Golovushkin Dmitriy

From post-traditional fundamentalism to fundamentalism without orthodoxy: the problem of the “third wave” of religious fundamentalism in the present-day world

Abstract

The article deals with the problem of transformation of religious fundamentalism in the present-day world. The main attention is paid to the qualitative characteristics and comparative analysis of the so-called “second wave” fundamentalism (1970– 1990) and the “third wave” fundamentalism that conventionally has its starting point on September 11, 2001. The article was written in the context of the two competing discourses of “modernity”, each of them gives its own vision of fundamentalism, i.e. the idea of the postmodern coping with the “modernity” drawing upon the restructuring of F. Nietzsche’s ideas and socio-philosophical concept which is based on the conviction about the incompleteness of the “modern project” (J. Habermas, A. Giddens, J. Mensch). Choosing the fi rst option, we should speak about the “death/ resignation of fundamentalism”. In the second case, we would speak about the late modern fundamentalism. This dilemma could be solved only by the discovery of the “generic features” of fundamentalism, of the “fundamental structures” that made up fundamentalism. These discourses are about the “foundations” and principles of “returning” to the foundations that create “duality”/ambivalence of fundamentalism as well as the modernity itself. Using this criterion, the article shows that the “second wave” fundamentalism grows out of the dialectics of the so-called “organised modernity” and comes as its self-refl exive alternative. It is characterised by the desire to renew the religion and the society through going back to the “foundations”. That is why it does not desire to keep the religious tradition but to reshape and re-actualise it in the new social and cultural situation. That is why it is designated by the term “post-traditional fundamentalism”. The “third wave” fundamentalism is an internal dialectical moment of the late modern culture. Counteracting its challenges and problems it includes the important elements of the late modernity itself: the extreme subjectivity and criticism. That is why it overcomes the religious tradition and rejects the theological doctrinal foundation (Orthodoxy). Nevertheless, it does not abandon the discourse of the “foundations” and “returning”, although it reinvents them according to the specifi c situation guided by specifi c pragmatic goals. As a result, the “third wave” fundamentalism may be called a fundamentalism without tradition/Orthodoxy. This proves that it is too early to speak about the “death of fundamentalism”. Regardless of the fact that fundamentalism in the modern world is transforming radically, it still preserves the “generic features” of fundamentalism, although with the prefi x “post”.

Keywords

modernity, fundamentalism, modernism, postmodernism, religious traditions, orthodoxy, secularization, post-secularization

References

1. Antonov K. (2014) “Politicheskoe izmerenie russkoi religioznoi fi losofi i” [“Political dimension of the Russian religious philosophy”]. Gosudarstvo, religiia, Tserkov v Rossii i za rubezhom, vol. 3 (32), pp. 265–294 (in Russian).
2. Armstrong K. (2017) The Battle for God. A History of Fundamentalism. Moscow (Russian translation).
3. Barr J. (1977) Fundamentalism. Philadelphia.
4. Berger P. (ed.) (2010) Between Relativism and Fundamentalism: Religious Recourses for a Middle Position. Grand Rapids.
5. Bilokobylskii O., Levitskii V. (eds) (2017) Vodorazdely sekuliarizatsii: Zapadnyi tsivilizatsionnyi proekt i global’nye al’ternativy [Watersheds of secularisation: Western civilisational project and global alternatives]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
6. Caplan L. (ed.) (1987) Studies in Religious Fundamentalism. Albany.
7. Ehrman B. D. (1991) “The Text of Mark in the Hands of the Orthodox”, in M. S. Burrows, P. Rorem (ed.) Biblical Hermeneutics in Historical Perspective, Michigan, pp. 19–31.
8. Furs V. (2004) Kriticheskaia teoriia «sovremennosti» [The critical theory of “modernity”], available at: https://magazines.gorky.media/logos/2004/1/kriticheskaya-teoriya-sovremennosti.html (20.07.2020) (in Russian).
9. Golovushkin D. (2015) “Religioznyi fundamentalizm / religioznyi modernizm: kontseptual’nye protivniki ili ambivalentnye fenomeny”? [“Religious fundamentalism / religious modernism: Conceptual adversaries or ambivalent phenomena?”]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Svjato-Tihonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia, vol. 1 (57), pp. 87–97 (in Russian).
10. Golovushkin D. (2018) “Sovremennyi pravoslavnyi fundamentalizm ili psevdofundamentalizm?” [“Contemporary Orthodox fundamentalism or pseudo-fundamentalism?”]. Izvestiia Irkutskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriia: Politologiia. Religiovedenie, vol. 25, pp. 92‒102 (in Russian).
11. Gurevich P. (1995) “Fundamentalizm i modernizm kak kulturnye orientatsii” [“Fundamentalism and modernism as cultural orientation”]. Obschestvennye nauki i sovremennost, vol. 4, pp. 154–162 (in Russian).
12. Habermas J. (2005) Politicheskie raboty [Political Works]. Moscow (Russian translation).
13. Habermas J. (2008) Der gespaltene Westen. Moscow (Russian translation).
14. Huntington S. (2017) The Clash of Civilizations. Moscow (Russian translation).
15. Iakovenko I. (2008) Poznanie Rossii: tsivilizatsionnyi analiz [Knowledge of Russia: Civilization analysis]. Moscow (in Russian).
16. Kepel G. (1993) The Revenge of God: The Resurgence of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism in the Modern World. Penn State University Press.
17. Lebedev V., Priloutsky A. (2010) “K semiotike religioznogo modernizma: semantika i khronologicheskoe sootnesenie” [“On semiotics of religious modernism: Semantics and chronological attribution”]. Vestnik Tverskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriia: Filosofiia, vol. 3, pp. 37–46 (in Russian).
18. Marty M. E., Appleby R. S. (eds) (1991) The Fundamentalism Project. Vol. 1. Fundamentalisms Observed. Chicago.
19. Mensch J. (2001) Postfoundational phenomenology: Husserlian Refl ections on Presence and Embodiment. The Pennsylvania State University.
20. Merezhkovsky D. (1991) «Bol’naya Rossiya» [Sick Russia]. Leningrad (in Russian).
21. Momany C. P. (2007) Wesley’s General Rules: Paradigm for Postmodern Ethics, available at: http://www.bioeticaefecrista.med.br/textos/wesley%27s%20general%20rules.pdf (20.07.2020).
22. Prilutskii A. (2019) “«Obez’yan’i protsessy’»: Deiton vs Sankt-Peterburg” [“Monkey trials: Dayton vs St. Petersburg”]. Istoricheskaia i sotsial’no-obrazovatel’naia my’sl’, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 24–32 (in Russian).
23. Prilutskii A. (2019) “Teologicheskie i mifologicheskie kontsepty` religioznykh diskursov laminarnoi kul’tury`: opyt semioticheskogo analiza” [Theological and mythological concepts of religious discourses of laminar culture: Experience of semiotic analysis”]. Obshhestvo. Sreda. Razvitie, vol. 1, pp. 26–31 (in Russian).
24. Riesebrodt M. (2004) “Die fundamentalistische Erneuerung der Religionen”, in K. Kindelberger (ed.) Fundamentalismus. Politisierte Religionen, Potsdam, pp. 10–27.
25. Ruthven M. (2007) Fundamentalism: A Very Short Introduction. New York.
26. Smirnov M. (2020) “Novye formaty religii v publichnom prostranstve sovremennogo rossiiskogo obshhestva” [New formats of religion in public space of modern Russian society]. Tekhnologos, vol. 1, pp. 124–132 (in Russian).
27. Uzlaner D. (2013) Kartografiia postsekuliarnogo [Cartography of the postsecular], available at: http://magazines.russ.ru/oz/2013/1/16u.html / (20.07.2020) (in Russian).

Information about the author

Golovushkin Dmitriy

Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in History;
Academic Rank: Associate Professor;
Email: golovushkinda@mail.ru.

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.