The Idea
This idea holds that the rise of fundamentalist discourse cannot be explained by a single cause, but rather by the interplay of internal and external factors. Poverty, ruralization, population growth, and the policies of military regimes stand alongside the impact of Western modernity when it appears only in its material form. In this way, the fundamentalist appears as the product of a compound crisis, not as a simple response to a single cause.
Concise Formulation
The rise of fundamentalist discourse: linked to internal and external causes
Its Place in the Book’s Argument
This claim serves the book’s argument in that it rejects one-sided explanations that reduce the phenomenon to colonialism alone or to internal decline alone. The complexity here is deliberate, because it reveals that the crisis is generated by the interaction of social, political, and cultural conditions. The book thus places the reader before a network of causes, not before an easy or closed explanation.
Why It Matters
The importance of this idea lies in the fact that it gives Arkoun’s understanding a balanced critical character: he neither absolves the internal nor exonerates the external. It also helps read fundamentalism as a sign of a broader disruption in society, politics, and culture. This makes the analysis closer to an interpretation of reality than to merely blaming one side.
Reading Questions
- What is the difference between a single-cause explanation and an explanation based on intertwined causes?
- How does this claim change the way we understand fundamentalism?
Degree of Documentation
Moderate: the claim is composed from more than one passage within the book’s material.