Religious fundamentalism
Introduction
What is more here is religious fundamentalism is of great significance to sociologists
as it is increasingly important in social life. In particular, a global phenomenon which is
rapidly expanding in different parts of the world and influencing our society. Furthermore,
the occurrence of religious fundamentalism is widespread all across the world. Similarly, a
wide range of phenomenon comes under the name of religious fundamentalism, where some
are violent, and others are peaceful. In contrast this phenomenon varies from religion to
religion or within the same religion and in different countries. As stated by Emerson and
Hartman (2006), religious fundamentalism has a systematic impact on the global order and is
a threat by the use of violence. To put simply, the societal changes are caused by
globalization which is the core of social disorder. Specifically, globalization and religious
fundamentalism goes hand in hand and shares common ground and processes. To be more
precise, religious fundamentalism is an outgrowth of globalization, has strong influence upon
a society when modernity is lacking (Saha, 2004).
To further understand the role of sociologists, Eisenstadt considered post-colonial
societies as modern, but scholars like Mitchell blamed the Western world for the dilemma of
religious fundamentalism. As stated by Beck (2010), the process of globalization has led to
multicultural global society, but religious fundamentalism has brought disintegration and
defiance which is a challenge. Despite this, Guolo (2003) identified that globalization brought
Western model of society and transformed the European culture into a global system. This
process created an identity crisis amongst non-Western group, in which religious
fundamentalism is a response of Western culture. Alternatively, Appadurai (2008) argued
that globalization produced cultural fusions, with the interaction of different cultures through
migration of diasporic communities in global cities and a new cultural complexity. However,
Knoblauch (1999), suggested that globalization should not be considered as an expansion of
Western culture, but the sum of modern structure of the different parts of the world. This
conflicts with the view held by Eisenstadt (2002), that modernity is a phenomenon observed
outside the Western world and therefore should speak of various modernity. An alternative
perspective is given by Fukuyama in his book “The End of History and the Last Man”
(1992), where he failed to explain the religious intolerance and the phenomenon of religious
fundamentalism and the modern society. Even though, Pieterse stated that globalization is a
, fusion of religious fundamentalism, as the theories are the par excellence which reveals the
misconception of European culture. Notwithstanding the above theories, Eisenstadt (2002)
approached that there are many models of modernity and found in many societies outside the
West, as modernity is experienced in specific sections of the society. According to Danjibo,
religious fundamentalism is the sign of righteous living on the principle of systematic
struggle against the forces of globalization ( Lenshie, 2012). Therefore, religious
fundamentalism is an important part of modernity and should not be separated from the
process of globalization (Methenitis , 2019).
The Kaleidoscope Dialectic Approach
One aspect which illustrates the theory of religious fundamentalism is that the
societies of the Global South have reached an advanced level of globalization where
European and Americans could not reach. Moreover, Rehbein suggested a Kaleidoscope
Dialectical approach for the study which is less focussed on European culture. Having
established this, the European culture only benefits the multi-centred world and promote a
non-Western culture, it is possible to consider that religious fundamentalism is an example of
sociological phenomenon that suits the kaleidoscope dialectic approach. For this reason,
Martin Riesebrodt (2000) suggested that under the kaleidoscope dialectical approach each
phenomenon should be analysed as a separate religious fundamentalism which show
similarities but with no specific characteristics. It is clear that instead of appealing to logical
positivism and reductionism, a scientific theory could gather all the complexities and a
kaleidoscope dialectic could achieve this. The strength of such an approach is that a new
theory could be developed by studying the phenomena of globalization and religious
fundamentalism. As discussed earlier, the analysis of each specific civilization or culture is
suitable for the application of kaleidoscope dialectic approach but such a task could be
achieved with the use of sociological theories. Conversely, Kaleidoscope Dialectics suggests
that sociology analysed the modern world which has its own structural particularities studied
with social theoretical tools. Consequently, Graham (2010) distinguished three main changes
in social transformation, specifically, the ‘cultural turn’, ‘global turn’ and ‘complexity turn’.
In relation to the cultural turn, deconstruction of the gamut of nation and state dominated the
modern sociology. Subsequently, the global turn de-territorialized the philosophy to
investigate the social relations which changed from national level to sub-national and trans-
national level. Finally, the complexity turn probed the linear models of social changes and the
unpredicted outcomes resulting from the insecure relationships of social system in relation to
Introduction
What is more here is religious fundamentalism is of great significance to sociologists
as it is increasingly important in social life. In particular, a global phenomenon which is
rapidly expanding in different parts of the world and influencing our society. Furthermore,
the occurrence of religious fundamentalism is widespread all across the world. Similarly, a
wide range of phenomenon comes under the name of religious fundamentalism, where some
are violent, and others are peaceful. In contrast this phenomenon varies from religion to
religion or within the same religion and in different countries. As stated by Emerson and
Hartman (2006), religious fundamentalism has a systematic impact on the global order and is
a threat by the use of violence. To put simply, the societal changes are caused by
globalization which is the core of social disorder. Specifically, globalization and religious
fundamentalism goes hand in hand and shares common ground and processes. To be more
precise, religious fundamentalism is an outgrowth of globalization, has strong influence upon
a society when modernity is lacking (Saha, 2004).
To further understand the role of sociologists, Eisenstadt considered post-colonial
societies as modern, but scholars like Mitchell blamed the Western world for the dilemma of
religious fundamentalism. As stated by Beck (2010), the process of globalization has led to
multicultural global society, but religious fundamentalism has brought disintegration and
defiance which is a challenge. Despite this, Guolo (2003) identified that globalization brought
Western model of society and transformed the European culture into a global system. This
process created an identity crisis amongst non-Western group, in which religious
fundamentalism is a response of Western culture. Alternatively, Appadurai (2008) argued
that globalization produced cultural fusions, with the interaction of different cultures through
migration of diasporic communities in global cities and a new cultural complexity. However,
Knoblauch (1999), suggested that globalization should not be considered as an expansion of
Western culture, but the sum of modern structure of the different parts of the world. This
conflicts with the view held by Eisenstadt (2002), that modernity is a phenomenon observed
outside the Western world and therefore should speak of various modernity. An alternative
perspective is given by Fukuyama in his book “The End of History and the Last Man”
(1992), where he failed to explain the religious intolerance and the phenomenon of religious
fundamentalism and the modern society. Even though, Pieterse stated that globalization is a
, fusion of religious fundamentalism, as the theories are the par excellence which reveals the
misconception of European culture. Notwithstanding the above theories, Eisenstadt (2002)
approached that there are many models of modernity and found in many societies outside the
West, as modernity is experienced in specific sections of the society. According to Danjibo,
religious fundamentalism is the sign of righteous living on the principle of systematic
struggle against the forces of globalization ( Lenshie, 2012). Therefore, religious
fundamentalism is an important part of modernity and should not be separated from the
process of globalization (Methenitis , 2019).
The Kaleidoscope Dialectic Approach
One aspect which illustrates the theory of religious fundamentalism is that the
societies of the Global South have reached an advanced level of globalization where
European and Americans could not reach. Moreover, Rehbein suggested a Kaleidoscope
Dialectical approach for the study which is less focussed on European culture. Having
established this, the European culture only benefits the multi-centred world and promote a
non-Western culture, it is possible to consider that religious fundamentalism is an example of
sociological phenomenon that suits the kaleidoscope dialectic approach. For this reason,
Martin Riesebrodt (2000) suggested that under the kaleidoscope dialectical approach each
phenomenon should be analysed as a separate religious fundamentalism which show
similarities but with no specific characteristics. It is clear that instead of appealing to logical
positivism and reductionism, a scientific theory could gather all the complexities and a
kaleidoscope dialectic could achieve this. The strength of such an approach is that a new
theory could be developed by studying the phenomena of globalization and religious
fundamentalism. As discussed earlier, the analysis of each specific civilization or culture is
suitable for the application of kaleidoscope dialectic approach but such a task could be
achieved with the use of sociological theories. Conversely, Kaleidoscope Dialectics suggests
that sociology analysed the modern world which has its own structural particularities studied
with social theoretical tools. Consequently, Graham (2010) distinguished three main changes
in social transformation, specifically, the ‘cultural turn’, ‘global turn’ and ‘complexity turn’.
In relation to the cultural turn, deconstruction of the gamut of nation and state dominated the
modern sociology. Subsequently, the global turn de-territorialized the philosophy to
investigate the social relations which changed from national level to sub-national and trans-
national level. Finally, the complexity turn probed the linear models of social changes and the
unpredicted outcomes resulting from the insecure relationships of social system in relation to
