The criticism of the article “Fanaticism as an Educational Problem” focuses on the selective treatment of fanaticism symptoms, ignoring the role of political polarization and age in analysing this phenomenon. Gałkowski and Gałkowski’s article (2023) presents a valuable proposal for a minimal educational program, but it requires considering a broader social, cultural, and individual context in diagnosing fanaticism and applying effective tools to counteract this phenomenon. The starting point of the debate is the observation that fanaticism remains a negatively perceived label that excludes individuals or social groups, hence the need for clarification on how cultural diversity and intercultural communication can contribute to it. Fanaticism is associated with an existential crisis, but there are also specific developmental phenomena in children that can be mistaken for fanaticism. Literary works can help in understanding this phenomenon. The proposed examples indicate that fanaticism is primarily a group phenomenon characterized by action rather than solely an attitude to the truth. In preventing and dismantling fanaticism, it is important to consider emotions related to uncertainty and develop skills to cope with it. Finding effective alternatives to psychoactive substances in emotional regulation and violence prevention poses a challenge. Fanaticism can be present in the inertia of customs and can be recognized by sensitive young people in society’s reactions to demands for social change. The situation of individuals expelled at the Polish-Belarusian border highlights the difference between uncompromising commitment and fanaticism. Human rights should be respected without exceptions, and the willingness to accept external judgment distinguishes activists from fanatics. Building relationships free from fanaticism in communities, especially in the case of refugees, requires considering the atmosphere and pedagogy of the place, which play a crucial role in combating fanaticism.
Read full abstract