250 CHAPTER 12
Much of the spirit of religious fundamentalism is captured in its rejection of the public/ private divide. On one level, fundamentalism is a manifestation of identity politics (see p. 232). The expansion of a public realm, organized on a secular and rationalistic basis, has gradually weakened traditional social norms, textures and values and has left many bereft of identity, or, as Eric Hobsbawm (1994) put it, as ‘orphans’ in the modern world. The intensity and zeal that typically characterizes fundamentalism establishes religion as the primary collective identity, giving its members and supporters a rootedness and sense of belonging that they would otherwise lack. On a deeper level, religious fundamentalism’s refusal to accept that religion is merely a private or personal matter invests it with a radical political character and ideological potency. To treat religion only as a personal or private issue is to invite evil and corruption to stalk the public domain, hence the spread of permissiveness, materialism, corruption, greed, crime and immorality. The fundamentalist solution is simple: the world must be made anew, and existing structures must be replaced with a comprehensive system founded on religious principles and embracing law, politics, society, culture and the economy. PERSPECTIVES ON . . . RELIGION LIBERALS see religion as a distinct ‘private’ matter linked to individual choice and personal development. Religious freedom is thus essential to civil liberty and can only be guaranteed by a strict division between religion and politics, and between church and state. CONSERVATIVES regard religion as a valuable (perhaps essential) source of stability and social cohesion. As it provides society with a set of shared values and the bedrock of a common culture, overlaps between religion and politics, and church and state, are inevitable and desirable. SOCIALISTS have usually portrayed religion in negative terms, as at best a diversion from the political struggle and at worst a form of ruling-class ideology (leading in some cases to the adoption of state atheism). In emphasizing love and compassion, religion may nevertheless provide socialism with an ethical basis. ANARCHISTS generally regard religion as an institutionalized source of oppression. Church and state are invariably linked, with religion preaching obedience and submission to earthly rulers while also prescribing a set of authoritative values that rob the individual of moral autonomy. FASCISTS have sometimes rejected religion on the grounds that it serves as a rival source of allegiance or belief, and that it preaches ‘decadent’ values such as compassion and human sympathy. Fascism nevertheless seeks to function as a ‘political religion’, embracing its terminology and internal structure – devotion, sacrifice, spirit, redemption and so on. FEMINISTS have tended to view nearly all religious traditions as patriarchal at root, one of their key purposes being that they serve to control women; they do this by legitimizing often starkly unequal gender roles, typically through the promotion of ‘family values’. FUNDAMENTALISTS view religion as a body of ‘essential’ and unchallengeable principles, which dictate not only personal conduct but also the organization of social, economic and political life. Religion cannot and should not be confined to the ‘private’ sphere, but finds its highest and proper expression in the politics of popular mobilization and social regeneration. However, the perceived corruption of the secular public realm may give rise to one of two responses. The first, sometimes called ‘passive’ fundamentalism, takes the route of withdrawal and attempts to construct communities of believers untainted by the larger
Powered by FlippingBook