What challenge does fundamentalism pose for globalisation?

‘Fundamentalism’ and ‘Globalisation’ are two buzzwords which are constantly being thrown around within the academic disciplines; in particular cultural studies and political sciences, especially post 9/11. There is much debate surrounding these concepts and much debate involving these concepts. However, the purpose of this essay is to define these concepts critically and then to explore these concepts in relation to each other, and then also evaluate whether fundamentalism actually poses any threats to globalisation. It should be noted that both these concepts especially globalisation will be discussed within the remit of this essay, which is a focus on cultural studies as opposed to an economic stance.
Globalisation is a thought to be an important concept/issue, however analyses of globalisation are polarised to say the least. In addition globalisation is a theme studied in relation to various subject areas, and thus has a specific meaning or effect particular to each subject area. For example in terms of social policy it is felt that the quest to keep national economies competitive in a global arena has prompted a neo-liberal consensus, across party lines, which affects the way policies are formulated, and prompted a move form the ‘welfare-state’ to the ‘competition state’; where states actor were concerned with using institutions to correct undesirable economic effects whilst promoting welfare goals, to a situation where state actors are no longer concerned with insulating ‘… states from key international market pressures, as state actors in the welfare state sought to do, political entrepreneurs in competition states embrace openness and marketization…’ (Ellison N., Pierson C., 2003 p .26) The above example also highlights the general focus of the economic aspects of globalisation in relation to issues, as mentioned globalisation has varying connotations in relation to each field, but there is a general overwhelming focus on globalisation as economic function.
Although there is a fierce, ongoing debate over the definition of globalisation, there are identifiable themes that are associated with globalisation. Scholte has defined the unifying and common aspects of globalisation as; ‘…a transformation of social geography marked by the growth of supraterritorial spaces… [A] trend [that] has unfolded with unprecedented speeds and to unprecedented extents since 1960s… [globalisation] need not retain its present momentum indefinitely and could in principle reverse (though the chances of such a contraction seem remote at present )… the trend has spread unevenly, being most concentrated among propertied and professional classes, in the North, in towns and younger generations… globalization has had multifaceted casual dynamics, with the principals spurs having come from rationalist knowledge, capitalist production, various technological innovations and certain regulatory measures…globalization has prompted important changes to certain attributes of capital, the state, the nation and modern rationality….globalization has encouraged the growth of additional loci of governance besides the state, the spread of additional forms of community besides the nation, and the development of additional types of knowledge besides modern rationality…’ (Scholte 2000 p. 1-2)
Scholte’s observation of globalisation can summarised into a simple sentence; globalisation is the increase in the determination of social, economic and political aspects of individuals/ nations internationally. This is not to say that decisions are taken at international level or by an international organisation; but events and activities which occur in one part of the world has repercussions which can be felt internationally. These are not limited to negative economic consequences which are frequently reported and discussed but cover social and political aspects of individuals’ lives.
In order to have a critical understanding of globalisation, it is important to have an understanding of globalisation in relation to other subject fields in order to understand the context in which the concept is being used. Globalisation is often understood from an ‘internationalization’ stance ‘…which can be taken to refer to patterns of interaction and interconnectedness between two or more nation-states irrespective of their specific geographical location…’ (Held, D. McGrew, A. 2003 p. 68) In this respect globalisation describes the growth in the relations and interdependence between states. In the same vein Globalization is also used to describe economic ‘liberalisation’, this describes the process of removing trade restrictions and barriers; the ‘opening up’ of economies. International economic liberalisation has spurred since the 1960s with the decolonisation of many third world countries and coincides with the rise of modern globalisation, thus make the two concepts somewhat inextricable. Globalisation is also taken to describe a move towards paradoxical ‘cultural heterogeneity’ and ‘cultural homogeneity’ or Americanisation. In terms of ‘cultural heterogeneity’ the interaction between various aspects and processes of culture has led to a ‘worldwide culture’ which is evident in the use of the Gregorian calendar, the use of cars and their makes, and the availability and location of Chinese restaurants (Scholte 2000) and the creation of inter-ethnic dishes such as chicken tikka massala the ‘westernised’ Indian dish which is commonly to referred to as Britain’s national dish. ‘Cultural homogeneity’ or Americanisation refers to the spread of ‘modern’ social structures such as capitalism to the detriment of pre-existing cultures and their indigenous institutions and systems of self determination. This is seen in the spread of liberal democracies and lesser developing countries that have been ‘forced’ to adopt practices foreign to their indigenous ways, in return for Aid of foreign investment. Finally globalization is often associated with the premise that ‘…social space is no longer wholly mapped in terms of territorial places, territorial distances and territorial borders…’ (Scholte 2000 p.5).
Even when there is consensus regarding common traits of globalization and the contexts in which the concept is used, there is still debate about the extent of globalization. Commentators can be placed on a scale ranging from fully fledged sceptics to fully fledged supporters. On the one hand sceptics acknowledge globalisation, but argue that ‘…international or global interconnectedness is by no means a novel phenomenon; …’ (Held, D. et al., 2003), so thus is not of high importance. In the middle of the scale are those commentators who acknowledge globalisation but unlike ‘supporters’ do place too much of an emphasis on globalisation and its trait, nor do they almost dismiss the concept altogether as a function of history but see globalization as force unfolding concurrently with other major forces such as the structure of production. (Scholte 2000)
Fundamentalism is ‘heavy word’ and has many connotations attached to it. In recent times fundamentalism has become interchangeable with recent ‘Islamic’ terrorism. However fundamentalism is neither a new occurrence nor exclusive to Islam nor religion for that matter. Fundamentalism can be described ‘generically’ as ‘… A value-oriented, antimodern, dedifferentiating form of collective action- a sociocultural aimed at reorganizing all spheres of life in terms of particular set of absolute values.’ (Robertson 2000 p. 170) Despite this fundamentalism has become almost exclusively associated with the two ‘major’ sacred text- based religions Christianity and Islam, with a more recent emphasis on the latter.
A rise in the separation between politics and religion stemming from the advent of Modernity had led to the widespread belief that religious beliefs would be restricted to individuals’ private lives. (Ruthen, M. 2007) This premise was shattered with 1979 Iranian revolution, where an Islamic Republic was established replacing a somewhat a modern progressive establishment. Almost running concurrently the New Right Christian movement was making its presence known in America, which saw the movement rally to form coalitions and elect the then President Regan and subsequent George Bush. (Parekh 1992) These occurrences firmly pushed fundamentalism on to the agenda.
In trying to understand the rise in fundamentalism or ‘religious revivals’ it is important to understand the role of religion. It is argued that the resurgence of religion occurs when ‘…religion finds or retains work to do other than its pre-modern function of ‘relating individuals to the supernatural’…’ (Ruthen, M. 2007 p. 122) The rise in these forms are less to do with the private aspects of individuals but have a more political aims which have been mixed with pre-existing religions, thus it is important to make distinctions between ‘true’ members of a religion and fundamentalists .
‘Every religion is a relation between men and women bound together by a shared body of beliefs concerning their relation to God…’ (Parekh 1992 p. 14) People vary in the manner in which they prioritise their religion some it give it precedence, and make it the core of their existence and place other aspects of their lives on the periphery and others do the opposite. In order for religions to remain ‘relevant’ they must be able to accommodate varying interests and externalities such as developments in technology and culture, religions cannot remain static they must eventually change or risk being assigned to history books. This is where members of a religion diverge into categories, namely that of ‘traditionalists’ and ‘liberals’. In light of challenges from other religion and secularism the traditionalists blames the current decline of their religion on the corruption of current leaders and calls for a return in time where the religion was more relevant and ‘alive’. The liberals on the other hand ‘…historicises the sacred text without relativising its central message, reinterprets it in the light of the needs and knowledge of his age, and brings it into a fruitful dialogue with other religions whom he sees not as enemies or rivals but as partners in a shared spiritual adventure.’ (Parekh 1992 p. 24) In trying to deal with the crisis attacking their religion, the traditionalist and the liberal attempt to create ‘fluid’ religious identity without losing integrity, which accommodates changes, so thus steer away from prescribing a rigid beliefs to adhere to, but encourage religion to be seen as a way of life. Fundamentalists differ completely.
Fundamentalists offer a ‘…simplistic, narrow, exclusive and defiant definition of religious identity and a system of authority to enforce it.’ (Parekh 1992 p. 24) They do so extracting fundamentals from their sacred text and spout these as being the ‘true’ essence of their religion and for the basis for the regeneration program of the religion. The fundamentalist argues that God is the complete truth and is revealed through the sacred text, and thus be the basis of human existence. The fundamentalist does not see a separation between religion and politics; the decline of society is attributed to move from its religious roots. Although the fundamentalists believes in the inerrancy of the sacred text it is ‘… large and complex and does not provide the kind of definition he seeks. It also abstract, elusive, full of deep and subtle allegories and images not easily comprehensible to the masses…’ (Parekh 1992 p. 27) thus creating the need for extraction of fundamentals. This requires interpretation, although the fundamentalist would not agree his analysis of scripture is influenced by society’s current situation, so ‘absolute truth’ claims are somewhat nullified. So in essence the extraction of fundamentals closely resembles the use of ideology within secular societies. The fundamentalist’s quest is ‘theo-political’ and seeks to create a political programme based on their sacred text, which was not the intended purpose for the text. This causes the fundamentalist to combine the text with ‘…ideas from elsewhere, and constructs a system of beliefs and practices bearing resemblance to the sacred text.’ (Parekh 1992 p. 30).
The relationship between fundamentalism and globalisation is deep and diverse but for the purposes of this essay focus will be placed on the relationship between modernity/post -modernism, globalisation and fundamentalism. Also the growth of global communications and fundamentalism will be explored in trying to decipher the challenges that fundamentalism poses towards globalisation. Modernity ideas are built on the Enlightenment concept of human progress. Liberalism an example of ‘Modern’ ideology uses the individual as a starting point in proposing systems of rule. The individual is a rational entity, ‘They can calculate, adapt means to an ends, deploy logic, analyse and compare…'(Coxall B., Robins L., 1994, p. 67) This notion was the basis for ideas such as government by consent, limited government and the rule of law, these ideas needed to be in place in order for individuals to progress. This contrasts sharply to the pre-Enlightenment thinking in which community was the starting point of analysis and the absolute power vested in the monarch and to an extent the church was thought to be the ideal manner for society be organised. Liberal ideas led to the rationalisation in political thinking and consequently society and feed into the way institutions were designed and run. Whilst the existence of universal truths and the ability to organise human life on these principle is central to Modernism, Post-Modernity rejects this notion. It claims that the ‘…idea of absolute and universal truth must be discarded as arrogant pretence.’ (Heywood 1999 p.12) Post-Modernism rejects the superiority afforded to science and rationalism and is instead concerned with highlighting the complexity of power relations where truth claims are competing but fundamentally cannot be asserted as being certain. Post-modernism is not to be thought as the successor to modernism as liberal tendencies are very much intertwined into western political thought.
In terms of globalisation, modernity and post-modernism are related through the contexts of ‘cultural homogeneity’ and ‘cultural heterogeneity’; also reiterates the stance of moderate commentators of globalisation. As mentioned previously globalisation is often used equated to the concept of ‘cultural heterogeneity’ where the interactions of different cultures create a ‘worldwide culture’ this can be said of modernity and post-modernism due to the interaction between various societies modern-post-modern ideals have been spread throughout the world and western political thought has become the default. This is also true of ‘cultural homogeneity’ and this is seen especially in the adoption of liberal democratic institutions and capitalist economies which are based modern values. The premise that globalisation has resulted in the spread in modernity and post-modernism , concurs with the stance of moderate commentator of globalization who view globalisation as force unfolding amongst others , in this case developments in political thought.
Fundamentalism is also closely related to modernity and post modernism. The claim that society should be organised on an ‘absolute truth’ is a characteristic of both fundamentalism and modernity. Fundamentalists believe in a revolutionary struggle to establish an order based on truths revealed in a sacred text, whilst those upholding modern ideals in the late 18th century, believed that society should be ordered on truths based in science and rationalism. In this sense fundamentalism can be argued to be a function of globalisation; in that due to the interaction within cultures, a fundamentalist is ‘…really a modernist attempting to religion within the limits of modernity .’ (Parekh 1992 p. 30)
Although modern ideal are prevalent there has been a shift within western political thought towards post-modernism, this is not say that the latter has replaced the former, but there are very distinct concepts which are prevalent and are clearly associated with post modernism. Post-modernism attempts to give competing truth claims relevance, so in the instance of fundamentalism post-modernism, ‘
…opens up public space for religion, but at the price of relativizing its claim to absolute truth. By saying , in effect ,’your story is as good as mine, or his, or hers’ postmodernism allows religious voices to have their say while denying their right silent to silence others…’ (Ruthen, M. 2007p. 122-123)
The relationship between fundamentalism and modernism, post modernism and globalisation is paradoxical. Fundamentalism is at its core professes vehemently to be against the force of globalisation and the ideals that it spouts mainly secularism. However the reality is that fundamentalism attains is relevance in relation to modernism and post-modernism. This is seen in the functionality of fundamentalism in democracies; fundamentalists must essentially ‘dilute’ their message; coexist and cooperate with ‘non-believers’ in order to bring their religion into politics. (Ruthen, M. 2007)
The growth of global communications and fundamentalism highlights another relationship between fundamentalism and globalisation. The authority of the fundamentalist is based on their charisma and persona (although he/she will claim that their authority derives solely from the sacred text), which derives from ‘their’ extraction or interpretation of fundamentals from the sacred text, which (no matter how much they deny it) is related to their personal experiences which influence their extraction of the ‘fundamentals’ from the sacred text. Due to the nature of their authority fundamentalist need to mobilise the mass using a means which can convey the passion, charisma and persona of the fundamentalist; unlike other forms of authority where compliance is achieved for example on the grounds of legal rationality. This is where globalisation comes into play. As a result of integration technological innovations have been spread throughout the world at unprecedented rate, especially in relation to communication technology, namely the internet and television.
The developments of satellite networks have loosened the grips of state-owned channels on the flow of information. Television has become a crucial tool of fundamentalism, especially in the case of Christian fundamentalists in America; ‘… ‘televangelists’ such as Pat Robertson seek to challenge the secular order, by re-enchanting the world with divine interventions and supernatural events… In such programs the sacred is reaffirmed, after being banished from secular networks or at best restricted to the realm of fiction…’ (Ruthen, M. 2007 p. 128) Audiovisual technology (DVDs CDs etc) is also an important tool of fundamentalism especially in the situations where the masses are predominantly illiterate. The spread of audio technology has allowed fundamentalists to mobilise the masses without having to patiently go through a period within society where the majority or a significant part of society becomes literate, reminisce of the revolution in literacy that spurred Protestantism and the Enlightenment in Europe. (Ruthen, M. 2007 p. 131) Fundamentalists have benefited from the spread of communications worldwide (a consequence of globalization) in two respects. Firstly technological developments have loosened the grip of monopolies on information; fundamentalist are now free disseminate their message which would not have been possible without the advent of form media such as the internet. Also audio technological developments allow fundamentals to engage their audience in manner and a speed which would not have been possible, especially in the case of the illiterate masses that would not have been mobilised if fundamentalists were solely reliant on for example print media.
In trying to establish the challenges posed by fundamentalism to globalisation it is important to understand the meaning behind the two concepts, due to the fact that the use of the words are charged but not established definitively. Firstly the concept of globalisation was explored. It was found that globalisation is generally thought to be a concept or issue. However analyses surrounding globalisation are polarised which is compounded by the fact the concept of globalisation has varying connotations depending on the subject it is being related to. In the example of social policy it is defined and related in economic terms, namely the aspect of globalisation where national economies are in competition with each other and their policies are determined with this in mind. In attempting to define globalisation, it was found that the debate surrounding the concept was contentious. However common underlying themes were established and are as follows; transformation of social geography, occurring at an unprecedented speed, which seems relentless; the trend has spread unevenly, being concentrated in the Northern hemisphere, the professional, urban areas and the young. Also globalisation has multiple dynamics which have been spurred by rationalist thinking, capitalist production and technological innovations. Globalisation has also induced changes surrounding concepts of capital, the state, the nation, and the rationality. Globalisation has also been said to have created governing institutions aside from the State, in addition has also encouraged and brought to the fore additional types of knowledge differing to modern rationality. Summed up globalisation is said to be the determination of social, political and economic aspects of individuals lives globally; this meant in the sense that actions of individuals, communities and nations have resounding effects worldwide. To further understand globalisation, the concept must be understood within context. Globalisation is often understood from an internationalization perspective in terms of the growth in relation and interdependence of nations. Along the same lines globalisation is understood from an economic liberalisation stance in the opening up of national economies and the ensuing trade which results as trade barriers are removed. Globalisation is also understood in ‘cultural heterogeneity’ to mean the increased contact of cultures creating hybrid practices, for example chicken tikka massala as an ‘Anglo-cised’ Indian dish which is regarded as being the British National dish. In terms of ‘cultural homogeneity’ globalisation is though to be the force ridding the world of indigenous practices through the compliance to liberal democratic trends. Also globalisation is also thought to be associated with the idea that ‘social space’ now transcends territorial boundaries. It is also important to look at the stance of commentators when trying to understand globalisation. In this essay commentators were divided into sceptics who acknowledge globalisation, but dismiss is relevance to that of a historical function. On the other side of the spectrum there are the fully fledged supporters of globalisation who emphasize its importance in contemporary history. Taking the middle ground are the moderate commentators who unlike the sceptics do not dismiss globalisation, but are not as fanatical as supporters; view globalisation as a forced unfolding in conjunction with other forces.
Fundamentalism like globalisation is also loosely defined and is usually used to describe ‘Islamic terrorism’. This essay has demonstrated that fundamentalism is not exclusive to Islam and is also applicable to Christianity and does not necessitate terrorism. Fundamentalism is shown to be a ‘theo-political ‘ programme, in that fundamentalists use the sacred text their religions centred around to extract fundamentals , which are then used as an ‘ideology’ to arrange society by. The rise of fundamentalism is associated with use of religion for purpose other than the sphere of an individual’s personal life.
This essay has shown that in term of fundamentalism posing a challenge towards globalisation; it is more accurate to say that fundamentalism is actually a function of globalisation, a result of the spread of modernity and post-modernity. Without globalisation fundamentalists loses its relevance. The global spread of communication has also benefited fundamentalism and this highlights the argument that fundamentalism does not necessarily pose a threat to globalisation, but is in fact a consequence of globalisation. It also highlights the idea that when fundamentalism is not thought of terrorism it is in fact harmless.