This continues my review of articles from Reason and Revelation. Moojan's article can be found online here: http://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/BSR/Articles/2_Momen_Fundamentalism.htm
Moojan Momen's article "Fundamentalism and Liberalism" argues that these two different approaches to religious questions can be better understood as reflective of different cognitive styles rather than sociological responses to modernity. It describes fundamentalism as typified by dichotomist, objective thinking versus liberalism which is more inclined to see truth as relative and is more tolerant of changing social mores. Momen divides fundamentalism into two separate categories, conservative which values tradition as well as scripture, and revivalist which seeks to return to the original religion as found in the scriptures or in other authoritative texts. In depicting fundamentalism and liberalism as different cognitive styles [convergent and divergent] Momen attempts to universalize them arguing that if a religion is to maintain its essential unity it must make ways to accommodate both mindsets. He argues that there are four elements of the Baha'i Teachings which mitigate the tensions this sometimes creates. First is the fact that Baha'i principles already address many of the current issues of our day ensuring that even the most rigid-minded fundamentalist within the community is likely to take positions on social issues which elsewhere might be considered 'liberal.' Second, the emphasis on consultation in the Baha'i community ensures that liberals and fundamentalists alike must continue to dialogue. Third the lack of any mechanisms for establishing dogma, divisions are less likely to occur over theological issues. Finally there is the emphasis on unity within the Baha'i Faith as focused especially in the Covenant. For Momen the most important expression of this unity is submission to the decisions of the Universal House of Justice which are primarily of an administrative and functional nature, not doctrinal. There is a certain irony in Dr. Momen's arguments. In essentializing fundamentalism and liberalism Momen is utilizing the same dichotomist thinking which he associates with fundamentalism. But beyond that, I'm not persuaded it works very well in explaining the diversity of approaches to the religious life. For instance, Momen regards traditionalism as the more common form of fundamentalism in the Islamic world. While that appears to be the case in Shi'ite Islam it misconstrues much of what is currently going on among Sunni Muslims. There, revivalist movements have become increasingly popular since the eighteenth century. While it is true that these revivalist movements do not center solely on the scripture of the Qur'an, in focusing on a return to the early community of Medina they essentially reject the entire medieval tradition of Islam. It is from precisely such revival movements that figures like Bin Laden emerge. Furthermore, an emphasis on going back to the origins of religion often serves agendas which are far from conservative in nature. The nineteenth century 'Search for the Historical Jesus' for instance was hardly a fundamentalist endeavor. Ali Shariati's thought which Momen wrongly places in the radical/revivalist mode of Islamic fundamentalism, more closely resembled the Liberation Theology of Latin America which is usually classed as 'liberal.' Likewise in the Zoroastrian community the slogan "back to the Gathas" denotes a movement which seeks to bring Zoroastrianism in line with modernity by discarding their rituals and later scriptures in favor of a set of hymns directly associated with Zoroaster but subject to widely divergent interpretations. Likewise the slogan 'back to Baha'u'llah' has been utilized by some within the Baha'i community, not to further a fundamentalist agenda, but to discard authoritative interpretations. Momen overstates the case when he asserts that the differences between fundamentalism and liberalism cannot be accounted for by reference to sociological factors. He rightly discards the notion sometimes argued the fundamentalism represents a rural backlash against urban culture. In Pakistan the urban centers tend to be largely legalistically oriented in regards to religion and political conservative. The rural areas, on the hand, support socialism in the political realm and are religiously dominated by Sufi Pirs. But a sociological difference between the two groups clearly exists and cannot be explained away by reference to different cognitive styles. The same thing is true in the United States where the southern states are often termed 'the Bible belt.' This brings us to the question of whether the fundamentalist/liberal dichotomy can be credited to two different cognitive styles associated, as Momen suggests, with different hemispheres of brain activity. While Momen does not spell this out directly, he seems to be referring to the difference between left brain and right brain cognitive functions, with the left brain associated with convergent thought and the right one with divergent thinking. As left-brain thinker myself, I would argue that while the lineal thought modes of the left-brained can lead to the kind of black and white thinking characteristic of fundamentalists, the precise analytical skills which the left- brained tend to cultivate can just as easily be used to demonstrate the weaknesses in fundamentalist constructions. My guess is that a psychological study would not substantiate Momen's thesis that there is a correspondence between brain hemisphere dominance and people's theological or political stances. In any case, a study would need be conducted before such an assertion can be regarded as anything but speculative. There is something to be said for Momen's thesis of a psychological dimensions of the different approaches to religious questions, but I see these differences as developmental rather than physiological in nature, rather along the lines of James Fowler's Stages of Faith.# Viewed from this perspective both liberalism and fundamentalism exist on a continuum with neither one representing the extreme. What Momen calls fundamentalism can be associated with Fowlers 'Conventional Stage' which also corresponds with the concrete operational thinking of a school-age child. It is no accident that fundamentalism and mass literacy arose simultaneously. Literacy, at least at its beginning stages, contributes to literalness, for the reader's mind is thereby trained to see things in 'black and white' in more ways than one. The Baha'i community must be prepared to accept the fact that as basic literacy skills are imparted to new believers in the course of their deepening we are likely to foster a 'fundamentalist mindset' such as that generated by the Ruhi materials. Hopefully we will eventually move beyond that, but we should not be alarmed if this is the immediate result. By the same token as the educational level of certain members of the Baha'i community rises far beyond basic literacy we must expect to witness a great deal of skepticism exhibited during the transitional period as people move beyond more conventional stage to a reflective one. The problems associated with both liberalism and fundamentalism in relationship to the Covenant were glossed over to quickly. For instance, Momen asserts, "the concept of the Covenant means that what ties Bah�'�s together is not acceptance of a set of theological proposals which the fundamentalists and liberals will always disagree about - but rather loyalty and obedience to a central figure or institution - which is a matter that will not divide fundamentalists and liberals." This ignores the most central element of liberalism, that of valuing freedom over authority. Furthermore loyalty to the Covenant cannot be reduced merely to obedience to the Universal House of Justice. It also involves the acceptance of authoritative interpretations, matters which are bound to involve some doctrinal matters. If liberals seem to have more difficulties with the 'Lesser Covenant', the more rigid mindset associated with fundamentalism makes it more difficult for them to recognize a new Manifestation when He arises. Ultimately our faithfulness to the Covenant rests in our steadfast commitment to be responsive and open to God's will. Obedience to the Institutions is only one way in which that expresses itself. A combination of openness and obedience is required which in turns depends on the proper balancing of so-called ' liberal' and 'fundamentalist' tendencies. ---------- You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public) http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
