Religion in Modern Society: Fundamentalism | Sociology Optional for UPSC (Notes) PDF Download

The Nature and Definition of Fundamentalism

The term fundamentalism is used to describe the nature of religion, particularly where it is undergoing an enthusiastic revival in strongly held beliefs. Fundamentalist movements have been identified among various religious groups, such as Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Christians, and Buddhists. While fundamentalism is sometimes linked to violence and terrorism, this is not always the case.

• Instances of Fundamentalist Groups Gaining Control : In some countries, fundamentalist groups have taken control of the state, such as in Iran, Sudan, Turkey, Afghanistan, and India. Additionally, fundamentalist groups may not have gained outright power, but there have been political leaders with some sympathy for fundamentalist views, such as George Bush in the USA.
• Islamic Fundamentalism: Islamic fundamentalism has been subject to more attention than other forms, especially after the 9/11 attacks in the USA and other subsequent attacks. However, it is important to note that fundamentalism is not confined to Islam, and most Islamic people are not usually regarded as fundamentalists.
• Origin of the Term Fundamentalism: The term fundamentalism was first used in the 1920s when conservative evangelical Protestants called for a return to the "Fundamentals of the Faith." These Protestants were anti-modernist in that they objected to the way their religion was becoming diluted in the modern world.
• Definition of Fundamentalism: Steve Bruce (2000) defines fundamentalism as "movements that respond to problems created by modernization by advocating society-wide obedience to some authentic and inerrant text or tradition and by seeking the political power to impose the revitalized tradition." Almond et al. (2003) define it as "a discernible pattern of religious militancy by which self-styled 'true believers' attempt to arrest the erosion of religious identity, fortify the borders of the religious community, and create viable alternatives to secular institutions and behaviors."
• Interpretation of Religions and Disputes over Fundamentals: While fundamentalists claim to be reasserting the true meaning of a religion, it is important to note that religions are usually open to many different interpretations. Those claiming to be returning to the original teachings of a religion may well disagree with one another, and there is often much room for dispute over what the fundamentals of a religion actually are.

In conclusion, fundamentalism is a complex phenomenon that can be found in various religious groups. It is characterized by a strong adherence to the perceived core beliefs of a religion and often emerges as a response to modernization and secularization. While some fundamentalist movements have been associated with violence and terrorism, this is not always the case. Understanding the different dimensions of fundamentalism is crucial for examining its impact on society and politics.

Steve Bruce - Fundamentalism and Secularisation

Secularisation & Modernisation
Steve Bruce, a prominent British sociologist, is a staunch supporter of the secularisation theory, which posits that religion experiences a decline as societies modernise. This theory heavily influences Bruce's understanding of fundamentalism, which he sees as a response to modernisation.

• Modernisation encompasses two main processes: societalisation, where social life becomes increasingly fragmented, and differentiation, where religious life is separated from other social aspects such as the economy. Additionally, modernisation involves rationalisation, where social life is designed to achieve specific objectives, not based on faith or prayer. Another characteristic of modernity is a movement towards egalitarianism, in which all members of society share certain rights, such as women attaining full citizenship rights and increasingly equal gender roles.
• Bruce argues that all of these processes challenge the authority of religion. In some cases, groups with deeply held religious beliefs will attempt to defend their religion against perceived threats. In "first world" countries like the United States, modernisation has posed a direct challenge to religious belief as these countries have undergone modernisation. In other cases, modernisation has been externally imposed by Western-friendly regimes, such as the Shah of Iran and Kemal Ataturk in Turkey.

In both scenarios, Bruce (2000) contends that the primary cause of religious fundamentalism is the belief held by religious traditionalists that the world around them has changed in a way that threatens their ability to preserve their traditions and beliefs. 

The Causes of Fundamentalism

• Threatened by Secularization and Modernization: Fundamentalism arises when a group feels threatened by secularization and modernization. However, this feeling of threat is not sufficient in itself to create a fundamentalist reaction, and other factors also come into play.
• Ideological Cohesion: Some religions have more potential for developing fundamentalist groups than others. Religions with a single sacred text, such as the Bible or Qur'an, can easily develop fundamentalist movements, as they can claim to express the true nature of the religion. In contrast, religions without a central sacred text, such as Hinduism, struggle to develop fundamentalist movements.
• Common External Enemy: Fundamentalist beliefs tend to be stronger when a group believes it has a common external enemy. This hostility towards a common enemy can lead to the development of ideological cohesion, which helps in mobilizing people and claiming their allegiance.
• Control of Belief Systems: The way belief systems are controlled within a religion also affects the development of fundamentalism. Centralized religious authority, such as in Roman Catholicism, makes it difficult for dissenters to claim their version of the religion is truer. In contrast, decentralized religions like Protestantism and Islam allow for more democratic access to authoritative knowledge, making it easier for fundamentalist groups to emerge.
• Social Strata and Recruitment: Religious fundamentalism requires a supply of potential recruits. It needs members of particular social strata that feel threatened, dispossessed, or relatively deprived by modernization. These individuals are more likely to be drawn to fundamentalist groups that promise a return to traditional values and beliefs.
• Relationship with Politics: The path that fundamentalism takes is also affected by its relationship with politics. In countries where fundamentalist groups have ample opportunity to promote their cause through conventional democratic politics, they are less likely to turn to violence. However, in countries where such avenues are not open or available, fundamentalism is more likely to take a violent turn.
• Christianity vs. Islam: Christianity emphasizes religious orthodoxy (holding the correct beliefs), while Islam places more emphasis on orthopraxis (being religious through one's actions). This difference, combined with the lack of opportunity for democratic progress in some Muslim countries, makes it more likely that Islamic fundamentalists will turn to violence than Christian fundamentalists.

Evaluation

• Bruce's analysis of the causes and nature of fundamentalism offers valuable insights, which are largely supported by Anson Shupe (2009). Shupe attributes the rise of fundamentalism to secularization as a facet of globalization, which results in the separation of religion from other spheres of life (known as differentiation). According to Shupe, this leads to resentment due to the increased marginalization of religion, and subsequently, an attempt to de-differentiate by reinstating religion as a central aspect of some societies.
• However, Bruce's views are not universally agreed upon. His ideas are heavily influenced by his support for the secularization theory, and his argument that Islamic fundamentalism is more prone to violence than other forms is debatable. Additionally, he emphasizes the role of religious beliefs in explaining fundamentalism more than some other sociologists.
• Karen Armstrong (2001), for instance, focuses more on the specific political and economic circumstances that may have spurred the growth of militant Islam, and less on the inherent nature of the religion itself. In the context of the UPSC exam, it is essential to consider multiple perspectives and factors that contribute to the rise of fundamentalism, including secularization, globalization, and the specific sociopolitical conditions of various societies.

Gabriel Almond, R. Scott Appleby and Emmanuel Sivan- Strong Religion

Levels of explanation
In the book "Strong Religion," Gabriel Almond, R. Scott Appleby, and Emmanuel Sivan (2003) present the results of an extensive comparative study of fundamentalist religious movements across the globe. The study spanned over 20 years and included 75 case studies, with interviews conducted in the Middle East, North Africa, and the United States.Similar to Bruce, Almond and his colleagues consider certain Hindu, Sikh, and Buddhist movements as fundamentalist, in addition to Muslim and Christian ones. They also agree with Bruce's view that fundamentalism is a response to the societal transformations accompanying modernization and secularization. However, Almond et al. consider a broader spectrum of factors when explaining the emergence of fundamentalism, and they suggest that it can be analyzed at three levels:

1. The structural level focuses on long-term contextual conditions, such as structural unemployment, oppressed ethnic groups or displaced populations, social changes like secularization, religious theology, and the economic situation. These factors might create a general environment conducive to the development of fundamentalism.
2. Contingency and chance also play a significant role. While structural factors may set the stage for fundamentalism, specific historical events contribute to determining whether such conditions materialize into actual movements.
3. The third set of factors is centered on human agency and leadership. Even when other factors create favorable conditions for fundamentalism, it will not emerge without religious leaders capable of mobilizing large numbers of followers in support of their beliefs.

Structural Causes of Fundamentalism

• Secularization as a driving force for fundamentalism: Secularization is the primary structural cause of fundamentalism. As societies become more secular, people who feel strongly about their religious beliefs may feel threatened and turn to fundamentalist movements for support and protection. This reaction is driven by the perception that traditional religious values are being eroded by secularism.
• Nature of religious organizations and their influence on fundamentalism: Religious organizations with independent congregations are more likely to develop breakaway groups, including fundamentalist ones. If a religion has explicit, coherent, and codified beliefs in texts, it becomes easier for people to claim that they have discovered the true interpretation of the faith, leading to the rise of fundamentalist movements.
• Impact of education and communication technology on fundamentalism: The growth of higher education and the spread of rationalism can undermine traditional religious beliefs, which in turn may drive some people toward fundamentalism. Moreover, the development of communication technologies such as the internet has facilitated the global spread of fundamentalist ideas and helped fundamentalist groups to organize and connect with each other.
• The role of civil society in moderating fundamentalism: A strong civil society, with organizations like trade unions or political parties, can help to defuse the anger and resentment that can fuel fundamentalism. However, inequality and deprivation can encourage strong religious beliefs and foster the growth of fundamentalist movements.
• Migration and the rise of fundamentalism: Large-scale migration can lead to the development of fundamentalism, as displaced people may feel resentful and threatened in their new environments. Migrants who form a minority in a country may also turn to fundamentalism if they feel their religion and traditions are under threat.
• Economic problems and their relationship with fundamentalism: Economic crises such as recessions, depressions, inflation, strikes, unemployment, and famine can increase grievances among people and make them more receptive to fundamentalist arguments. On the other hand, economic problems can also make fundamentalist movements unpopular when they are in power, as seen in Sudan, Turkey, and Iran.
• Western imperialism and the growth of fundamentalism: Fundamentalism is often linked to nationalist movements that oppose Western control and influence in colonies, former colonies, and countries with pro-Western regimes. Prime examples include the 1979 Iranian revolution against the Shah and the growth of Palestinian fundamentalism after the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. In these cases, fundamentalism is fueled by resentment against Western imperialism and the desire to assert national and religious identity.

Contingency & Chance

The emergence of fundamentalism can be attributed to various structural factors that increase its likelihood. However, it typically requires a specific event or trigger to mobilize people into actively participating in fundamentalist movements. Some of these events are more probable due to existing structural conditions, such as a poor harvest in an already struggling nation. Others, though, can be entirely unpredictable, like the illness of a ruling leader.
For instance, the Iranian revolution in 1979 can be partially attributed to the Shah's terminal cancer, which hindered his ability to effectively address the rising threat from fundamentalism.

Human Choice & Leadership

For fundamentalism to thrive, it requires not just the right structural conditions and opportunities but also influential leaders who can guide people along this path. These leaders can be categorized into different types, such as ideological catalysts and organizers or coalition builders.

• Ideological catalysts are often charismatic individuals who possess a powerful personality that can attract a loyal following. They can also create an impact by articulating an ideology that addresses the grievances of a specific group and provides them with direction. A prime example of such a leader is Ayatollah Khomeini, who led Iran in 1979.
• On the other hand, organizers and coalition builders rely more on their administrative and political abilities to lead a movement. An example of this type of leader is Bob Jones, an American fundamentalist Baptist. These leaders focus on building collaborations and managing the practical aspects of the movement.

In summary, the role of human choice and leadership in fundamentalism is crucial, as leaders are responsible for shaping the direction of the movement and motivating people to follow their path. Depending on their skills and personality, these leaders can adopt different approaches to achieve their objectives, either by being an ideological catalyst or by being an organizer and coalition builder.

Conclusion & Evaluation

Almond et al. argue that the rise of fundamentalism is a result of a specific combination of structural factors, chance events, and strong leadership. They believe that when structural conditions create a group of potential followers, and a sudden transformative event takes place, it provides an opportunity for a fundamentalist movement to grow and assert itself under the guidance of a charismatic and authoritarian leader.

Their analysis of the factors contributing to the growth of fundamentalism is comprehensive and well-researched, considering a broader range of factors than Steve Bruce, who focuses more on the characteristics of specific religions. However, both explanations share similarities, as they view fundamentalism as a reaction to Western secularization among economically disadvantaged groups, or those who feel especially threatened by social change.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) of Religion in Modern Society: Fundamentalism

How is fundamentalism defined in the context of religious movements?

Fundamentalism is defined as movements that respond to problems created by modernization by advocating society-wide obedience to some authentic and inerrant text or tradition and by seeking the political power to impose the revitalized tradition. It is characterized by a strong adherence to the perceived core beliefs of a religion and often emerges as a response to modernization and secularization.

Are all fundamentalist movements associated with violence and terrorism?

While some fundamentalist movements have been associated with violence and terrorism, this is not always the case. Understanding the different dimensions of fundamentalism is crucial for examining its impact on society and politics.

How does secularization and modernization contribute to the rise of fundamentalism?

Secularization and modernization are processes that challenge the authority of religion and may lead to a decline in religious belief. In response to these changes, some groups with deeply held religious beliefs will attempt to defend their religion against perceived threats, leading to the development of fundamentalist movements.

What factors contribute to the emergence of fundamentalism according to Almond et al.?

Almond et al. consider a broad spectrum of factors when explaining the emergence of fundamentalism, suggesting that it can be analyzed at three levels: structural factors (e.g., secularization, economic situation, migration), contingency and chance (specific historical events), and human agency and leadership (charismatic and influential leaders).

How do Steve Bruce's and Almond et al.'s explanations of fundamentalism differ?

While both explanations view fundamentalism as a reaction to Western secularization among economically disadvantaged groups or those who feel especially threatened by social change, Steve Bruce focuses more on the characteristics of specific religions and the role of secularization. In contrast, Almond et al. consider a broader range of factors, including structural conditions, chance events, and strong leadership.