Fundamentalism in Comparative Perspective by Lawrence Kaplan Page A
Authors: Lawrence Kaplan
Ads: Link
of professionals (especially natural scientists) is such that fundamentalists are unlikely to establish the principle that arguments such as that over the origins of the species should be settled by votes rather than by the consensus of accredited experts. Even in matters that are more commonly seen as moral and ethical rather than technical and professional, the tendency is to defer to the professionals.
But even if one does not accept these claims about the scientific and technical consequences of modernity, one cannot think away the consequence of pluralism. And, if, as I suggest, secular humanism is simply a convenient blanket term for the necessary consequences of pluralism, then clearly fundamentalists have no hope of attaining their goals because what offends them is nothing more or less than modernity itself.
Universalism and the NCR As a Legitimate Minority
The awkward position of the NCR can now be fully described by bringing the above observations about the universalizing tendencies of modern societies together with the earlier discussion of the NCR's fall-back position of presenting itself as a disadvantaged minority.
Blacks, women, and homosexuals have built their claims by pointing to the failure of parts of the economy, the polity, and the social structure to live up to the rhetoric of universalism. Far from challenging modernity, they have appealed to its core values by identifying areas in which universal principles regarding economic and political rights have not been rigorously pursued. They have presented themselves as discriminated against by the failure of the state to prevent the continuation of particularistic practices in employment, political representation, and social valuation. The demands of these minorities are thus, in theory, demands that can be met by a modern industrial society simply giving more effort to its existing dynamics. Outlawing racism and sexism can be seen as merely giving more substance to the universalizing tendency. Racist and sexist language,
Page 65
for example, can be eradicated by stripping the culture of certain particularistic features, by making it more bland.
The NCR's claims to the status of a legitimate minority seem quite different. NCR supporters are not disadvantaged in terms of socioeconomic status (or at least, insofar as they are, it is because of their class, region, levels of education, and other characteristics not specifically related to their shared religious culture). Where they are disadvantaged is in the status the state is willing to accord their culture. This disadvantage cannot be remedied by extending the twin principles of universalism in the public sphere and relegating particularism to the private world. It is precisely these two principles that have produced most of the changes that offend supporters of the new Christian right. Thus, although the shift from (a) aiming to re-Christianize America to (b) claiming only that their values, beliefs, and symbols be accorded due status in the public arena, is a sensible change in strategy for new Christian rightists, an understanding of the most abstract features of modernity gives every reason to suppose that it is a strategy doomed to fail.
The NCR As a Modern Phenomenon
There is a tendency to see the NCR as a reactionary movement, an outburst of resurgent traditionalism. Certainly its proponents are fond of describing it in terms such as those in the title of one manifesto: Back to Basics (Pines 1982). In part this characterization is appropriate but it is important also to stress the extent to which the movement has itself accommodated to modernity. This accommodation is not just a matter of adjusting rhetoric so that the religion of Creationism becomes creation science and the virtues of fundamentalism are presented, not as divine injunctions, but as socially functional arrangements. It is also a matter of conceding crucial ground to the pluralism of the modern world by accepting the need to
But even if one does not accept these claims about the scientific and technical consequences of modernity, one cannot think away the consequence of pluralism. And, if, as I suggest, secular humanism is simply a convenient blanket term for the necessary consequences of pluralism, then clearly fundamentalists have no hope of attaining their goals because what offends them is nothing more or less than modernity itself.
Universalism and the NCR As a Legitimate Minority
The awkward position of the NCR can now be fully described by bringing the above observations about the universalizing tendencies of modern societies together with the earlier discussion of the NCR's fall-back position of presenting itself as a disadvantaged minority.
Blacks, women, and homosexuals have built their claims by pointing to the failure of parts of the economy, the polity, and the social structure to live up to the rhetoric of universalism. Far from challenging modernity, they have appealed to its core values by identifying areas in which universal principles regarding economic and political rights have not been rigorously pursued. They have presented themselves as discriminated against by the failure of the state to prevent the continuation of particularistic practices in employment, political representation, and social valuation. The demands of these minorities are thus, in theory, demands that can be met by a modern industrial society simply giving more effort to its existing dynamics. Outlawing racism and sexism can be seen as merely giving more substance to the universalizing tendency. Racist and sexist language,
Page 65
for example, can be eradicated by stripping the culture of certain particularistic features, by making it more bland.
The NCR's claims to the status of a legitimate minority seem quite different. NCR supporters are not disadvantaged in terms of socioeconomic status (or at least, insofar as they are, it is because of their class, region, levels of education, and other characteristics not specifically related to their shared religious culture). Where they are disadvantaged is in the status the state is willing to accord their culture. This disadvantage cannot be remedied by extending the twin principles of universalism in the public sphere and relegating particularism to the private world. It is precisely these two principles that have produced most of the changes that offend supporters of the new Christian right. Thus, although the shift from (a) aiming to re-Christianize America to (b) claiming only that their values, beliefs, and symbols be accorded due status in the public arena, is a sensible change in strategy for new Christian rightists, an understanding of the most abstract features of modernity gives every reason to suppose that it is a strategy doomed to fail.
The NCR As a Modern Phenomenon
There is a tendency to see the NCR as a reactionary movement, an outburst of resurgent traditionalism. Certainly its proponents are fond of describing it in terms such as those in the title of one manifesto: Back to Basics (Pines 1982). In part this characterization is appropriate but it is important also to stress the extent to which the movement has itself accommodated to modernity. This accommodation is not just a matter of adjusting rhetoric so that the religion of Creationism becomes creation science and the virtues of fundamentalism are presented, not as divine injunctions, but as socially functional arrangements. It is also a matter of conceding crucial ground to the pluralism of the modern world by accepting the need to
Similar Books
