Label or concept?
Fundamentalism is a relatively recent idea (although an old phenomenon). It relates
to the interpretation of a creed that is intolerant of argument and debate, so that
those who oppose a particular variety of fundamentalism are deemed ‘enemies’ and
‘traitors’. Anthony Giddens, a sociologist who writes extensively on fundamentalism,
comments that the term has only come into currency quite recently. As late as 1950
there was no entry for the word in the Oxford English Dictionary(Giddens, 1994:
6). This gives us an important clue as to its meaning; although fundamentalists see
themselves as looking to some kind of ‘original’ blueprint, the concept, as we will
define it, is quite new and cannot be understood without analysing the pressures of
the modern world.
Sidahmed and Ehteshami argue that fundamentalism is a label rather than a
concept (1996: 14), and it is true that the term can be used in a dogmatic manner
without thought being given as to what it might mean. It will be argued here that
the term can be a concept (i.e. something with a proper theoretical basis) and,
therefore, it is not merely a descriptive but an evaluative term. Fundamentalism tells
us what a creed looks like in such a way that it is unattractive to those who are
open-minded. Like all political concepts, fundamentalism is both descriptive and
evaluative (see Introduction), and the fact that the concept will be used negatively
(as something to avoid), does not mean that we are not describing it as accurately
as we can.
Fundamentalism (like liberalism and secularism) is a contested category (i.e. it
arouses controversy) but this does not make it so ambiguous that coherent exposition
is impossible. We are not simply using the concept as a term of abuse: we are trying
to expound it in as fair a way as we can.Fundamentalism and religion
The term was first applied in a religious context at about the turn of the century.
It is important to understand its origins. It referred to a defence of Protestant
orthodoxy against the encroachments of modern thought. In the first decade of the
twentieth century, a series of 12 volumes entitled The Fundamentalswas produced
in the USA, containing 90 articles written by Protestant theologians. Three million
copies were printed and they were distributed free of charge. However, as the New
Oxford Dictionarypoints out, although one of the meanings of fundamentalism
does relate to a strict and literal interpretation of the Bible by Protestants, the term,
says the dictionary, can also be linked to any religion or ideology, ‘notably Islam’.
Certainly within religion, ‘restorationist’ movements in Christianity and Judaism
show striking similarities to fundamentalist Islamic movements. Recent develop-
ments in Hinduism and Shinto also reveal commonalities with what is happening
elsewhere (Kepel, 1994: 2–3). Moreover, fundamentalism can refer not only to any
religion, but to any ideology. For example, reference is often made to ‘market
fundamentalism’. Any ideology, no matter how potentially tolerant, can be presentedChapter 17 Fundamentalism 381