Although fundamentalism has much been in the news for the past decade, the question of why it exists as a problem now remains poorly understood. As follows is a suggestion for why it is so.
Traditional religious communities were usually insular communities, with one figure (be they the priest, rabbi, or imam) tasked with the interpretation of the religious law. This individual was the sole authority, and only he had the power to go to his superior (mostly and if there was one). This system began to fracture in the first half of the twentieth century, as lines of communication opened with even the most far-flung tribes. Slowly and surely, the communities made contact with eachother, and as contact with superior religious figures became possible directly, people became able to disintermediate the local religious authority. With people being able to choose which religious figure they would follow, it would often become a race to the bottom, with the most stringent doctrine seeming the most correct. The most stringent doctrine is the most viable to the one who is not specifically charged with clerical duties and rights to make clerical decisions because it is often in line with the simplest black/white view of the situation, and because it is often in line with traditionalist impulses already at work in religion. As such, there is a steady race to the bottom towards fundamentalism, with the most radical forces gaining the most supporters.
Posted by tspr at March 17, 2005 02:39 AM