth considering is the fundamentalist as such and the practical fundamentalist. Holding to a set of core beliefs, of "fundamentals", is certainly an admirable thing and so discussions of fundamentalism are better nuanced not as [i]what[/i] one believes or holds to, but rather [i]how[/i] they do so. This distinction seems to be where the definition and indentification of fundamentalism should turn because to some degree everyone holds to some set of fundamentals, but what is important is the attitude one adopts toward persons with a different set of fundamentals. Is your [i]first[/i] attitude reactionary and antagonistic, or does it start with understanding and listening? The fundamentalist adopts the former attitude, his inital and constant reaction is one of intolerance because he cannot tolerate the other for among other things he is afraid of the other.

The reason fundamentalism, as a movement and a mindset, is a phenomena of the modern age is because it is an expression of intolerance in an age of pluralism. Thus fundamentalism exists in varying degrees of extremities (and we know what the most extreme are capable of).

Another careful point we must draw our attention to: fundamentalism is not [i]just[/i] a matter of intolerance for intolerance is a useful rhetorical tool and often an appropriate reaction. Rather, it is an intolerance that knows no limits and is reckless, an intolerance that will gladly exceed the standards of [i]accountability[/i], [i]responsibility[/i] and we might add good taste. Furthermore, intolerance and fundamentalism of this sort is one that asserts its position unreservedly and without question. Under this delusion [i]any[/i] extreme can be jusitfied and is never entirely ruled out and which could be used at anytime.

Therefore, it is not uncommon to see a fundamentalist excessively stubborn, obstinate and who thinks themself above correction (for a fundamentalist can never be wrong).

Bottom line: Fundamentalism is fear.

[DAF]

I don't know if I completely agree with that.

As you said, a fundamentalist can simply be defined as "one who adheres to the fundamental basics of a particular ideology." Just because one "sticks to the fundamentals," I don't think it naturally follows that you must be intolerant. I consider myself a fundamentalist Catholic, that being, I adhere only to the fundamental doctrines of Catholicism, nothing more nothing else (I stay away from apparitions, relics, throwing in librality or unnecessary ritual, etc.) I think it's kind of presumptuous to say that I would be, by my nature, intolerant because I'm a 'fundamentalist.' I think it's going a bit further still to call it fear too.

Could you elaborate on how you come to the conclusion of fear too? I don't mean to sound crass or whatever, I'm sincerely curious-I don't understand.

If you mean to say that it's fear of what's different, I don't know if I agree with that either. If I know something is wrong, I would stay away from it, not because I'm afraid of it, but because I don't need to be wasting my time with somehing that isn't real.

[quote]Under this delusion any extreme can be jusitfied and is never entirely ruled out and which could be used at anytime.[/quote]
I reject that premise. A fundamentalist would, by his nature, stick to the fundamentals. There is no reason to add extremes of either end (librality or conservatism) if it's not fundamentally necessary. And, if said 'extremes' are fundamentally necessary, they wouldn't be extremes, they would be fundamental.

I hope I didn't drastically misinterpret what you said, but if I did I think it would be worth a discussion.

[Justified Saint]

[quote name='DAF' post='1061144' date='Sep 11 2006, 10:30 PM']
I don't know if I completely agree with that.

As you said, a fundamentalist can simply be defined as "one who adheres to the fundamental basics of a particular ideology." Just because one "sticks to the fundamentals," I don't think it naturally follows that you must be intolerant. I consider myself a fundamentalist Catholic, that being, I adhere only to the fundamental doctrines of Catholicism, nothing more nothing else (I stay away from apparitions, relics, throwing in librality or unnecessary ritual, etc.) I think it's kind of presumptuous to say that I would be, by my nature, intolerant because I'm a 'fundamentalist.' I think it's going a bit further still to call it fear too.

Could you elaborate on how you come to the conclusion of fear too? I don't mean to sound crass or whatever, I'm sincerely curious-I don't understand.

If you mean to say that it's fear of what's different, I don't know if I agree with that either. If I know something is wrong, I would stay away from it, not because I'm afraid of it, but because I don't need to be wasting my time with somehing that isn't real.
I reject that premise. A fundamentalist would, by his nature, stick to the fundamentals. There is no reason to add extremes of either end (librality or conservatism) if it's not fundamentally necessary. And, if said 'extremes' are fundamentally necessary, they wouldn't be extremes, they would be fundamental.

I hope I didn't drastically misinterpret what you said, but if I did I think it would be worth a discussion.
[/quote]

DAF --

Those are valid questions/concerns and I may not have been entirely clear.

For my purposes, I may very well call everyone a fundamentalist of sorts since as I mentioned just about everybody carries with them some set of fundamentals. Thus what I saw as the whole point of this post was to separate and distinguish between different types of fundamentalists.

Therefore, I would remind that I think a certain kind of intolerance is both healthy and necessary. For example, you mention that you stay away from things that aren't worth your time or you would consider "bad" or unhealthy. I would consider that a form of intolerance since you actively avoid (you don't tolerate) certain situations or certain things and again, to be able to excercise that kind of judgement is entirely a good thing.

And this is precisely where the difference lies I think. The fundamentalist I am describing couldn't stand to avoid the situation, the person, or the thing. The kind of intolerance excercised here is almost one of conquest -- the other does not agree with me so I must convince him otherwise and now many more, if not any, means are justifably to this end. For example, Islamic terror fundamentalists could not stand to live in a world with dissenting views and thus it rigorously asserts its ideology whenever and wherever it can. Thus I think this form of intolerance is fundamentally an expression of fear.

Fundamentalists differ in degree and it mostly revovles around how one reacts to another set of fundamentals and that is why I think the premise of extremes remains valid.