Eric Hoffer's "The True Believer"
I like it when somebody brings up a book I'd all but forgotten about, so thanks to geo for mentioning Eric Hoffer's little book on mass movements,
The True Believer (1951). Geo's right, the book has relevance to what some have been saying about the essential identity of movements characterized by fanaticism, whether they are religious, revolutionary, or nationalistic in nature. The value of the book as I see it is the astuteness about history Hoffer brings to the topic. May I suggest that though members here tend to be scientifically astute, this same quality is not obvious when it comes to history (mea culpa). I suggest further that a comprehensive view of history gives another view of the historical role of religion. Before you get the wrong idea, Hoffer is anything but an apologist for religion. If you read the book I think you'll agree that he is firmly objective and detached, though of course not necessarily correct. And just for interest, look up Hoffer's story. Known as the stevedore philosopher, he lived as a young man for ten years on Los Angeles' skid row and had almost no formal education. Yet he made original, scholarly contributions to the field of sociology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_HofferHere is a passage that illustrates what I mean by Hoffer's long view. It's clear to me that Hoffer comes out with a different idea of the function of a religious movement compared with Sam Harris.
"In the past, religious movements were the conspicuous vehicles of change.The conservatism of a religion--its orthodoxy--is the inert coagulum of a highly reactive sap. A rising religious movement is all change and experiment--open to new views and techniques from all quarters. Islam when it emerged was an organizing and modernizing medium. Christianity was a civilizing and modernizing influence among the savage tribes of Europe. The Crusades and Reformation both were crucial factors in shaking the Western world from the stagnation of the Middle Ages" (p. 14, Perennial Library edition, 1951).
Hoffer, you see, doesn't regard the zeal and fanaticism as necessarily negative, but as a force that was needed to get civilization over some hurdles. In other words, he's saying that the unreason part is a necessary part (as much as we might not want to admit that).
Tweet This Topic
