Liberal fundamentalism: a contemporary paradox

Fundamentalism is defined in two ways. “A form of a religion, especially Islam or Protestant Christianity, that upholds belief in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture” (Oxford Dictionary) or as the “strict adherence to the basic principles of any subject or discipline” (Oxford Dictionary). This difference in definitions comes from the two perspectives: religious and secular. Fundamentalism does not have two meanings. Fundamentalism means one person’s or a group’s continuous attempts to impose opinions and own beliefs on others.

I will argue that secular fundamentalism (i.e. not regarding a religion) is seen in our daily life. I refer to the extreme liberals and supporters of a political correctness that is taken too far. These people and organizations promote what is ‘right’ and try to force their perspectives on the rest of the West. They try to establish ways of thinking and certain behaviours and vocabularies through social media, blog posts, articles, news.

On the other hand, these individuals and organizations impose what can be talked about and what not, which means that liberal fundamentalists suggest breaking freedom of speech. But it is because of freedom of speech that they are freely operating. Fortunately, they only suggest it (i.e. the breaking), there is yet no action against those who do not follow their beliefs.

The difference between these liberal fundamentalists and the fundamentalism that the West fears is that the latter chooses violent acts. There is not the difference of religious/spiritual inclination, because some of these organizations claim to have spiritual implications – see the 5th example.

Let me exemplify what sort of liberalism I am referring to. And not the concept of these issues. I am referring to all the Facebook and Instagram pages, Twitter accounts,  Tumblr posts, and all the other means of communication where these people comment and post rather unfortunate content. Obviously, like the movement of vegetarians/vegans, not every individual is taking their matter too far, but the majority does (70% over, not 50%+1). I don’t mean to undermine whatever these people have going on. I am not trying to say that they shouldn’t have rights or anything along those lines. I am saying that the West has gone too far. And while the West shouts at fundamentalism, it practices it. Ironic.

Click on each to be sent to the source (new tab opening). And to counteract your thought after seeing the sources: no, they are not bad sources! I mean, they are not academic, and they have questionable ownership. But they are real-world published news. And a lot more people than you want to admit take them into consideration.

  1. ASEE Says that “Biological sex is considered deeply problematic and should *never* be used. It has become a weaponized term used politically against the trans community, and is inherently incoherent when discussing transgender people. In general, when an individual uses this, they *mean* to say, “sex/gender assigned at birth.”
  2. GLAAD claims that it is problematic to speak like: “biologically male,” “biologically female,” “genetically male,” “genetically female,” “born a man,” “born a woman” but better to speak with  “assigned male at birth,” “assigned female at birth” or “designated male at birth,” “designated female at birth”.
  3. BBC tells us to call everyone in plural form…  Using the appropriate pronouns when talking to someone who is transgender works on the basis of respect for the individual. Generally the name the person chooses to use indicates their gender preference. So, a transgender person called Steve would be referred to as “he”, while another called Rachel would be “she”. But if you are unsure, it’s best to ask the person politely how they wish to be known.  This is especially so if you suspect someone identifies as non-binary, in which case a neutral term like “they” may be more appropriate.
  4. Although not an official university policy (YET), FOX News quotes  “For all you folks who went to school back when there were only him and her – here’s a primer: some of the new gender neutral pronouns are ze, hir, zir, xe, xem and xyr”.
  5. And for the last piece: psychology is at fault for ‘ruining the lives’ of people who identify as animals. And this is Cambridge University research. “modern psychiatry and psychology have not been able to keep up-to-date with new post-human perceptions, which have been unable to admit the problems of distinguishing between a phenomenological symptom and a voluntary behaviour, … Feijó proposes: Following the struggles of those who have seen themselves excluded from mankind, it might be time to ask if the diagnosis didn’t have the wrong focus all along: in the 20th century. Perhaps it could be said that humanity itself is a case of species dysphoria?””.  Spiritual implications for this here: “While the online communities of spiritual Therianthropy and the Otherkin are recent phenomena, the historical antecedents of beings that are part-human but also possessed features of the animal world or of mythological and legendary creatures go back many centuries”/” in the late 1960s to early 1970s is the earliest recorded case of  Tolkien-based spirituality and also of groups claiming to be other-than-human in a supernatural fashion.”



About allebsart-alexandrabucur

Creativity is in all sorts of fields and I am trying my best to show that even the academic sphere can be made interesting and that social sciences can be understood by everyone, regardless of their background! In my opinion, we, social scientists, abuse the use of jargon and referencing. Our core aim should be making everyone understand ‘what we are on about’, and yet academia forces students to deprive themselves of originality and take for granted that a social scientist must always refer to past-theories and if one would think different, refer to other theories in order to contradict the first. But this is not always the case, is it? I will disagree with a theory through my own seeing of the reality, there is no reference but me for that! Societies change at such a fast rate and sources of research have changed since the 1800s, so then, if I may ask, why be bound to always refer to such past dates? I have written a full article here (click) as well and I will always argue that “The reality begins where we state facts of individuals living through a given period, where individuals of a society confirm the theory”. This website is supposed to showcase creative sociology, with articles written for everyone to grasp, topics that are intriguing, and conclusions that may defy the common belief. Don’t hesitate to contact me with any questions, requirements for topics to be covered, or any help in understanding social processes. [Note] allebsart does not share its work, workload, or meaning with anyone or any other business. [/Note]
This entry was posted in Non-academic posts and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Liberal fundamentalism: a contemporary paradox

  1. Pingback: Marx’s communism in a capitalist society? A Western analysis | allebsart

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s