others. That is, it sends a powerful and memorable signal that defection
is very costly. This is perceived intuitively as one way to reduce the like-
lihood that others may defect. All this is a straightforward consequence
of the coalitional principles described above. It is dangerous to join a
coalition that others can defect from without paying much cost. The
more you put at risk by joining the coalition, the higher you want to
raise the price of defection.^16
Fundamentalist violence too seems to be an attempt to raise the
stakes, that is, to discourage potential defectors by demonstrating that
defection is actually going to be very costly, that people who adopt dif-
ferent norms may be persecuted or even killed. I offer this as a slight [295]
modification to the "reaction to modernity" interpretation, because
the coalitional background seems to me to make the psychology of
such reactions more realistic, and also because it explains several fea-
tures of extremism that would otherwise remain puzzling.
First, note that many fundamentalist groups are predominantly
concerned with control of publicbehavior—how people dress, whether
they go to religious meetings, etc.—even though their doctrine often
is primarily concerned with personal faith or commitment, and in
some cases explicitly condemns the temptation to establish oneself as
judge of others' behavior (this is particularly salient in fundamentalist
Christianity and Islam).
Second, some fundamentalist groups have shown a great propen-
sity to make the punishment of what they see as immoral behavior
much more public andspectacular than it would have been in their
respective traditions. At first sight, there is no clear rational explana-
tion for the public denunciation of named individuals, for violent
demonstrations in front of Planned Parenthood clinics or for the pub-
lic stoning of adulterers. This emphasis on public and spectacular
punishment makes sense if it is in fact directed at potential defectors,
to make it all the more obvious how costly defection can be.
Third, a good part of fundamentalist violence is directed not at the
external world but at other members of the same cultural, religious
communities. The most imperious domination is exerted inside the
community: by leaders over mere members, by dedicated followers
over noncommitted people, and above all by men over women. If the
movement is purely ethnic-religious, it will concentrate its attacks on
outsiders. Again, however, coalitional dynamics would predict that
whatever outsiders do is of little concern to fundamentalists. What
matters is what other members of the group are likely to do.
WHYDOCTRINES, EXCLUSION AND VIOLENCE?