How Have Sociologists Sought to Explain the Rise of Religious Fundamentalisms - Essay Example

? How have sociologists sought to explain the rise of religious fundamentalisms? How have sociologists sought to explain the rise of religious fundamentalisms? 1.0. Introduction Sociologists study religion with an aim of understanding it just like the way they study other social institutions. In the process of studying it, they also try to predict the outcomes of religions as they develop. This is usually achieved through demographic surveys, ethnographic studies, as well as other sociological methodologies of conducting social research. Religion can be defined as either sacred or non-sacred, whereby the sacred components of social existence are what constitute religion (Barber, 1996, p. 76). It can further be defined as an attempt to describe the existential demands. Additionally, it refers to the collective principles and the rites of a group linking them to the supernatural (Carens, 2000, p. 89). On the other hand, religious fundamentalism refers to a group of crusade that developed as a result of the aggressive evangelical crusade who come from the United States during the 19th and 20th century in disagreement to Protestant Free-thinking and Secularism demanding on the inerrancy of Scripture (Hesse, 2000, p. 45). The movement adhered to the theology movement during that time (Goldberg, 1994). Thus, it can be described as a crusade that revisited what they believed to be the defining philosophies of religion (Grillo, 1998, p. 67). It has developed to signify any spiritual or sacred enclave that purposely resisted an association with the bigger religious sect in which it emanated from on the basis that, the main values upon which the bigger sacred groups were founded have turned out to be corrupt or evacuated (Hastings, 1997, p. 32). This essay presents how the sociologists sought to explain the rise of religious fundamentalisms. It first looks at multiculturalism, value pluralism, Huntington views on civilization, Appadurai views on fear of small numbers, Gray’s views on al-Qaeda and the western and Islam view on sexuality and gender. 2.0. Multiculturalism Multiculturalism refers to a society with several cultures (Hesse, 2000, p. 56). In descriptive terms, it refers to a society with multiple cultures, and in normative terms, it refers to beliefs or procedures that encourage this assortment or its institutionalization (Bennett, 1998, p. 67). Barry (2001, p.78) argues that multiculturalism is a community, which is at comfort with the abundant twisted life and the wish between people to state their own uniqueness in the way that they believe fits. These ideologies vary from state to another state because of individual diversity. Proponents of multiculturalism question the idea of maintenance of distinct cultures within the multicultural community (Alibhai-Brown, 1999, p. 90). They argue against the issue of cultural integration of different cultural groups and advocate for cultural assimilation to come together and form a single group within the community forming one identity (Barry, 2001, p. 56). According to Hesse (2000, p.22), multiculturalism is a way of ensuring and accepting democratic institution or society in the world in which there are several conflicts between philosophies expressing different ethics (Goldberg, 1994, p. 76). This is because the attempt of unifying these different values leads to racial and ethnic discrimination within the society (Fukuyama, 1992, p.89). 2.1. Value pluralism Value pluralism also known as ethical pluralism refers to the idea that in a society there are a number of values, which might be correspondingly right and fundamental, however in disagreement with each other (Grillo, 1998, p. 55). Furthermore, value-pluralism suggests that in several cases, such contrary beliefs may not be comprehensible. In this case, there is no real ordering of these values in terms of significance. It is also a theory describing ethics rather than normative ethics. Isaiah Berlin (1991, p. 44) states that, value pluralism is a substitute to moral absolutism. For example, the moral life of a nun is very different from that of a mother yet there are no proper measures to distinguish the two. Value pluralism also differs from value relativism this is because pluralism acknowledges limits to distinctions, like when important human wants are infringed (Clark, Frobes and Francis, 1993, p.89). 2.2. Huntington views on civilization Huntington (1993, p. 54) tries to clarify an obvious contradiction when the Soviet Union failed, and people were anticipating the end of conflicts and a long period of peace. In its place, the wars resumed instantly, from Kosovo to Afghanistan. According to Huntington (1993, p. 54), the theory of clash of civilizations appears in accurate when one looks critically at the USA, Japan, and India. Huntington (1993, p.54) claimed that that fights were national rather than economic. Current antiquity confirmed the opposite. Whereby, conflicts between the powers are constantly motivated by economics and not by philosophy, religion, or ethnicity. He further claimed that the central element of civilianization are languages, and he felt that that individuals are reaching a stage of conflict known as the conflict of civilizations (Huntington, 1996, p. 88). The worldwide system initiated with the Agreement of Westphalia and the struggle between empires in the effort to obtain more militaries, state, and money. All these lead to conflicts between states and not monarchies. Alliances during the time of war would lead to the focus on relationships between states where they began to support one another (Inglehart, 1997, p. 5). 2.3. Appadurai views on fear of small numbers Appadurai (2006, p. 55) introduces the new term ideocide, which means ideological supremacy or reductionism, which led to strong rivalry, insecurity and hostility among different states or groups. He revealed that terrorism was the core source leading to these insecurities. He also described the term ‘ethnocide’, which meant ethnic cleaning or killing of ethnic subgroups among others (Appadurai, 2006, p. 55). In the same way, he uses the word predatory identities, this refers those groups that for them to exist they need other subgroups as their prey. Just like Jews and people from Palestine. According to Appadurai (2006, p. 55), these groups emerged because of conflicts between the groups. He talked of violence that was culturally motivated, and spread all through within the contemporary society. Appadurai (2006, p. 55) further stated that the inherent ideologies among nationalities do not explain the reasons that motivated the large violence within the community. He stated that the minorities are a big threat to the nationalities, and this in turn affects the social integrations (Inglehart, 1997, p.4). He also stated that, terrorism was closely associated with globalization, where the militants were a threat to the well-developed countries (Joppke and Lukes, 1999, p. 32). Appadurai also described terrorism as a component leading to capriciousness and central to continuous fear (Kelly, 2002, p. 32). In his last chapters, Appadurai criticized the views of Huntington by stating that, the model evacuates antiquity from culture, avoiding geography (Kivisto, 2002, p.115). Appadurai further introduced civicide and argued that his article was very much like the clash of civilization by Huntington. He even stated that it would have better been given the name clash of Civicides or Ideocide. He draws heavily from ethnocide and ideocide because of equity and peace (Kymlicka, 2005, p. 21). 2.4 Gray views on Al-Qaeda Gray (2005, p. 32) argued that Al Qaeda is an outcome of modernism and globalization. It was not the last group to utilize the outcome of the contemporary world in its private monstrous. He used the myths of the human state saying that it can be re-created through science and improvement or political planning (Gellner, 1992, p. 78). Gray described this using modernity, and the development of positivisms (Gray, 2005, p. 32). He felt that the sect placed science and knowledge at the center of the cult and acquired a religion of humankind. Gray (2005, p. 33) presented an alternative view of the group, its interests, and its beliefs. His main point was to describe the movement as an outcome of civilization. Therefore, Gray explored the process of modernization and ideology as an entity looking at its origin and development in Europe (Juergensmeyer, 2003, p. 88). He points that where there is no conflict there is no power, and it was this idea that motivated Marx’s theory of communism as an attempt to change Russia class system (Kymlicka, 1995). This theory advocated for rapid industrial development, the use of knowledge in the society, and collectivization was intended to make equal in a society (Modood and Werbner, 1997, p. 66). Once the equality was complete then the society would be in a position to define and provide all their needs. Thus, the al-Qaeda was another model of the malaise shaped by after enlightenment thinking. The writings of Egyptian unity and those of Sayyid Qutb are the basis of the al-Qaeda philosophy. Gray also showed the enlightenment knowledge of humanity is a meaningless myth. Relatively, there were only individuals, using the rising knowledge provided to them through science to practice their contradictory motives (Okin, 1999, p. 55). Therefore, each country should develop its own concept of modernity. Gray noted that people have different views and come from different backgrounds, and all these contribute to conflicting values (Panitch and Leys, 2002, p. 43). Therefore, people need to consider the differences that exist within the society. He felt that it was very strange for the humankind to be destined for a distinct way of existing, when in reality it is so full of conflict and different individuals with different views (Parekh, 2000, p. 32). Gray's views only consider the views of al-Qaeda and its principles within the modern community around the world’s concept of itself. He does not look at the development of al-Qaeda (Parekh a, 2000, p. 56). 2.5 The Western and Islam view on sexuality and gender Rashid and Huntington (1997, p. 78) noted that, the fundamentalist crusaders were reactionary in contradiction to renovation and secularization within the society. Crusaders of these movements believe that they were the one and the only accurate religion that was being destroyed by either secular philosophies or by other spiritual crusades, and they were eager to fight or stop and transform this style. Spiritual fundamentalist normally classify two opponents. These are the religious pluralism and secularism. They condemn the loss of the approved role of religious conviction in society. They are also selective in that they select the way they communicated within the modern community. In the Muslim community women, men, children are expected to behave according to the Muslim traditions. Gender roles are created to differentiate between what was considered masculine or feminine in the Muslim community. These gender roles are learnt within specific social cultural context and are highly influenced by education and cultural factors. In reality, gender roles usually affect women adversely obstructing their self-determination in subjects like the socio-economic position, status in the family, well-being or physical condition, life expectancy, freedom, individuality and their rights leading to gender biasness (Rex, 1996, p. 78). Even though, the Qur’an notes that both men and women are equal in humankind, this religious or ethical fairness has not been imitated in the laws (Walzer, 1997, p. 77). For instance, women in the Muslim community cannot make independent decisions; they must consult their husbands. The interpretation of the Qur'an advocates for gender roles and reinforces them to their members. Women in Islam must be informed of the Islam informative perspectives this is because of the Islamic normative nature of religion, its social system that affects their daily activates, as well as decision-making process (Willett, 1997, p. 65). From this perspective, gender roles are mainly influenced by the concept of culture in Islam. The western women are free to make their own decision and that gender roles are not highly influenced by cultural practices (Touraine, 2000, p. 32). Therefore, the main difference between the two ideologies is that, the Islam is normative and the western claims to be free (Sahgal and Yuval-Davis, 1992, p. 56). The Islam presents women a model to follow and makes them fight with how they will include these standards into their ways of life. They also have clear general explanations as to what comprises right and wrong and fairness from unfairness (Smith, 2003, p. 12). The Western on the other hand, strongly opposes any established general philosophies or rules for women. They fail to recognize the universal prescription affirming the model for women (Walzer, 1997, p. 23). They feel that by making prescriptions for women to follow is like making them not have free society and in turn, they are not in a position to make their own decision without referring to other external sources (Susser and Patterson, 2001, p. 21). This difference is highly reinforced by the different paradigm concepts prescribed by the society. The Islamic definition of the society is also different from that of the western society. In that, they define it as a society that is norm based, while the western society is the value free-based society. Unlike the western, the Muslim recognizes the family, faith, and interdependence as common and essential to the state of all societies (Taylor and Gutman, 1994, p. 32). Both Muslim and Western perspectives on gender and sexuality cannot be separated from the community and their social values. All these elements are a product of a given society and their cultural values (Touraine, 2000, p.32). 3.0. Conclusion In conclusion, spiritual interpreters who would like to go back to what they consider uncontaminated and original standards of behavior to describe fundamentalism as an effort to correct all misconducts. The strengths of social modification are significant for the development of fundamentalism. Any development within the society leads to changes in the beliefs, and this affects the religion. Through sociology fundamentalist try to reinstates the lost principles in different ideologies. They even take the form of terrorism to justify their concepts and believe. This spiritual fundamentalism prominent role in social life, especially politics is of great significance to sociologists. This is because it determines the political and the social structure of a community. They tend to follow all the principles prescribed by God. References Alibhai-Brown, Y., 1999. True colours: attitudes to multiculturalism and the role of government. London, Institute for Public Policy Research. Appadurai, A., 2006. Fear of Small Numbers: An Essay on the Geography of Anger New York: Duke University Press. Barber, B., 1996. Jihad vs McWorld: How Globalism and Tribalism are Reshaping the World. New York: Ballantine Books. Barry, B., 2001. Culture and Equality: An Egalitarian Critique of Multiculturalism, edn. Cambridge: Polity. Bennett, D. eds., 1998. Multicultural States: Rethinking Difference and Identity, edn. London: Routledge. Berlin, I., 1991. The Crooked Timber of Humanity. London: Fontana Press. Carens, J., 2000. Culture, Citizenship and Community: A Contextual Exploration of Justice as Evenhandedness, edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Clark, G.L., Frobes, D. and Francis, R. eds., 1993. Multiculturalism, difference and postmodernism, edn. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire. Fukuyama, F., 1992. The End of History and the Last Man, edn. London: The Free Press. Gray, C., 2005. Al Qaeda and What it Means to Be Modern. New York: New Press Gellner, E., 1992. Postmodernism, Reason and Religion, edn. London: Routledge. Goldberg, D.T. ed., 1994 Multiculturalism: A critical reader, edn. Oxford: Blackwell. Grillo, R., 1998. Pluralism and the Politics of Difference: State, Culture and Ethnicity in Comparative Perspective, edn. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Hastings, A., 1997. The Construction of Nationhood: Ethnicity, Religion and Nationalism, edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hesse, B. ed., 2000. Unsettled Multiculturalisms: Diasporas, Entanglements, Transruptions, edn. London: Zed Books. Huntington , S.P. and Ajami. F., 1993 The Clash of Civilizations? : The Debate. New York, NY: Foreign Affairs. London School of Economics.  Huntington, S.P., 1996. The Clash of Civilizations? The Deate. New York, NY: Foreign Affairs . Inglehart, R., 1997. Modernization and Post modernization: Cultural, Economic and Political Change in 43 Societies, edn. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Joppke, C. and Lukes, S. eds., 1999. Multicultural Questions, edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Juergensmeyer, M., 2003. Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence, edn. London: University of California Press. Kelly, P. ed., 2002. Multiculturalism Reconsidered: Culture and Equality and its Critics, edn. Cambridge: Polity Press Kivisto, P., 2002. Multiculturalism in a Global Society, edn. Oxford: Blackwell. Kymlicka, W., 1995. Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights, edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Modood, T. and Werbner, P., 1997. The Politics of Multiculturalism in the New Europe: Racism, Identity and Community, ed. London: Zed Books. Okin, S.M., 1999. Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?, edn. Chichester: Princeton University Press. Panitch, L. and Leys, C. eds., 2002 Socialist Register 2003: Fighting Identities. Race, Religion and Ethno-nationalism, edn. London: Merlin Press. Parekh, B., 2000. Rethinking Multiculturalism: Cultural Diversity and Political Theory, edn. London: Macmillan. ------- 2000. The Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain: Report of the Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain, edn. London: Profile Books. Rashid, S. and Huntington, S.P., 1997. The Clash of Civilizations? Asian Responses, Karachi, New York: Oxford University Press. Rex, J., 1996. Ethnic Minorities in the Modern Nation State: Working Papers in the Theory of Multi-Culturalism and Political Integration, edn. London: Macmillan. Sahgal, G. and Yuval-Davis, N. eds., 1992. Refusing Holy Orders: Women and Fundamentalism in Britain, edn. London: Virago Press. Smith, A., 2003. Chosen peoples: Sacred Sources of National Identity, edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Susser, I. and Patterson, T. eds., 2001. Cultural Diversity in the United States, edn. Oxford: Blackwell. Taylor, C. and Gutman, A. eds., 1994. Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition, edn. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Touraine, A., 2000. Can We Live Together? Equality and Difference, edn. Cambridge: Polity Press. Walzer, M., 1997. On Toleration, edn. London: Yale University Press. Willett, C. eds., 1998. Theorizing Multiculturalism: A Guide to the Current Debate, edn. Oxford: Blackwell. Read More