What Extent Is It Either Accurate Or Helpful To Situate Fundamentalism In Relationship To The Project Of Modernity - Essay Example

What Extent Is It Either Accurate Or Helpful To Situate Fundamentalism In Relationship To The Project Of Modernity? This paper will discuss the extent to which it is accurate or helpful to situate fundamentalism in relationship to the project of modernity. The paper argues that fundamentalism engagements are modern, and the idea that they are anti-modern is a negative notion. In order to uphold the argument that fundamentalism is modern, the paper accesses American Fundamentalists with the spotlight on the writings, organization, as well as speeches of Pat Robertson. Pat Robertson has had a considerable influence on the fundamentalism through his 700 Club program plus his legal organization, his university and the politically motivated Christian Coalition, which he is the founder (Ruthven 30). This article discusses various aspects of fundamentalism so as to reveal its modern nature. The idea that fundamentalism is anti-modern can be witnessed in works by R. Scott Appleby and Martin Marty, Bruce Lawrence and Bruce Steve. Lawrence’s Defenders of God, Steve’s Fundamentalism and Appleby’s and Marty’s The Fundamentalism Project are key works in the literary comprehension of fundamentalism. A majority of scholars have similar sentiments concerning the relationship of modernity and fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is reliant on utilitarian elements of modernity, whereas Lawrence (15), Steve (54) and Appleby and Marty (43) all perceive fundamentalisms as reactions to the consequences of enlightenment, which manifests itself as modernist reasoning or modernism. Fundamentalists oppose every individual or institution, which advocates for enlightenment principles and support the banners of modernism or secularism. Appleby and Marty (44), Lawrence (28) and Steve (23) discern that fundamentalisms are extremely modern since they are developing movements whose grounds rely on modernity, as a reaction to imagined threats and their misuse of modern ideologies and tools, as well. However, the above four scholars argue that fundamentalisms oppose modernity and disapprove modernism. The enlightenment, as of now, is the harsh enemy of fundamentalists. However, is this what is happening on the ground? And, to what extent is it right to situate fundamentalism to modernity. Considering fundamentalism as anti-modern is extremely inaccurate, but it is accurate to situate fundamentalism in relationship to the project of modernity? Considering fundamentalism as anti-modern obfuscates its nature and insinuates that it is illegitimate globally when it is, in reality, not for the modern world. Therefore, in the continuous qualifications of the association of fundamentalism to modernity, very little is gained. To discuss fundamentalism as a reaction to the modernist culture or modernity is to clarify an unclear term through referring to an always vague term (Steve 30). Steve’s Fundamentalism gives the reader a basis for this investigation. In his study, he brings up numerous questions about the classification of fundamentalism being anti-modern and the extent to which fundamentalism could be stipulated to modernism. From a far, it is entirely reasonable to state that fundamentalisms of all kinds react differently against the popular modernist culture. However, going through the numerous religious movements, a person cannot be completely confused by that statement. Steve (51) also admits that the phrases modern resists straightforward definitions. In his writing, the definition of modern is a code word for the entire forces of fundamentalists considered to be the threat that motivates their responses. Modernist traditions comprise of basically three dimensions incompatible to fundamentalists: a liking towards secular rationality; an acceptance of spiritual tolerance with supplementary tendencies towards individualism and relativism (Hoffmeister 15). Surely, there are elements of the modern and secular world, which pressure fundamentalists, threats that every religion should resolve. However, does this code word help people to understand fundamentalism? It surely seems that American Fundamentalists echo a liking towards secular rationality in their utilization of scientific induction, as well as their political expediency. Their coalition of forming political interest groups echoes some degree of religious tolerance as their acknowledge Mormons and Catholics into the fold. Lawrence (69), however, responds to Steve’s code word through asking what modernism in the 20th century Protestant America is. What is modern in a country were 72% of its citizens consider the Bible as the word of God and 44% stand as creationists? These figures do not reflect the liking towards a secular rationality. In regards to classifying modernity as a secular, broadminded and individualist endeavor, Lawrence (40) states that people are still in the dark as to exactly what fundamentalists react to. Appleby and Marty (39), in their writing, note that apart from being unaware for the modern Western persuasion, it is vivid that Islamic rebirth is not mainly the achievement of those with minute knowledge or experience with the Western world. Surely people who constitute the basis of this wide Islamic uprising have had the most prominent exposure to elevated educational systems, modern technologies, political processes, lifestyles and cultural values. Steve (62) also notes a similar influence of modernity in this writing. Fundamentalism flourishes in the modern society not just due to the numerous frustrations, which accompany modernity, or since modernity is not yet influential in a modern society. There are still protected niches here and there, which offer fertile grounds for the cultivation of traditionalism. However, modern spiritual revivalism also thrives through drinking directly from the fruitful wells of modernity (Ruthven, 50). These modern aspects have also shaped fundamentalism into their individual familial alliance, not just a misuse of contemporary values through an otherwise spiritual group. This is a contemporary happening in a globe already saturated with contemporary values. For many scholars, this is vital to comprehending groups such as the Gush Emunim. Advanced tech plus advance political patterns, as well, are not the only elements that radical religion borrows from modernity. Instead, modernity, in reality, nurtures religious thought and experience. One effect of such nurturing is fundamentalism. Also, activist-believers have internalized modern content comprising of norms and seculars. Their investment and immersion in modern countrywide political life has formed their strengthened religiosity, an original and genuine religiosity. Hence, the point of exit for understanding Gush Emunim and similar fundamental movements is their fascination with modernity. While people would question the phrase, "fascination with modernity", it is much easier to agree with scholars such as Steve, Marty and Appleby. Part of the fundamentalist recognition is being drenched in modernity, having absorbed the aspects of the modern world. These are politically and technologically savvy movements, which engage in modern debates and rival so professionally in the political world their influence is considered to be a serious one. To consider them anti-modern is extremely absurd. It is true that they stand against various modern values, but this is not sufficient to brand them as anti-modern. A vital aspect of American Fundamentalism is inerrantism. This refers to the belief frequently known as literalism that the Bible is, in reality, the word of God; it does not contain any error. Inerrantism is a late-developing notion that is reliant on the persuasion of Enlightenment thought in the American society (Hoffmeister 34). Particularly, inerrantism is reliant on Scottish Common Sense pragmatism, a political philosophy, which strongly influenced the American society in the 1800s. It also argued that truths could be identified through human being faculties such as reason. Of the numerous Enlightenments in the American society, only one or two are vital for the development of American Fundamentalists. May (94), in his publication, The Enlightenment in America, acknowledges four diverse Enlightenments in America: the Moderate Enlightenment (1688-1787), the Skeptical Enlightenment (1750-1789), the Revolutionary Enlightenment (1776-1800) and the Didactic Enlightenment (1800-1815). According to May (99), the Didactic Enlightenment was absorbed by the American official tradition of the 19th century. The Didactic Enlightenment, as well as the Common Sense, was vital to fundamentalism’s development. Baconian scientific induction and the Common Sense had an extremely strong influence on the American reasoning (Hoffmeister 37). This will be discussed later in this paper with an aim of clarifying the extent to which it is accurate of helpful to situate fundamentalism in relationship to the project of modernity. Evangelical leaders support this movement of scientific induction, and they presumed that the world was governed through a rational system of laws assured by an all-wise, as well as benevolent creator. In 1979, on the aftermath of the Iranian hostage emergency, a fresh perception of Islam came up in the United States whereby the captives and others considered to have terroristic endeavors in Islam were referred to as fundamentalists (Ruthven, 78). This convention borrowed a term, which had been corrected through an anti-modernist twist of Christianity in the closing stages of the 19th century. In spite of the numerous cultural dynamics, differences in spiritual thought and socio-political perspective, this practice of Islamic fundamentalism is still persistent. Numerous people perceive this practice as misleading and pernicious. The seemingly common aspect, which putative Christian and Islamic fundamentalists have in common, is an opposition to modernity. Even this resistance is considerably differentiated in the respective religious movements, as well as their host traditions. After the Iranian hostage emergency, in 1979, a new perception of Islam took shape in America in which the kidnappers and others perceived to have terroristic objectives in Islam were referred “fundamentalists.” This usage sponged a term that had been corrected by an anti-modernist twist of Christianity in the 19th century. In spite of huge distinctions of spiritual thought, socio-political perspective and cultural dynamics, this tradition of “Islamic fundamentalism” perseveres. Numerous people see this usage as misleading and pernicious (Hoffmeister 45). The apparently usual aspect, which putative Christian and Islamic fundamentalists have in common, opposes modernity. Even this opposition is considerably diverse in the respective spiritual movements, as well as their host cultures. Christian fundamentalists have normally opposed secularism and science while they have supported capitalism. The standpoint of Christian fundamentalists on a democratic system is more multifaceted, but basically Christian fundamentalists recognize democracy, whereas advocating for reforms in line with their main goal. The alleged Islamic Fundamentalists are basically graver of capitalism democracy, less graver of science and likewise opposed to secularism compared to their Christian counterparts (Noll 49). In reality, Christian fundamentalists are frequently vocal defenders for modern capitalism in their most cruel forms. Should a dependable assessment of Islamic movements desist from classifying certain personalities and groups as fundamentalists? As the phrase was self-picked by explicit Christian groups, is there some stern mix-up, which led to its use in Islam? In essence, the term fundamentalism risks uncooperatively confounding significant distinctions between the occurrences in question. This questions whether it is even accurate to situate fundamentalism to the project of modernity. Christian fundamentalism was initially made public during a mass movement after the publication of the Niagara Creed (1878), which was produced through the guidance of the “Bible Study Meeting for Believers” yearly conference (Noll 67). This meeting was a non-denominational attempt to spread an anti-modernist theology, which stressed on the wickedness and corruption of the modern culture and the proximity of Divine ruling upon the world. Primitivist and Apocalyptic, the Niagara Creed stressed the ideal infallibility of the Bible, factual understanding of its writings and significant orthodox principles of Christian deliverance with highlights on individual conversion. This religion was a response to the trend among numerous mainline Protestant meetings to use modern techniques of historical analysis to the Biblical writings and to acknowledge scientific comprehensions of the basis of humanity. It is, without a doubt, imperative that Charles Darwin’s contentious book, On the Origin of the Species, started to be sold in 1859, less than 20 years prior to the Niagara Creed. In comparison, Islamic anti-modernism’s origin was on the margin of Western Civilization, instead of in its Midwestern heartland. Steve (30) recognizes the main origin to be in Algeria, where Egyptian rebellious exiles worked with local Islamists to oppose colonial assimilation. As a new movement developed from rural cultivation to bourgeois and insignificant bourgeois levels, spiritual recognition demanded redefinition. Extensive acceptance of Western civilization was out of the question, but the incisive assessment of local village fallacies by these revivalists holds an unnatural resemblance to the Protestant restructure’s criticism of Roman Catholic worship of the saints. While Christian fundamentalists considered Modernism as a foreign introduction, which seemed to be a sheep’s clothing hiding infidel animals, Islamic revivalists, on the other hand, considered Modernism as the redundant infringements of a foreign invader. Also, this two movements targeted established leadership in their respective faiths as vital enemy goals in failing to stay faithful to the basic truths of their faiths. Christian fundamentalism was not fully satisfied with its mostly apolitical revivalism. The adoption of Communism gave an ideal target for its materialization into power politics. The “godless skepticism” of Stalin and Lenin forcefully toughened fundamentalist worries of an end-time Anti-Christ worldwide cruelty (Gorenberg 40). In the late 70’s, a fresh era of political engagement developed in 1979with the creation of the Moral Majority, which, together with similar movements, united into what is referred to as the “New Christian Right”. This grouped centered on the problems of abortion, equal amendment rights, pornography, voluntary school prayer, secular humanism in schools (including sex education and the teaching of evolution), drug abuse, opposing homosexuality, gun control, atheism, the protection of Christian schools and military defense spending (Noll 80). If a person collects the problems from this list, which are mainly concerned with the rights and behaviors of women, then an actually obvious equivalent can be pinched with this politicized fundamentalism. The surfacing of “Islamism” from in the wider Islamic revivalism was initially brought to the interest of the American public through the triumph of Ayatollah Khomeini in safeguarding his spot as the Supreme Leader of Iran and executing his vision of a society erected straight from Sheria law. This was a parallel endeavor to that of Christian fundamentalist politics in the late 70s in comparison to its more apolitical descriptions earlier in the 1900s (Caplan 64). A majority of Islamic revivalist movements were greatly concerned with realism to a traditionalist vision of Islam, not mainly with political power. Without a doubt, a majority of the moral issues that troubled the Moral Majority resonated with Islamists, as well as their revivalist predecessors, but provided that the Islamic communities where Islamism came to fame were greatly diverse from the U.S., the relationship was apparent (Brasher 34). Absolutely no Christian fundamentalists of any other movement would ever think about making public covering of women an issue, regardless of the truth that obligatory women’s head-coverings are declared in a letter by St. Paul. Nevertheless, the endeavor to forbid abortion, overcome the Equal Rights Amendment, and the idealistic assertion of a female’s domestic role, reverberate quite satisfactorily with aspects of Islamism and Islamic revivalism. In searching for similar movements to Islamism in Christianity, one of the more fascinating alternatives of Christian fundamentalism, according to Lawrence (90) is the Theonomist Reconstruction groups, which was motivated by the mysticism of Rousas J. Rushdoony. In contrast to the political views of early fundamentalists and the apocalyptic, Theonomists advocated for an extensive re-enactment of the United States culturally and politically in line with a stern Calvinist understanding of the Bible. Rushdoony’s support of Christian confidential schooling and the elimination of public institutions resonate with the creation of the Islamist madrassas. Regarded by numerous people as extremists, Reconstructionists, however, can be attributed with encouraging the more reserved aspects of traditional Christianity to think about a more militant standpoint with regards to modernism (Armstrong 101). Phillip Simmons, a prominent Christian conservative philosopher, credits his embracing of political activism to his understanding of Rushdoony, regardless of stern distinctions between Rushdoony and Schaeffer on numerous theological issues (Ruthven, 108). In conclusion, hanging over these visible similarities between Islamic and Christian militancy is their conflicting beliefs of capitalism. While Christian traditionalists are frequently preceding over the charge for rolling back the “wellbeing state” so as to stop the ostensible drift toward socialism, a majority of the Islamic reformers are finding significance between their knowledge as targets of imperialism and colonialism and Marxist revolutionary beliefs. To consider fundamentalisms as anti-modern, a group that revolts or rejects against modernity, is to misinterpret them. These groups are not just correcting modern tools, nor are they groups somehow mislaid in the contemporary world. Fundamentalisms are modern movements, but are not the best option to situate fundamentalism to the project of modernism. We can consider the case of Christians and Islams. The two religious movements strongly oppose this modernism and it does not make sense to situate them with modernity. This paper has used American Fundamentalism as a case of this; however, the modernity of fundamentalisms is obvious in each specific movement. If people are to consider these movements, then they must move beyond the notion that they are impersonators of modernity. Comprehending Christianity and Islam is vital in modern times when any journal will have a story of fresh violence accredited to an Islamic movement considered fundamentalist. There is an overabundance of aspect to consider in a research of fundamentalisms and it is vital to move past the idea that these groups are anti-modern. Works Cited Appleby, Scott R., and Marty, Martin. The Fundamentalism Project. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003. Print. Armstrong, Karen. The Battle for God: A History of Fundamentalism. New York: Ballantine Books, 2001. Print. Brasher, Brenda E. The Encyclopedia of Fundamentalism. New York: Routledge, 2001. Print. Bruce, Steve. Fundamentalism. 2nd ed. Cambridge and Maden, MA: Polity, 2008. Print. Caplan, Lionel. Studies in Religious Fundamentalism. London: The MacMillan Press Ltd, 1987. Print. Gorenberg, Gershom. The End of Days: Fundamentalism and the Struggle for the Temple Mount. New York: The Free Press, 2000. Print. Hoffmeister, Andrew C. Fundamentalism and Modernity: A Critique of the "Anti-Modern" Conception of Fundamentalism. N.p, 2006. Web. Lawrence, Bruce. Defenders of God: The Fundamentalist Revolt against the Modern Age. South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press, 1989. Print. Noll, Mark A. A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992. Print. Ruthven, Malise. Fundamentalism: The Search for Meaning. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. Print. Read More