Open Forum:
How Should Civil Society Deal with Forms of Fundamentalism
Conducive to Terrorism, etc?

Part II: A Brief Outline in Four Modules*

Introduction

	In some recently written sections of my Theology, Volume II, I explored the relationship between fundamentalism and superlative economies. I argued there that fundamentalism based itself upon a superlative economy but that the ultimate non-viability of the latter meant that we should be able to neutralize, deconstruct and help dismantle the former… i.e., demonstrate both their defective construction and dangerous dissemination. In the meantime, however, the relative viability of the fundamentalists’ project meant we had to live with the same and that the critical philosopher or theologian would need to formulate strategies to help insulate ourselves from the relatively non-existential, ultimately non-viable nature of such religious projects…. (1)

	In this open forum I basically ask four questions:

1.	When and why is the economy, textual circulation, that constitutes a fundmentalistic project mistaken?
2.	 In what manner does the advent of education augment the critical, reformational-like style of the fundamentalistic project?
3.	How does poverty, civil disturbance, immigration, other social stresses augment the environmental preconditions for this type of project?
4.	In what manner should civil society face fundamentalistic projects (and what kind of civil society is best suited to deal with the task?)?

These four questions form our four modules, the most important of which is contained in the last module, and, hopefully, enough time would be spent on discussing the issues associated with its questions, namely, how should society react towards this type of project, and, what type of civil society is better able to deal with fundamentalistic projects regardless of their apparent religious affiliations and ethnic-cultural backgrounds? (2)

	The fundamentalistic project is a return to a pre-interpreted perception of so-called fundamentals associated with a particular religious (or cultural) project that emphasizes a superlative economy of principles rather than adopted and adapted traditional forms of accommodation in that regard, etc. (3)

*Latest version of paper: www.homestead.com/noelshomepage/noelsrelphil.html

Module 1:	Does The Fundamentalistic Project Have A Superlative Basis?

Rationale: A textual economy founded upon, and inciting of, a superlative economy, i.e., an approach based upon an absolute sense of best, i.e., better than better, etc. Consequently it is extremist, effectively contra-traditional to the extent that traditions normally emphasize ‘better’ rather than absolute standards of ‘best’ and, therefore, exaggerates or subverts normal standards of moral acceptability in an emphasis upon projected ‘ends’ that are truly unreasonable given an overall transcendental suspension of the same, but, appear acceptable given a ‘suspension of disbelief’! In the process there is created the need for a fundamentalistic re-conversion of personal identity given the cognitive rift created by such extra-traditional polarization and other forms of cognitive dissonance induced through a critical re-examination of the cognitive dissonance naturally inherent in the accumulated sedimentation of cultural history, disparities on wealth, advantage, pressures of modernity and post-modernity, etc., etc. Thence the apparent attractiveness of such a project in identity-creation given that it augments this need for personal reconstitution since its both accelerates the need for the same and, at the same time, provides the apparent means for its short-term assuagement. This approach to a re-construction of personal and/or community identity is facilitated by small communities closing themselves off, by various strategies, from the comparative economies associated with traditional senses of community, culture, etc. (4)

Questions: What is extremist about fundamentalism (in general)? How traditional is such a project? Is there a superlative economy operating here textually and micro-culturally? What types of political association are envisaged and actively sought? Is this type of project disastrous in some form or other if it does not quickly adapt itself to Modernity/Post-modernity/Contemporary conditions along more traditional, comparatively operated economic modes? (5)

Logical Considerations: Superlative = best but in the sense of being unable to approach a certain limit and/or unable to obtain the same, i.e., reach it! Best that is pre-defined analytically enters a comparative economy by virtue of its being able to be arrived at and obtained. So, in a certain mathematics exam the maximum possible score is 100 out of 100. The highest score realized in that exam is the best score realized in that exam. The best possible score is 100 correct out of 100. Such a result can be compared to any other score achieved in that exam, hence its entry into a comparative economy. On the other hand, some limits cannot be approached and thence not obtained (say, infinity in the natural numbers, e.g.), and, some limits can only be approached but still not obtained (say accelerating matter towards the speed of light; since you would need infinite energy to do so which is not possible). ‘Best’ defined in a superlative sense adversely colours a theology beholden to such an impossible practice and reduces its practical discipline to an inauthentic and unobtainable ideality. (6)

Module 2:	How Does Education Indirectly Facilitate Fundamentalism?

Rationale: Unfortunately, education appears to indirectly and/or directly contribute to the reformational zeal evinced by such individuals sympathetic to the vision of their fundmentalistic project. As witnessed, e.g., in Orthodox Iconoclasm, the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, Communist Revolutions, the Chinese Cultural Revolution, revolutionary changes in Iran, etc., and, I would add, in many current forms of Islamic Fundamentalism. In this regard, should we not ask why a considerable number of terrorists are well-educated, educated persons holding various degrees, etc? Then, why should it be a phenomenon attractive to young males; second or third generation migrants; often individuals with reasonable prospects (on paper at least) for following a profession, starting a family, supporting their families, etc? My answer to this perplexing problem is that education often brings to the fore a certain sense of an inherent cultural anomaly by virtue of an exposure to the potential cultural conflicts already embedded in their cultural matrix which, normally, are just not experienced in a critical fashion. In our own Western backgrounds, around the time of the Reformation/Counter-Reformation, there was a critical over-reaction to the perception of non-Christian influences such as the cultural persistence of pre-Christian practices of an animistic and/or pagan nature – as witnessed in the belief and burning of ‘witches’ and the like, etc. Similarly, in a culture like Indonesia, many levels and layers of accumulated cultural sedimentation are a potentially combustible mixture when ‘looked at’ through a critical lens of cultural reflection. How might the fundamentalist Islamist look at animist, Hindu-Buddhist elements in their culture (as is in evidence in traditional shadow-puppetry) let alone modern influences from the West like Christianity, Marxist thought, scientific thinking, consumerism, Modernist and Post-Modernist projects, current Contemporaneous trends, etc? In my opinion (from an uncritically exercised critical thinking, i.e., without the use of adequate overall transcendental suspensions, etc., this reformational-like reaction as a style of thought is hyper-critical, ideologically hegemonic, often has focused short-sighed, short-term political goals, is adolescent in tenor, iconoclastic, anti-traditional (in its formulations despite seeing itself as ‘traditional’), along with a strong antipathy to secularism, multiculturalism and all forms of a Contemporary political pluralism (where people individually construct/re-construct their own political and religious identities beyond multi-cultural parameters). (7)

Questions: How might an intense critical questioning of our own current cultural thinking be critical/hyper-critical of the same? To what extent is there a cultural hyper/hypo-criticism at work? What current cultural myths of our own seem to be internally/externally inadequate (i.e., improper and/or inappropriate, if not correctly formulated and/or celebrated?)? Might current political controversies be sited here and/or the very shifting of our psychic center in regards to the same, as a paradigm-shift, itself be unsettling (for those who do not feel such a shift should be adopted?)?  (8)

Logical Considerations: Is there not a clash here between a self-constructed, hypothetical sense of self-identity and a current, socially constructed sense of self-identity? E.g., hypothetically imagine the following scenarios: I am a fervent Muslim Indonesian and ask myself should I be watching a Hindu-Buddhist puppet play, etc? Or, as a practicing Christian should I call Sunday ‘Sunday, the day of the Sun [god]’? (9)

Module 3:	To What Extent Are Socio-Economic Conditions Implicated?

Rationale: Poverty, lack of employment, loss of livelihood, loss of opportunity, political uncertainty, civil war, disenfranchisement, colonialization, other forms of social alienation, etc., all can contribute to forms of political polarization. It would appear that with perceived forms of a relative diminution in status, etc., be that political, social, economic, religious, etc., that such apparent relative loss could contribute to a polarization of ideological reflections in this regard. E.g., the increased marginalization of Hamas and the Gazan Palestinians has only exacerbated and accelerated terrorist acts directed towards the State of Israel coming from that quarter? Would one be correct, as in this instance, that increasing marginalization only induces further political polarization despite the fact that most people would decidedly opt for a comfortable middle-class lifestyle (as portrayed repetitively on television sitcoms, soaps, etc.)? So let us ask ourselves what relatively adverse socio-economic factors might contribute to this ongoing and/or growing phenomenon of the fundamentalism and associated forms of terrorism? (10)

Questions: How, differently, might poverty effect a non-migrant versus a migrant? How might an extremist background influence a relatively disenfranchised person versus a relatively non-disenfranchised person (in their own country?)? To what extent is/are a grand narrative/grand narratives still present in our Contemporary settings? (11)

Logical Considerations:  To what extent are such negative factors instrumental in converting potential consumers into actual promoters, etc., of this type of extremist ideology? And, to what extent does such a discrepancy between ideality and reality fuel this conversion to a terrorist approach?  In the performance of  terrorist activity to what extent socio-economic influences might play in this regard? (12)

Module 4:	How Should Civil Society Face Fundamentalism?

Rationale: The consequences of terrorist acts can be horrendous! A society quite naturally should seek to prevent their execution! How might this type of counter-project be conducted? That the extremist projects (with or without overt act of terrorism) being seen as ‘beds’ or ‘hot-houses’ for potential terrorist behaviour should be deconstructed or dismantled, preferably by their own erstwhile adherents. How might the deconstruction of this type of absolutistic project be harmonized? Be realized? Might it be, in turn, seen as a form of extremism? (13)

Questions: What is civil society, and, are all societies ‘civil’ to some extent by virtue of their ‘democratic’ dissemination of power (to the extent that people generally give their consent/don’t withhold their consent in the overall functioning of that society even if ostensively non-democratic in orientation)? (14)

Practical Considerations:  If such an extremist position, based upon unapproachable and unobtainable realization of goals is defective in its exercise why should it persist in the long-tern? In the short-term we could proffer such advice to such an extent that such a project is seen as untenable through deconstruction. Otherwise the project might be better treated as a candidate for dismantling. A number of other avenues were suggested, e.g., co-opting the parent culture in a collective disowning of that aspect of its traditions that have been re-defined in an absolutistic style, in which members of that culture have strayed, and, which terrorism is finding converts. What other suggestions might we like to include here? (15)

Logical Considerations:  How might a process of deconstruction be performed logically? And, how might a process of logical demolition also be conducted? (16)

Problem: What type of civil society is better able to protect its citizens from extremist activity? Should democracy be more transparent or less transparent? Does legislation along the lines of the Patriot Act, and its equivalent in Australia, defeat itself in this regard? How does a cult or sect turn into a religious tradition; become less extreme and more comparatively economic in its circulation of texts, the truth, etc? (17)

	

Provisional Conclusion

	Extremist positions are situated in the ultimate non-viability of non-comparative economies (usually superlative economies). However, such philosophies can have a relative successfulness by virtue of their utilization of an apparently successfully functioning religious genre of practice (usually appealed to through quotation and precedent along with an inauthentic repetitive recitation of the same). (18)

	As philosophies they need to be engaged and neutralized and deconstructed or dismantled through exposing their inauthentic consequences for the traditionally accepted spiritual life of individuals and communities (as situated within their better established parent traditions). (19)

At the same time society needs to be proactive in insulating society in general from extremist performances. In this counter-reaction demonization of the relative other should not be allowed to flourish. Moreover, it is claimed by myself, that a greater degree of democratic transparency (that better defines a civil society) would ensure a better adaptability by society in this process of a counter-extremist counter-reaction. Furthermore, it would expose political forces that seek to inauthentically gain power, etc., through masquerading behind such acts of counter-terrorist behaviour. Moreover the rule of law should be augmented in this regard and not subverted (through, e.g., a suspension of habeas corpus, detention without adequate access to courts, use of torture, non-transparency of detainment, etc!)! (20) 

	In adopting our four part program of non-exclusion, inclusion, conclusion and re-inclusion we should recognize that this formula also implies a social dimension, as well as in a religious dimension, namely, non-exclusion in society, inclusion therein, the conclusive consequences of the same in the form of authentic responses to be made by all parties concerned, and, an existential re-inclusion of all parties back into our communities, cultures and our collective sense of a place in world-culture! (21)

	As this paper was prepared for an open forum let me now proffer a brief guideline for a debate on this topic. (22)

 Noël Tointon, Sydney, 24.1.08.

Additional Note: Some people, it would appear, become obsessed with certain ideas (often of a religious and/or political nature, but not always). This obsession is conducted to such an extent that in reference to such ideas they effectively take on a borderline psychosis, a psychotic-like state of affairs I have referred to as a pseudo-psychosis; this state of affairs being arrived at through an excessive ontological commitment (and/or an excess epistemological commitment). Just as in our interactions with a true psychosis, processes of remonstration are usually non-effective (and sometimes quite dangerous for the person conducting such a process; such intervention and ‘interrogation’, if anything, often reinforcing the psychotic flavour of this fixed type of commitment). On reflection I feel the best course of action here is to indirectly remonstrate with this type of person but in such a manner that you spell out to them the possible and probable consequences of their over-commitment to that type of position, especially if it were to be acted upon. A delicate manoeuvre best conducted without confrontation. Such a person, beyond direct and/or indirect forms of remonstration, then should be informed that they should suffer the consequences of their non-dispassionate attitudes and actions towards others. We can only hope, thereafter, to merely insulate others associated with such extremists by re-directing such folk from such an often disastrous course of positioning in and through and to positive forms of re-positioning (in such a manner that this less over-committed type of person be regarded as less culpable and open to processes of genuine, self-motivated rehabilitation that might assist them to be better re-integrate themselves back into their culture(s) and cultural communities and into the wider community (without an absolute reference to boundaries, absolute points of distinction and other forms of misguided exclusivity, etc.). N.

Open Forum:
How Should Civil Society Deal with Forms of Fundamentalism
Conducive to Terrorism, etc?

A list of possible guidelines that might be able to achieve this end?

1.	Recognize the relationship between absolute superlative economies and terrorist economies (noting the viability of comparative economies versus absolute superlative economies and ascriptive economies). 
2.	In a debate with extremists demonstrate the ultimate impossibility of their types of projects…
3.	Explain why, superficially, they might be attractive and seem to be viable relatively (as relatively viable only, i.e., possessing the semblance of possibility only).
4.	And either convert such projects to comparative economies or dismantle the same.
5.	Insist critically on the viability of theological or theological-like projects.
6.	Utilize the four part program of non-exclusion, inclusion, conclusion and re-inclusion when and where appropriate.
7.	Isolate the consequences of such a potential threat through neutralization and insulation.
8.	Demand democratic processes of rectification in a full transparency of process.
9.	Insist on political bipartisanship and 
10.	Non-demonization of associated communities and individuals, etc.
11.	Diffuse pre-conditionally, etc., conditions that promote extremism.
12.	Support open inter-faith dialogues and modes of mutual support, etc.
13.	Adopt a direct consequentialist position with perpetrators, potential perpetrators, potential victims, survivors, and relatives and friends of the same.
14.	Seek localized and broad-spectrum changes in attitude, etc.
15.	Insist that all religious-traditions be responsible for their membership to the extent they can take such ownership.
16.	Seek an overall resolution of this type of condition (rather than concentrating merely on individuals in this regard).
17.	Insist that communities in question actively and positively debate extremist projects.
18.	Recognize also the social dimension of our four part formula of non-exclusion, inclusion, conclusion and re-inclusion!
19.	Collectively seek paths of resolution, compensation, retribution, re-education, remonstration and rectification, etc!
20.	Other suggestions……………………………………………………… (23)