What does Fundamentalism Mean to You?

[ReFLeX]

This question came up as I was looking into topics for a research proposal for my Research Methods and Ethics class. My understanding of fundamentalist was different than what a lot of researchers consider it to be. And what I had learned in a previous psych class was different altogether. So what do you think the term means today?

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

I've always taken a fundamentalist to be one who believes (or believes they believe) in the literal inerrancy of their favourite holy text.

For instance, I am a fundamentalist Hortonhearsawhoist.

 

[drkitten]

This question came up as I was looking into topics for a research proposal for my Research Methods and Ethics class. My understanding of fundamentalist was different than what a lot of researchers consider it to be. And what I had learned in a previous psych class was different altogether. So what do you think the term means today?

I'm not sure that this is a useful or meaningful question as posed. From a sociological perspective, "fundamentalism" is a cluster of related beliefs, and it doesn't make much sense to single out any one defining aspect. And delving too deeply into the history and origins of the word is likely to produce a "definition" that is radically different from what it actually means today (just like the word "barbarian" technically means "one who doesn't speak Greek").

 

[Darat]

(drkitten beat me so I've altered my response.)

What exactly are you looking for in a topic?

If you want to discuss some aspect of religious beliefs and any ethical considerations/implications they may have then begin by describing that (as drkitten puts it) cluster of related beliefs. You can then just make it clear that, when in your paper you use the term "fundamentalist", you are referring to a person who holds that particular cluster of beliefs.

I really wouldn't be too concerned about whether your usage of fundamentalist correlates exactly with how everyone else uses it - it's your subject, your paper.

 

[slingblade]

The problem, IMO, is that your poll options, aside from the Planet X one, all can be used to describe certain Fundamentalists. These options aren't mutually exclusive in Fundamentalism. It's like asking which of these three best describes a Red Delicious apple: round, red, or sweet. Well, they all do; no one is the best descriptor, since they all apply.

The word that best describes these people is actually Evangelistic. Think Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Pat Robertson.

 

[drkitten]

The word that best describes these people is actually Evangelistic. Think Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Pat Robertson.

I would argue, however, that there are a lot of evangelicals out there that aren't fundamentalist (at least as I understand the term). Much of the "low church" Church of England, for example, would arguably qualify, as would most of the American Methodists.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Anyone who has only one way of interpreting the world and interprets everything vigourously according to their one-dimensional viewpoint.

This include religious extremists, political extremists and scientistic extremists, among others.

 

[gnome]

I argued the literalist, though I would write that they believe in their literal interpretation.

 

[ReFLeX]

Sorry, I meant religious fundamentalism. *slaps forehead*

 

[slingblade]

I would argue, however, that there are a lot of evangelicals out there that aren't fundamentalist (at least as I understand the term). Much of the "low church" Church of England, for example, would arguably qualify, as would most of the American Methodists.

Then there might not be a way to describe fundamentalists as a group, except in general terms.

My former religion was Pentecostal, Assembly of God. This is a fundamentalist religion which follows all three of the criteria listed in the poll.
Members referred to themselves as Evangelicals.

At least, this was true while I still believed in it.

 

[ReFLeX]

The problem, IMO, is that your poll options, aside from the Planet X one, all can be used to describe certain Fundamentalists. These options aren't mutually exclusive in Fundamentalism. It's like asking which of these three best describes a Red Delicious apple: round, red, or sweet. Well, they all do; no one is the best descriptor, since they all apply.

The word that best describes these people is actually Evangelistic. Think Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Pat Robertson.

I almost made it a multiple choice poll because I knew they weren't mutually exclusive. But I think most people have an idea of what they think of when someone talks about "fundies."

Here's a good one that got me thinking on this topic: The Fundamentalism Project

Jeffrey K. Hadden has identified four types offundamentalism. First, theological fundamentalism was the Christian theological movement concerned with defending traditional Christian doctrine against modern thinking. Political fundamentalism is a combination of theological fundamentalism and the personal commitments of religious adherents to combat worldly vices.Manifestations of political fundamentalism include much of the activity in the temperance movement or the virulent anticommunism of Gerald L.K. Smith. Political fundamentalism suffered a major setback by their defeat at the Scopes Monkey trial. These two types of fundamentalism melded together to combine a caricature of culturally unenlightened individuals bent on preserving tradition at the expense of progress. This cultural fundamentalism was cynically portrayed by social critics such as H.L. Mencken and novelists such as Sinclair Lewis. William Jennings Bryan served as the prototype for Mencken after the debacle of the Scopes trial in Tennessee. The political activity engaged in by fundamentalists invited comparison to other religiously motivated groups around the world. Accordingly, global fundamentalism as a phenomena denotes many religiously motivated politically active groups existing in a variety of religious traditions and political systems.

...

The last chapter of volume 1, Fundamentalisms Observed, discusses the "family resemblances" found in the various chapters.

These family resemblances include:

1. religious idealism as basis for personal and communal identity;
2. fundamentalists understand truth to be revealed and unified;
3. it is intentionally scandalous, (similar to Lawrence's point about language -- outsiders cannot understand it);
4. fundamentalists envision themselves as part of a cosmic struggle;
5. they seize on historical moments and reinterpret them in light of this cosmic struggle;
6. they demonize their opposition and are reactionary;
7. fundamentalists are selective in what parts of their tradition and heritage they stress;
8. they are led by males;
9. they envy modernist cultural hegemony and try to overturn the distribution of power.

The Fundamentalism Project enumerates several more of these "family resemblances" but most are represented in this abbreviated list.

Emphasis mine.

The poll options happen to be the two general understandings I had, and then the denotational meaning, that a small group aims to go back to the "fundamentals" of the religion.

 

[Q-Source]

Anyone who has only one way of interpreting the world and interprets everything vigourously according to their one-dimensional viewpoint.

This include religious extremists, political extremists and scientistic extremists, among others.

This is exactly what I was thinking. I would only add to that definition that fundamentalists disregard other people´s beliefs, values, principles, etc. It goes hand in hand with intolerance. Extreme skepticism comes to my mind...

 

[drkitten]

Then there might not be a way to describe fundamentalists as a group, except in general terms.

Which is (cough cough) my point. The question as posed presupposes both a unity and a diversity that do not exist.

My former religion was Pentecostal, Assembly of God. This is a fundamentalist religion which follows all three of the criteria listed in the poll.
Members referred to themselves as Evangelicals.

I'll bet they would have referred to themselves as "human" or as "American" as well. "Evangelical" is simply too broad a term, because it encompasses a lot of groups that are not generally considered to be "fundamentalist."

Which is why I don't think it is meaningful to look for a single distinguishing feature of "fundamentalism" and take it as a definition. Any single feature broad enough to encompass all fundamentalists will of necessity take in non-fundamentalists as well -- while any single feature narrow enough to exclude all non-fundamentalists will of course eliminate some fundamentalists as well. Add into that the fact that observers may disagree as to who are actually "fundamentalists," and the whole question is simply a can of worms.

 

[CapelDodger]

1. a. The buttocks.
b. The anus.

A fundamentalist is one whose opinions issue via the fundament. Stands to reason.

 

[ReFLeX]

Which is why I don't think it is meaningful to look for a single distinguishing feature of "fundamentalism" and take it as a definition.

Neither do I think so, either. I just had an idea that many JREFers have an idea of fundamentalists as being wackjob literalists. And the general public seems to equate terrorists with Islamic fundamentalists, in a similarly simplistic manner, as though extremist = fundamentalist.

Altmeyer and Hunsberger (2004) revised a 20-item scale measuring religious fundamentalism into one with 12 questions, which I'd love to quote or link to, but it's in a PDF file in a database that I got into through the university. I think you guys would find it very interesting. The questions seem to really correspond with my intuitive ideas about fundamentalists.

 

[CapelDodger]

Which is why I don't think it is meaningful to look for a single distinguishing feature of "fundamentalism" and take it as a definition.

If I really had to come up with one, it would be "reactionary". That could apply to political and economic as well as religious theorists and acolytes. IMO, none of these spheres can create theories that encapsulate our complex species, but some people keep trying. As time and experience drive wedges into the original cracks, additions, new interpretations, refinements to the re-interpretations accrue. And still no Promised Land.

The fundamentalist approach is to strip off all that they see as distractions from the true path, which would have - and yet might - lead to the Promised Land. Libertarians, gold-standard freaks, Southern Baptists - all reactionary, all fundamentalist. The mapping may not be perfect, but I reckon it's close.

 

[Wowbagger]

A fundamentalist is someone with ideas very different from the true fundamental values of their chosen philosophy. They think they can hide these direct violations of core beliefs by using such an ironic title.
For example, does anyone really think the Al-Qaeda terrorists are practicing the fundamental principals of Islam? Are Bible-thumping fundys really preaching the true "message" of the Bible?

 

[Wowbagger]

[Removed because this was an accidental double-post. (How do I delete this post completely?)]

 

[Iacchus]

Gosh, what would we do if there were no fundamentalists to kick around? I wonder what that "objective" reality would be like?

 

[gnome]

Gosh, what would we do if there were no fundamentalists to kick around? I wonder what that "objective" reality would be like?

I think there would be one less thing to arbitrarily divide cultures. Ancient conflicts might be easier to settle instead of sticking in endless war over whose god-image is correct.