This is a timely book as since
9/11 the phrase ‘religious fundamentalism’ has entered popular culture by being
used, whether rightly or wrongly, to denote particular conflicts and their
origin. In "The Psychology of Religious Fundamentalism" the authors
Hood, Hill, and Williamson seek to clarify this concept and suggest a
particular method for doing so.

The book is set
out in eight chapters, where the first two are an exposition and explanation of
the model the authors found most promising in identifying fundamentalism.
Chapter 3 deals with the origin of the term religious fundamentalism, which is,
interestingly, protestant, and gives historical information. Chapters 4-7 then
focus on four particular religious groups: the Church of God (of Prophecy),
Serpent-Handling Sects, the Amish, and fundamentalist Islam. In each case the
hallmarks for the model set out in chapters 1 and 2 are highlighted, and hence
these four case studies serve as verification of the authors hypothesis. The
last chapter then serves as a summary of the account, a discussion of potential
objections, as well as an examination, and rejection, of the most frequent
stereotypes of religious fundamentalism.

Generally, the text is relatively
simple and no prior knowledge of this area is necessary. The language is clear,
the main points are made explicit and appear repeatedly. The central hypothesis
of the book is contained in chapters 1, 2, and 8, while Chapters 4-7 serve as
examples. Readers practiced in theoretical texts and not interested in case
studies can therefore skip these middle chapters as they contain no new claims
and are sometimes quite lengthy due to the detailed description of the
respective group. Attention can thus be diverted to the two chapters at the
beginning and the final one. Even if condensed in this way the text is easy to
read and should not pose any difficulties. The text remains manageable while
being much shortened and the main argument can therefore be accessed more
quickly.

The task of the book is to
clarify the concept of religious fundamentalism and the authors have found two
aspects they think are broad yet also exhaustive enough in order to do so. 

1) The characteristic feature
that applies to all kinds of fundamentalism, according to Hood, Hill, and
Williamson, is an ‘intratextual’ belief-system. That means that a specific text
(or a particular part of it) is held to be authoritative to such an extent that
it sets the standards of truth and value for everything else. In other words,
all of reality is interpreted and evaluated through this text (in the Christian
religion the Bible, in Islam the Qu’ran), hence the name ‘intratextual model’.
The opposite to intratextual is intertextual: instead of relying on one text
and bringing everything else in accordance with it, the intertextual approach
is a method whereby the content of several sources is used to explain a certain
fact, circumstance, or value. Thus, the approach is more dynamic and open. According
to the authors, "intertextual models virtually define modernity and are
what fundamentalisms oppose" (p.26). Instead of an objective truth
expressed in a sacred text, an intertextual approach makes truth more relative
because none of its texts "speaks for itself".

The intra/intertextual model is
therefore not about the content of the beliefs but about their status,
structure and the belief-forming process. The advantage of this method is that
by focusing on the formal aspects of the belief-system, rather than the
belief-content it avoids the difficulties surrounding what fundamentalists have
to believe specifically, while still picking out a feature that applies to all
fundamentalist belief-systems. Rather than quibbling about the personal
character of fundamentalists the researchers can focus on the character and
structure of the beliefs.

2) The other main
claim is that of religion as a meaning system. Religious fundamentalism "provides
a unifying philosophy of life within which personal meaning and purpose are
embedded" by consisting of "a group of beliefs or theories about
reality that includes both a world theory (beliefs about others and situations)
and a self theory (beliefs about the self), with connecting propositions
between the two sets of beliefs that are important in terms of overall
functioning" (pp.14, 15). The reference, for the fundamentalist, is the
authoritative text under which everything else is subsumed. Thus, religious
fundamentalism offers the believer a complete way of life that gives him
stability and certainty via comprehensiveness, an accessible philosophical
orientation, a means of transcendence, and a direct claim to have meaning and
purpose.

As far as the clarity goes the
book works well. Nevertheless, a few limitations remain. First, none of the
points can claim to be novel. That extreme religious belief proceeds from the
application of a (single) text to the entire world is not a new observation.
That therefore a model which puts this single-text-authority at its centre is
successful in seeking out fundamentalisms is not surprising. Equally, that
religion provides a system of meaning is not a new thought, quite the contrary.
An earlier account of the concept of "meaning systems" are Erich Fromm’s
"frames of orientation and devotion" (‘Human Nature and Character’ in
"Man for Himself" (1949)). Fromm not only had the same approach in
terms of focusing on the structure rather than the content of the belief-system,
he also went further in tracing the origin of the motivation that underlies
them. Therefore, the final claim to have proposed "a unique model that
attempts to offer insights into the meaning of the fundamentalist worldview"
(p.213) is at best an overstatement. Concluding, this book serves as a good
introductory text to the issue of religious fundamentalism. It presents the
authors approach clearly and is easily understandable. But new insights are not
to be found.

 

 

© 2006 Ulrich Mühe

 

 

 

Ulrich Mühe is currently a PhD student
at the University of Kent (U.K.). His research interests lie in epistemology,
social philosophy (particularly social ontology), phenomenology, and
psychology.

Categories: Religion, Psychology