Fundamentalism

Fundamentalism (from the Latin fundamentum 'substructure', 'base', 'foundation') is a conviction, view or attitude of mind characterized by an uncompromising adherence to ideological or religious principles that determines political action. In its original sense, fundamentalism refers to a direction and movement in American Protestantism that assumes that the Bible, as the direct word of God, is free of error and mistakes (Christian fundamentalism).

In a broader sense, fundamentalism refers to an exaggerated form of ethno-cultural or religious identity, often characterized by extreme traditionalism and authoritarianism.

Particularly after the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, fundamentalism also became a political catchword, especially for Islamist aspirations. In a broader sense, fundamentalism behaves "ambivalently" to rejecting modernity and demands a return to the roots of a certain religion or ideology, which is to be enforced by radical and partly intolerant means if necessary. The accusation of fundamentalism is also applied to social or political groups that - allegedly or actually - make their ideological orientation absolute and fight for social supremacy. Fundamentalism is implemented through a strongly polarized interpretation of an ultimate justification and often goes against people of other faiths.

Origin of the term

The word fundamentalism first appeared in connection with a series of writings edited by Reuben Archer Torrey, The Fundamentals A Testimony to the Truth, which opposed liberal theology and especially the historical-critical method. Among the authors were noted conservative theologians such as Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield. The five main points of their stance were summarized by the General Conference of the Presbyterian Church in 1910:

• the inerrancy and authority of the Bible
• the divinity of Jesus Christ
• the virgin birth and miracles
• his death for the sins of men
• his bodily resurrection and his second coming

The position taken in the Fundamentals is not sufficient to define Christian fundamentalism in a clear-cut way. Christian fundamentalism differs from other currents by a biblical interpretation of the Bible, which is so closely connected with the belief in salvation that Christians who think differently are denied their being Christians. In addition to that there is a conservative political attitude and the will to enforce religiously founded convictions also politically.

Fundamentalist thinking and conflict with the environment

Sociologically, fundamentalism - not only Christian fundamentalism, from which the term is derived - is seen as a manifestation of a radical mindset. To the extent that a fundamentalist form of thought or belief derives norms of action whose individual and social validity goes beyond the circle of followers of the respective thought, belief or their ideology, the conflict with the environment is already preordained by the kind of justification of the norms.

Fundamentalism is usually understood as a reaction to a softening of convictions that stood at the beginning of the respective faith or ideology. Adaptation to current life circumstances or ethical compromise appear problematic to impossible in a fundamentalist worldview. Fundamentalism understands these adaptations as a betrayal of the founding understanding of the faith or ideology. In this sense, fundamentalism can always arise at border and mixing zones between the high religions, in which representatives of minorities resist the assimilation already partially or completely carried out by their co-religionists and turn to their faith roots. In particular, fundamentalism can be understood as a partial or total rejection of modernity with its globalization and commercialization of important areas of life, its value relativism, individualism and rationalism. In contrast to traditionalism, which seeks to defend the traditional cultural and social stock against change, fundamentalism seeks to undo the questioning of it by modernity. In this respect, it is itself a phenomenon of modernity. Criticism of fundamentalism was first voiced in the Age of Enlightenment. For example, the deist Benjamin Franklin criticized the religious zealotry of what he saw as the backward, authority-averse German and Bohemian immigrants in Pennsylvania, whom he described as a Colony of Aliens.

In the modern society described by Max Weber, this polarization of the justification of norms follows the contrast of the concepts of an ethics of attitude and an ethics of responsibility, which he also described.

Fundamentalism creates a line of conflict along which the concept of pluralism becomes a reproach to those who regard historical processes of adaptation as indispensable. In turn, the concept of fundamentalism experiences its polemical use by standing for an inability to compromise or an inability to adapt to changing life circumstances, while at the same time denying that the fundamentalist attitude actually does justice to the founding understanding of the faith or ideology.

Since every belief and ideology already changes and adapts the foundational understanding to the historical situation through the process of understanding and appropriation by every thinking and believing subject (hermeneutics), every belief gives birth to adaptation and fundamentalism alike in its adherents throughout history.