« Recursive Geek | Main | Oh My Freaking God »

December 7, 2004
Monkey Business

Digby, once again, with the good stuff.

First, from The Fundamentalist Agenda, by Davidson Loehr..

rom 1988 to 1993, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences sponsored an interdisciplinary study known as The Fundamentalism Project, the largest such study ever done. More than 100 scholars from all over the world took part, reporting on every imaginable kind of fundamentalism. And what they discovered was that the agenda of all fundamentalist movements in the world is virtually identical, regardless of religion or culture.

As Digby sumarizes them, the five characteristics of these movements are:

1) Men rule the roost and make the rules. Women are support staff and for reasons easy to imagine, homosexuality is intolerable.

2) all rules must apply to all people, no pluralism.

3) the rules must be precisely communicated to the next generation

4) "they spurn the modern, and want to return to a nostalgic vision of a golden age that never really existed. (Several of the scholars observed a strong and deep resemblance between fundamentalism and fascism. Both have almost identical agendas. Men are on top, women are subservient, there is one rigid set of rules, with police and military might to enforce them, and education is tightly controlled by the state. One scholar suggested that it's helpful to understand fundamentalism as religious fascism, and fascism as political fundamentalism. The phrase 'overcoming the modern' is a fascist slogan dating back to at least 1941.)"

5) Fundamentalists deny history in a "radical and idiosyncratic way."

Loehr continues:

The only way all fundamentalisms can have the same agenda is if the agenda preceded all the religions. And it did. Fundamentalist behaviors are familiar because we've all seen them so many times. These men are acting the role of "alpha males" who define the boundaries of their group's territory and the norms and behaviors that define members of their in-group. These are the behaviors of territorial species in which males are stronger than females. In biological terms, these are the characteristic behaviors of sexually dimorphous territorial animals. Males set and enforce the rules, females obey the males and raise the children; there is a clear separation between the in-group and the out-group. The in-group is protected; outsiders are expelled or fought.

It is easier to account for this set of behavioral biases as part of the common evolutionary heritage of our species than to argue that it is simply a monumental coincidence that the social and behavioral agendas of all fundamentalisms and fascisms are essentially identical.

...

Fundamentalism is absolutely natural, ancient, powerful--and inadequate. It's a means of structuring relationships that evolved when we lived in troops of 150 or less. But in the modern world, it's completely incapable of the nuance or flexibility needed to structure humane societies.

This would all seem to argue that, while primitive, conservative fundamentalism is more "natural" than liberal modernism, but it just ain't so. It's not the ideas behind fundamentalism that make it effective, it's its appeal to basic primal instincts. The problem the liberal movement has is not its message, which is much more compatible with overall happiness and success in modern societies, but in the style of delivery of the messages and the use of "sacred symbols." These things appeal directly to this primal impulse, and by gum it works.

Digby again:

If this retreat to fundamentalism is really a default to primitive biology, then we can frame this as America vs the fundamentalists. And lucky for us, it's easy to do and will confuse the shit out of the right. We have a built in boogie man fundamentalist named Osama on whom we can pin all this ANTI-AMERICAN fundamentalist dogma while subtly drawing the obvious parallels between him and the homegrown variety.

We start by having the womens' groups decrying the Islamic FUNDAMENTALIST view of womens rights. These FUNDAMENTALISTS want to roll back the clock and make women answer to men. In AMERICA we don't believe in that. Then we have the Human Rights Campaign loudly criticizing the Islamic FUNDAMENTALISTS for it's treatment of gays. In AMERICA we believe that all people have inalienable rights. The ACLU puts out a statement about the lack of civil liberties in Islamic FUNDAMENTALIST theocracies. In AMERICA we believe in the Bill of Rights, not the word of unelected mullahs.

You got a problem with that Jerry? Pat? Karl????

Of course they couldn't have a problem with it, and the beauty of it is that it's all so obviously and simply true. The parallels are stark and unmistakable. WE believe in freedom. Don't we? THEY are intolerant; we are inclusive and welcoming. WE respect individuals' rights to live their own life; THEY presume to tell everyone in their group what to wear, what to say, how to act, when to pray.

It has to be our methods, because it surely isn't our message.

Comments

Previous Comments

hey cool. "fundamentalist" can be this season's "liberal."

which side are you on, which side are you on?

Sleave, I'm not sure exactly what you mean.

If you mean that this is the same as the right's vilification of "liberals," then I disagree. It is similar semantically, perhaps, but different in substance. What I mean here is using their tactics against them- which I think is a good idea. "Our" ideas are being twisted and manipulated by the use of "sacred" images and appeals to primal instincts. What I suggest is not, in my opinion, twisting and manipulating the western fundamentalist's message, but using his own methods to expose the truth of his philosophy. And that truth is that it is no different from any other fundamentalist's philosophy, i.e. it sucks. Further, it is actually the same as the philosophy our homegrown fundamentalists are currently in such a froth to wipe out when it comes from others.

Aye. Big touch o' the spirit and posting in tongues again.

Thoughts compressed. Sentences shortened.

That's what I was gettin at was exactly this coordinated effort since the president sleepy era whereby the conservative christians got politics in a big way and everything that was wrong with this country and its gummint became the fault of the "liberals" and their goddam liberal agenda... A singular message and a singular epithet that neatly characterizes those who dare oppose or impede the republican nonsense.
So yeah, us non-republicans could similarly use a good word and a clear message to sum up the anti-american horseshit being done in our names by the gummint and their corporate masters.
Far too much time is wasted in self-censorship by well-meaning people wanting only to be "nice," "unoffensive," etc.
Fuck that. Call bullshit when you see it. Now that's the American way.
Woody sang of "which side are you on" the in 40s, and that's a great way for non-republicans to define themselves - which side are you on? The side of unrestrained global monopolies, corporate subsidies, environmental degredation, low wages, no benefits, no health care, undeclared wars, torture, imperialism, suspicion, surveillence, and fear?

or

Sustainable capitalism, sane tax laws, environmental protection, living wages, health care cost controls, respect for the bill of rights, foreign policy that inspires admiration rather than terrorism, and getting honest with ourselves about fixing shit here at home - race, religion, education, environment - before going off to save the world.

Iran wasn't the only country to experience a fundamentalist revolution in 1979, and it's about damn time that a credible opposition to America's fundamentalists steps the fuck up and clearly defines how 25 years of fundamentalism in this country has assaulted our quality of life and imperiled our liberty.