We've all heard this, one way or another. These terms get word-smithed into various conversations as tiny little golden nuggets or strategically placed verbiage bombs of analysis to persuade the listener. I recall a day when these nouns had real meaning, but today they are generalized into social stereotypes.
Another such term was “fundamentalist” used specifically and most commonly along with a reference to someone involved with organized religion. But to be a fundamentalist you had to earn it. You didn't just “think” a certain way, you had to act our in a certain detrimental manner. “religious fundamentalist” were blowing themselves up or taking an entire 747 hostage.
Today these terms mean only one thing: you get involved with a goal of affecting some kind of outcome. The only other differentiating factor is whether that involvement is viewed as positive or negatively correlated with the person performing the analysis. For example, imagine someone who advocates for the environment. If they picketed dirty businesses or advocate frequently for public recycling, or attempt to get people to sign petitions, “well, she is an environmental activist.” The key is that you believe a certain thing and then that you try to have an influence on the world around you. But activist isn't a dirty word. It just seems to mean “involved” but in a way that the person doing the analysis prefers.
Now let's look at the other side. If someone is involved in wanting to influence the world around them toward their values but the person doing the analysis of their behavior doesn't like what they are doing, then you simply change the noun from “activist” to “extremist.”
Let's go back to the environmentalist. Take them off the picket line and simply have them sign a petition to require all city management to recycle. They value the environment and they are taking action via their signature. But if people don't like that petition they just cast it as an “petition put forth by environmental extremists,” and suddenly it gets the right negative spin. In this scenario, “extremist” is basically reduced to meaning “I don't like your cause because I don't share your perspective and I will call it extreme because you are getting involved but not in ways that I support."
Back to “fundamentalist.” The greatest abuse of word-smithing seems to happen around this generalized label. According to the free dictionary the term is defined as (1) a religious group, (2) adhering to fundamental core beliefs, (3) who are intolerant of other perspectives, and (3) who are militant (historically.) But that definition is changing. Today people get called “fundamentalists” for simply promoting a piece of legislation. In fact, to judge something as “not tolerant” is a pretty subjective act in reality. For example, let's remove militant and religious from the definition altogether and see how this terms could be applied under a looser definition like what we experience today.
Let's go back to the environmentalist. They want a bill that requires city management offices to recycle. In that law they in fact want to require that recycling be mandated. So, any law like this qualifies as “intolerant” because it makes no room for alternative perspectives on recycling. By definition only one perspective wins and it would be called "a law" and laws have a funny way of not tolerating being broken. Next the proposition of recycling would be considered adherence to a core environmental protective belief. It isn't a loose definition. It is a core belief that drives one to feel that to protect the environment we need to save it from ourselves.
(Before I go on, I want you to understand that I am not advocated against recycling. It is just an analysis of terms here. Please stick with me. We are almost there.
So by examining any effort to move a belief into law we could well define the advocates of that belief as “fundamentalist.” Suddenly the term gets smothered to nothing and what was an “environmental activist” has moved to “environmental extremist” or worse yet “environmental fundamentalist.” But these are just words.
Crazy as it may seem I think it is time to rethink our dialog. It is one thing to examine history and talk about our values and align ourselves with belief systems or liken one thing to another thing to more clearly understand it. But these terms are just labels meant to influence how you feel about the person or the associated defining adjective...
education advocate, animal rights activist, political extremist, religious fundamentalist, etc.
The more obvious attempts at influencing you come in their one-two combination as they sandwich the adjective...
extreme left-wing fundamentalist
So the next time you get into a conversation and someone starts talking about an activist, extremist or fundamentalist, don't assume you know what they mean. Maybe they are imagining the old definition of fundamentalist, and you might want to ask a refining question. For heaven's sake, don't get sucked into the buzzword war...
“Those crazy neo-environmental fundamentalists are trying to get my office to recycle.”
You reply, “Did they hijack your garbage can again?”
Your friend ponders your question, "Ah, no, but they are trying to create a rule about recycling."
In an effort to cool his jets you offer an equally silly buzzword-laden reply, "Those fascist totalitarianists should keep their garbage-management-values to themselves and let us LIVE OUR LIVES!!!"
