A young Moroccan Muslim once confidently introduced himself at a conference on religion as: “Rachid. Fundamentalist.” According to him, this meant: the Koran is the Word of God and contains, without contradictions, everything a person needs to know about life and the world. You would say: a clear definition of fundamentalism. The literal faith as the basis, foundation, of everything.
Not so. The concept of fundamentalism has been subject to differing interpretations in science for over a century and is certainly loaded with value judgments and implicit assumptions in the public debate. It is, as it is called, one contested concepta variable in terms of content and controversial in use.
That is the gist of the bulky thing Fundamentalism. The Usefulness of a Contested Concept by philosopher Nora Kindermann, with whom she obtained her PhD from the Vrije Universiteit in early October. The culmination of a varied academic career. Kindermann studied philosophy in Vienna and Utrecht, humanistic studies at the University of Humanistic Studies in Utrecht, religious studies at the University of Amsterdam, and conflict studies at Utrecht University. “I am quite multidisciplinary, I really enjoyed philosophy but also wanted to study a more concrete subject.”
But what is so controversial about the widely accepted concept of fundamentalism? She says: “First of all, it is not at all clear in the public debate or in the media what people, groups and movements that we call fundamentalist actually have in common. Also that ‘wanting to go back to the sources’ or taking religious texts literally can mean anything. If you look at history, you see that the term is very often used by people to oppose others who are seen as irrational, people who cannot keep up with progress. and which are often also seen as problematic or even a threat.
Resistance to modernity
This rhetorical charge also existed, in a reverse sense, among the first American fundamentalists who – like Rachid – proudly called themselves that to oppose modern, liberal interpretations of faith. “The modernists then very quickly adopted the concept in order to put away fundamentalists.” This is evident in the continued popularization of the term, we are talking about ‘vega fundamentalists’, ‘gender fundamentalists’. In the Netherlands, ‘Enlightenment fundamentalists’ was a rhetorical term for a while. What fundamentalists have in common in public discourse is above all our aversion to them. That can also have an effect on the scientific discourse.”
Isn’t resistance to modernity a common denominator among fundamentalists? “Yes, but I would rather say, they embrace modernity in a selective way. The technology, the resources, not the normative liberal framework. What they mainly oppose is the modern idea that our knowledge and practices do not have an absolute, transcendent basis but are created by people.”
In her dissertation, Kindermann sees different phases in the history of the concept of fundamentalism, from a designation for Christian movements in the US (1920s) to a worldwide public term for all kinds of religious but also secular anti-modernism. “There remained a great deal of uncertainty about its precise definition. From the 1970s onwards, scientists started to think critically about this. Wasn’t the concept simply too unclear, too closely based on Christianity, or even Islamophobic? Many researchers then advocated no longer using the concept for science at all or limiting it to Christian fundamentalism.”
To break that impasse, Kindermann has developed a method that should help scientists sharpen their understanding of fundamentalism. In a matrix she distinguishes five categories (beliefs, behavior, emotions, goals and structure), divided over six domains (history, social, political, normative, metaphysics and knowledge). It’s one toolshe says, which is filled with empirical research leads to a much more precise analysis of fundamentalism that does justice to important local nuances and the different historical and social contexts of, for example, Christian and Islamic or Hindu fundamentalism.
Accounting for history
One step more abstractly: she also proposes four preconditions for scientists to determine whether the concept of fundamentalism as such is useful for their research. They must use that matrix to sharpen their definition, be transparent about their use of the concept, be aware of its history and be aware of possible biases.
She also applies that to herself. Kindermann writes in her dissertation that she is concerned about the “anti-democratic, anti-liberal and anti-pluralist” impulses of fundamentalists. “I also want to be transparent about my own normative framework.” Fundamentalists themselves should also have their say in research. “We have to take that into account to understand them properly. Why they defend an idea of absolute truth. Why they are skeptical about modern values. And how they also see others, that is us, as modern beings.”
The question remains how special the concept she investigated actually is. There are not many concepts in social science contested or “nomadic” in their shifting meaning and application (such as racism, emancipation, progress)? Or even those in the exact sciences (energy, power)? Kindermann: “Is fundamentalism a special case? I have struggled with that for a long time. The answer is yes and no. What makes fundamentalism special is that it is a particularly politically controversial term, with such a long and politically controversial history. But it could very well be that you can make a similar analysis of other concepts.”
Kindermann hopes that her matrix will be embraced by researchers, after all it is a tool for research practice. She now has an appointment as a postdoc at the Center for Religion in the Public Sphere (Crips) at Tilburg University. “I really enjoy science and I am very happy with this opportunity.”
She is now preparing research with a colleague into the alleged revival of religiosity among Generation Z. “There are all kinds of signs that young people are looking for meaning and are also rediscovering faith, but the evidence is mainly anecdotal. It is too early to speak of a trend. I would like to investigate that, especially from the experience and motivation of young people themselves. That knowledge is indispensable.”
Who is
Nora Kindermann?
- Place of birth
- Vienna. Now lives in Utrecht.
- Year of birth
- 1992
- Loves
- “I always found the Netherlands a refreshing country. Energetic, with very open people. I also had good friends here.”
- Happy to do so
- “Reading and gardening, also shared with neighbors.”
- Believes in
- “I was raised as a cultural Catholic, like many people in Austria. I prefer to keep my personal beliefs about religion to myself. I am not a member of any religious community.”
NEW: Give this item as a gift
As an NRC subscriber you can subscribe every month 10 items give as a gift to someone without an NRC subscription. The recipient can read the article directly, without a paywall.