Representing Fundamentalism: The Problem of the Repugnant Cultural Other

Author(s): SUSAN HARDING

Source: Social Research, Vol. 58, No. 2 (SUMMER 1991), pp. 373-393
Published by: The New School
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40970650 .
Accessed: 23/08/2013 09:38

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The New School is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Research.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Fri, 23 Aug 2013 09:38:24 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Representing
Fundamentalism:
The Problemof
theRepugnant
Other*Y BY SUSAN HARDING
Cultural
_

-Tromthe modernpointof view,theword"fundamentalist"

conjuresup a jumbledand troubling universeof connotations,
clichés,images,feelings,poses, and plots: militant* strident,
dogmatic,ignorant, duped,backward,rural,southern,unedu-
cated, antiscientific,anti-intellectual,
irrational,absolutist,
authoritarian, bigoted,racist,sexist,anticommu-
reactionary,
nist,warmongers.You cannotreasonwiththem.Theyactually
believe the Bible is literallytrue. They are clinging to
traditions.Theyare reactingagainstrapidsocialchange.They
are unfitformodernlife.Theyare dyingout.Aren'ttheydead
yet?The preachersare in it forthe money:hucksters, Elmer
Gantrys, preyingon thepoor,theelderly,the female.
More academically,the modernvoice asks: What are the
and culturalcontextsthatlead some
social,political-economic,
people to reactto modern lifeby becomingfundamentalists?
What is it about the modern world, about late-capitalist
culture,that enables fundamentalism to survive?How does
fundamentalist discoursereproducetheideologicalhegemony
of the rulingclasseseven as it appears to reject"themodern
world"thoseclassesrule?
Fundamentalistscreate themselvesthrough their own
culturalpractices,butnotexactlyas theyplease.They are also

SOCIAL RESEARCH, Vol. 58, No. 2 (Summer1991)

This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Fri, 23 Aug 2013 09:38:24 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
374 SOCIAL RESEARCH

constituted by moderndiscursivepractices,an apparatusof

thoughtthatpresentsitselfin the formof popular "stereo-
types,"media"images,"and academic"knowledge." Singlyand
together,modernvoicesrepresentfundamentalists and their
beliefsas an historicalobject,a cultural"other,"apart from,
even antitheticalto, "modernity,"which emerges as the
positivetermin an escalatingstringof oppositionsbetween
supernatural beliefand unbelief,literaland critical,
backward
and progressive, bigotedand tolerant.
Throughpolaritiessuch
as these between"us" and "them,"the modern subjectis
secured.
Academicinquiryintofundamentalism is framedbymodern
presuppositions which presume "fundamentalists" to be a
sociallymeaningfulcategoryof personswho are significantly
homogeneous in regard to religious belief, interpretive
practices,moral compass, and socioeconomicconditions,a
categoryof personswhosebehaviordefiesreasonableexpecta-
tionsand therefore needs to be- and can be- explained.The
explanations,the answersto "modern"academic questions,
invariablyblot out fundamentalistrealities and turn all
born-again believers into aberrant,usually backward or
hoodwinked,versionsof modernsubjects,who are thereby
establishedas theneutralnormofhistory. Finally,thevoicesof
modernity emplottheoppositionbetweenfundamentalist and
modernin history, producinga naturalizing narrative the
of
progressivespread of modern ideas, at times lamentably
thwartedby outburstsof reactiveand reactionary fundamen-
talistfervor.
Fundamentalists, in short,do not simplyexist"out there"
but are also producedby moderndiscursivepractices.If we
approach the multiplerepresentations of fundamentalism
accordingto modernistcode, thatis, literally, weighingtheir
truth-value against some hypotheticallyindependentrealities,
thenwe remaincaptiveof theoverarching storylineof liberal
progress which those representationsreproduce.
If we turn our criticalattentioninstead to that modern

This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Fri, 23 Aug 2013 09:38:24 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 REPRESENTING FUNDAMENTALISM 375

apparatusof thoughtand read thestoryof fundamentalism as

an intersection of discursivepracticesthatconstitutefunda-
mentalism and fundamentalists froma modernpointof view,
then, interrogating representationitself,we may ask how
"fundamentalism" was invented,who speaks it, whatare the
categories,assumptions, and trajectories implicitin its narra-
tiverepresentations.
These are now routine theoreticalmoves in studies of
cultureexceptforone thing:theyare notroutinely applied to
specificallyreligious cultural "others" such as American
Protestant fundamentalists. It seemsthatantiorientalizing tools
ofculturalcriticism are bettersuitedforsome"others"and not
other"others"-specifically, for cultural"others"constituted
by discoursesof race/sex/class/ethnicity/colonialism but not
religion,at least not Christian I
religion. knowthisfromthe
continuousinquiryby mycolleaguesintomybackgroundand
mymotivesforchoosingthisand not some other,any other,
ethnographicobject.(In effect,I am perpetuallyasked: Are
you now or have you everbeen a born-againChristian?Such
queries police access to academic discourse,definingit as
"modern"in the senseof secular.)I also knowmyintellectual
toolsare mismatched withmyobjectof inquiryfrommyown
incessantstrugglenot to ally withfundamentalists even as I
collaboratewiththemin disrupting modernrepresentations of
them.
Needless to say, insofaras academic representations of
fundamentalists are modern, then disruptingthem may
of
provokecharges consorting with"them,"the opponentsof
modernity,progress, enlightenment,truth, and reason.
Shortly,I will tryto enlistyou as collaboratorsin thisrisky
projectas I renarratethe trialof John T. Scopes, thistime
askinghow"fundamentalism" wasinvented, whospeaksit,and
whatare the categories,assumptions, and trajectories embed-
ded in its narrativerepresentations? Implicitly,I am arguing
along the way that many modernistpresuppositionsstill
operateuncritically withincontemporary studiesofpoliticsand

This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Fri, 23 Aug 2013 09:38:24 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
376 SOCIAL RESEARCH

culture,thwarting
scrupulousinterpretationand re-represen-
those deemed
tationof some cultural"others,"specifically
religious
inappropriately or otherwise
problematicor repug-
nant,and generatinga radicallyparochialimaginaryof the
marginsin whichonlysanctionedcultural"others"survive.

TheBookofScopes

The centerpieceof the modernstoryof fundamentalism as

"history"is the Scopes trialof 1925.1The termswithinwhich
fundamentalism came to be interpretedwere not cast in that
courtbattleforthe firsttime,but morevividly, morewidely,
moresensationally, moredisparagingly,morememorably than
ever before.The trialproduced highlycharged,exfoliating
representations whichcycled,and continueto cycle,through
journalistic and academic accounts,high-schooltextbooks,
novels,plays,moviesand TV dramas.The elementsrepre-
sented,like those of an originmyth,are remarkably stable,
1 Heave an
egg into the academic literatureon fundamentalismand you will hit a
"modern" account of the Scopes trial.Even those authored by evangelicalscholarsare
framed by modernist presuppositions, although, as I suggest shortly, they are
double-voiced in the sense that they are also marked by a critique of the modernist
frame.
Major sources forthisstudyinclude: Leslie H. Allen, ed., Bryanand Darrowat Dayton:
The Recordof the "BibleEvolutionTrial" (New York: Russell & Russell, 1967); John
Thomas Scopes and James Presley,The Centerof theStorm:MemoirsofJohnT. Scopes
(New York: Holt, Rinehart 8c Winston, 1967); George Marsden, Fundamentalism and
AmericanCulture: The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelism,1870-1925 (Oxford:
Oxford UniversityPress, 1980); Pete Daniel, Standingat theCrossroads:Southern Lifein
the TwentiethCentury(New York: Hill & Wang, 1986); Norman Furniss, The
Fundamentalist Controversy, 1918-1931 (New Haven: Yale UniversityPress, 1954);
Willard B. Gatewood, Controversy in the Twenties(Nashville: Vanderbilt University
Press, 1969); JerryR. Tompkins, D-Day at Dayton:Reflections on theScopesTrial (Baton
Rouge: Louisiana State UniversityPress, 1965); H. L. Mencken,An AmericanScene:A
Reader(New York: Vintage, 1982); Eldred C. Vanderlaan, ed., Fundamentalism Versus
Modernism (New York: H. W. Wilson, 1925); and Lawrence W. Levine, Defenderofthe
Faith: WilliamJennings Bryan(New York: Oxford UniversityPress, 1965); articlesin the
New YorkTimes,BaltimoreEveningSun, MoodyBible InstituteMonthly,Bible Champion,
Presbyterian and ChristianCentury;and a varietyof modernist
fcfHerald and Presbyter,
and antimodernisttheological tracts by such figures as Shailer Mathews, Harry
Emerson Fosdick,John Horsch, and John Roach Straton.

This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Fri, 23 Aug 2013 09:38:24 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 REPRESENTING FUNDAMENTALISM 377

invariably zeroingin on the image of twobig old whitemen

arguingabout the Bible in a courthouseon a sultrysouthern
afternoon.The storymaybe inflectedin variousways,but all
accountsconcur:The Bible,theold mandefendingit,and the
fundamentalists, "lost," even though they won their case
againstJohnScopes. In Scopes-trial thewordand all
histories,
persons and things called "fundamentalist" are riddledwith
pejorativeconnotations,while those who interrogatedthe
literalBible,thosewho "won"thebattleeven thoughtheylost
theircase, carryoff the prestigiousassociations-educated,
rational,progressive,urbane, tolerant,in a word,
scientific,
modern.
Before the Scopes trial,it was unclearwhichtermof the
binary opposition, fundamentalist/modern, would be the
winnerand whichtheloser,whichwashighand whichwaslow,
whichtermrepresentedthe universaland whichthe residual.
During the early 1920s, two loose and fluid Protestant
coalitions-mostcommonlydubbed liberaland conservative-
fought for control over doctrinalstatements,seminaries,
missions,and, effectively, as it turned out, the prevailing
definitionof ProtestantChristianity. They were, in other
words, strugglingto determinewhich view of Christianity
would be hegemonicwithinAmerican Protestantism. The
activistsin both camps were minoritieswho represented
themselvesas the center,as speakingfor the majority,and
both tried to stigmatizetheir opponents as marginal,the
infiltrator,the upstart,the violatorof order and all thatwas
trulyChristian.2
While some of the religiouspolemicsof the period were

2 From the conservative

camp, for example, John Horsch wrote in his Modern
Religious Liberalism(Chicago: Bible Institute Colportage Association, 1920) that
"Modernist theologydiscreditsand destroysthe foundationsof Christianityas it has
been known in all ages from the time of its origins" (p. 5). From the liberal camp,
Shailer Mathews wrote in The Faith of Modernism(New York: Macmillan, 1925) that
"Every age has its Modernist movement when Christian life, needing new spiritual
support, has outgrown some element of ecclesiasticalcoercion and incarnated some
new freedomof the spirit"(p. 3).

This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Fri, 23 Aug 2013 09:38:24 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
378 SOCIAL RESEARCH

bluntand deprecatory, mostwererestrained and evenerudite,

and overallthetonewasone ofseriousdebateaboutmatters of
monumental importance. When the Reverend CurtisLee Laws
inventedtheterm"fundamentalist" in 1920,itwas takenup as
an honorificby his Baptistand Presbyterian colleagues,who
sworeto do "battleroyalforthefundamentals of thefaith."3
It
and the othermore commonlabels whichtagged each side
acquiredmore unsavoryconnotationsin the course of some
veryheated denominationalstruggles,but until the Scopes
trial,neitherliberalnor conservative Protestantssucceededin
taking over and tainting their opponents' definitions of
themselves. Each side was able to sustainits own,dialogically
constructedyet relatively autonomous,versionof events,its
own "history" of the contest,whichanticipatedwinning,but
whichcould notassume,did notconstitute, victory.
Alongside the intensifying denominational fightsthatagi-
tated northerncitiesin the early 1920s, some conservative
Protestantministersallied with politiciansin the south to
provokea stringof legislativefightsover the teachingof
evolutionand the statusof Genesis in public schools.The
politicaldebateswere more charged,more acrimoniousthan
theirreligiouscounterparts, havingbeen taken up, on one
side, as the main battle royalof self-declared fundamentalist
preachers and laymen under the leadership of William
JenningsBryan and, on the other side, by liberal lawyers,
scientists, and journalistsin alliancewithpolitically
politicians,
outspoken liberalministers. The legislativedebatesproduced
partialvictoriesfor fundamentalists in severalstates,and in
1925 Tennessee passed a law that representedfull victory:
evolutionwas cast as denyingthe Genesis account,thus as
and anti-Christian,
antibiblical and itsteachingwas prohibited,
actually,criminalized, in schoolsfundedby the state.In July,

3 From an editorialin Watchman-Examiner, 1, 1920,

July by Curtis Lee Laws, quoted
in a sermonhe delivered at the Moody Bible Instituteand reprintedin the MoodyBible
Institute
Monthly,September 1922.

This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Fri, 23 Aug 2013 09:38:24 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 REPRESENTING FUNDAMENTALISM 379

just a fewmonthsafterthelawwas passed,itwaschallengedin

thetrialofJohnT. Scopes.
Even beforethe Scopes trialbegan, it was proclaimedthe
decisivebattlethatwould settleonce and for all whichside
wouldwinthecontestbetweenreligiousliberalsand conserva-
tivesin both arenas of theirstruggle,churchand state.The
remarkablethingis thatit did just that.All accountsagree,
regardlessof the pointof viewof the author,thatthe Scopes
trial"climaxed"the controversy, whichwas thereafter known
as theFundamentalist (nottheconservative Protestant,notthe
Modernist)controversy, and thatit was a decisive "defeat"for
whatthencame to be called the Fundamentalist Movement.4
Indeed, the Scopes trial was inscribed as "the end" of the
movement,even though the denominationaldebates and
legislativebattlespersistedforanotherfouror fiveyears.
Afterthe triala relatively unnuancedmodernistconstruc-
tion of (what was thereafterglossed as) fundamentalism
becamehistory-withoutquotes.It did notabolishfundamen-
talist-orconservative-versionsofeventsso muchas encapsu-
late them.OrthodoxProtestantconstructions of the Scopes
trialand theeventsof the 1920sacquiredthedouble-voicing of
thecultural"other,"a kindof doublevisionof themselves as at
once victimsand criticsof hegemonicinsinuations, and their
histories oftheperiodwerethereafter markedbyan essentially
modernist telos,witha senseof theinevitability of theirdefeat,
at least on earth.5Insofaras narrativeencapsulationis one

4
According to Furniss, Fundamentalist Controversy, "the Scopes trial was a part,
actuallythe climax,of the fundamentalistcontroversy"(p. 3). At the other end of the
spectrum, Jerry Falwell with Ed Dobson and Ed Hindson, The Fundamentalist
Phenomenon:The Resurgenceof Conservative Christianity(New York: Doubleday, 1981),
representthe event in virtuallythe same terms: "the FundamentalistMovement was
broughtto an abrupt halt in 1925 at the Scopes trial"(p. 90).
5
Evangelical historian George Marsden comes close to destabilizing modernist
frames by concentratingon the ways in which the trial and fundamentalistswere
(mis)interpretedin the press, implicitlycalling into question the statusof the "events"
as such. Marsden also argues that some fundamentalistsshortly came to fulfill
modernist stereotypeswith a vengeance, thus fueling more ridicule and leading
"moderate"orthodox Protestantsto fallaway. In thisway,he concedes some "truth"to

This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Fri, 23 Aug 2013 09:38:24 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
380 SOCIAL RESEARCH

markerof hegemony,thenthe trial,in effect,constituted

the
beginningof liberal
Protestanthegemony.
How did theScopes trialproducethisdiscursiveeffect?

The ForcesofRepresentation

event,"a complex,
The Scopes trialwas a "representational
multilayered,polyvocal,open-ended discursiveprocess in
whichparticipants (includingself-appointed"observers")cre-
ated and contestedrepresentationsof themselves,each other,
and theevent.
In thebeginning, thearenaofthetrialwastheconstitutional
challengeimaginedby the nationalofficersof the ACLU in
New York City who were looking for a test case of the
Tennessee law and the men of Daytonwho concoctedthe
Scopes test.RogerBaldwin,directorof the ACLU, described
in retrospectwhathappenedto thecontoursof thecase when
WilliamJenningsBryanofferedto appear as counselforthe
attorneygeneralof Tennessee:
It was immediatelyapparent what kind of trialit would be: the
Good Book against Darwin, bigotry against science, or, as
popularly put, God against the monkeys. With Bryan for the
prosecution, it was almost inevitable that Clarence Darrow
should volunteerfor the defense. Darrow was well known as an
agnostic; he frequently wrote and lectured on the subject,
ridiculingmany of the Old Testament myths.. . .
The legal issues faded into obscurity against the vivid
advocacies of an unquestioning faith and of a rational and
probing common sense. Bryan threw his challenge to the
defense lawyers,stating,"These gentlemen . . . did not come
here to trythis case. They came here to tryrevealed religion. I
am here to defend it. ... I am simplytryingto protectthe Word
of God against the greatest atheist or agnostic in the United
States." And Darrow replied to him. "We have the purpose of

modern stereotypes, but only after the fact of their invention. See Marsden,
and AmericanCulture,pp. 184ff.
Fundamentalism

This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Fri, 23 Aug 2013 09:38:24 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 REPRESENTING FUNDAMENTALISM 381

preventingbigotsand ignoramusesfrom controlling the

oftheUnitedStatesandyouknowit,andthatisall."6
education

The entry of Bryan, then Darrow, to the Scopes case

catapulteditintothearenaofnationaldebateoverevolutionand
theBible,scienceand religion.
AlthoughRoger Baldwin'sprose lightlyslurredthe pro-
Bible camp,it,like virtually all accounts,set up the trialas a
fairfight.Each side was representedbya nationally renowned
oratoricalgiant.Both pointsof viewwould be articulatedat
theirextremes,and so, it seemed,were nicelybalanced and
positioned to fame the event, the contest,in the most
dramatically mutuallyexclusiveterms.Bryanwas preparedto
convictevolutionas heresyand to defendthe Bible as truth;
Darrowto convicttheBible as wrongand defendevolutionas
fact.Finally,neitherman wouldhesitateto deployagainsthis
adversarythe powerfulcontextualassociationspresentedhim
by the trial.Darrowmight,did, use Bryan'srural,populist,
southernalliancesagainsthim,butBryancould,would,accuse
Darrowand his teamof Yankee interventionism and big city,
fancy-credential elitism.
Everybody had a stakein the trial'slookinglikea fairfight
betweenDarrowand Bryan,evolutionand the Bible,science
and religion-or else itcould nothave produceda winnerand
a loser- but it was nota fairfight.The sideswerenotequally
represented;theirrepresentations werenotequal in thesense
thatsome traveledmuch more than others.The representa-
tionsthatcirculatedin the courtroomseemed to be equally
matched;thosethattraveledaround the townand statewere
tiltedtowardorthodoxy;but the representations thatleftthe
stateand spread around the nationand abroad were all but
monopolized by the proscience camp. The case against
orthodoxyin the court of national public opinion was

6
Tompkins,D-Dayat Dayton,
pp. 57-58.

This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Fri, 23 Aug 2013 09:38:24 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
382 SOCIAL RESEARCH

thereforejust as settledbeforethefactbythisrepresentational
imbalanceas was thecase againstScopes in thecourtof law.
The Scopes trialwas a spectacularmedia event fromthe
momentBryanand Darrow signed on and convertedit, in
Bryan'swords,into "a duel to the death" betweenevolution
and Christianity. Radio StationWGN,an outletof theChicago
Tribune, made it the occasion of the firstnational radio
hook-up,so thatnewsfromDayton,in thecourtroomand on
the streets,was broadcastlive all over the countryfor two
weeks.And thenover100,somesaid 200, newspaperreporters
and photographers fromall the big cities(twofromLondon)
descendedon Dayton,a townof 1800 in thehillsofTennessee
northeastof Chattanooga.No doubt manyof thejournalists
consideredthemselvesChristians.Some of them may even
have harboreddoubtsabout evolution,and a fewwrotewith
sympathy fortheorthodoxcause. But none of themidentified
withthe fundamentalist standard,and overalltheirreportage
composedan unrelenting, at timesunbridled,renditionof the
modernvoice.In the 1920s,dozensof orthodox,conservative
fundamentalProtestant journals and bulletinshad national
circulations, they notsend"observers"
but did to Dayton.Some
did notmentionthetrialat all, and othersdescribedit briefly
and belatedly,mainlyas anotherinstanceof liberals'attacking
the Bible or as the unfortunate occasionof WilliamJennings
Bryan's death. The trial was thus constitutedfor most
Americansby the pressfromthe modernpointof view.The
fundamentalist, eventheconservative, pointofview,spokenin
its own voices, was erased, and then reinscribedwithin,
encapsulatedby, the modern metanarrative in the "news"
read,and heard,aroundthecountryand abroad.

The Main Framesand Figures

The New YorkTimeson the eve of the trialset the major

narrativeframeby describingScopes as "a mere figureover

This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Fri, 23 Aug 2013 09:38:24 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 REPRESENTING FUNDAMENTALISM 383

which will joust the forces of evolution and religion,

Fundamentalismand Modernism,liberalismand conserva-
tism."7Most of the story,however,was not concernedwith
such loftyissues,but ratherwithminutely detaileddepictions
of Bryan preaching"in the hills" to "plain folk" and the
"cranksand freakswho flockedto Dayton" for the trial.
Subsequenttrialcoveragebulgedwithsuchside stories -some
days theyseemed like the main stories-whichprogressively
homogenized,stigmatized,and appropriatedthe voices of
fundamentalists, the plainfolk,thethrongsfromthehills.
That the Timesconsidereditselffair-minded comparedto
theBaltimore EveningSun'sH. L. Menckenwas suggestedby a
side storyentitled"MenckenEpithetsRouse Dayton'sIre."8
Specifically,the Timesreported,Daytonianswere irked by
Mencken'scalling them gaping primates,yokels,peasants,
hillbillies,Babbits, morons, and mountaineers.Mencken's
pieces were indeed excessive,ribald,Rabelaisianparodiesof
both rural Americaand Protestantorthodoxy-whichwere
almostindeliblyfused in his writing.One of his stories,a
ramblingaccountof a healingrevivalin thehills,peaked with
thisdescription of a preacherprayingfora penitent:

Words spoutedout fromhis lips like bulletsfroma machine

gun. . . . Suddenlyhe rose to his feet,threwbackhis head and
began to speak in tongues-blub-blub-blub, gurgle-gurgle-
gurgle.His voice rose to a higherregister.The climaxwas a
shrillinarticulate squawk,like thatof a man throttled.He fell
headlongacrossthepyramidof supplicants.
A comicscene?Somehow,no. The poor halfwitswere too
horribly in earnest.It waslikepeepingthrougha knotholeat the
writhings of a people in pain.9

Back in town,and in court,focusingon the trial,Mencken

was not much more restrained,spendingmuchof his verbal
excesses on Bryan-the precise details of his dress, his
7 New York
Times,July 10, 1925.
°Ibid., July17, 1925.
9 Baltimore
Sun,July 13, 1925.

This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Fri, 23 Aug 2013 09:38:24 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
384 SOCIAL RESEARCH

appetite,his corpulence,his somberface,his anxiousglaring

gaze. Darrow was, in contrast,the unembellishedhero of
Mencken'sstories,a masterin court,a sourceof terrorin the
town."All the local sorcererspredictthata boltfromheaven
will fetchhim in the end."10On the day Scopes was found
guilty,Menckensummedup thetriallikethis:
The Scopestrial,fromthestart,hasbeencarriedon in a manner
exactlyfittedto theanti-evolution law and thesimianimbecility
underit. There hasn'tbeen the slightest pretenseof decorum.
The rusticjudge, a candidate for re-election,has postured
beforetheyokelslikea clownin a ten-cent sideshow,and almost
everywordhe has utteredhas been an undisguisedappeal to
theirprejudicesand superstitions. ...
Darrowhas lostthe case. It was lostlong beforehe came to
Dayton.But it seems he has nonethelessperformeda great
publicservicebyfighting to thefinishand in a perfectly
serious
way.Let no one mistakeitforcomedy,farcicalthoughitmaybe
in all itsdetails.It servesnoticeon thecountrythatNeanderthal
manis organizing in theseforlornbackwaters oftheland,led by
a fanatic,ridof senseand devoidof conscience.. . .n

The circus metaphor audible in Mencken's summationwas

widespread. It appeared in virtuallyall secondary accounts,
and it is hard to imagine any reporter resistingit. The New
YorkTimesdescribed Dayton on the eve of the trial as "half
circus and half a revival meeting," and the next day as "a
carnival in which religion and business had become strangely
mixed."12Indeed, it was not entirelya metaphor.John Scopes
recalled in his memoirsthat"everybodywas doing business" in
Dayton during his trial- stores peddled monkeycommodities
(littlecotton apes, a soda drink called Monkey Fizz, a "simian
watch fob") and the streetswere filled with vendors of hot
dogs, lemonade, books and pamphlets,religionand biology.
likethis.It was a carnivalfromstart
There was neveranything

10
Tompkins, D-Day at Dayton,p. 40.
11
Ibid.,pp. 50-51.
12New York
Times,July 10-11, 1925.

This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Fri, 23 Aug 2013 09:38:24 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 REPRESENTING FUNDAMENTALISM 385

tofinish.
EveryBible-shouting, psalm-singing pulpitherointhe
statepouredoutofthehills. . . andtheycamefromoutsidethe
statetoo.. . . Someprofessional circusperformers, whomust
havefeltat home,brought twochimpanzees. The airwasfilled
withshouting fromearlymorning untillateintothenight.13

JohnScopes'sreadingof thecarnivalesquescenein Dayton,

like Mencken's and the Times's,among other readings,
constituteda modernvoice,the modernpointof view.Circus
performersdid appear and a carnivalesqueambience did
pervade the town,but some were seen in the spectacleand
otherssawit.The journalists,lawyers, and otherwise
scientists,
liberal-mindedmenwho flockedto Daytonwerenotreckoned
insidethecarnival,even thoughtheywerejust as out of place
as anyone else. They witnessed it. The town,.and the trial,
"happened to them." They were the subjects, not the
objects, of their stories, of this history.The titles of
Mencken'sdispatchesfromDaytonwentso faras to inscribe
the eventson him: "Impossibility
explicitly of ObtainingFair
JuryInsures Scopes' Conviction,MenckenSays." "Yearning
Mountaineers'Souls Need ReconversionNightly,Mencken
Finds."

The Last Day

While the Tennessee town and countrysideseemed to

presentthemselves to thepressas a modernnightmare-as the
spectacleof premodernity- -thetrialwas morewily,harderto
nail down as transparent evidenceof modernsuperiority, at
least untilthe last day. Mencken'sfinaldispatch,a relatively
sombermeditation on themeaningof Scopes'sconviction, was
hardlytriumphal, but then he wroteit beforethe last day of
thetrial.Menckenleftearlyexpectingthattheonlyremaining
eventwas thejury'sinevitableguiltyverdict.Indeed, partof

13
Scopesand Presley,Center
oftheStorm,
pp. 98-99.

This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Fri, 23 Aug 2013 09:38:24 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
386 SOCIAL RESEARCH

whatmade thelastday so dramaticwas thatnobodyexpected

it.AlthoughDarrowand histeamhad obviously plannedforit,
they too were galvanized when Bryan accepted Darrow's
requestthathe, Bryan,takethestandas an expertwitnesson
theBible.Unexpected,itwas also themomenteverybody had
been waitingfor,a duel to the death, it turnedout, quite
Or so itseemed.All primary
literally. and secondaryaccountsI
have examined, including those writtenby conservative
Protestants, representthe encounteras a decisivemomentin
whichDarrowbeat Bryan,and manyof the accountssuggest
thatitwas humiliation as muchas diabetesthatkilledBryanin
his sleep fivedayslater.Here, briefly, is how theencounteris
generallyrepresented:
The courtroomwas so crowdedon the last day that the
judge, fearingthe buildingmightcollapse,convenedcourt
outdoors.On a platform setup forvisiting Clarence
revivalists,
Darrowinterrogated WilliamJenningsBryanfor two hours
about the preciseaccuracyof well-knownBible storiesand
about his knowledgeof scienceand history.Bryandid not
know that the "big fish"that swallowedJonah in the Old
Testamentwas calleda "whale"in theNew Testament.He did
not knowwhatwouldhave happenedto the earthif "thesun
stood still,"where Cain got his wife,that Bishop Ussher's
chronology was a calculation,nota quotation,fromthe Bible,
or how the serpentmoved beforeGod made it crawlon its
belly.Darrowestablishedthat (the authorsof the Book of)
Joshuabelievedthesun revolvedaroundtheearth,yetBryan
acknowledgedthathe believedthe earthrevolvedaroundthe
sun. In whatbecamethemostnotoriousexchange,Darrowled
Bryansix timesto say thathe did not thinkthe six "days"of
creationwere"necessarily" twenty-four-hour days.
Darrow spliced his biblical thrustswith inquiries that
impugnedBryan'sknowledge, indeed,hisintelligence,repeat-
edly inducingBryan to confess his ignorance of scholarly
knowledge.The interrogation concludedwiththe following
exchange:

This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Fri, 23 Aug 2013 09:38:24 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 REPRESENTING FUNDAMENTALISM 387

Mr.Bryan-YourHonor,I think I canshorten thistestimony.

The onlypurposeMr.Darrowhasis to slurat theBible,butI
... I wanttheworldtoknowthatthis
willanswerhisquestions.
man, who does notbelievein God,is tryingto use a courtin
Tennessee-
Mr.Darrow-I objecttothat.
Mr.Bryan-To slurat it,and,whileitwillrequiretime,I am
totakeit.
willing
Mr. Darrow-I objectto yourstatement. I am examining
youon yourfoolideasthatno intelligent Christian on earth
believes.14

Darrow and Bryan were at this point both standingand

shakingtheirfistsat each other;thejudge abruptlyadjourned
court until the next morning.Many spectators,including
townspeoplewho had previously cheeredBryanon, thronged
around Darrow to congratulatehim on his performance.
Bryan,leftalone,watchedand waiteduntila fewpeople broke
away fromthe crowd and spoke to him. If Bryan thought
Darrowhad beatenhim,he neveradmittedit,noteven to his
wife.Fivedayslaterhe died duringan afternoonnap.
My narrativedriftfiguresthe climacticencounterin the
courthouseas Bryan'sdefeat,but it could be re-presentedas
hisvictory:As theoccasionof a man'sstandingup publiclyfor
theBible,forGod, takingupon himselftheridiculeand scorn
of all unbelievers;as an unambiguousdemonstrationthat
evolutionary thoughtwas an attackon true Christianity,on
Biblebelievers.Darrowcould be castas a shamelessman who
"hated"the Bible,a bigotwho mockedthecommonman and
persecutedthe Great Commoner.Bryancould be etched in
our memoriesas a hero who exposed a villain.At the end of
theScopes trial,and at severalpointsduringit,Bryanseemed
to be constructinghimselfand theeventin theseterms,butno
one else tookup his storyline.15

14
Allen, Bryanand Darrow,pp. 156-157.
15When I sketched this
reframingof Bryan's performance- as it mighthave been
rendered froma fundamentalistpoint of view thatresistedmodernistinsinuations- it
was purelyimaginary.Since then,the encounter between Bryan and Darrow has been

This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Fri, 23 Aug 2013 09:38:24 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
388 SOCIAL RESEARCH

Of course,proscienceand proreligion accountsinflected

the
Modernvoices
eventsof the last daysof the trialdifferently.
construedthem most literally,as bearing intrinsic,obvious
meanings-namely,thatDarrowbeat Bryanbecausescienceis
superior to religion;that the truthsimplywon out; that
DarrowrevealedBryan'signoranceand quite properlyfound
the Bible guiltyof not representingreality.Even Bryan
admitted,so the modernstorygoes, thatthe Bible could not
be, wordforword,literally true,and hisdeathprovedthathe
knew he was wrong,profoundlyoutwittedand outmoded,
whetherhe admittedit or not. The people of Daytoneven
recognizedthetruth.TheNewYorkTimesreported:
TheseTennesseans wereenjoying That an idealof a
a fight.
greatman,a biblical an authority
scholar, wasbeing
on religion,
dispelledseemedto makeno difference. Theygrinnedwith
amusement andexpectation,untilthenextblowbyone sideor
theothercame,and thentheyguffawed again.And finally,
whenMr.Bryan,pressedharderand harderbyMr. Darrow,
confessedhe did notbelieveeverythingin theBibleshouldbe
thecrowdhowled.16
takenliterally,
Pro-Biblenarratives usuallypassedover
of theinterrogation
thedetailsand movedon to discussthewaytheencounterwas
representedin the newspapersand the extent to which
journalists,in theirstories,converteda bad situationinto a
rout.Accordingto ReverendR. M. Ramsay,writingfor the
in August of 1925:
& Herald and Presbyter
Presbyterian
When the trialwas over,and everyonesaw thatthe [Scopes's
wasjust as everysensible,unbiasedjudge who knew
conviction]

so reinscribedby Gary Wills in UnderGod: Religionand AmericanPolitics(New York:

Simon & Schuster,1990), pp. 97-114. Willscasts Darrow and Mencken as consciously
collaboratingin a social Darwinistplot to discreditfundamentalismby "diabolizing"
Bryan, whom Wills figuresas the benign, unassuming,well-intentionedvictim.Wills
concludes that the Scopes trial did not represent the triumphof evolution. On the
contrary,"Justas the lawyersand journalistsleftDayton,laughing and congratulating
themselvesthattheyhad slain fundamentalism,the teachingof evolutionwas starting
its decline in America,one fromwhichit would not recoveruntilthe 1960s" (p. 113).
lb New York
Times,July21, 1925.

This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Fri, 23 Aug 2013 09:38:24 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 REPRESENTING FUNDAMENTALISM 389

thefactsknewitwouldturnout,thenthenewspaper reporters
raiseda greatnoiseof ridiculeaboutthe awfulscenewhen
LawyerDarrowquestioned Mr.Bryanabouthisbeliefs.. . .17
ReverendRamsaydescribedDarrow'sline of questioningas
"repulsive,abusive,ignorant,tiresometwaddleabout Bible
questionsthatno truestudentof God's HolyWordwouldever
thinkfitto answer."
ReverendRamsay'svoicewas savvyand hostilebutnonethe-
less presupposedBryan'sdefeat and hence collaboratedin
constructing thetrialas a modernistvictory. Modernaccounts
of the Scopes trial,no matterhow gloatingor unself-critical,
could not by themselveshave constituted the trialas literally
meaningthetriumphof modernity. Fundamentalists read the
Darrow's
trial,specifically in the
interrogation, essentially same
way,and it was the overlap,the convergenceof the twostory
lines,thatproducedthe sensationthatthe modernversionof
events had literallycome true. Bryan lost in terms of
fundamentalist expectationsbecause he failedto defendthe
Bible accordingto code, which required active,aggressive
Bible quoting,an abilityto parryall "infidelobjections"and
"standardvillageatheistquestions,"and, finally, a willingness
to assertthateveryclaim,everyword,everydot and tittle,in
the Bible was literallytrue.In each respect,Bryanbrokethe
pose of absolutebiblicalliteralism, and thatamountedto his
publiclybetraying fundamentalism as well as the Bible,
Christianityand God.
The pointis notthatfundamentalists could haveinterpreted
events some other way but that, given their narrative
constraints,theycould not have interpreted eventsany other
way.Certainly not after Bryan said the daysof Genesismight
not have been literallytwenty-four-hour days. With that
exchange, Darrow robbed Bryan of the veryground upon
whichhe spoke- Bryan,itturnedout to theamazementof all,
was noteven a fullyformedbiblicalliteralist.
17 Ö3Herald and Presbyter,
Presbyterian Aug. 6, 1925, p. 14.

This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Fri, 23 Aug 2013 09:38:24 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
390 SOCIAL RESEARCH

That mightwell have been enough to have renderedthe

triala defeatin fundamentalist eyes,but then Bryandied,
definitelyextinguishingany residual hope that he might
recoup his loss to Darrow and providing,as deaths do, an
ultimatesenseof ending.A storytakesshape in relationto its
ending,theend pointfromwhichto look backupon eventsas
iftheyhad led up toit.(Imagine,forexample,howthestoryof
theScopes trialwouldhave changedforbothsideshad Bryan
survivedand Darrowbeen struckbylightning on hiswayhome
fromthe trial.) Bryan'sdeath figuredas the last event in
fundamentalist as wellas modernaccountsof theScopes trial,
and mostnarrators elaborateditas unambiguous"evidence"of
Bryan'sloss,his utterhumiliation. Darrow'swords,it seemed,
weredeadly.Bryanhad, it appeared,internalized the stigma,
and it killedhim.Insofaras Bryanstoodforfundamentalism,
his deathalso markedthedefinitive end of themovement.
Darrow's interrogationof Bryan was spellbindingand,
joined withBryan'stimelydeath,positively mythicbecause of
thenarrativefusionthatoccurredin itswake,indeed,seemed
even to occurin the eventitself.It was the momentin which
"fundamentalists" got caughtup in the modernistnarrative.
They were captured by its terms; the moderniststory
encapsulatedtheirstory.It was the momentwhenfundamen-
talistssawthemselves, as wellas wereseen,as actingout,in the
body of William JenningsBryan,modernistpreconceptions
and scenarios.In effect,under the sign "fundamentalist,"
Protestantswho believedthe Bible was true were "othered,"
internally"orientalized," notsimplyin thenumerousaccounts
of the trialthatpoured out for yearsafterward, but in the
eventitself.Fundamentalists wereothered"/¿f e" in theScopes
trial.They were presentand participatedin the eventwhich
stigmatizedthem,castthemout of publiclife,markedthemas
a categoryof inferiorpersonswhoseveryexistencerequired
explanation.The event also, of course, constituted, in and
afterthe fact,an apotheosisof the modern gaze, its authorial

This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Fri, 23 Aug 2013 09:38:24 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 REPRESENTING FUNDAMENTALISM 391

pointof view,its knowingvoice,its teleologicalprivilege,its

rightto existwithoutexplanation.

OpeningUp

I have refuseda literalreadingof the Scopes trialas "the

momentin whichfundamentalism was defeated"and instead
interrogated representations of the trialas discursiveproduc-
tionsof "fundamentalists" and their"defeat"in orderto open
a
up space in which other accounts,notonlyof thetrialbutof
"fundamentalism," mightemerge.
Opening up that space also entails resistinga series of
relatedmovescurrently commonin theacademicliterature on
fundamentalism, because they too serve, often contraryto
their authors' good intentions,the modernistproject of
essentializingBible-believing Protestants. It is not enough to
criticizepopular stereotypes,media images, and academic
portraitsof fundamentalists as "inaccurate"and to "correct"
them,forthatonlyrevalidatesthecategory.It is notenoughto
saythatearlierpredictions of a modernsecularsocietyand the
deathof Biblebeliefweregreatlyexaggerated,forthatsimply
modifiesthe story,conservingits modernisttelos. It is not
enough to say thatfundamentalists are reallyin manyways
modern, or are reallyallies of modern rulingelites,and that
modernsocietyis not afterall reallyso secular (that is, to
qualifythe binaryoppositionby recognizingthe presenceof
the "other" in each category),for, again, the hierarchical
opposition,the storyit emplots,and the points of view
engenderedremainessentially intact.
The point is not to revise,and therebyreproduce,the
moderniststoryof fundamentalism. Nor is it to abolishthat
to
story, pretend itdoes not to
exist, investigate Bible-believing
Protestantsas if the modern apparatus of thoughtwhich
makesthemtheirobjecthad no constitutive force.The pointis
preciselyto problematizethatapparatus,its representations,

This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Fri, 23 Aug 2013 09:38:24 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
392 SOCIAL RESEARCH

and its constitutive power as a hegemonicdiscoursewhich

directlydefinesand dialogically generatesits"other,"and then
to investigatethatwhichis called "fundamentalism" in that
context.
is not an inventionof moderndiscourses,but
Bible-belief
fundamentalism is. Fundamentalism is a partof modernism's
not
history, something outsideof it,alien and anachronistic. It
is nota dead or dyingphenomenon, notan essentialized, oddly
enduring,thing stuck in the past,but a multifarious outcome
of on-goingdiscursivecontests.And the power of so-called
fundamentalists during the 1980s was not a direct,literal,
objectiveexpressionof theirnumbersor theiractions,butwas,
like the Scopes trialand the "fundamentalist controversy" of
the 1920s,a moderndiscursiveproduction,forneithertheir
numbersnor theiractionshad meaning,much less power,
apartfromhow theyfiguredin themodernimaginary.
The problemwithrenarratingfundamentalists as a back-
ward cultural"other"whoseexclusionenablesand securesa
hegemonic"modern"pointof viewis thatitplacesthemin the
sameconceptualand politicalspace- thevauntedmargins-as
women,gays,ethnicand racialminorities, workers,tribaland
peasantpeoples,thecolonizedand thepostcolonials. I sayit is
a problem because it provokes a chain of differentiating
rhetorical movesin me and in myaudiences,movesthatwould
at least assure us that fundamentalists are "less oppressed"
thanother"others,"and at bestexposethemas impostors who
are notreallyoppressedat all and whotherefore in
belong the
center,not the margins.Once again, I want to resistsuch
moves and instead to interrogate"the margins"and "the
oppressed."Why are the marginsin studiesof culturenot
occupied equally by politicallysympathetic and repugnant
cultural"others"?Whydo we constantly segregateand rank
themso unself-critically in our conversations, our publications,
our conferences and panels?
Opening up the cultural margins by recognizingand
criticallyrehabilitating our own oppositional"others"might

This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Fri, 23 Aug 2013 09:38:24 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 REPRESENTING FUNDAMENTALISM 393

seemto slidenecessarily intoa polemicon behalfof pluralism,

moralrelativism, but I think,on the
and toleranceof diversity,
contrary, that the
deregulating margins makes those liberal
notionspainfully unsustainable.
Politicaljudgmentand will are not neutralizedby under-
standingfundamentalism as one of modernism's"others."In
fact,our sense of politicalchoiceis sharpenedbydeconstruct-
ingthetotalizing oppositionbetween"us" and "them,"because
who "we" are no longerdepends on notionsthatassume we
alreadyknowwho "they"are. We- situated,implicated,and
self-reflexive-can thencome up withmorenuanced,compli-
cated,partial,and localreadingsofwhotheyare and whatthey
are doing and thereforedesign more effectivepolitical
strategiesto oppose directlythe specificpositionsand policies
they advocate. This seems to me betterpoliticsthan one
grounded in a totalizingor uncriticaloppositionbetween
fundamentalist and modern.

* For their
conceptual suggestionsand editorial aid on this essay, I would like to
thank Wendy Brown, Kelly Countryman,Richard Randolph, David Schneider, and,
especially,Joan Scott.

This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Fri, 23 Aug 2013 09:38:24 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions