Fundamentalism as the Repugnant Other
June 15, 2021
Fundamentalism as the Repugnant Other
The modern idea of “fundamentalist” conjures up the image of antiscientific, authoritarian, absolutists with whom there is no reasoning. Fundamentalists cling to their traditions and fight against any social change. These are not just people yelling on television, but people in every aspect of daily life. They shop in regular grocery stores, play in public parks, and even wait patiently to vote in national elections. What separates them as fundamentalists is their absolutist thinking, authoritarian ways, and their extremely literal interpretation of their religious texts. Fundamentalists are the repugnant “others”. They are a group that acts as a cultural “other”, opposing the fundamental values of modernity and standing for beliefs that are generally seen as aggressive and authoritarian.
Fundamentalism is an orientation. According to Richard Antoun, there are four defining characteristics of fundamentalism: purity, scripturalism, traditioning, selective modernization, and controlled acculturation. In fundamentalism, there is a “quest for purity in an impure world” (Antoun). Essentially, fundamentalists seek a pure fundamentalist world that shares their beliefs. Another element of fundamentalism is that of scripturalism which is the literal belief in an inerrant sacred text. For example, Southern Baptists believe in an explicit and literal interpretation of the Bible. There is also the characteristic of traditioning which makes the ancient/religious times outlined in texts, such as the Bible, relevant for explaining present-day occurrences. Lastly, the characteristic of selective modernization and controlled acculturation means that fundamentalists accept modern life and ideas selectively, prioritizing the words and ideas of their religious texts. Fundamentalists and fundamentalism are ideal types. No one individual or group is completely fundamentalist or completely lacking in fundamental attributes.
The term fundamentalist originated in 1920 to describe “conservative Evangelical Protestants who supported the principles expounded in The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth” (Munson, 2006). The central idea of these fundamentalists was that the Bible should be read literally. These fundamentalists also opposed the teaching of the biological theory of evolution in public schools which led to the Scopes Trial. In the Scopes Trial, Tenessee high-school teacher John Scopes was charged with violating state law by teaching the theory of evolution. According to Susan Harding in her paper, Representing Fundamentalism: The Problem of the Repugnant Cultural Other, “Fundamentalists were “othered" in the Scopes trial. They were present and participated in the event which stigmatized them, cast them out of public life, marked them as a category of inferior persons whose very existence required explanation” (390). This trial led to the views of the Fundamentalists being categorized as the “others” by the modern majority.
Harding explains that modern views of fundamentalists are as a cultural “other”, whose beliefs are antithetical to “modernity”. The fundamentalists became the repugnant “other” in part due to the Scopes Trial. The major publicity over the trial resulted in a national debate over the concept of fundamentalism, isolating as separate or “other”. Harding states,
“The problem with re narrating fundamentalists as a backward cultural "other" whose exclusion enables and secures a hegemonic "modern" point of view is that it places them in the same conceptual and political space- the vaunted margins- as women, gays, ethnic and racial minorities, workers, tribal and peasant peoples, the colonized and the post” (392).
Essentially, Harding emphasizes the importance of separating the fundamentalist “others” from other minority groups through the construct of repugnance, identifying the fundamentalists as the repugnant other. The psychiatrist and blogger Scott Alexander explains the repugnant other as an “Outgroup”, or a group who will “will very likely take moral and political stances that you find abominable” (Jacobs, 2018).
On the other side of the spectrum from fundamentalism lies modernity. According to conservative religionists, modernity is marked by four negative fundamental values: moral relativism, autonomous individualism, narcissistic hedonism, and reductive naturalism. It is through the values of modernity that fundamentalism adopts the construct of repugnance. In modernity’s moral relativism, morality is dictated by culture, social location, and situation. Fundamentalists take a different approach to morality, having it be defined through traditioning. Modernity’s autonomous individualism assumes that moral authority comes from within, which directly contradicts the fundamentalist view of God as the sole authority on morality. The Modernity value of reductive naturalism reduces what is known to what can be empirically investigated, while fundamentalists believe in absolute truth to their religious texts. These stark contrasts between modernity and fundamentalism make fundamentalism viewed as repugnant.
The view of fundamentalists as the repugnant “other” is also largely influenced by religion and media through the public sphere. Beyond the Scopes Trial, fundamentalism has had an interesting relationship with the politics of the United States of America (US). The US famously has a policy of freedom of religion, but fundamentalists actively blur the line. President George W. Bush was favored by fundamentalists for his rigid religious beliefs. According to the Jesus Camp documentary, Bush was seen as “an agent of God”. He actively aligned himself with the fundamentalist voters and based parts of his platform on their ideals. After Bush, President Donald Trump became an icon in the Fundamentalist community. Despite his blatant embrace of modernity values, such as narcissistic hedonism, Trump held major popularity in the fundamentalist community and based much of his platform when running for office on fundamentalist issues.
According to the documentary Jesus Camp, “75% of homeschooled children in the US are Evangelical Christians”. The documentary shows scenes of these children engaging in their homeschooling. In these scenes, education is focused on political issues (such as evolution and global warming) taught strictly through religious lenses. The children are guilted from questioning the fundamentalist ideas they are taught. As a result, “43% of Evangelical Christians are ‘born again’ by thirteen years old” (Jesus Camp). Similarly, the law is a focus of education within the Westboro Baptist Church. Many of the members became lawyers who use their law education when advocating for their fundamentalist beliefs.
Several political issues are largely influenced by fundamentalist churches. Politics contributes to the construct of repugnance in regards to fundamentalism because of the extremist views and disregard for debate. To these fundamentalists, many political issues are black-and-white, leaving little to no room for opinion or debate. For example, the documentary Jesus Camp shows scenes of children being taught to fight against abortion. In these scenes, children are taught solely a religious perspective on abortion. The teachings are rigid and aggressive, bringing many of the children to tears. Notably, the Westboro Baptist Church uses its religious beliefs as the basis for its protests against gay rights. Through their literalist view of the Bible, they firmly believe that homosexuals should be prosecuted and stripped of their right to marry one another. This opinion is seen as repugnant by the majority of modern society.
Feminism and women’s rights are also major political issues for fundamentalist religions in the US. The documentary Battle for the Minds depicts the struggle for women’s rights within the Southern Baptist church. The Southern Baptist church is made up of strict fundamentalists. According to the documentary, the Southern Baptist church views men as closer to God than women are, therefore women are not allowed to be preachers or even speak in church. There is considerable debate between liberals and conservatives within the church on how large the role of women can be. Molly Marshall was a member of the Southern Baptist church who studied theology and actively worked to become a preacher. After years of being viewed as less than her male peers, Molly is now a minister and president of a seminary. She advocates for a liberal version of Baptism. This anti-feminist view is another way politics contribute to the construct of repugnance in fundamentalism.
Media is a major tool for fundamentalists to spread their views. The Westboro Baptist Church is a fundamentalist group that is particularly well known for its use of media. Many members of the Westboro Baptist church use social media platforms, such as Twitter, to engage with the world and spread their beliefs. Twitter in particular is often used as a tool to debate religion and politics. The Westboro Baptist Church has engineered a media circus of interviews, websites, and publicity to spread its views. Many of the fundamentalist views of the Westboro Baptist Church are controversial. The church members often pick a fight with reporters during interviews and get aggressive with their message. Their harsh views and unapologetic expressions of faith through media plays a role in the construct of repugnance for the fundamentalist “others”.
Despite the pushback by modernist society, fundamentalists stand strong with their beliefs. The literal interpretation of the Bible, their binary thinking, and their authoritative manner make for a strong stance. The isolation of their stance from modernist ideas and values separates them as an “other”. Through their abrasive media tactics, unrelenting political beliefs, and strong contradiction to the values of modernity, fundamentalists are not just “others” but the repugnant “other”. According to Grace Carey in her article, Anthropology’s “Repugnant Others”, “For Harding, humanizing “repugnant others” is a way of not only destabilizing “us” and “them” categories created and policed within academic spaces, but also a way of building better politics and political action” (Carey, 2019). By establishing the divide between “us” and “them”, governments can better build politics and encourage growth and peace in the public sphere.
Citations
Cary, G. (2019, April 23). Anthropology’s “Repugnant Others”. American Ethnologist.
https://americanethnologist.org/features/reflections/anthropologys-repugnant-others.
Ewing H., Grady R. (Directors). (2006). Jesus Camp. Magnolia Pictures.
Harding, S. (1991). Representing Fundamentalism: The Problem of the Repugnant Cultural
Other. Social Research, 58(2), 373-393. Retrieved June 16, 2021, from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40970650
Lipscomb S. (Director). (1996). Battle for the Minds. Steve Lipscomb.
Jacobs A. (2018, February 2). Embrace the Pain: Living with the Repugnant Cultural Other.
ABC. https://www.abc.net.au/religion/embrace-the-pain-living-with-the-repugnant-
cultural-other/10095016.
Munson, H. (2019, November 26). Fundamentalism. Encyclopedia Britannica.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/fundamentalism
Murray, B. Making sense of fundamentalists; Origins and Characteristics of Fundamentalism.
Sage Law. http://sagelaw.us/religion/antoun.htm
Interview with the Westboro Baptist Church.
Religion, Politics, and Media class lectures (various).
