The Idea
This claim indicates that the effort of grounding, in its later phase, became linked to the rise of fundamentalism. Instead of the return to origins being a calm inquiry into meaning and institution, it sometimes became a means of tightening boundaries and closing down debate. Here, grounding becomes a step that invokes decisive certainty, not merely an inquiry into roots or a renewed understanding of them.
Focused Formulation
Grounding in the later phase: was linked: to the emergence of fundamentalism
Its Place in the Book’s Argument
This claim plays a decisive role in constructing the book’s argument, because it links the language of returning to the origin with the shift toward a fundamentalist stance. Thus, the book does not present grounding as an always innocent movement, but as a practice that may turn into an instrument of exclusion. This connection helps explain why the text views calls for return with caution.
Why It Matters
The importance of this claim is that it reveals that talk of origins is not always neutral. It may carry a desire to regulate and close off meaning, rather than to expand it. It therefore helps the reader understand Arkoun’s critique of discourses that raise the slogan of the origin and then use it to reinforce rigidity instead of revisiting assumptions.
Brief Evidence
This claim indicates that the effort of grounding, in its later phase, became linked to the emergence of fundamentalism. Instead of the return to origins being a calm inquiry into meaning and institution, it sometimes became a means of tightening boundaries and closing down debate. Thus, in some of its forms, grounding turned into a demand for decisive certainty more than a renewed understanding of roots.
Reading Questions
- When does the return to origins become an epistemic inquiry, and when does it turn into fundamentalism?
- Is the problem in the idea of grounding itself, or in the way it is used?
Documentation Level
High: the claim appears in a clear place in the book’s material.