Have you ever tried to talk to someone who seemed bright, but the only ideas she could entertain were the ones in her own head? Have you ever tried to talk to someone about politics and found that there was one, true way-his way? If so, you may have met a fundamentalist.
Ernest R. House has written a brilliantly perceptive definition of fundamentalism in the book Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials. The definition sheds light on how people can be so, well, difficult, when it comes to discussing some subjects.
It all boils down to the fact that a fundamentalist knows The Truth. There is only one truth, her truth, and she is one of the special people who get to know what it is. The truth comes from some authority, a scripture or a great thinker of older, better days. Knowing that truth always gives the fundamentalist the moral high ground. Those olden days are a golden past when things were better than they are now, and a fundamentalist hopes to return to those wonderful days.
Sometimes the fundamentalist "knows" some truth that you find strange-that the moon is made of green cheese, or that poor people are poor because they incurred God's wrath. If you try to show her the error of her thought, she will not listen. First of all, you do not have access to her "truth," because you are not one of the lucky people who get to know it. Someday, you may become enlightened, but until then, you are not worth listening to. If you show her logically that the moon cannot be made of green cheese, she will ignore you. If you ask her to prove logically that the moon is made of green cheese, she may advance the most wretched nonsense imaginable, and she will become offended when you laugh.
Worse yet, the fundamentalist usually has an agenda, some way that society should change that will make the world a tremendously better place. She feels justified in running you and anyone else over who is so unenlightened as to disagree with her, because you are standing in the way of progress. Fixing the world by the fundamentalist's plan is more important than individual freedom.
The fundamentalist will not hang out with you, and she will only allow you to be a member of her circle of friends if you do not insist on discussing those things on which you disagree. When fundamentalists take over an organization, they will try to prevent people from discussing viewpoints that differ from "The Truth," and they will advance their ideas by forcing others to go along with them, by making laws, rules or decrees.
This definition makes it clear that there are fundamentalists on every side of any social or political issue. Liberals can be as hidebound and inflexible as conservatives. It bodes ill for civilized discourse about public affairs, and it makes the outlook for consensus building bleak.
The rest of House's chapter in Collecting and Interpreting is of interest mainly to social scientists. He does provide some examples of ideological fundamentalism in action, but he does not address the practical question of how to overcome it and revive a society where ideas are exchanged freely and considered on their merits. That's a book we should all want to read.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 87
You've been looking into those private conversations in my mind again, haven't you Ann?
Featured in the Triple Name Club.
Myspace graphics
</center>
Now, for the lighter side. You said:
"It all boils down to the fact that a fundamentalist knows The Truth. There is only one truth, her truth, and she is one of the special people who get to know what it is. The truth comes from some authority, a scripture or a great thinker of older, better days. Knowing that truth always gives the fundamentalist the moral high ground."
I believe you just described all mothers. :)
but this could be anyone
If we were all to try to eliminate it from our ways of thinking, the world would be a much better place to live.
Sounds familiar. Hmmm, wait a minute....
Ah ha! Barack Obama!
I've had the fortune (good or bad) to be able to modify my thinking based on experience and or the assimilation of data presented. I have found some so deeply rooted in their own thought process they refuse to even acknowledge the obvious because it will not fit within their own created box.
A neighbor denied that our public transportation system would be cut so deeply till many routes would be removed. Her argument was that there is no way the system would leave her strained with no way to get to work. She ignored all the planning and information about the impending changes which went into effect March 30. Seems she took her regular bus to a transfer point but the next bus route no longer existed.
That might be extreme but that is how narrow minded and unshakable some are.
Danged Skippy!
I CAN learn, but not from a book. Do not talk to me of dead men, and what they thought. Show me from your acts and deeds what you stand for--if I deem it worthy, I stand at your back. If I deem it hipocracy--I will not support you.
(In fact, if you deal in the normal, supersized, standard lies and misquotes; and are determined to spout ignorance and self-righteousness...then you are so NOT my standard.)
Great article, and it will have me reading and re-reading articles twice 'ere I post a comment. Introspection is a grand thing. As I believe in questioning authority, so also do I believe in questioning self "stories..."
Good on you, Ann.
Write on, and blessed be.
Wilka
Could you please be my little sister.
(I've always wanted to run away, too. But 'they' keep following me!)
Blessings,
Wilka
Reason people cannot ''reason'' is that to accept the other point of view becomes an emotional decision versus a logical one, usually based on an accepted dogmatic view of the world that has become a rut in the emotive, mental and psychological make up of the individual.
There is no cure for this disease unless one chooses to peel away the layers of false conviction, illusion of one owns capability to discern truth from falsehood, acceptance of one's limited intelligence and knowledge of facts, let alone the capability to analyze them, and humility in pursuing a common good.
The wise are few the fools are many, the old sage said...better not to say too much.
The important point I see here is to consider the validity of the other person's point of view. That requires independent thinking, an open mind and research.
When I see certain members' postings, I think " the liberal" or "the nutritionist", "religious writer", "poet" or whatever that member usually posts. I read their postings as carefully as I hope they read mine. Sometimes I disagree and other times, I find common ground.
Are you already too well-educated and wise to consider someone else's view, including what fundamentalists write? Nobody is. There is always something more to learn.
Life and death are not mutable they are mortal and immortal reality. A one sided conversation is hell on earth.
I think that is the crux of the matter, Richard and Ann. It is too one sided. One can never really understand another person without considering that person's life experiences and points of view. Frankly, there is too much insistence that there is only one way by many people.
I am most disturbed by the nutjob who says something like, "If I can do it, anyone can." It is as if they think that their success was something of their own making. No one succeeds without help.
Another remark that many of these fundamentalists make is: "In my day, we didn't have these problems." It is a lie. There were many of the same social problems one hundred years ago that there are today. I remember when I came out as a homosexual to my grandfather who was born in 1895. His reaction was to tell me that sex isn't anything new. He then advised me to remember that life isn't about what your are, it's about what you do. Yes, grandfather was a wise man. He often used to tell me us that the priest had no business giving marital advice since the priest never had to worry about where his next meal was coming from as a married couple might. In my life, it was the elders who had the best understanding of life. They didn't expect anyone to live according to their perspective. They just understood that all of us are different and need to follow our own hearts and minds.
When someone demands that his/her point of view is the only acceptable position, he/she is giving you very valid information about the life of a fool. We have many differences and we have many similarities. But, in the long run, life is an adventure. Don't let the fundamentalist mind interrupt your adventure. Let nature take its course. Give the best you have in life and keep an open mind. Life is too short for rigid ideology.
Richard Regener "Labels are meaningless and truth is subjective in any context when you understand reality. Life and death are not mutable they are mortal and immortal reality. A one sided conversation is hell on earth." I am not throwing down your ideas, just a mere comment, please take no offense.
Personally I think the first statement is quite correct, except you said "understand reality" I think it should be "understand its reality". Truly if everyone lives in different perspectives there can't be one reality. Life and death are not mutable, I find that to be quite a closed statement, it doesn't state that there is more to it than black and white.
Life and death are not set in stone either, the trick to fundamentalism may actually be confidence. I use it all the time, first you believe you can do it, second you make it reality. I don't just mean making it happen, i mean making it real in your head. Rationalize, analyze, convince what you want is the only truth and is reality. However confident you are, you should still understand the possibility it won't happen, and life is of top priority because if you lost it, you won't have a restart unless someone made one. I believe that immortality can be reality, if not, i'll make it.
And a one sided conversation is not hell on earth, it is only to those who perceive it in that way. To a person like me, I would be joyed, I would sit there with amazement analyzing this person.
To me I believe I am enlightened, I feel I am open enough to know the answer to life, because there isn't one. But by acknowledging such a concept I acknowledged the "answer".
Now by saying the stuff i just did i may have just contradicted myself, but i acknowledge that fact. So, where am i wrong, what do you believe now that you've read what i wrote? To say it doesn't make it difference, you may be a fundamentalist.
?
To consider someone a fool you would have to have a closed view on what a fool is. And to consider someone not a fool you would too have a closed view, because otherwise you wouldn't be able to come to a conclusion. So in the end, we are all as a matter a fact quite closed, it is very necessary in our humane life.
Personally i like to believe everything matters even the “fools” and the close-minded, from the perspective of a programmer, every variable is at stake, to ignore one would be naïve. If everything is at stake, why not let everything affect you? You can’t, a personality, a humans program would deny it, what if we move above the personality? Then again, we would have just created another one, but at least this one can be conscious of the old one still at play.
I hear you, Robert Lee. You are correct. The problem is that I called no one a fool. I pointed out what gives you valid information about the life of a fool. I stand by my statement.
I wanted to add that unfortunately, in our country, the cultural shift has allowed the "fundamentalists" to win the message. There was a time when intelligence and rational thought was a strong cultural value. I didn't like many things about the decades of the past. I always appreciated the perspective of people who used their minds and hearts to make responsible decisions about their lives, however. Today, it is all about what looks good. I don't personally like that change. The fundamentalist gets too much attention in our culture, today. I liked it better when people considered it rude and impolite to demand that any way of thinking deserved top billing. The young people are speaking out and rejecting this fundamentalist mindset. This is a welcome change. I figure that by the time I'm in my seventies, a lot of this nonsense will be behind us. Good riddance!
Nicely written and just love the sparks of thinking it's caused.
My favorite "Ade moments" are when my dearly held suppositions prove false (generally what I think I know about someone or their situation). It's a kind of fresh breeze moment when I'm reminded that I'm still learning and quite capable of being small.
It's much like facing the task of shoveling the parking area with a new 18" of white stuff even though it's nearing the middle of April. How many thought flakes did it take to accumulate that impressive new stack that's going to remain there, stopping all outgoing efforts until you tend to it. Re-inventing how we think about our staunchly held convictions allows us to try and comprehend what the other million or so flakes are thinking.
Ann: "he does not address the practical question of how to overcome it (closed thinking) and revive a society where ideas are exchanged freely and considered on their merits."
"revive a society"? I'm left asking, which ONE do you think would make an adequate model?
Maybe it will finally pan out to be that it's knowledge through human diversity and experience, and learning how to cherish that reality, where the future of our species lies.
We're either all going to write that book, or not.
Thanks for this one Ann.
You've well painted the reasons I can never get along with Fundamentalists. Namely that the world does just not exist only in stark Black and White.
The world is completely filled with, and made-up of, millions of COLORS in varying shades and hues !!
I've just never been able (or willing) to limit my perceptions and attitudes to such extremely narrow ways; and I hope I never will.
Peace --
I think the nature of fundamentalism is such that the fundamentalist is unable to believe that others are LESS hidebound. It is the ultimate strength and the weakness of fundamentalist action. By believing that others will take as extreme a view as yourself, you argue against even those who agree with your solution.
They find it difficult to understand the meaning of such verses as: Matthew 23:24 - "Ye blind guides, which strain AT a gnat, and swallow a camel."
Invisible Hand
Personally, I think the term "fundamentalist" has been much misused, in the political arena, lately. (being largely applied, of course, to "fundamentalist Muslims" who are then portrayed as "terrorists", due to their "fundamental religious principles". Although it has, in the past, also been applied to some Christians in this country...)
I myself see nothing wrong with sticking to the "fundamentals" of whatever you choose to believe in. After all, what are the "fundamentals", except those basic principles upon which your beliefs are allegedly founded??
Why has it suddenly become a bad thing, to be a "fundamentalist"? Seems to me, a fundamentalist is just someone who is adhering to their stated principles, whereas, someone who is not a "fundamentalist", has compromised their stated beliefs!
Now which kind of person would you rather know? Someone who is consistent in what they claim to believe in, and practice, or someone who can't be trusted to be the kind of person they claim to be?? I personally prefer the first kind. Although that doesn't mean I will agree with everything the "fundamentalist" believes in. (depends on which kind of "fundamentalist" they are, I guess?) But at least I'll know where they actually stand.
GT
That could be changed to "their truth" and match most religions perfectly.
(Of course, what you say in the title is no news here in East-Central Europe...)
They are the quintessential closed minds, covering their ears and humming loudly at others who do not reflect back their own beliefs, no matter how absurd.
Two different religious sisters.
One told my mother that Catholics were ALL dead because they followed the whore of a church(mom was a devote Catholic, she would walk 6 blocks to pray for my two bros who were in Nam at the time)
My other sister is an ordained minister and married a lesbian couple.
About the only people I can't stomach are those who do evil and call it God's will.
On a not too distant note, saw Faux whore network this morning using a mother whose son is fighting in Iraq to bash American Muslims. Faux claimed a Muslim Group tied to Al Qaeda was having a meeting and why wasn't the police arresting these terrorists?
Nothing like fertilizing hate and bigotry!
Hmmm, so how do they explain all the evidence of it actually being older than six thousand years? It ain't in the Bible so it ain't true.
:O\
Wonderful post, as usual. Thought provoking, non confrontational, civil and important!
Congrats poster and commenters!