Customer Reviews

Fundamentalism: The Search For Meaning

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This short book by Malise Ruthven provides a discussion of the meaning and context of religious fundamentalism (Ruthven often refers to it as the F-word). Ruthven looks at different aspects of the phenomenon, comparing and contrasting fundamentalists, traditionalists, and those who believe in the inerrency of their given religious texts.

The most valuable insights of this short book are the two on relatively long chapters on fundamentalism and nationalism, and how the two often intertwine and provide justification for the other.

The only weakness is that Ruthven focuses a majority of his efforts on the three "Abrahamaic" religions, i.e. Christianity, Islam, and Judiaism. There are some incursions into eastern religions (especially the recently kicked out of government BJP in India). Other than this, the book was an excellent effort to discuss this pressing topic.

This is an extended essay on the nature of fundamentalism, its historical roots and its relationship to religion and nationalism. The book is not just about Islamic fundamentalism, but rather fundamentalism as a 'family' including Christian, Jewish, and other siblings

The most crucial insight is that fundamentalism is not about religion but about fighting the oustider. The core issues of fundamentalism, for example homosexuality, women's rights, or evolution, are often of token significance within religion. Fundamentalists choose issues based on their utility in drawing lines between themselves and others, the focus is on fighting rather then on God. The fundamentalist strives for unity by removing the outsider, and pluralism is the worst kind of heresy.

Another insight is the relationship between fundamentalism and nationalism. They're both about drawing lines of separation, they both have shrines and saints, and both can be used to justify murder. They are essentially symbiotic, the one promoting the other.

Recommended as a first book on understanding the 21st century.

This short volume (available in hard and soft cover editions) is a very solid and accessible introduction to the topic. Like most contemporary scholars, Ruthven treats the issue of Fundamentalism as a reaction to the challenges of modernity. As a way of demonstrating this, his approach is comparative and cross-cultural, including not only the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, but also serious treatment of other traditions as well (most notably Hinduism, but other religions are covered).

This being said, his primary concern is the development of fundamentalisms in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam and the majority of the work is devoted to trends in these three religions. In this (and in his emphasis on modernity), the work is similar to Karen Armstrong's THE BATTLE FOR GOD. Armstrong's work is far more detailed but, in my opinion, Ruthven is more analytically sound.

While certainly not the last word on this very important subject (the scholarship on fundamentalisms is both rich and broad), this is a fine introduction, well thought out and well written. A useful book for the classroom and an enjoyable read for everybody else.

Why this book is important -- We, in the U.S., recently had a president who was a
fundamentalist Christian; it disastrous. And, looking to the future, as Matt Taibi
recently wrote about Michele Bachmann in RollingStone magazine:

"... consider this possibility: She wins Iowa, then swallows the Tea Party and
Christian vote whole for the next 30 or 40 primaries while Romney and Pawlenty battle
fiercely over who is the more "viable" boring-white-guy candidate. Then Wall Street
blows up again -- and it's Barack Obama and a soaring unemployment rate versus a
white, God-fearing mother of 28 from the heartland." (from "Michele Bachmann's Holy
War", by Matt Taibbi, RollingStone magazine, 6/22/11)

Definitely something to be concerned about.

The following paragraphs are considerations on some of the ideas that Ruthven will lead
you to think about.

Ruthven claims that there is currently a strong, and successful, reaction against
modernism, pluralism, and secularism. This is, he seems to say, especially true in the
U.S.

A basic point is Ruthven's conception of the shift from traditionalism to fundamentalism:
traditionalism has none of the defensiveness or re-activeness of fundamentalism. The
traditionalist is not aware of an alternative view, and is not defensive of his own views
against those who criticize them. The fundamentalist is.

Fundamentalist Christians are literalists, although what they seem to be most often
supporting is inerrancy, i.e. the idea that the Christian Bible cannot contain errors.
However, some interpretation of terms seems to be allowed, famously, the length of a day
as the term is used in "Genesis". But, no textual criticism is allowed. Fundamentalist
are strongly opposed to the view that the language of the Bible is a human construct that
reflects the knowledge and prejudices of the period in which it was written. There is
also the fundamentalist position that a believer should be able to understand the Bible
merely by paying attention to the "plain meaning" of the text.

One defensive strategy is "inerrancy": the claim that the Bible cannot be wrong because it
is God's words. Therefore, if *seems* wrong, that's because we do not understand it
correctly, and not because there are errors in the text itself. Both papal infallibility
and scriptural inerrancy became prominent when liberal theology and biblical, textual
criticism became significant. Challenges to literal truthfulness prompted defensive
responses.

Although inerrancy can wiggle around miracles and complexities, inconsistencies and
conflicts within the text must be dealt with.

Fundamentalists also totally reject the subjectivization of the understanding of the
Bible. It is *not* poetry to be understood metaphorically or as a fable that can be
subjectively interpreted to teach some lesson that is determined personally. It's not
myth; it's history. It is not to be understood personally and subjectively; it is the
literal, objective truth.

Another strategy is to explain miracles as possible natural phenomena. For example, water
in a river backing up is explained as the result of an earthquake that creates a dam. Of
course, if you believe in miracles and belief that God performs them, then why would you
need or even want to search for a naturalistic explanation.

The Bible, and a literal interpretation of it, is sometimes used to justify radical
action, even violent action. And, where it is not used to promote action, it may lead
believers to an acceptance of actions and political policy that have serious consequences.
I'm thinking especially of the acceptance of our inaction to prevent global warming.

Fundamentalism and the control of women -- Fundamentalism supports of a patriarchal
society. Fundamentalists reject the equality of men and women.

Given the treatment of women in Fundamental religions, why do women join? Ruthven offers
several explanations: (1) Because of the appeal that charismatic, male preachers have for
female followers. (2) Because of economic reality; because women cannot earn a living, or
because they earn less than men and have difficulty supporting themselves if they do not
accept fundamentalist religious values and join a family, i.e. find a husband to help with
economic support. (3) In modernism, when gender roles are changing and confused, the
sexual bipolarity encouraged by fundamentalism may be reassuring.

The cost of this gender bipolarity is a destructive anti-gay crusade. It also leads to
limitations on the rights of women.

The possibility that fundamentalism and religiosity in general would dissipate and become
less and less of an active force in social and political life has turned out to be an
illusion. This has increasingly been true not just in the rural sphere, but in the urban
world as well. And, it has been true of Christianity as well as in Islam. Secularization
is not inevitably linked to increasing modernism. And, universal education does not
inevitably lead to modernism and an enlightened perspective either. It now seems that
Western Europe and Australia may be an anomaly in their movement toward increasing
secularism.

For those who believe, the world is being re-enchanted and resacralized. It is filled
with miracles, spirits, angels, devils, and demons. Among the "saved" the miraculous and
the suspension of (belief in ) natural laws and processes is often routine and
commonplace. For example, believers watch televangelists and Christian TV channel wanting
and ready to believe in miracles. To those who believe, these TV miracles, seem like an
expected confirmation of their beliefs and of "God's power". For those with this mind-
set, there really is not need to believe in the inevitability of the laws of nature, nor
to have confidence in the predictions of science. Ah, the burden of having to believe
those pesky scientists has been lifted. After all, God must surely be powerful enough to
force science and the laws of nature to obey his wishes.

With a voting public like this, like that which we have in the U.S., you can pass some
very damaging and foolish legislation.

The revolution in communication, enabling audio-visual communication with a mass audience,
in particular, through television, has empowered those who communication through spoken
word and gesture, and these are especially empowering for those making a strong personal
and charismatic appeal.

Fundamentalism, whether Islamist or Christian, works best in opposition. As a political
appeal, it gains power by being able to claim to be oppressed and embattled, for example
by claiming that it's values are being defiled. We can hope that once in power, it will
lose much of its appeal. However, that may happen only after having very destructive and
damaging influences, e.g. to the environment, to education (through promotion of the
teaching of creationism), to the rights and lives of women, etc.

A possible saving feature of our modern age is that technology and communication
technology, especially, make diversity and pluralism visible across the world. There is
no guarantee that we or the next generation will choose it, but there can be no doubt that
the option is being offered. However, fundamentalists, whether Islamic or Christian ones,
know how to use technology, especially communications technology, especially well. And,
humans seem to have a need to believe in something other than what the real world gives
us.

Summary: Fundamentalism is a response to Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment and includes particularly religious people of all conservative stripes. Fundamentalists behave as if will-to-power is necessary to establish the regimes or the public space they feel is necessary for them to practice their faith. Individual Fundamentalists may not be stupid, but their behavior leads to stupid outcomes--"they are selfish, greedy and stupid" (pg. 217). "Protestant fundamentalism is a dangerous religion" (ibid.) as are all other forms of fundamentalism.

Malise Ruthven lacks any sense of epistemological or philosophical humility or irony. As far as I can tell, he is what he loathes in "fundamentalists," only well-educated, sophisticated, and published by Oxford Press.