ResearchGate
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/38415689
Modernity, religious fundamentalism and the secularization thesis
Article-January2008
CITATIONS READS
2 1,331
1 author:
Victoria S. Harrison University of Macau
90 PUBLICATIONS 400 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Victoria S. Harrison on 19 December 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
Modernity, Religious Fundamentalism and the Secularization Thesis
Victoria S Harrison*
Religious fundamentalism is often regarded as an attempt to recreate the past by allowing religious believers to inhabit a pre-modern worldview. This paper seeks to demonstrate that this is a highly misleading picture of religious fundamentalism. By examining some of the key characteristics of religious fundamentalism within the Abrahamic faiths, the paper argues that, far from being a throwback to the past, religious fundamentalism is a distinctively modern phenomenon. Finally, an examination of the secularization thesis and its failure to account for current patterns of religiosity, provides further reason to believe that religious fundamentalism is dependent upon other features of modernity.
Introduction
Ham- have reacted to modernity with a self-conscious refusal to adjust or to assimilate their religious ideas to its demandsj with an attitude, that in other words, appears to be characterized by rejection. Moreover, those who reject modernity also tend to vigorously reject the religious thought that has developed as a constructive response to it. To what extent, though, do those who seek to reject modern ideas succeed in sustaining pre-modern religious worldviews within the modern world? This paper argues that, ironically, and as ■■plausible as it might initially seem, the systems Qf religious belief promoted by those who seek to reject modern thought are no less the product of modernity- than are the explicitly modern religious ideas that they typically reject.
The author refers to those who seek to reject modernity and to preserve traditional religious views as 'religious fundamentalists', although this term cannot be employed ustrnout considerable qualification. Many writers avoid the term 'religious fundamentalism' (along with the term 'religious extremism) because of its supposedly negative connotations, preferring alternative terms such as 'religious revivalism' or 'religious resurgence'. The difficulty encountered in selecting the term that most accurately identifies the phenomenon under consideration is compounded by the diversity of the religious traditions in which it is apparent. Nevertheless, despite the difficulties, the term 'religious fundamentalism' enjoys wide currency. It is commonly used to refer to groups within the Jewish, Christian and Muslim traditions (as well as groups within other non-monotheistic faiths), who, despite their obvious differences, appear to share a similar approach to their respective faith traditions, and who, moreover, also seem to espouse a similar assessment of modernity.
Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of Glasgow, Scotland, UK, E-mail: v.harrison ra pbiloso phy, arts.gla. Hc.uk
C 2008 The Icfai University Press. All Rights Reserved.
The following is an examination of sorae of the key charaeierinfcj «f *r ■urfdview motivating religious fundamentalizm within the Abrabamic fairht with a view to demonstrating that, far from being a throwback to a previous era in reiigkH history, it is a distinctively modern phenomenon. Then, the failure of the once popular secularization thesis is considered in order to account for current patterns of ■' Bjimiiy thereby suggesting that this failure provides further evidence that religions f"~*— —nra1i<m is dependent upon modernity.
Key Characteristics of the Worldview of Religious Fundamentalism
Religious fundamentalists can often be recognised by their distinctive perspective on many issues. They lend to prescribe strict limits, for example, to the scope of human reason in criticizing religious beliefs. They also emphasize a view of the meaning of religious texts that minimizes—or even excludes—the need for interpretation. They accept science only insofar as it does not threaten their religious beliefs- They reject religious pluralism, ry[>unlk |jri"-rrrriiHi ■.unit 'orrv rii rclknu-.i-, cvc'.usU I'i-.l'j [end tn rcdfl »|Miatfcm of religion from politics, and, unlike more liberal religious thinkers, are inclined to side with the political right rather than with the left- And finally, they are prone 10 adopt a negative attitude towards feminism hi general, and, in particular, towards demands by women that religion be reformed in order to accommodate gender equality This set of views is clearly opposed to many of the positions on these issues defended by liberal religious thinkers- To the l-\lcn< I hat religious fundamentalism is a reaction to ihe mora uberauzing ideas which circulated in 20'h century religious thought, it might be viewed as dependent upon those particular modern ideas.
Throughout the 20* century, many religious thinkers became increasingly receptive to non-exdusivjst views of religion. Clearly, one docs not have to be a religious pluralist in order to be sympathetic to the view that religious traditions, other than ones own, possess value. For many who remain deeply committed to their own faiths, nevertheless seek rapprochement with adherents of other traditions. But religious plurality does not exist solely at the level of world faiths; it has also arisen within religious traditions themselves, as different groups have tried to differentiate themselves from each other. Within Christianity, for ejtample, the ecumenical movement arose within the post-war West as Christians sought to enhance understanding and fellowship between the Various" Christian denominations that had grown increasingly estranged in the course of the 20ib century This resulted in the founding of the World Council of Churches in 1948. Many saw the council as a force for progress. Christian fundamentalists, however, were unanimous in thetr condemnation of it, Two key fundamentalist leaders, Ian Paisley, a Northern Irish Protestant Minister, and Bob Jones, a North American Evangelical Pastor, founded a rival organization: the World Congress of Fuiin,imentaiists, In 1999, at a meeting of the CongTess, a delegation ratified the following resolution:
s
The Icfai University Journal of History and Culture, Vol. IT, No. 3, 2QOB
We deplore an exhorting eac preaching of t inspired mow the end rime.1
The resolution the ecumenical dii Christians on the Fundamentalists s opposed to all oft*
This oppositiul thrive by demarci distinction befwee and inauthentic fundamentalism, integrity of their deemed to have stl groups, irrcspecti* which Only those 1
Moreover, reugt religious worldvie* of the same neligkri law, for example, } tradition, thev, the share their partici theological disagre subculture that sep within the same rt views encourages d in turn, reinforces faith-tradition is e
vivid religious fai that world the taken for grants! and distinctive uncomfortable d and our world th
Resolution oi the | resolutions,'in-c;
Lůn Cupftt (1984).
Modernity, Religidi
We deplore and denounce the ecumenical movement in all its forms and ramifications, aborting each other to a greater fidelity to the Word of God, to a more vigorous preaching of the Gospel of Christ, and to a thoroughgoing exposure of the s a tallica 11 >■ inspired movement which is producing the worldwide confederation of religions of the end time.1
Tbe resolution also makes clear that what These fundamentalists particularly object to is rife ecumenical dialogues taking place between Evangelical Protestants and Eastern Orthodox Oristians on the one hand, and Evan&elical Protestants and Roman Catholics on the other, ^■damentalists are, then, not only opposed to all forms of religious pluralism, but also imposed to all efforts at enhancing relations between different Christian denominations.
This opposition highlights an important feature of all fundamentalist movements; they tete by demarcating themselves from others within their own faith-tradition, A clear : . ■: fn'kwcri [i'Ijl- LH'Ik^ers (flu: 's tii'iid' in I lie l;)iii;ibiLiyi of Clirisiiaii fundamentalism')
■i maul hen lie believers (the 'unsaved") lies at the core of all forms of religious ^■dimentalism. Fundamentalists, moreover, believe that it is essential to the religious ■Mfcjrity of their community that they distance themselves from those who have been fcnd to have strayed from the one and only correct form of the faith. Thus, fundamentalist poops, irrespective of their religious tradition, tend to form exclusive communities within ■Aidi only those who share their beliefs and their lifestyle are welcome.
Moreover, religious fundamentalists, while not necessarily in possession of a unique jtCiious worldview that enables them to be clearly distinguished from non-fundamentalists *f Ae same religion, tend to focus primarily on selected aspects of their religion—religious tarn, for example. And, because fundamentalists emphasize selected facets of a religious •ufition. they thereby, isolate themselves from those of their co-religionists who do not their particular emphasis. Thus, what to an outsider may appear to he a minor ■heorogieai disagreement, may be the cause of a group of fundamentalists consolidating a tabculitrre that separates them not only from the wider secular world, but also from others (■■Jui i the same religious tradition. This process of isolation from those holding different ncirs encourages the development of a distinctive atmosphere within such groups, and this, m tnm. reinforces the fundamentalists' sense that their particular interpretation of their fanrh-rraditirm is exclusivejy correct. For, as Don Cupitt remarks:
Vivid rehpous faith often tends to shut one up La a subculture of like-minded people. Within that world the truth of the faith seems obvious and unquestionable, so much something taken for granted that it is rarely mentioned. A tacit consent of this kind creates a strong and distinctive atmosphere diet worlcs to exclude sceptical outsiders and their ■^comfortable questions. And die more we are able to assume that our truth is the truth and our world the world, the less we shall be aware of any world outside our own world.1
Knolucion of the World Congress of Fundamentalists, Internet publication (hop://www.irib.org/ resolutions/tO-ecumcnkaimovcmenLhtml).
*  Don Cupitt (1984), The Sea of Faith: Christianity in Change, p. 160. BBC, London.
Ibdcrciiy, Religious  Fundamentalizm and the Secularization Thesis
Furthermore, religious fundamentalists characteristically perceive what they tend to think of AS the 'outside world' as extremely threatening. The nature of the perceived threat does, however, vary according to the religion in question and to the local circumstances with which its adherents are attempting to cope. Jonathan Sacks, currently Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth (a modern orthodox organization), identifies what appears to be a common pattern, when he observes that Jewish fundamentalists fear assimilation, Christian fundamentalists fear secuiarity and Islamic fundamentalists fear westernization.3 Despite these different objects of fear, trepidation is, in each case, a response to some aspect of modem life, and it frequently results in an attempt to isolate the religious community from the impact of the modern world- Such distinctive communities form discrete pockets that co-exist in tension with modern secular culture. In the 20* century, such Communities demonstrated that they had the power to unsettle and influence the world outside the boundaries of their Own particular group. Religious fundamentalism within the Abrahamic faiths, has exercised a growing influence worldwide since the 1970s. As explained below, religious fundamentalism's increasing prominence has Challenged the 'secularization thesis'—the theory that predicts that, as societies modernize, they inevitably become less religious.
The Origins of 'Religious Fundamental ism' and the Character of Fundamentalist Movements
The term 'religious fundamentalism' was coined shortly after the publication of a series of pamphlets Culled ITie Fundamentals in the US between 1910 and 1915.' The authors of these pamphlet* Wtte Evangelical Christians'1 from a range of Protestant denominations, who expounded what they regarded as the 'fundamentals' of Christian belief, as welt as responding to the threats they perceived modernity posed to those beliefs. One especial focus of (he pamphlets was the defense of the Bible against those who would interpret it by means of the so-called 'higher criticism- promoted at that time by the more liberal Christians, The authors rejected higher criticism, and, instead, advocated an approach to the Bible grounded in, what they regarded as, 'common sense', for only such an approach, they argued, was genuinely rational and scientific. Moreover, one of the key concerns of many of the authors was to defend the inerrancy of the bible—some appealing to 'dictation theory''
J   See, Jonathan Sacks [1991), The Persistence of Faith: Religion, JWuruftry and Society in a Secular Age, p. 78, Wei den/eld & Nitolson. London.
" The fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth (1910-15), 12 volumes. Testimony Publishing, Chicsgo-s 'Evangelical Christians' are Protestants who emphasize Evangelism, the 'plain' message of the Bible, and the saving power of Jesus as a persona I Lord. At the beginning of the 20"" century, Christians of this type could be found in all tlie major Pro Lest ant denominations in the US: Episcopalian, Lutheran. Congregational. Baptist, Methodist and Presbyterian, for example. Although Evangelism had precedents in the pietist forms of Christianity that developed in medieval Europe, its modern form took shape in IStli century England, From whence it spread to the US with successive waves of immigrants. The distinction between tvanRclital Christians and fundamentalists has always been a hard one to define, as many, although by no means all. Evangelicals are also fundamentalists, Indeed, from the 1940s, in reaction to the fund amenta 11st movement, a Nco-Evangeiical movement developed in many parts of the US- Billy Graham is the most well-known figure associated with Neo-Evangelism.
I 0
The Iefai University Journal of History and Culture, Vol. II, No. 3, 2009
For
- : uf ihii cLflilfl-'' In ::t1i!i:ic>Ti -o cIc-1'l-it-.-l- i;!' :i ;)n ■■( rilici' ,v:itli 11;-; ri! the LJiijle.
■here was also a marked emphasis on 'soul-saving1 and on the Importance of personal ufigkius experience, with discussion of ethical, social or political issues being conspicuous by its absence,
The huge impact of these pamphlets was largely due to the substantia] financial backing behind them, which allowed them to be widely and freely distributed throughout the Anglophone world, The high public profile that they achieved made them the reference point by which the Evangelical Christian fundamentalist movement in the US initially came to be recognized. However, this movement soon developed far beyond its Original roots. Hence, vfafe the term 'religious fundamentalism' was first used to refer to those Evangelical christians within the Protestant churches who were associated with the views promoted in ■tose pamphlets,7 its reference became much broader in the last quarter of the 20th century, expanding eventually to include movements within every major religious tradition. Judaism, Christianity and [slam are now recognized as host to their own fundamentalist groups.
Irrespective of which religion we consider, fundamentalists are united in urging their ■^-religionists to return to the original sources of their tradition. They aim to revitalize their rxaditon so that it can become the foundation of society. For example, when the original pamphleteers argued for a return to the fundamentals of the Christian religion, they tended to portray this as a return to the past—in other words, to the era prior to modernity, when christian belief was relatively unchallenged arid when Christian moral principles were the femdation of western society. However, given the common orientation towards a better tame that is to he shaped hy the revitalized religious tradition, it is perhaps misleading to regard religious fundamentalism, simply as a wish to reinstate the past and an attempt to resist modernity. In fact, within each of the Abrahamk faiths, religious fundamentalism *piays features that suggest that it is a distinctively modem phenomenon.
Because fundamentalists feel compelled to resist secular culture, they are often involved to an ongoing struggle with its most visible representatives (for example, with government ■Coals and educators within secular institutions]. Hence, Jonathan Sacks claims that, at nx, religious fundamentalism is simply the "common-sense defense of Orthodoxy in a highly secular age, a reaction against what is seen as a liberal intelligentsia's subversion ■f established beliefs".5 Ironically though, this defensive engagement actually requires ton if i inentali sts to present their faith and values in a way that will appeal to those
1 The Bible was thought to be inerraut because it was an unmediated account of what was in God's Hid. dictated by God to those who served as his agents in writing down the text, Indeed, the Bible Hi thought tci havt always existed in the mind of Clod (given that the divine mind is unchanging), This view explains why any notion of the Bible requiring interpretation was anathema to these thinkers, For attempting to interpret the eternal Word of God is tantamount to changing the
fctssage. Moreover, strictly speaking, the whole Bible, in this view, has onij ont* author—(litd. Fw an account of fundamentalist ideas about the Bible, see, James Barr U9S7), Fundamentalism, Chapter 3, SOU, London. The remarkable similarity between this view of the Bible and the view of She Quran that came to dominate the Muslim tradition should not go unnoticed.
On the consolidation of this denominationally disparate group into a single movement, see, George ■ Mars den [1980), Fundamentalism and American Culture; The Shuprng of I \vtni ieth-Century Evangelism, 1870-1925, Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford -
'  Sacks. The Persistence of Faith, op. tit., p. 77.
Modernity, Religious Fundamentalism and the Secularization Thesis
1 1
immersed in modern secular culture., which of course, implies some changes to the tradition. Indeed, this dynamism was already evident in the US during the first decades of the 20"' century when Evangelical Protestant fundamentalism was first evolving. For, as Karen Armstrong argues, the attempt to return to the 'fundamentals' of faith undertaken by those involved within this movement was "in line with other intellectual and scientific currents in the early 20"1 century", with those behind this attempt being ''as addicted to scientific rationalism as any other modernists".^ Why is this so? This is because going back to the fundamentals was perceived as a way of grounding religious faith upon facts, rather than upon mere speculation. These facts, it was believed, could be arrived at by anyone if they Were Sufficiently observant and used their God-given reasoning powers. And, this project, if successful, would have modernized theology, and thereby demonstrated thai it was no less legitimate than any other science. Clearly, then, the fundamentalist's program, as originally conceived, was actually a response tu modern standards of science and of knowledge, more generally. Similarly, 'fundamentalist' movements within 19""" century Islam, such as Wahhabism, were attempts a r rendering faith more rational, and hence more modern, by returning to its sources without the aid of centuries of commentary and interpretation.
It is noteworthy that fundamentalists, irrespective of their religious tradition, insist that sacred texts and 'tradition' can be appropriated without interpretation. There are a variety of arguments that suggest that this aspect of the fundamentalist project is doomed to fail. Indeed, if one considers the uses to which fundamentalists press sacred texts and traditions, it soon becomes evident that their approach relies just as much on a specific interpretation of them, as does that of any more explicidy progressive religious thinkers. This would not, moreover, seem to be the only inconsistency in the fundamentalist worldview.
A further seeming inconsistency lies in the stark contrast between the emphasis fundamentalists place upon an unmediated reading of their scriptures, and their tendency to rely On the guidance of their religious leaders for detailed instructions regarding an acceptable lifestyle—this reliance being another common tendency exhibited by most fundamentalist groups. And, the ease and frequency of contact with a religious leader that One might enjoy in the modem world is likely to exacerbate any tendency that members of fundamentalist groups might show towards relying on that leader's advice and guidance, rather than on their own judgement,Not only does this increasing tendency sit uneasily with the fundamentalist's insistence that the 'truth' can be accessed by each individual by means of a literal reading of the scriptures and without the aid of religious experts, but
fl  Karen AxrSiStrong f20011, The Battle far God: Fundamentalism in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. p. "173, Harper Collins, Iflndon-
With the aid of modern methods of communication, the leaders of fundaments! 1st movemems have much greater control over their adherents than they had in the past Satellite links, tdephnrjes, faxes, webpages and e-mails allow religious leaders bo remain involved in all aspects of an individual's life. Lŕl the p n:-mod cm world, tills decree of rúm m u n i cation between a religious leader and his or her followers would have been unthinkable- In some cases, where religious believers lived in very remote villages, for example, it might have been possible to confer with one's religious leader only once a year. Now, however, given modem methods nf cummurn cation, the religiuus leader is, for many only a phone-call or, at most, a flight away This aspect of modem life has been embraced by many fundamentalist groups with a vigor Uiat Is all the more remarkable, given tlvelr rejection of must athcr aspects nf modem life. As David Landau puts it in his study or Jewish fundamentalism: ehe wotlú of die lace 20" í-ľihut\ Jewish fundamentalist 'is a global shied'. David Landau [1993}, Piety and Power: The World of JiinVi Fundamentalism, p, SI, Hill and Wang, h"ew York-
12 The Tcfai University Journal of History and Culture, Vol- II, No- 3, 2u0fl
■ also clearly runs counter to what might be thought of as one of the most important ■functions of modern thought: namely, the injunction to think for oneself. And. thinking for oneself, at the very ieasr, would seem to imply that one must not let one's opinions and choices be determined exclusively by others.
The intellectual tradition that developed from the Enlightenment stressed that a refusal to think for oneself, and thus an unquestioning deference of one's opinions to those of others or to one's religious tradition, constitutes a lapse of personal responsibility; And. in the 1?" century- miiTiy Jeivish. Christian and Muslim rdi;;ioin rhin^LTi tnoV to heart C1 ic ■^Diction to dunk for oneself. They were led to reassess their religious traditions and to change many facets of those traditions that Ihe light of reason showed to be inappropriate, especially given the changing circumstances of the modern world Such transformations m undertaken most thoroughly within the Jewish Kef turned tradition arid the Christian Liberal Protestant tradition," The modernist tradition within islam also proposed such ■eJorms. However, it was less successful than the reform movements in Judaism and Christianity, insofar as it failed to attract any large following, remaining a 'movement' of somewhat isolated intellectuals. Nevertheless, prominent figures like Fazlur Rahman have ensured that modernism remains an important intellectual movement within Islam. Hot surprisingly, fundamentalists within each of the Abrahamic faiths find themselves at odds not only with non-religious thinkers, but also with those religious thinkers from within their own faith-traditions who endorse progressive views.
Given that all religious believers in the west have to cope with the encounter between is religious beliefs and secular culture, it seems that some explanation is required as to why some religious groups are more prone to embrace fundamentalism than others. Steve km argues that, if fundamentalism is to develop, there is one basic requirement that the Hfegious group must meet: it must be at least plausible for them to claim to be the genuine [■ml in of an orthodoxy from which their co-religionists have strayed- As lie remarks, this condition is met in many Evangelical Protestant denominations, but not, or at least not codify, in Roman Catholicism, for example (where a centralized ecclesial hierarchy determines scthodoxY for an international institution). In this respect, he argues, Evangelical Protestantism mi .\..r\ -.in- in-ii ill ;i hind, insular as lbe> ■■(villi ■.uppicwc thm ;ui 1 h<irituLivc knowledge b democratically available. Any right-spirited person can discern Rod's will by reading the ■mptures or studying the Qur'an".13 But this can easily lead to a plethora nf rival 'orthodoxies', cad each could then evolve into a form of fundamentalism, thereby giving rise to a potEntiaily fractious situation-
' Modem Orthodox Judaism and .1. lypEs nf conservative Christianity also made concessions to the Ejibghtsnnient principle, mat one is enjoined to think tor oneself. However, as their names Imply, tfjev did not £0 as far US either the Reformed Jewish tradition or the Liberal Protestant Christian traditioo, Rather, they sought a compromise. Anil, this is why the <h\-i(iiri£ line between Modem Orthodox Judaism and Ultra-Orthodox Judaism, on the one hand, and Conservative Christianity ad fundamentalist Christianity, on the other hand, is not always dear-cut. With respect to each tatab-tradLtion, care is needed, if one !k not to confuse fundamentalists with conservative believers. While there may be considerable overlap, the groups are by no means co-extensive. In fact, Jews, Christians and Muslims, who might be happy to call themselves 'conservative', can feel ju.st as
threatened by fundamentalists as can liberals.
■ Sfcse Bruce (2000), Fundamentalism, p. 96, tblky, Cambridge.
■adernicy,  Religious Fundamentalism  and  the  Secularization Thesis
Perhaps surprisingly, fundamentalists of all traditions regard their conservative non-fundamentalist co-religionists in much the same light as they regard the more liberal religious groups. For, in the fundamentalists' view, all hut their own group have made far too many concessions to modem times. This polarity between fundamentalists and the rest can be clearly seen in the case of their divergent responses to scientific etafms. For example, a mainstream Christian who was either liberal or conservative would probably have no major difficulty in accepting Darwin's theory of evolution, while a fundamentalist Christian might be prepared to go to court to prevent the theory from being taught to his/her child. One reason for this extreme difference is that, unlike religious fundamentalists, non-fundamentalists often hold that certain religious doctrines are provisional, and that they can change as the human understanding of the world and of history advances. Consequently, many believe that revelation has to be interpreted anew by each successive generation, albeit in the light of the past tradition.
Crucially, then, it is this view of revelation and interpretation that the fundamentalist refuses to accept. For fundamentalists assert that revelation is rirn.ele.ssly true, and is thus not relative to historical epochs or cultures. Everything that God is believed to have said in I he scriptures is presumed to he valid for all time, with the prevalent Islamic view of the Qur'an being typical of this conception of revelation. Traditional Muslims believe that the Qur'an is eternal. It has always been with God in its present form^the form in which it was dictated to Prophet Muhammad, who simply recounted what he had heard. Fundamentalist Christians surularly believe in the literal truth of the 'Old' and 'New' Testaments, The Jewish fundamentalists' version of this literalism applies not only to the Hebrew Scriptures but also to a whole tradition of commentary, as well as io the sayings of sages stretching from the distant past to the present. Given such a view, it is not surprising that fundamentalists resist any attempt to alter the text of their scriptures. Christian fundamentalists, for example, claim that even altering the pronouns used in the text in order to make them gender-neutral is r:<r.hin.<j shovr. .;t :a]sif-i[i» the word uf Cnd.- \nt surprisingly feminists and fundamentalists tend tn be at odds,
Because of their view of revelation as timclessly true, religious fundamentalists not only 'ici'it 1lh read Lrn'ir scriptures literally, but also, and not surprisingly, display a deefitj conservative attitude—one that tends to make them very resistant to social change. This is particularly evident with regard to the position of women within society, Fundamentalists in each tradition are, moreover, inclined to their own reading of scripture to dictate government policy. Thus, the connection between religious fundamentalism and political conservativism is often a function of the fundamentalists' theory of revelation.
Another common feature of fundamentalist groups, which is linked both to their distinctive theory of revelation and to their particular manner of responding to modernity, la that they claim to provide dear and unambiguous answers to metaphysical and moral questions- In short, they claim to offer certainty in the midst of a modern world, that many
L1 A resolution to this effect was passed by delegatus [if the World Congress of Fundamentalists in 1999-
14
The Icfai University Journal of History and Culture, Vol. IT, No. 3. 2008
- =
as riddled with uncertainty." This may explain the edge fundamentalism came KCuire over more liberal forms of faith as the 20* century advanced. In an increasingly world, many people began to look to religiun to provide the security missing in their lives. The qualified and changing faiths of more liberal religious thinkers hard-pressed to satisfy this particular psychological need. If their views are correct, 4b rhey need to keep changing them in the Sight of new scientific discoveries and other 1 developments? The conseivativisni of" fundamentalist thinkers adds to their image as defenders of the one and only truth. Thus, the trend in the late mtun was that, while the more (intellectually and politically) liberal groups within Abrahamic religions continued to decline in numbers—a decline that had begun earlier fcr century—those groups that were less accommodating to modem society grew in As we shall now see, the fact that the religious movements which made no effort pace with modemity should have been the ones to flourish, flies in the face of die don thesis—a thesis that had become almost axiomatic in academic circles by the I JSF- century15
iligious Fundamentalism and the Secularization Thesis
have found it puzzling that while western society has become increasingly secular, ■ sense that religion has lost the influence on civic life that it traditionally enjoyed, there id have been a simultaneous increase within it, of religious fundamentalism. The adon thesis had predicted that religion would disappear as society modenuzed-the closing decades of the 20"" century, few intellectuals doubted that, as societies more modem, they simultaneously became more secular—in other words, Jess i A corresponding transformation was envisaged on the individual level; the more i vdn-idual was exposed to modern secular culture, the less religious that person would l Prior to the 1970s, these assumptions had seemed to be corroborated by the facts.
form secularization took—a Marxist form In Eastern Europe that sought to religion, or, in Western Europe and North America, the institutional separation of ^hwen and State—the results seemed to be the same. Religious beliefs seemed to drop away sore people were assimilated into the modem, secular society. Moreover, the shedding ■faefigious beliefs could be witnessed vividly in the case of immigrants into western cultures Anf the early to the mid 2(P century. Each successive generation seemed to retain fewer dke religious beliefs held by the generadon that preceded it. This observation led many Ankers to predict that, before long, religion would die a natural death.
This prediction, however, has not been fulfilled.10 Nor has the related assumption that ^■dernjty is synonymous with secularization been home out. It now seems that those who «^t>orred the secularization thesis failed to anticipate the force of the religious :■ ir.-.=.-.-movements tha: would develop in response to secularization. In fact, after a period
■ Waller Lippmann: "No mariner ever entered upon a more uncharted sea than does Hie average bun being born into the twentieth century. Our ancestors thought they knew their way from
bvrb through all eternity: we Ate puzzled about the day after to-morrow". Walter Lippmann
<MS5}. Drift and Mastery, p. 112, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.
■ The msrfc of the sociologist Max Weber (1664-1920) was influential in the promotion of thii thesis. " Set Ptter Btrgcr "Against the Current, Prasjwt, pp. 32-36, March 17.
Maternity,  Religious Fundamentalism and the Secularization Thesis
of decline, the Abrq ramie religions would seem to have recovered in strength. In many cases, religious believers appear to have been stimulated to reassert their faith aggressively. Instances of what we might caU a 'religious resurgence', such as rhat which took place in London's Jewish communities towards the end of the 20* century, provide striking counter-examples to the cJaim that modern societies arc secular ones in which religion has no place. Again, contrary to the secularization thesis, fundamentalism within Islam has been most prominent in the more western i zed states such as Egypt and Iran. What is more, rather than people losing their religious faith after moving into modern urban environments, it now seems that they are no less likely to become more religious than they were before1"
Those who held the secularization thesis also assumed that the forms of religion that were most antithetical to modernity would be the first to disappear, while those that were prepared to adapt to modernity would be most likely to survive longest. The first signs that these predictions were inaccurate were observed in the 1960s, In 1965, Charles TJehman challenged the assumption that Jewish Orthodoxy was in terminal decline." As he pointed Out, Ultra-Orthodox Jewish groups, contrary to what the secularization thesis had led people to expect, were growing at the expense of those forms of Judaism that had made significant concessions to modernity (that is, Modern Orthodox, Conservative and Reform groups). A similar phenomenon to that noticed by liebman in the Jewish community was subsequently recorded in the Christian community. While the decline of mainstream Christian groups, both Protestant and Roman Catholic, continued as predicted, there was a notable resurgence of groups such as the Southern Baptists, Pentecostalists, Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. In contrast to what advocates of the secularization thesis had predicted, therefore, those religious movements that took an uncompromising stand against modernity were the ones to flourish, while those that compromised and adapted their claims and institutions to modern values went into decline (at least in terms of numbers).14 Indeed, since the 1960s, fundamentalist religious groups seem to have been growing from strength to strength.2"
It is possible to regard the surprising resurgence of religion in modem times as a temporary deviation from the trajectory predicted by the secularization thesis. However, In
IT Why might people become more religious in modern urban environments? Perhaps, they seek to replace the network of communal relations dial had supported them in traditional communities, and that is not readily available in the modem dry. People might turn to the synagogue, church or mosque to provide a new community and a new social identity. With respect to immigrant communities, i-i particular, it has been argued that religion plays an important role in preserving their cultural identity The effort to preserve this id entity may explain why Some become more religious in their adopted country than they were in their homeland. On the religiosity of immigrant communities in the US, see. Will Herberg (1M4), Prbtestam-Cathtrtit-Jeto; Alt Essay in American Religious Sociology, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
'* See, Charles Liebman (1983), "Orthodoxy in American Jewish Life", in Reuven Bulka (ed,), Dimensions of Orthodox Judorsm, pp. 33-105, Ktav, New York.
w In keeping with this partem, the Roman Catholic Church began to lose ground against Other denominations in the wake of the liberalizing Second Vatican Council in the 1960s, However, later In the 2V century, under the leadership of the Conservative Pontiff John Paul 11, it exhibited a greater ahility to attract converts and ro keep Its ensuing members.
* See, Paul Kurtz (1988), "The Growth of Pundamemaiism Worldwide", in T7te Academy of Humanism, jVeo-FtfilJaFTimtaiisrn; The rlumqriist Response, P- 7f, Prometheus Books, Buffalo and New York.
16 The lefai University Journal of History and Culture, Vol, II, No- 3, 2O0S
of the increasing prominence of fundamentalist religious groups within all of the world religions, it seems more plausible to conclude that the standard view of the an between modernity secularization and faith ignores something important. Hence, fe* the end of the 20* century, many scholars had come to reject the secularization thesis add to seek new ways of explaining the relationship between religion and modernity. Liebman, for example, proposes an alternative theory claiming that, in the modern world, irfgwus fundamentalism is the norm, and religious moderation is, rather, the phenomenon requiring explanation." He attempts to support this thesis by means of a study of Judaism Israel (although he believes that his account of religious fundamentalism also to other religions elsewhere). According to Liebman,
a propensity to religious extremism does not require explanation since it is entirely consistent with basic religious tenets and authentic religious orientations, it is religious moderation or religious liberalism, the willingness of religious adherents to accommodate themselves to their environment, to adapt their behavioral and belief patterns to prevailing cultural norms, to make peace with the world, that requires explanation ... If our description of the extremist orientation is correct, then extremism is a tendency to which every religiously oriented person is attracted.!a
Essentially, then, Liebman argues that all religions tends to push people towards tedamenlalism. In pre-modern societies, this tendency was counter-balanced by the many jnnections that existed berween culture, communal life and religion. After the itenment, however, these connections were broken as religion became increasingly I from other aspects of life. Thus, argues Liebman, die attraction of religious believers is fundamentalism was no longer balanced by other factors, and was therefore ■owed to attain its full expression. Moreover, religious fundamentalism is typically ■pressed in the drive to expand religious law, in the desire to increase the social isolation Ffhe religious community, and, conversely, in the rejection cultivated by the fundamentalist of the dominant culture. Let us consider each of these dimensions of religious amenta! ism in turn.
Religious law does seem to be an especially attractive focus for many fundamentalists . the major religious traditions," This might be due to the fact that law is traditionaliy ived as objective, unambiguous and authoritative. In discussing several aspects" of the je^-.^h r'uv.d;iiiu'iu;]lisLs' r'ui-us nn Jfu ish i.iiu f,!mJuWn;i. [.ii'linsan notes thai the two most
diaries S. I Jebman (1983), " Extremism as a Religious Norm", .loismisl for the Scientific Stir Jy of ■kfigion. Vol. 22, pp. 75-BG- Whereas Liebman uses the term 'extremism', here, in this commentary on his ideas, the author retains the term 'fundamentalism' because of the connotation of the use of violence that is typical uf the farmer term, unlike the latter.
Aid., p. 79.
Jadaism, Christianity and Islam, each have their own version of religious law. Christian fundamentalists (with the exception of those who follow recnnstruclionist thenlojy) du nut usually pay much attention ra religious law, possibly because it is perceived as Roman Catholic law, and the Majority of Christian fundamentalists reject Roman Catholicism. However, by contrast, religious bw is art important focus for Jewish and Islamic fundamentalists.
These particular aspects would also seem to be of special significance to Islamic fundame ntalis Cs.
ernity, Religious Fundamentalism and the Secularization Thesis
l 7
important are the desire to expand the scope of religious law and the desire to elaborate on its details. Regarding this first aspect, religious fundamentalists seek to expand the scope of religious law because they want it to Legislate over all aspects of public and private behavior Furthermore, expanding the scope of religious law would provide the fundamentalist group with (is own social standards to criticize existing social institutions. Religious fundamentalists may then try to impose their program on the whole of society, and their effort to impose religious law on society as a whole often embroils religious fundamentalists in political conflict. However, in some cases, their primary political demand may simply be for political autonomy
The second importanl aspect of the religious fundamentalists' (bai* on rrli^Miiis Lm concerns their preoccupation with the details of the law. Liebman provides the example of the iialakhic requirement that people, particularly women, dress modestly. This requirement is, as it stands, fairly vague, for it leaves open the possibility that each community or individual can decide what would count as modest. Jewish religious fundamentalists, however, prefer not to leave this question open. Instead, they elaborate on the law in order to specify the exact length of sleeves or hemline, say, that is consistent with modesty. A similar tendency is prevalent within Islamic fundament;!!ism.
These two aspects of die religious: fundamentalist's attitude to religious law are linked by a common thread. For, they both seek to emphasize the overriding priority of law over the individual's choice and judgement. And, in so doing, both seek to limit personal authority, expecting the individual to defer to religious leaders in even, what appears to outsiders to be, the smallest and most trivial matters—such as the length of one's sleeves or hemline.
Whereas religious law constitutes the first dimension of religious fundamentalism, as discussed by Liebman, the second dimension, as noted above, consists of a tendency towards isolation from the rest of society. For a characteristic response of religious fundamentalists, to those who do not accept their religious values, is to separate themselves from them. This attitude may be tempered by a desire to convert others, in which case fundamentalists may go to considerable lengths in order to mitigate the dangers of contact with those perceived as outsiders. This trend towards increasing social isolation is particularly evident in the case of religious education. Religious fundamentaLists usually insist on their children being educated in their communities' own schools. Typically, these schools give their pupils only as much secular education as is deemed necessary, in order to remain within the law of the land. In the case of Hasidic schools, most of the pupil's time is spent learning the scriprures from memory (and traditional Muslim schools display a similar preoccupation with learning scripture by rote). One result is that children who have been educated in this w7ay enjoy few points of intellectual or physical contact with children from non-religious schools.
The third dimension of religious fundamentalism, according to Liebman, is the tendency of religious fundamentalists to reject all cultural forms and cultural values that are not perceived to be intrinsic to their religious tradition. In practice, this often means that
1 S
The Icfai University Journal of History and Culture, Vol. II, No. 3, 20Q&
This would have encouraged self-interested people to become religious leaders in order to promote their own or their family's interests, with the notorious corruption among Roman Catholic leaders during the middle ages being a case in point. Such self-interested individuals enjoying positions of religious leadership would, Liebman maintains, have had an interest in keeping fundamentalist tendencies at bay, And within a traditional society, they would have had more power to do so.
The claim, then, is that the current rise in religious fundamentalism can be explained by the disappearance of such regulatory factors—factors that, Liebman argues, formerly restrained any fundamentalist tendencies within society, clearly, one feature of the modem world is the compart mental ization of religion. Since the Enlightenment, religion has become Increasingly distanced from other areas of public life. Consequently, religious leaders rarely attain the public status they once enjoyed, and this perhaps means that self-interested individuals are less likely to strive to become religious leaders.Hence, the two factors that, if Liebman is correct, were previously paramount in checking the tendency of religious people towards fundamentalism, have been significantly attenuated within modem western Society.
It may be, then, that Liebman's theory can explain why religious fundamental ism is a distinctively modem phenomenon, and not simply an expression of a desire to return to a pre-modem state of mind in which one's religious beliefs are seemingly immune from challenge. The theory also appears to offer a persuasive explanation as to why religion has not died the natural death that had been predicted by 20" century social science.
Despite Liebman's claim that the three dimensions of religious fundamentalism—the desire to expand the scope of religious law, the wish for isolation of their community from the rest of society, and the rejection of the dominant cultures-have always been an intrinsic part of many religions, he admits that only under conditions typical of modernity has religious fundamental ism reached its full expression. Indeed, his argument suggests that religious fundamentalism tecjuires modernity to reach such expression. In this sense, it seems fair to claim that modernity provides the conditions of possibility for religious fundamentalism—a claim which also explains the failure of the secularization thesis to account for patterns of religious commitment in the late 20lk century and beyond.
Whether or not we should accept Licbmarj's theoretical explanation, the secularization thesis, which was virtually unquestioned in the 1950s and 1960s, does seem to have been critically undermined by the unexpected religious revival that occurred during the second half of the 20J' century33 The relationship between religion and modernity is thus, far more complex than the thesis allows. Even within Western Europe, in those areas—such as the
Although. ;nn nbviiuis n>unt< T-rnHJiipk' rh;>[ l.n1 nm.in does mn ininoipJte. it provided h\ the 'teievangelist' media personalities that dominated Christian broadcasting in the US during; the 1970s and 1980s.
a Nevertheless, the thesis enntinues to stimulate vignrous debate. See, tor example, the collection ol essays in Steve Bruce (1992) fed.}, Religion and Modernisation: Sociologists and Historians Debate the Seculanziition Thetis, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
30
The Icfai University Journal of History and Culture, Vol. II, No. 3, 2D05
Wl Kingdom and (he Netherlands—where llie thesis has come closest to being borne out, HXuation is more nuanced than had been predicted.'
19
Conclusion
religious fundamentalism is often regarded as an attempt to recreate the past and i religious believers to a pie-modern world view, this article has sought to demonstrate pm "is is a deeply misleading picture of religious fundamentalism. By examining some 0 Tbt key characteristics of religious fundamentalism within the Abrahamic faiths, that, far from being a throwback to the past, religious fundamentalism is a tfwety modern phenomenon. Moreover, an examination of the secularisation thesis, as failure to account for current patterns of religiosity, has provided reason to believe religious fundamentalism, at least in its full expression, is dependent upon other mts of modernity, g]
Reference # 52J 2008-07 01 01
* Sbl. Victoria 5 Harriimn (2007), Heliport opid Modern Tlioughl, SCM, London, Chapter 2.
icy, Religious Fu nd a mental ism and the Secularization Thesis