Fundamentalism in Science Fiction
When I was a kid I devoured science fiction. At the tender age of 7 or 8, my dad introduced me to his 1960s copies of Analog Science Fiction and Fact, a monthly magazine which published pure science fiction stories alongside actual scientific articles. To be honest I usually skipped over the hard science and dove into the worlds of Poul Anderson, Ben Bova, Robert Heinlein, Christopher Anvil, and of course Isaac Asimov.
Asimov was a great author not because of the excellence of his prose but because of the breadth of his vision. His Foundation series and invention of “psycho-history” is the ultimate historian’s fantasy. Asimov was a man of many gifts, a renaissance modernist; he was a biochemist, a signer of the Humanist Manifesto, as well as the author of over 400 books (including science texts, popular histories, and a guide to the Bible).
The collection of Asimov’s stories that I first came across was his I, Robot series (the plots of which are not to be confused with the Will Smith extravaganza that bears only occasional resemblance to the original stories). I enjoyed the “Three Laws of Robotics” and robo-psychologist Susan Calvin as a kid, but most of Asimov’s social commentary was way over my head. I just reread one of the stories titled Evidence when I stopped dead in my metaphorical tracks. Asimov provides a definition of Fundamentalism in this story that dates to 1946!
This inadvertent discovery amazed me. Let me give you some background. My advisor at Temple University, David Harrington Watt, has taken a leave from teaching this year to write a new academic work examining how Fundamentalism became defined as a “dangerous other.” His central thesis argues that the term Fundamentalism was defined not by self-described fundamentalists, nor even by their modernist foes.
Watt believes that our modern conception of Fundamentalism was shaped by secular intellectuals who describe Fundamentalism as a reaction against modernity. These intellectuals, including sociologist Talcott Parsons and historian Richard Hofstadter, defined modernity as progression towards a improved society as measured by the ideals of the European Enlightenment. Thus anyone opposed to scientific or social progress must be a Fundamentalist. Over time this definition turned Fundamentalism from a specific description of militantly orthodox American Protestantism into an ambiguous phrase used to describe global reactionary groups whether they be Islamic, Jewish, or even essentially areligious.
The interesting thing about Asimov’s story is that it was written before many of the works by intellectuals Watt was researching, a fact which could support his argument. So what does Asimov say?
Evidence uses robots as a metaphor for the improvement of mankind. The story describes a candidate for mayor who is accused of being an android, or life-like robot. When rumors are spread among the populace to that effect, the people begin to worry. Asimov describes it with these words
It was what the Fundamentalists were waiting for. They were not a political party; they made pretense to no formal religion. Essentially they were those who had not adapted themselves to what had once been called the Atomic Age, in the days when atoms were a novelty. Actually, they were the Simple-Lifers, hungering after a life, which to those who lived it had probably appeared not so Simple, and who had been, therefore, Simple-Lifers themselves.
Later the accused robot is advised that he is in danger: “Is there a threat of violence? The Fundamentalists threaten it, so I suppose there is, in a theoretical sense. But I really don’t expect it. The Fundies have no real power. They’re just the continuous irritant factor that might stir up a riot after a while.”
When the protagonist proposes giving a speech, he is told not to by his campaign staff: “Look, that mob has been organized by the Fundies. You won’t get a hearing. You’ll be stoned more likely.” Sure enough, a couple paragraphs later: “From the start the speech was not successful. It competed against the inchoate mob howl and the rhythmic cries of the Fundie claques that formed mob-islands within the mob.” At the end the mayor is revealed to the reader, though not the the people, as a robot by a robo-psychologist who makes the point that it is impossible to tell a robot from a really decent person.
As should be expected from a secular intellectual, Asimov’s Fundamentalists are reacting against Modernity, which is symbolized by opposition to progress, both scientific and social. His Fundamentalists are not American Protestants, indeed they aren’t particularly religious at all. Yet the Fundies form mobs that threaten to stone the opposition, a deft use of Biblical imagery by Asimov.
PS - I find it intensely ironic that Asimov may have coined the use of the slang “Fundies.” It is a logical shortening of the mouthful “Fundamentalism” and serves the double purpose of auditory trivialization. “Fundamentalist” sounds a whole lot more intimidating than “Fundie.” It amuses me that when I grew up at Bob Jones University, a bastion of Fundamentalism, the malcontents liked to use “Fundies” as a term of derision. Little did they know that they were imitating a famous atheist!
Interesting. . . .
I discuss the “Other-ness” of fundamentalists, specifically Bob Jones University, in my book Romancing the Difference.
1946 is pretty late in the fundamentalist name-game. Granted, the lines/borders had not hardened yet until about 1952, but George Marsden and Martin Marty both describe fundamentalism early on as a reaction to modernity (while still being thoroughly modern in every way). Heck — there was a reaction to modernity before the word “fundamentalism” had been coined officially. Look at “Men and the Religious Forward Movement”!
As for the “fundy” word (my spelling, not Asimov’s, I guess), words don’t develop cleanly. I was using it for years at Bob Jones University. It’s just a shorthand way of talking and writing. A term of endearment for me more than anything else. ::shrug::
Still provocative stuff, nonetheless.
Paul, this is greatly intriguing. Well-written, too.
What are you going to be doing your thesis on? I want a copy.
Nicely argued, Paul.
As for the word “fundies,” Asimov definitely precedes Camille Lewis if he used the term in 1941. I once heard Asimov testily correct an interviewer’s pronunciation of his name. I now only remember how the interviewer pronounced it–”for as his name is, so is he.”
Thanks. I know that 1941 is before my time. ::rolleyes::
The point is that tracking the geneology of a term is not that clean or precise. It might pop up in one location and then again later and completely unrelated. I’m not saying *I* started it. I’m just saying that persons can use it independently of each other.
Words are messy. Correlation does not imply causality.
Thanks for commenting Camille; it encourages me to be more explicit/clear with my definitions and dialogue. I am unsure of whether “definition” is the best possible word I can use, but for now it comes closest to what I mean. Let me clarify what I mean.
When I talk about a definition of fundamentalism constructed by secular intellectuals, I am only discussing one of a number of possible definitions. Fundamentalism was originally an internal definition coined by Curtis Lee Laws to self-describe those who do “battle royal” for the faith. Modernist theologians picked it up and used it to describe their opponents. Both self-described Fundamentalists and modernists were members of a discrete community of American Protestants.
Another definition of Fundamentalism was introduced during the Fundamentalist-New Evangelical division that reached a peak, arguably, in the 1950s. Still, this definition was internal, concerning the differences in beliefs of orthodox American Protestants. There are other possible internal defintions, but they all share in common an interrelated group of people.
Over the past sixty or seventy years a new definition has emerged, a definition constructed by secular intellectuals. Fundamentalism stopped referring to militant American Protestants and became global, as I discussed above. These men saw Fundamentalism as regressive, oppressive (a viewpoint I suspect you sympathize with), and inherently anti-intellectual. Fundamentalism was simply another in a long line of opponents to the inevitable progress of the ideals of the European Enlightenment. This is an external definition and one which becomes a bit useless, an opinion that I need to discuss further on my blog.
This external definition of Fundamentalism significantly predates Martin Marty and George Marsden. Martin Marty is a participant, because although religious, he adopts the external definition as an internal definition to describe those who opppose his liberal theology. But Marty’s big contribution begins with “Fundamentalism Reborn: Faith and Fanaticism” published in May 1980, good timing because of the Iran hostage crisis and rise of “Islamic Fundamentalism.” George Marsden joins the chorus with “Fundamentalism and American Culture” about the same time. I, and Watt, disagree with Marsden and Marty’s conclusion that Fundamentalism is “against” or “opposed” to modernity. Joel Carpenter’s “Revive Us Again” provides a useful argument against this “opposition” idea of Fundamentalism. Once again, more fodder for future posts.
What makes Asimov’s definition of Fundamentalism interesting is that he anticipates these men by over 30 years. What’s more, he is early even when compared to other secular intellectuals. Richard Hofstadter wrote “Anti-Intellectualism in American Life” in 1962 (and won a Pulizter for it in 1964). Hofstadter broadens the definition of Fundamentalism beyond a question of religious orthodoxy. Fundamentalism is just the latest version of anti-intellectualism, like the Puritanism and 19th century revivalism that preceded it and the McCarthyism that follows it.
Go back a step farther and Talcott Parsons comes out with his combined thoughts on National Socialism by 1951, though the section pertinent to Fundamentalism was written during WWII. National Socialism and Fundamentalism were both reactions against the confusion of modern trends. He calls Fundamentalism a psychological phenomenon that arose because of the confusion created by modernity.
The biggest name to precede Parsons, Hofstadter, and company was H. Richard Niebuhr, who wrote an encyclopedia entry in the Encyclopedia of Social Sciences for Fundamentalism by 1937. He also devotes several pages to Fundamentalism in “The Social Sources of Denominationalism” (1929).
Each of these men deserve dedicated posts at a minimum, and I intend to give them at least that once I am more intimate with them. My central point is that very early on in the development of this specific external definition, a science fiction writing atheist had already begun popularizing this way of making sense of Fundamentalism.
“Inherit the Wind” (1955 for the Broadway production) did its part to shape popular perceptions of Fundamentalism as well, a point already discussed by Larson in “Summer for the Gods.” It was interesting, and I believe noteworthy, that similar efforts were going on in another medium and for another audience a decade earlier.
Anywho, I will try to do a thorough review of David Watt’s book when it is released by Oxford. He is an excellent and underappreciated religious historian. Check out his first two books, “A Transforming Faith” and “Bible-Carrying Christians.” Modernists don’t trust him because he places high value on conservative religious practices (including Fundamentalism) and evangelicals/Fundamentalists don’t know about him because he is a socialist, feminist, postmodernist, and a Quaker.
I don’t entirely disagree with you, but I’m not entirely convinced that it’s that neat. My main sticking point H. L. Mencken. I can barely type his name without getting a little taste of bile in my mouth. :p THAT guy made it popular to needle fundamentalists long before any of us — even before BJC existed. THAT’s who Dr. Bob Sr. and his “culture” curriculum was admirably trying to squash.
Perhaps Asimov broadened it post WW2, but at least for the urban elites fundy-bashing was the sport of choice for Mencken readers way before that. :/
I’ve actually been on the prowl for a few months now trying to figure out exactly WHO it was that said that fundamentalism was as much an expression of modernity as it was a reaction to modernity. I had always attributed it to Marsden, but I’m think Marty says it too. I’ve yet to find the exact quotation, but the type in that Marsden book is so small that I can skim it quickly. Carpenter is writing in the same tradition as Marsden, and now I guess I am too.
Anyway . . . . this is fun nonetheless. I’ll keep reading with interest.
True, it’s never “that neat”…just look at my desk!:-)
Mencken belongs in the same group as the intellectuals I named. This is intellectual history and so the idea grows and is shaped by many different people, Mencken included.
I am not as well versed in Mencken as the others. I’ve only read his reporting from Scopes as well as occasional potshots at Billy Sunday. My impression is that Mencken would agree with a definition of Fundamentalism that called it oppressive and backwards. He writes about them as hicks and yokels. But Mencken does not broaden the definition, like Parsons and then Hofstadter, to make Fundamentalism more than a regional/national phenomena. Like Niebuhr, Mencken sees the South andthe populist Midwest at the root of Fundamentalism.
But you are very right to include Mencken in the stream of secular intellectuals who externally defined Fundamentalism as a “dangerous other.”
The real problem is how people define “modernity.” Guys like Mencken, Parsons, Hofstadter, and Marty define modernity by a set of Enlightenment ideals, one of which is essentially secular. Modernity is simply a fancy term for describing how people made sense of a changing world.
My prof is a good postmodernist and I believe that he would argue that any system/worldview/order that allows people to “flourish” can be a legitimate way of coping with society. Fundamentalists embraced some cultural changes, but rejected others. Why were they less “modern” than those who made different choices? By what standard is a certain set of choices “true” modernity?
I don’t have a good answer, but these are questions that I am thinking about. I am pretty sure that Parsons, Hofstadter, and co. were full of themselves. Sure, the winners write the history books, but the winners were pretty shocked in 1976 with the rise of the Religious Right. We won, why won’t those pesky Fundamentalists stay dead!