1 pg

Maria Famularo

Dr. Charles Mabee

Religion in the Modern World

7 March 2020

Modern Fundamentalism

Fundamentalism is not just a religious movement according to Bruce, because if it was it “would be of little concern to anyone outside the particular religious tradition to which it belongs” (Bruce 7). All of us want to reshape the world, and that usually involves violence. Despite this, it is noted in the book that not all violence is fundamentalist and not all fundamentalist are violent. But what is fundamentalism exactly? “American Fundamentalism is essentially a voluntary association of self-selecting individuals, competing to define the culture of a stable nation-state” (Bruce 9). Fundamentalists usually rely/believe the claim that some source of ideas is complete without any type of error. The original source is perfect for them. On page 13, Bruce talks about how fundamentalism usually arise in traditional cultures, yet they are not traditional in any type of way. Fundamentalism are radical revisions of the past that have been provoked by the changes that are threatening the tradition. Bruce calls the fundamentalist reactive as they react to the situations that are thrown at them. The book states that they are shaped by two things. 1. They are shaped by perceived threats to the tradition and 2. They are shaped by the nature of the opportunities to resist those threats. He also states that the over goal is to recreate the excitement and commitment of those who came before them in their community.

In chapter two, "The Great Satan '', Bruce states a very clear view on fundamentalism. He states here that "Fundamentalism is a radical reconstruction and redeployment of a tradition for contemporary purposes" ( Bruce 15). Bruce takes a deeper dive into figuring out what disposes people to fundamentalism. For him to do so, he looks into modernization; a religious culture responding to changes in the social, economic and political structures it is also shaped by religious innovation. Modernization also meant ever faster change according to Bruce. The belief that there is one God who made everything, the world material and social, is one of the most plausible parts when the world is stable. One important factor that Bruce discusses in modernization and the growth of society. Religion got its strength from the roots in the communities. As we know, the Church baptizes, confirms, and christens children, then they move on to getting married, and we bury the dead. The Church celebrates life and holidays with those in their community. “When the total, all-embracing community of like-situated people working and playing together gave

way to the dormitory town or suburb, there was little in common left to celebrate” (Bruce 20). There is a consequence to this, which is that the credibility of any “single overarching” moral and religious system was declined and was removed by any competing conception of the divine. There are no alternatives that could successfully shape any social roles or systems. Religion is taken for granted and people now see Faith as a choice and a leisure activity according to Bruce.

Egalitarianism and cultural diversity play a role in the rise of fundamentalism. “We need not to explore the many differences between modern and traditional sources of power to note that, at the same time as creating classes shaped by what Marx called the forces of production, industrialization brought a basic egalitarianism” (Bruce 26). One big problem was its profound change in the importance of the individual according to Bruce. The Protestant Reformers denied any special status of priesthood and by getting rid of the possibility that “religious merit could be transferred from one person to another” it had to be reasserted that we are all equal to God. Equal obligations opened the way for equal rights. In the book, it was argued that egalitarianism should and needs to be a requirement for industrialization because a society that is very divided in high and low social structure could not develop a modern economy. Economic development brought changes to occupational mobility as people started to get into jobs that their family was never into. It has become more common to do what betters yourself.

Modernization brought an increase to cultural diversity in three different ways. First, populations moved and bought their language, and the religion and social mores with them into the new setting. Second, “the expansion of the increasingly expansive nation-state meant that new groups were brought into the state” (Bruce 28). And lastly, with modernization it has created a cultural “pluralism” through the creation of classes and class fragments that have increasingly diverse interests. Egalitarianism eliminates the most crucial response to diversity. One consequence of diversity was the separation of the Church and state. One thing that is very much overlooked is the social-psychological consequence in increasing diversity is that “it reduces the certainty that believers can readily accord their religion” (Bruce 30). Once a religious tradition has competing alternatives that have self-interested connection to the social classes that support them, then “the human origins of religion become all too apparent” according to Bruce.

We cannot and will not understand Islamic fundamentalists unless we remember that the Muslims “once ruled large parts of the globe and that their domination was built on military power” (Bruce 40). Islam is a founded religion. However it is not considered to be not just to be another religion. According to Bruce, it is a religion fundamentally at odds with the

religions of the Jews and the Christians. There are two certain features of Islam that are very important for us to better understand fundamentalism.

1. The lack of a clear division between spiritual and religious power. Islam has achieved political power over the lifetime of their founder. The original “charismatic” community did not have to develop an image of itself isolated from their secular powers. There was no division between church and state.

2. The Centrality of the law. The Prophet, codified in the Qur’an and in their sacred stories about him, they combine both faith and moral; “They are both doctrine and law”.

Most of the countries and nations that are discussed within the book go with a view of modern fundamentalism. Iran is central to fundamentalism; its current Islamic Republic became and is a model for fundamentalists. Iranian fundamentalism was not conservative or traditional. Fundamentalists use the past as a source of rhetoric and symbolism, but their religion was not the magical saint cults of the villages' ' (Bruce 53). Lebanon is a country in which the Iranian Revolution has a major impact. The creation of an Islamic Republic in Iran has led to great fundamentalist success and has led to great achievements, however it should not be over exaggerated. However Islamic fundamentalism has a number of weaknesses and they face numerous obstacles that hold them back from movement. Here are three examples directly from Bruce

1. There is the perennial problem for zealots of balancing their core wish for religious purity with the alliances and accommodation needed for political success in this world.

2. Once in power, fundamentalists find themselves pressed by conventional security and foreign policy imperative to compromise their principles

3. There remain considerable tension between the ambitions of the activist core and those who support them

4. Fundamentalism is weakened by the internal divisions of Islam. Muslims are not all the same

Overall “Fundamentalism is a reaction to the dramatic reduction in the changes of the traditionalist milieu to reproduce itself culturally under conditions of rapid urbanization, industrialization and secularization” (Bruce 65).

One question that I had in the back of my mind that was later answered in the book on page 113 is are fundamentalists insane? Bruce makes a great point in saying that if we want to understand people then we need to look at the world in their eyes. Fundamentalism can seem very abnormal and almost inappropriate to those who are not aware of it. They are very active, as soon as there seems to be a problem they give it meaning and they must

have a person, group or organization that caused the problem. Another characteristic of fundamentalism is that it “consolidates the bad people. Us fundamentalists do not see themselves as set against an array of different groups, operations with quite different and often incompatible agenda” (Bruce 114). There are more characteristics throughout the book that are discussed and argued upon according to Bruce. The final question is how exactly do we explain fundamentalism. “In the same way in which we would explain anything else. Fundamentalism is a rational response of traditionally religious peoples to social, political and economic changes that downgrade and constrain the role of religion in the public world” (Bruce 120). The explanation for fundamentalism starts with what we discussed about modernization. Fundamentalism has many pros and cons in the modern world, what do you think of modern fundamentalism?

Zachary Larkin-Rall 

Dr. Mabee 

REL 3140 

9 March 2020 

Fundamentalism 

Religious fundamentalism is viewed as those who are persuaded into believing their  core values of their own religion is absolutely correct, that there is no wrong in what they  believe. Religion is tricky when talking about it to others. Religion comes with strong beliefs,  its not a sign of difference, it provides each side with the justification that their side is  superior than the other. Religion also gives a deeper meaning in the sense of ethnic and  national identity. Steve Bruce addresses fundamentalism ongoing throughout his book, it is  seen as creating movements that express the beliefs of a certain topic or religion to the  public and educate them on the matter. “fundamentalists also claim the existence of some  perfect social embodiment of the true religion in the past. Radical Protestant sects see  themselves not as innovators but as advocates of a return to the Arcadian past of early  Christian church” (Bruce 13). Bruce states the fundamentalists are radical revisions  provoked by the past to help the community. Fundamentalism ranges in different time  periods, past and present. Some fundamentalists choose to engage in the present which is  defined as modernization and urbanization in the book. Fundamentalists have structured  their beliefs into more of a modernized viewpoint. Steve Bruce, however, continues to argue  and stress that fundamentalism has different interpretations.  

Throughout the book, many clear viewpoints of fundamentalism are stated. One that  comes to mind is the entirety of chapter two. Right from the start Bruce illustrated the true  meaning of what fundamentalism is, “Fundamentalism is a radical reconstruction and  redeployment of a tradition for contemporary purposes. The best way of adding flesh to  those definitional bones is to explain just what it is about the modern world that  fundamentalists find so objectionable” (Bruce 15). During the book, Bruce describes  fundamentalists as playing an important role in the secular world and helping the parts of  the world that need it, whether it be community help or government help, mainly government  help. Islam is mentioned in the book and makes clear that Islamic religion brings in  fundamentalist ideals into their government and society to further excel themselves as a  whole. When taking in a fundamentalist’s ideals, we have to examine if it brings in any  positives and whether or not it can teach us in the long run, especially religious  fundamentalists. When considering the “perfect religion”, we can always view what  fundamentalist have to say. Therefore, possibly creating or repairing a world where it was  lost. These ideals can help bring in new ideas that will better a society and nation. “Part of  what me mean by modernization is the fragmentation of social institutions into ever more  specialized units and the division of social life into distinct spheres, each with their own  values and procedures… In modern societies, economic activity is conducted in distinct  settings that have their own values” (Bruce 16).  

Steve Bruce does a great job outlining the mentality behind fundamentalists. He also  brings to light the other major religions such as Protestantism, Hinduism, and Islam. How  they don’t have everything going for them and how its not always a perfect religion or  community. Some of these religions choose to take a different approach than others and  that’s okay, but it may bring some issues along with them. No community or government is  perfect, especially when it is first created. Each religion has an outrageous amount of  potential if looked at correctly and I think that is the ultimate goal of fundamentalists.  “However, even where a dominant church retained formal ownership of areas of activity,  those still came to be informed primarily by secular values. Britain and them the United  States enjoyed such a lead in economic military power over the rest of the modernizing  world that their culture came to predominate. The secular state became a model, even for  countries that lacked the religious diversity of the United Kingdom or the United States;  religious liberty came to be seen as simply part of what it meant to be a modern  democracy” (Bruce 20). Religion can help benefit and develop a society further in secular  areas to help better their morals and beliefs. Nations are built on the ideas of religion. The  foundation of who God is helped mold the United States into what it is today. Yes, other  religions make up this country, but God has helped create that belief and sense of hope in  this country, at least in my opinion. I believe that all citizens should be open to the ideas that  fundamentalists propose. It is definitely important to have a constant reminder that  fundamentalists help shape our society. Incorporating God and other religious aspects into 

our everyday lives, has benefited us in the long run and has gotten us to where we are  today. 

Countries and nations mostly go with the modern view of fundamentalism. This view  allows for feedback that a society needs. Also, economic and social aspects benefit from  modern fundamentalism, these are key benefits that help propel the secular world to the  next level. Majority of this book had economic standpoints and ideas, as well as how  countries operate at the government and societal level. When addressing the Shah, Bruce  states that the Shah essentially believed that development required cultural and social  reform. “By such actions the Shah thoroughly alienated the religious traditionalists, but his  autocratic manner also alienated the secular nationalists who could have formed a popular  support base. The power that he removed from the religious institution was not vested in  secular democratic institutions, instead it was used to advance his royal prerogatives”  (Bruce 48). Bruce goes on to provide an example that can better the economy on page 49.  “Striking oil” has a ring to it. Mostly everyone who hears that thinks about the pay-out it has.  If government hits oil it can help the economy so much by bringing in an extra source of  money. “Oil provided unprecedented wealth and that wealth could fund economic  development, but it was always dependent progress; dependent on the goodwill and the  skilled workers of the West” (Bruce 49). With a bright side, there is always a dark side. Iran  was in a spot where it was rebuilding. When a country rebuilds, it is crucial that everything is  delegated correctly. Without correct delegation in the case of Iran, a country can start going  on the decline just as fast as they went up. “The failure of centrally directed development in  Iran was more spectacular than in Nasser’s Egypt, but it amounted to the same thing;  statism had failed​” (Bruce 50).  

Fundamentalism proves to have many major impacts on the world. One of them is  gaining the opportunity to have a closer relationship with God. The state of commitment is  supposed to bring a healthy origin with God and create a closer relationship with God.  Relativism can pose a problem with those who have a “blind-eye” or who are not as  educated about religion. The primary purpose of religion used to be to glorify God; personal  contentment, happiness, good health, and wealth were fortunate accidental consequences,  to be hoped for but not necessarily expected. Now its primary purpose is therapy. Religion  has been displaced and denuded, and the guardians of orthodoxy have either actively  promoted the new order or acquiesced in it” (Bruce 34). Bruce is trying to make it known  that there are some major drawbacks relativists have when incorporating their beliefs into  religion. 

During chapter 5, Bruce examines the difference between Christianity and Islam. “For  Islam, religion is a matter of obeying the holy law. As what God requires is obedience to the  law, then its imposition is not just acceptable but necessary” (Bruce 109). Many view Islam  as a way of life. Islam is about everyday life, from what we eat, who we marry, and how we 

talk. Christianity holds different values and does not have as strict of views when it comes  to everyday life. “Although on close inspection it is thoroughly ambiguous, that text provided  convenient justification for accepting the existence of an earthly power distinct from the  community of the saved; the world had two realms, not one” (Bruce 108).  

Modern fundamentalism has its advantages and disadvantages. When including  religion into the fundamentalist’s ideals, it has a great chance to propel the country, society,  or nation to a better place. 

Tristan Calamita 

Dr. Charles Mabee 

Religion in the Modern World 

8th March 2020 

Content Essay: ​Fundamentalism ​by Steve Bruce 

The book ​Fundamentalism ​by Steve Bruce explores the ideas behind the school of thought  that is fundamentalism and the way that fundamentalists fit into the modern world. At it’s  core, fundamentalism is somewhat self-explanatory. Fundamentalism is a fundamental  interpretation of religion: fundamentalists view the scripture of their religion in a very literal  sense. Although no two fundamentalist groups are exactly alike, some common features  between them are that they tend to: 

● Hold the view that some great cataclysm is impending (Bruce 10), and using this  idea to promote some sort of call-to-action. For example, claiming that a ruler needs  to be overthrown to bring sooner the end of the world. 

● Hold the view that their religious text is infallible (Bruce 12). Many fundamentalist  groups claim that their religious text is the literal word of their deity and to be taken  as such. 

● Believe that some perfect example of how a religion’s social structure should work  existed in the past, typically in the society of origin for their religion (Bruce 13). 

● Deeply criticize modernity, and often specific groups of people to the point of  dehumanization (Bruce 13-14). 

● In spite of the last two points, exist with and embrace modern technology  (regardless of their criticisms of modern social structures and morals) (Bruce 14). 

 

Fundamentalists aggressively despise and reject progressive ideals. Many of the above  beliefs are applied as justification to their rejections. For example, Christian 

fundamentalists’ literal interpretation of the Bible leads them to view Genesis and Charles  Darwin’s Theory of Evolution as conflicting accounts for the origin of life. While progressive  Christians may promote the idea of integrating these newer views into religion to maintain  its relevancy to the modern population, fundamentalists view of the Bible as inerrant  remains unchanged and so they reject such suggestions (Bruce 69). 

 

Fundamentalists are pretty ubiquitous in society. For something viewed as so radical, if  nothing else, they are present. Nearly every major religion has some associated  fundamentalist group, which may speak to the tendency of like-minded individuals to  aggregate. They are not limited to mono- or polytheistic religions (Bruce 5), first or third  world countries (Bruce 35), and vary widely from group to group in their degrees of various  traits. Although these factors do not prevent fundamentalist groups from forming, it does  lend something to the particular flavor that a group might have, due to differences between  the climate that each group forms in. For example, third-world countries are much more  likely to have suffered interference from the Western world during their formation. The US in  particular has always seemed to have an interest in providing third-world countries with aid,  which has proven to be both beneficial and detrimental to their success as a whole. Social  and technological changes are a necessary part societal advancement, and even in first  world countries like ours are nearly always met with some form of resistance. Therefore, it  is easy to imagine the shock the influence of Western culture could have on less developed  countries. Bruce expressed this idea in Chapter 2 when he writes “Rapid social change will  always be traumatic for some social groups… Even those people who benefit from the  change will feel dislocated by it and will need to adjust their culture to accord with the new  circumstances, and that is as true for change that is generated by indigenous forces as for  change that is imposed from outside.” (Bruce 36). 

 

An interesting concept one might encounter while trying to define what fundamentalism is  is the way the word throughout history. This could be considered a result of 2 different  factors, the diversity between fundamentalist groups (both past and current) and the  relatively recent invention of the term. The term is still changing and evolving to accurately  reflect the differences between these ideologies, and likely will continue to evolve as a  result of their tendency towards extreme ends of the political/social spectrum. In its current  definition, the word fundamentalism carries a negative connotation that is often use to  discredit. On this definition of fundamentalism, the author says “Especially when used by  liberals within the same religious tradition, ‘fundamentalist’ has become a term of abuse  suggesting a lack of intellectual maturity on the part of those who hold more conservative 

views.” (Bruce 12). In this way, the word can be weaponized to further alienate  fundamentalist groups from society and discredit their unconventional views. 

 

Modern views on egalitarianism have added fuel to the fire for many fundamentalists. This  is to be expected, as their conservative views oppose other religions, groups, and races, and  their deep attachment to traditional society & gender roles does not fare well for feminists  (Bruce 74). Groups like the Christian Right openly oppose homosexuality, abortion, divorce,  and at large, the autonomy of women (Bruce 82-3). However, despite their extreme views,  devoted fanbase, and pretty significant resources, they have been largely unsuccessful in  bringing about any major societal changes regarding these issues. This is due to a number  of factors, one important one being the way they are perceived by the public.  Fundamentalist groups operate with a degree of superiority. They think themselves to be of  the highest regard in society and, as discussed, mostly dismiss the opinions opposing their  counterculture worldview as a whole. This isolates them from society, and casts a stark  divide between their followers and the rest of the world. In turn, this division reduces their  credibility among many, and makes it more difficult for them to bring about any real change  in a democratic system. This is best summarized in Chapter 4 when the author writes “But  zealotry has corresponding disadvantages. The zealot divides the world into them and us,  the godly and the ungodly - fine for missions and holy war, but not helpful for building the  alliances that are essential for political action in a complex and pluralist democracy.”  (Bruce 84). 

 

Fundamentalists will persist in the world, likely for as long as religion does. They are  something of a side-effect of major religions, and one with major implications for the  societies that they exist within. Although radical, their power is not to be underestimated.  The human race has proven time and time again that it only takes a few inspired,  determined individuals to provoke great change (and as difficult as it can be to say  something nice about them, it’s hard to say that this is something they are not).