A Fundamentalist - Postmodernist

A FUNDAMENTALIST – POSTMODERNIST (SIC!) | Jan Głowacki

CyberEmpathy - Visual and Media Studies Academic Journal ISSUE 10 / 2015 ISSN 2299-906X

Source of Image: http://theconversation.com/science-and-religion-co-exist-but-the-games-not-over-yet-1041

Jan Głowacki

A FUNDAMENTALIST-POSTMODERNIST (SIC!)



Jan Głowacki

“A fundamentalist-postmodernist" (SIC!) -

REFLECTIONS ON THE RELATION OF

POSTMODERNISM TO FUNDAMENTALISM AND

VICE VERSA

Abstract:

"The relations of postmodernism and fundamentalism – the new bridges or restrictions on culture? The reflections on modern culture and religion" The intention of my text is - according to the theme - a description, first of all, of the relation of postmodernism and fundamentalism. I examine this issue in the context of a reflection on the contemporary culture and religion. In my work, the concept of fundamentalism and postmodernism thus becomes crucial. The references to the art (eg. film) and all civilization changes of the XX and XXI centuries in general are also inevitable. What are the new bridges in the culture? What are its (ie. Culture) limits?

Jan Głowacki PhD student in the field of cultural studies at

Ignatianum Academy in Krakow



At the outset of the work I would like to highlight that, unlike - I think - most

people, my attitude towards fundamentalism is generally ambivalent. This does not

mean that I ennoble it, but rather that I see in it some positive qualities too. Of

course, I do not mean here ("bad") fundamentalism as in case of orthodoxy and

intolerance, but rather ("good") fundamentalism, because it also exists, as a kind of

canon of ethical standards; this issue I’ll elaborate and explain in the further part of

the work.

Contemporary culture and religion (eg. Islam) are often at a certain joint of

fundamentalism and postmodernism. Depending on the context, the two currents can

be bridges (ie. to build and influence the positive areas of tolerance) or constraints

(ie. to encase and somehow to censor) in culture in its broadest sense. These terms

should be presented in more details.

FUNDAMENTALISM, as many know, is extremely rich and diverse concept. Of

course, this term is most often associated (not coincidentally) with religion, mainly

Islam. The common understanding is that it is a term for religious trends and

movements of - what is important – e x t r e m e–c o n s e r v a t i v e nature. Every

fundamentalism is opposed to any changes or modifications of doctrine (not

necessarily religious), rites, customs, etc...

It is worth mentioning that, for example, in Christianity it was represented by

some currents of reformation. In Catholicism, for example, it is well reflected in

today's world: fundamentalism is, after all, a clear opposition to modernism. Surely,

the Catholic Church in a striking (and probably righteous) way decisively criticizes

postmodernity in the broad sense (as in other words postmodernism is usually

referred to).



Orthodox Judaism has, of course, fundamentalist nature as well. However,

nowadays, as mentioned, fundamentalism has particularly strong presence mainly in

Islam - but this is not a subject of my work.

It is bemusement by fundamentalism that affects the formation of the so-called

religious countries in which the Western (ie. liberal) model of democracy and religion

is strongly rejected. Thus the great paradox is that this fundamentalism was born in

the United States (sic!); about that in a moment.

The ambiguity of fundamentalism results - I believe - from the ambiguity of

contexts in which it can be found. However, this name is inextricably associated with

the XX century. As noted by Wladyslaw Kopaliński (in spite of everything, authority

and expert on the issue) in a book with symptomatic title Dictionary of events,

concepts and legends of the XX century (pl: Słownik wydarzeń, pojęć i legend XX

wieku): “Fundamentalism is a religious movement that was formed in the 20s of the

XX century in the USA from dissident elements of various Protestant denominations;

and was based on a literal understanding of biblical content, characterized by unusual

zeal and fervor of supporters. (...) After the WW II due to the unpleasant associations

connected to the existing name, fundamentalists began to call this movement

evangelism [thus perfectly reveals its substantiated ambiguity – J.G.]. In the second

half of the XX century fundamentalism is defined as the unpardonable

implementation of orthodox religion in the clerical or theocratic way (...)”11.

1 Władysław Kopaliński: Dictionary of events, concepts and legends of the XX century (pl: Słownik wydarzeń,

pojęć i legend XX wieku), Warsaw 2000, p. 129. In addition, the author’ notes: “Fundamentalism is characterized

by strict observance of traditional values and uncritical and sometimes fanatical subordination to them. Its

objective is the revival of Islam by creating a Muslim state, as in Iran and Sudan. Till the end of the century a

bloody struggle for fundamentalist supremacy lasted in Algeria". Ibid.



It is also worth mentioning, that that fundamentalism (what was marginally

indicated by Kopaliński) is associated and coexists with fanaticism. Indeed,

fanaticism inherently creates, above all, the synthesis (beyond culture, art ...) with r e

l i g i o n. As we can read in Bernhard Welte’s: “Religion as an ideology can transform

in yet another extreme form. Then, religious fanaticism may arise. Religious

fanaticism may occur when person absolutes his finite will of being oneself in the

forms of religion”2.

The core of my work, however, will be consideration of fundamentalism in

combination with... postmodernism. It is worth noting that all indicated by me tropes

(ie. art, religion, culture... etc.) sound - which is inevitable - precisely in the concept of

postmodernism. Of course, this statement is not (and it is!) the main thought, but

rather a problem that should be visualized. After all, postmodernism does not become

a research area of my work, but only a frame of reference to - broadly defined -

fundamentalism. Postmodernism is an extremely general concept; today it covers

almost e v e r y t h i n g and its “collision” - not even with fundamentalism itself (that

to!), but with mass culture, in which this fundamentalism in its own way can

penetrate - seems appropriate to me.

Fundamentalism itself, which is, after all, a strict conservative doctrine, stands

in opposition to everything “that's new”. The term of postmodernism, which is surely

a kind of apotheosis of DIFFERENT modernity (where modernism was an archetype)

stands in opposition to fundamentalism for this reason alone; or rather

fundamentalism stands in opposition to postmodernism. This means that, in my

interpretation, fundamentalism (including religious, for example stereotypically C a t

h o l i c) brutally criticizes every otherness, every avant-garde, every innovation.

2 Bernhard Welte: Phylosophy of religion (Filozofia religii), Kraków 1996, p. 248.



While postmodernism, which is a kind of the quintessence of OTHERNESS, “clashes”

with fundamentalism for this reason alone; it is on a completely different pole.

So stereotypical fundamentalist concepts (often equated with standard

Catholicism) as: hierarchy, construction, centralization, interpretation, determinism,

transcendence and metaphysics are opposed to antifundamentalism, which means

the recognition of a new reality, which is postmodernism.

hierarchy - anarchy

construction - deconstruction

centralization - dispersion

interpretation - reinterpretation

determinism - indeterminism

transcendence – immanence

metaphysics – irony3.

The faithful reflection of metaphysics is, I believe, the Holy Mass. The Holy

Mass, which is the unbloody sacrifice, is also an Eucharist - Eucharist that

b u i l d s bridges. The Spirit is present for the world, and at the same time, It is the

Spirit of the institutionalized Church and the community of believers. The merit of a

Church is re-presentation of the mystery of Its beginning by worshiping and teaching

3 After R. Geisler, cf. I. Hassan: The Culture of Postmodernism, “Theory, Culture and Society” 1985, v. 2.



about It, and the Christian cause requires the exchange between those who are

engaged in it”4.

The opposite of metaphysics is irony, that does not work in the community, and

certainly not in hierarchical community, which the Holy Mass is. Irony is a kind of

distance to reality, in the form of negation (ridiculing) of its rules. Indeed,

postmodernism is a kind of irony, and this is most visible – finally referring to the

culture – in the contemporary film. It is no coincidence that I focus attention on the

film; because still it is (of all the arts) the most influential and powerful; this will be

discussed later in my reasoning.

Postmodernism in the film - using a shortcut - is, generally speaking, the

quintessence of EVERYTHING what appeared in art in general; combination of

directions, trends, programs, ideas (or their absence), form, content... etc. etc. etc.

In the USA, you can watch literally everything: perfect blockbusters that always

have a happy end, as well as intimate and dark ascetic films, that do not resemble

anything from Hollywood with their aesthetics. Not coincidentally, a film’

postmodernism was born there (as well as - as I wrote after Kopaliński -

fundamentalism). Paradoxically, it did not have to evolve, as it has always existed, but

not in such impressive form as recently (ie. beginning of the 80th). Where should we

look for the archetype of postmodernism in the cinema, who was the precursor to this

- sorry for the word - direction of the most important of the arts? The question is

slightly rhetorical; it is difficult to answer it clearly. Certainly, directors who create

films in the climate of postmodernism are David Lynch, Spike Lee, and Coen brothers

or Pedro Almadovar from Europe. However, the creator, who made films almost at

4 E. Brunner – Traut (transl. Jan Doktór): Five great religions of the world (pl: Pięć wielkich religii świata),

Warsaw 1987, p. 129.



border between American and European cinema, while at the same time is a leading

(the most important?) representative of this trend is Jim Jarmusch. Jarmusch is still

considered as the founder of the avant-garde, the mere choice of the characters that

he creates in his films indicates that. His protagonists, as we know, are people from

the margins of American life - wanderers, refugees, migrants, looking for a way to

confirm the myths and misconceptions about that land. In fact, they are antiheroes

who do not derive any gains (ie. success), they set off - this is visible in almost every

Jarmusch’ film - to meet the unusual and wonderful just to find out about... non-

existence of this grandeur. Here you can detect a specific relationship with the

beatniks avant-garde, since the actors casually talk about the purposes of their trip -

actually just hint about them, leaving viewers to guess; looking for - as already

mentioned - the f u l f i l l m e n t of the m y t h about p r o m i s e d l a n d - a myth

that is not coming.

Exactly: “not coming”. And at that moment we come to a specific crux. Most

commonly, fulfillment does not come in postmodernism; of course, I slightly simplify

the problem and limit myself – in the case discussed by me – only (even!) to the film.

However - as (correctly!) Lenin once said (sic!) – “cinema is the most important of

the arts”. The film somehow is a resultant, synthesis, quintessence ... of other arts –

and is the most expressive. To sum up: Postmodernism in the cinema is a

nonfulfillment!

This would mean that - often, in the general opinion (which I am not

presenting!) – the so criticized fundamentalism g i v e s t h e f u l f i l l m e n t. In

other words - in its peculiar way - it builds the bridges. You can see this, for example,

in religion (which, after all, is often associated, not always right, with

fundamentalism); or even better: in faith. But faith is HOPE that even by its mere

existence helps a lot.



"Faith, hope, love, and love among them is the most important thing" - as St.

Paul said. As you can see, some (how wonderful!) Christian canon forms an

indivisible whole; often - a great shame - this canon became (re)interpreted according

to the fashion of - let's call it – the bad fundamentalism.

Because surely (as I marginally signaled in the beginning of the work), there is -

of course in my definition - "the bad fundamentalism", which is without a doubt a

limitation (eg. Orthodoxy) and "the good fundamentalism" (one that builds the

bridges, linking the good sides), for example, tradition and certain rule, and the

certain ethical principles.

Moreover, we need to indicate that the term "fundamentalism" in itself -

unfortunately - has usually (almost always) the negative connotations. It is worth

explaining that "fundamentalism" (the "good" one - building the good tolerance and

bridges) does not have to mean, and does not need to be associated only with

fanaticism, orthodoxy and dogmatism, but rather with rigor, conservatism and finally

with ... tradition. And again, I have to explain that - in the best sense of the word -

"conservatism" does not mean "underdevelopment", but rather a "model" and an

"ethic canon".

Of course, we cannot criticize the postmodernism as a "whole". The

postmodernity can surely be creative and valuable; this is certainly worthy of

glorification. The Dubuffet words may, in this case, be the creed: "The urinal art is as

important as the work of Leonardo da Vinci". It depends – I would like to add – on

what is this "urinal art" like.

So - sorry for the cliché – the postmodernism can be both good and bad; similarly to

the fundamentalism - they are in fact very ambiguous concepts. And only the

positives build the bridges and the negatives - limitations.



Therefore - as my work has to be (at least in principle) creative - I would

venture, for the purposes of my argument, the very adequate term... the

fundamentalist postmodernism. That notion, in my intention, would get only the

positives both from the postmodernity, as well as from the fundamentalism - and

then, without a doubt, it would build the only friendly for religion and art bridges. It

would unite the positives, unify the values.

The postmodernism in today's world is inevitable, paradoxically, a characteristic

fundamentalism too. The contemporary (sensitive and at the same time open to the

OTHER currents) recipient of art MUST have the ability to choose what is really

valuable in art. He must be able to draw and get to know the advantages and good

sides of both postmodernism and fundamentalism. In other words, he must become -

if I may use such a mental shortcut – the fundamental postmodernist (sic!).

A similar problem (in perception of art and its new forms) the eminent art

theorist Maria Gołaszewska raises: "Surely, it would not be correct to say that in the

face of rapid change of civilization in the XX century the modern person has ceased to

even feel the need to aesthetic experiences; in particular, he feels no longer need of

beauty (...). The satisfaction of these needs carries particular antinomies that can be

considered as a distinctive feature of our times. Noteworthy is the fact that the

category of <<art recipient>> is not unitary; it hides many diverse differences. The

reason of the crisis in terms of perception of art is both the emergence of new forms

of art and the artist's changes of attitude - towards the art, his own work and the

recipient. (...) Only the current art, arising at the same time that the recipient lives,

has the opportunity to provide him with direct, spontaneous, live experience; even



when arouses opposition, it is authentic, it often demonstrates a lack of distance and

also the involvement "5.

The ability to look with distance and with involvement to the art (and life) in the

same time is the ability to pull all the good qualities (which are, after all!) both from

the fundamentalism and the postmodernism; it is the ability to be - in the reception

of art (and not only) the fundamentalist-postmodernist – ie. the conservative liberal

(in the best sense of the word).

Bibliography:

Berhard Welte: Philosophy of religion (pl. Filozofia religii), Krakow 1996

Brunner – Traut E. (transl.. Jan Doktór), Five great religions of the world (pl.

Pięć wielkich religii świata, Warsaw 1987

Gołaszewska M., Aesthetics and anti-aesthetics (pl. Estetyka i antyestetyka),

Warsaw 1984

Hassan I., The Culture of Postmodernism, “Theory, Culture and Society” 1985

Kopaliński W., The dictionary of events, concepts and legends of the twentieth

century (pl. Słownik wydarzeń, pojęć i legend XX wieku), Warsaw 2000

5 M. Gołaszewska: Aesthetics and anti-aesthetics (pl. Estetyka i antyestetyka), Warsaw 1984, p. 125.



A FUNDAMENTALIST – POSTMODERNIST (SIC!) / Jan Głowacki.

CyberEmpathy: Visual Communication and New Media in Art, Science, Humanities, Design

and Technology.

ISSUE 9 2014/2015. Cyber Art.

ISSN 2299-906X. Kokazone.

Mode of access: Internet via World Wide Web: www.cyberempathy.com

http://www.cyberempathy.com/

Documents

A Fundamentalist - Postmodernist