Hi, just a few comments in this
Owen
-----Original
Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of Susan Maneck
Sent: Thursday, 24 July 2003 12:12 PM
To: Baha'i
Studies
Subject: Fundamentalism and Liberalism
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
- Cognitive styles are
quite a difficult argument to make strongly from a cognitive sciences point of
view, I would think. A real problem has arisen in the popularisation of some of
the knowledge gained from this research area. One of them is the right and left
brain idea which, while it can provide a simple message on which to hang some
practical skill training tools, is not accurate science. Cognition is also not
the only neurological aspect involved in learning nor our tendencies.
Nonetheless, neither sociology or psychology can provide
valuable insights without taking into account the work of
neurosciences in our understanding of cognitive and behavioural responses.
For the mission of the Baha'i Faith, understanding how tendency, talent, and
learning influence the outcomes of behaviour at an individual and a social and
political level, is very important. My understanding of neurosciences
suggests that, while there are categories of behaviour, personailty, learning
styles etc, the brain is also an immensely trainable apparatus. Therefore almost
everyone can learn to raise their skill level in any field of endeavour by
some degree, whether this applies to a concrete skill
eg maintaining the car, or an abstract skill eg how to learn. The degree
varies immensely and sometimes a person has a complete barrier to
learning eg a blind man cannot learn to read visual signs, just a humans as
a whole, because of their neurological structure, may not be able to learn about
some things. But we are no where near knowing enough about these things to make
too many ready statements about their implications for the Faith as a religion .
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.
I think these are relevant to the social and educational processes in the Faith, and are certain to have an effect on the phenomena we currently view as fundamentalism and liberalism. These labels may eventually become impotent in a world increasingly influenced by Baha'u'llah's teachings.
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.
The Faith also has an aspect to it which implies that the individual must make independent spiritual judgements. If this were not so, none of the Manifestations of God would have had a mission which they were prepared to lay down their life for. We must be obedient to God. We must understand what that means as against the mere obedience to authority. Sometime in the future the Baha'i Faith will enter its winter and only a few will be able to see their way to the next springtime. Do we allow fate to carry us to that or do we exert every spiritual muscle to prevent it? What do we know or might we come to know to prevent it? And how shall we come to know?
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)
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)
