Ryan, Debi, and Toren Cragun's Blog

Berger, Peter L. 1990. The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion. Anchor.

Rating:
9

Summary:
The book begins with a recap of Berger and Luckmann’s theory of the social construction of reality. Berger then proceeds to apply that theory to religion, seeing it as a construction of society, “Religion is the human enterprise by which a sacred cosmos is established. Put differently, religion is cosmization in a sacred mode. By sacred is meant here a quality of mysterious and awesome power, other than man and yet related to him, which is believed to reside in certain objects of experience” (p. 25). This theoretical approach is, of course, a naturalistic one that undermines the supernatural origins of religion claimed by its adherents. Even though Berger does not dwell on this fact, it is both hinted at and implied by the theory.

In addition to presenting religion as a social construction, Berger discusses a number of additional elements of religion. One of these is the role of religion as legitimator: religion has been used for centuries to justify war and murder (see p. 32) and as a source of organizational or institutional authority (see p. 33). Another element of religion discussed is its increasing similarity to an economic market in the U.S., which Berger argues to be driven by secularization and correlated with pluralism (see p. 135).

One more element of religion is discussed that is, as far as I know, unique to Berger’s treatment in this book but has been extensively employed in the scientific analysis of religion – plausibility structures. “The reality of the Christian world depends upon the presence of social structures within which this reality is taken for granted and within which successive generations of individuals are socialized in such a way that this world will be real to them. When this plausibility structure loses its intactness or continuity, the Christian world begins to totter and its reality ceases to impose itself as self-evident truth” (p. 46). In short, plausibility structures are the societal elements that provide the support for a set of beliefs (not necessarily religious), including people, institutions, and the processes by which the beliefs are spread, e.g. socialization. Berger exhaustively explores this idea, but I will mention just one more point he makes, “When an entire society serves as the plausibility structure for a religiously legitimated world, all the important social processes within it serve to confirm and reconfirm the reality of this world” (p. 47). In other words, in certain societies, every component of society functions to reinforce the belief system (think of a Muslim country like Iran, where everything is structured to reinforce the Islamic faith as reality).

Review:
Fascinating application of social constructionist thought to religion (plus a lot more)

I don’t know if it is accurate to say that I am biased in favor of Berger’s approach because I find the social constructionist approach to society compelling, but I should make this known known at the beginning of my review. I do adhere to the social constructionist school of thought, which basically argues that humans construct society but also recognizes the reciprocal influence of society on humans. Applying this approach to religion not only makes perfect sense, but is a fundamentally important component of understanding religion.

As far as this book goes, it is an excellent book for a number of reasons. First, of course, is that it presents a convincing argument that religion is a social construction. But it also presents a number of additional insights, including the relationship between secularization, pluralism, and religious ‘markets’ as well as the idea of plausibility structures. Additionally, while cryptically written for those unfamiliar with social constructionist thought or the sociology of religion, there are numerous instances of striking insight, like the following, “It has been rightly said that society, in its essence, is a memory. It may be added that, through most of human history, this memory has been a religious one” (p. 41).

Despite all of the positive elements of this book, it does have a couple of problems. First, as I briefly noted above, it is laden with jargon, likely making it unreadable to those unfamiliar with these ideas and concepts. Second, the author has a tendency to get off on tangents that are seemingly unrelated. This is actually surprising given that the book is relatively short.

There are also a couple of oversights where the author could have explored the implications of his theory in greater detail but chose not to. For instance, in discussing religion as legitimator, Berger says, “Religion legitimates social institutions by bestowing upon them an ultimately valid ontological status, that is, by locating them within a sacred and cosmic frame of reference” (p. 33). While this is an important insight in its own right, there is an additional insight that goes along with it: if religion legitimates an institution, like a government for instance, that government is ultimately answerable to the religion. Thus, if the government somehow loses favor with the religion, the religion can de-legitimize the government. Of course, seldom is a relationship between two significant social constructions so simple; often the government will simultaneously try to de-legitimize the religion as the provider of legitimacy. Even so, this idea illustrates the remarkable power of religion as a legitimator.

Despite some small oversights and a number of confusing and obfuscated tangents, this really is an excellent text and truly a classic in the sociology of religion. I highly recommend it for any serious student of religion for understanding how religion is created and maintained as a social construction.

Streetwise: Race, Class, and Change in an Urban Community

Author:
Elijah Anderson

Publisher:
University Of Chicago Press

Date of Publication:
1990

ISBN:
0226018156

Rating:
7

Summary:
The basic premise of the book is summarized on page 6, “In essence, a “streetwise” person is one who understands “how to behave” in uncertain public places.” This is an important issue for the author, Elijah Anderson, as he is exploring the intersection between two disparate neighborhoods, one gentrified and one ghetto. Because these neighborhoods overlap to some degree, the gentrifying whites in the ‘Village’ section of Northton occasionally run into situations they have to negotiate that involve dealing with ‘street’ blacks. Anderson is interested in the idea of being ‘streetwise’ and how it affects life in these two communities.

To explore this idea, Anderson engaged in fieldwork in the Village-Northton area of a city (the city is unnamed but is likely Philadelphia) from 1975 through 1989. While I believe the author mentions it in passing, the reason he chooses this area for fieldwork is because he lives there (which makes his methodology a little less valid in that he may be more subject to bias). Anderson describes the Village Northton area as encompassing “two communities – one black and low income to very poor (with an extremely high infant mortality rate), the other racially mixed but becoming increasingly middle to upper income and white” (p. ix).

In exploring the idea of being ‘streetwise’, Anderson talks at great length about the two communities. In fact, one might wonder if the theme – being ‘streetwise’ – was actually just included in the book after he had written up his field notes and needed a theme to put it all together as the bulk of the book is basically rich description of the people of the two communities. Topics covered include: demographics and physical characteristics of the two communities, ‘oldheads,’ youth sex in the ghetto section of Northon, the drug trade, the changing demographics of the Village section of Northton, being a black male in the inner-city and negotiating that identity (framed culturally but really just an unreferenced rehash of symbolic interactionism) when not in all-black neighborhoods like the Village.

One of the topics that seems to be of great importance to Anderson’s argument is the declining influence of ‘old heads’ or older role-models for inner-city black youth. “Traditional old heads seem puzzled by their changing relationship, or lack of relationship, with young boys and girls… As the elders approach young people with their views, they are patronized or ignored. In response, the traditional old heads sometimes accuse the young of “sassing” them and being arrogant. One detects hurt feelings among many old heads, who openly complain that the boys and girls of today fail to listen to them as they themselves listened to their elders and the old heads who raised them” (p. 101).

Anderson couples the issue of lack-of-respect towards one’s elders with the stark poverty of the all-black section of Northton. “…numerous Northton blacks are caught in an employment bind. Low-skill Eastern City manufacturing jobs have declined, and jobs in the emerging service economy that are available to young blacks are low paying or far from the inner city, constraining many to a life of poverty” (p. 57). As a result, when individuals do break out of the ghetto, they move away (p. 58). The result is that the ideal role models, the next generation of old heads, are not sticking around. “But today, when many black students are educated in major, formerly all-white universities and colleges, they tend not to return to urban black communities like Northton” (p. 60). Anderson ultimately believes that the increasing prevalence of ‘street’ people (as opposed to ‘decent’ people) is, at least in part, related to the declining influence of old heads and the exodus from the ghetto of middle-class blacks.

One of the more interesting discussions in the book centers around the sexual relationships of black youth. Basically, Anderson argues that black males just want sex while black females ideally want a loving, supportive, one-woman husband, but usually end up with a child – which they then lavish with attention and use for the welfare benefits (a notion that may now be outdated with the welfare reform of the 1990s) (see pages 113-125). Anderson also argues that the reason so many unmarried black females have children is a combination of cultural influence (all their friends and their mothers did it that way), religious beliefs that discourage abortion and value children, and educational ignorance of birth control (also influenced by religion). Even so, the result is a child that is ultimately valued, at least by the mother, her circle of friends, and her family, even if the father wants nothing to do with the child and does not even claim it.

Another interesting discussion is the influence of drugs in Northton. Anderson recognizes the power of drugs and the influence it has had on the economy. Despite the emphasis on hard work of the old heads, the youth are quite aware of how much money can be made in a short time by selling drugs. Couple this with the lack of decent paying jobs in their immediate environs and you have an immediate recipe for drug trafficking. It makes logical sense to pursue the easiest course towards economic income, despite the inherent dangers. Of course, Anderson isn’t happy about this trend and focuses on police and community efforts to remove the drug trade from Northton, but the continued existence of this black market economy is a testimony to its vitality and attraction to urban black poor.

Ultimately, Anderson concludes that a number of cultural factors result in an environment where individuals are forced to become ‘streetwise’, including the ever-present ‘threat’ (which Anderson attempts to illustrate is overblown) of young black men, the drug trade, youth sexual relations, and violent crime. While framing this culturally, in the end, Anderson resorts more to a micro-level symbolic interactionist approach to explain how street wisdom is learned – through situational interaction and the exchange and interpretation of symbols (see p. 211 for an example of this). Interestingly, Anderson does not present, at the end of the book, a clear theoretical outline but continues his descriptive tone relying heavily on symbolic interactionism to explain what is happening in these exchanges without stating so explicitly.

Review:
Insightful examination of the intersection of two neighborhoods, one ghetto, one gentrified

The book is informative, but a little problematic for primarily two reasons. First and foremost, the bulk of the interviews are with the ‘good guys’ or ‘decent’ people described in the book (e.g. community organizers, old heads, policemen, and middle-class inhabitants of the village). I recall reading two interviews with ‘street’ people: one with a drug addicted female (‘zombie’) and one with a young man detained by the police for no apparent reason (who may well have been a ‘decent’ person). While Anderson may have interviewed more ‘street’ people, he doesn’t indicate such by including those interviews. This is unfortunate because his descriptions of their behaviors (e.g. youth sex and the drug trade) seem so lucid and powerful. I would hesitate to go so far as to call into question his explanations of how these things work, but I believe his argument would have been bolstered by the inclusion of interviews and specific, first-hand observations of these behaviors.

A second problem with the book is the emphasis on role models and old heads. Both Anderson and William Julius Wilson seem to see the exodus of middle-class blacks from urban ghettoes as a bad thing (p. 60). While I can understand both why middle-class blacks would leave and why this might be viewed as a bad thing (from an economic perspective; the presence of middle-class blacks will drive up property values and result in an influx of money), I can’t help but think that the lack of role models isn’t the issue. I think Anderson is overlooking the more powerful cultural influence of media and peers that makes old heads and older role models irrelevant. I don’t deny that old heads are being ignored and that if they were listened to, some of the problems of the ghetto might be alleviated pp. 58-60). But the answer isn’t going to be to hype the role of old heads. The youth don’t listen to them because they have other sources of cultural information – the media and its lauding of rap stars, athletes, and other poor role-models. If you really want to change the attitudes and behaviors of urban black youth, you’ll need the media to change its portrayals of these individuals. Highly aggressive black athletes and violent rappers coupled with urban poverty the success (regardless of how temporary it is) of drug dealers are far more influential on the behavior of urban black youth than are old heads, but now that old heads have lost their footing, they aren’t going to regain it. An alternative approach is going to need to be taken, like decreasing poverty through government reform and encouraging education (you need both, in my opinion, to change the current environment).

If one can overlook these problems and still assume that Anderson’s descriptions and explanations are still valid, I found some of his descriptions disturbing for entirely different reasons. First, the sexual behavior of urban black youth is astonishing to me (a middle-class, rurally-raised, white person). Sure, youth sexuality is a game for all people – skin color aside. But it seems to be taken to an entirely different level in the black culture described in this book (p. 114). My wife actually asks me at times why young black women are so prone to out-of-wedlock and young births as she sees a lot of them in her occupation as a genetic counselor. Anderson’s explanations are what I’ve been telling her for a long time: young black women are somewhat ignorant of their bodies and sex (p. 135), abortion is discouraged, they are socialized into an environment where out-of-wedlock childbirth is acceptable, and they used to be rewarded financially (welfare) for having children (p. 131). This is foreign to a somewhat well-educated white couple who has no kids even though they are pushing into their thirties. As noted, if Anderson’s information is valid, this is a good resource for explaining why this phenomenon exists, especially for those of us that have a hard time understanding why or how it continues to happen.

Two more elements of urban black youth sexuality were disturbing enough to me to be noteworthy. First, the fact that young black mothers will lavish their children with expensive clothes that are quickly outgrown was very disturbing, “To enhance her chances at such competitions and status games, the young mother often feels the need to dress her baby in the latest and most expensive clothes “that fit” (rather than a size larger that the baby can grow into) : a “$50 sweater” for a three-month-old or “$40 Reebok sneakers” for a six-month-old” (quote from p. 125, see also pp. 124-125). Mark up one success for the U.S.’s materialistic culture. At least this behavior ‘provokes criticism from more mature people’ in the community (p. 125).

The second element, and perhaps the most disturbing to me is something that went unmentioned by Anderson entirely. A young black male’s sexual presentation (including ‘his dress, grooming, looks, dancing ability, and conversation’) are referred to as his ‘rap’ (p. 114, see also p. 116). That young black men’s sexual presentation has now made its way into culture as a distinct form of music (I prefer ‘sound’ to describe rap as I don’t really see it as music) is, well, shocking. It is basically a reification and condoning of the young black male’s sexual prowess games. This is just one more reason for me to dislike a genre of music dedicated to the objectification of women and the hyping of male prowess.

Overall, I think Anderson makes a number of great points, though I didn’t find his organization of these points particularly useful. And, as previously mentioned, it seems as though he tacked on the ‘streetwise’ theme as an afterthought as it is really only mentioned in the first and last chapters. I don’t disagree with most of Anderson’s findings, like the following one describing black males, “In general, the black male is assumed to be streetwise. He also comes to think of himself as such, and this helps him negotiate public spaces. In this sense others collectively assist him in being who he is. With a simple move one way or the other, he can be taken as a “dangerous dude.” He is then left alone, whereas whites may have more trouble” (p. 178). But I think he could have done a better job presenting his data and framing his theory, which appears to be little more than a slightly modified version of symbolic interactionism.

The Politics of Righteousness: Idaho Christian Patriotism

Author:
James A. Aho

Publisher:
University of Washington Press

Date of Publication:
1990

ISBN:
029597494X

Rating:
10

Summary:
Engaging look at the right-wing Christian movement in Idaho.

The book aims to explore both what makes right-wing Christians or ‘Christian Patriots’ tick as well as how individuals come to join the movement. The focus of the book is on Christian Patriots in Idaho both because the author’s institutional affiliation is in Idaho (researchers aren’t above convenience) and because Idaho was (and still is) a hotbed of Christian Patriot activity (see p. 7). The author does talk briefly about the origins of the movement, but the focus of the book is more on reported motivations of the movement members and movement framing than on the origins.

The author’s approach to studying the right-wing Christian movement is actually novel in the sense that no one had previously gained access to the movement to the same degree that the author did (p. 26). While his sampling method is not the most rigorous (snowball sampling, see p. 28), given the sensitive nature of the study, it is adequate and yields convincing information. In addition to interviews, the author attended numerous Christian Patriot events (though did not consider himself a ‘participant’), including conventions, meetings, and even cross burnings (p. 32).

What, then, is right-wing Christianity or Christian Patriotism? As the author explains it, Christian Patriotism is a fusion of fundamentalist Christianity and devotion to the Constitution of the United States (p. 67). The ‘ideology’ of Christian Patriotism is labeled by the author as ‘the politics of righteousness’. This ideology pits the patriots against “a satanic cabal that has insidiously infiltrated the dominant institutions of society… The goal of this cabal is to subvert God’s will… by promoting, among other things, equal rights for “unqualified” ethnic and racial minorities, non-Christian religions such as “secular humanism,” and moral perversion – pornography, homosexuality, abortion, crime, and usury” (p. 15). Christian Patriots, therefore, oppose anything they can connect to this cabal, including Jews, blacks, the government, academia, and so on. The limits of their prejudice stop, basically, at their front door – if you aren’t a Christian Patriot, you’re the enemy.

As noted above, the aim of the book is to answer two questions: (1) What makes Christian Patriots tick? (2) How do people come to join the movement? As the answers to these questions overlap, I’ll discuss the author’s answers to both of them together. The author tests several popular hypotheses concerning involvement in right-wing groups and finds many of these theories lacking. One of the more prominent ones is the idea that participants in these groups have less education, which is what makes them vulnerable to participation in such hate-filled groups. But the author actually finds that, while there are differences in the forms of education and where the education took place (predominantly in sectarian institutions for movement members), Christian Patriots have as much and possibly more education than both average Idahoans and average United Statesians (see p. 139). The difference in where the majority of Christian Patriots received their education is important as it specifies the relationship between education and right-wing extremism, “Evidently, years of formal education alone are not sufficient to erase predispositions to intolerance and conspiratorialism. Although this is by no means certain, the sample appears to have entered fields of study and attended institutions of higher learning not particularly noted for instilling a cognitive commitment to democracy. This means that the educational theory of extremism is not disproven, but specified. Even highly educated individuals ungrounded in traditional liberal arts disciplines may not remain committed to democratic principles when subjected to social stress” (p. 146).

Since education – or lack thereof – is not the answer to why people join the Christian Patriot movement, the author turns to other possible factors. One factor the author argues contributes to one’s tendency to become a Christian Patriot is religious affiliation. The majority of Christian Patriots belonged to fundamentalist Protestant religions (see pp. 171 & 174). The author argues that while these religions do not, in themselves, make Christian Patriots, they do prepare one for the extremism of Christian Patriotism by teaching their adherents about doctrinal absolutes and by framing certain groups of people (Jews, in particular, but also secular humanists) as the cause of humanity’s problems.

But the biggest determinant of involvement in Christian Patriotism isn’t religious background or educational attainment but rather social connections. According to the author, individuals joined the Christian Patriot movement primarily because they knew someone in the movement. It is only after they join the movement that they completely adopt (to whatever degree they are going to adopt it) the ideology and beliefs of the movement (see pp. 187-189). According to the author, the probability of someone joining the Christian Patriot movement without having social connections to it in their network of associates (e.g., co-workers, friends, family, etc.) is virtually nil. But if the connection exists and some of the other factors are in place, namely an amenity to belief (actually believing before joining is not necessary), then the option of membership is present.

In summary, Christian Patriotism is a modern social movement with roots in American Israelism and white power movements (e.g., the Klu Klux Klan). It combines Christian fundamentalism with right-wing political views resulting in extremist positions on taxes (not paying them), the government (not liking it), and racial and ethnic prejudices (everyone but whites are inferior). People enter the movement through social connections, but may be pre-disposed to participation through certain variables, including: religious background (predominantly fundamentalist Christianity) and education at Christian universities in disciplines where their prejudices are allowed to remain intact.

Review:
This is an excellent exploration of what makes Christian Patriots tick. The findings are insightful, if not particularly shocking or groundbreaking. They are certainly noteworthy, however, as the findings illustrate that past explanations for participation in such groups are ill-founded to some degree (lower education attainment and social isolation theories in particular).

One point made by the author (but not discussed in the summary of the book above) involves the connection of Mormonism with Christian Patriotism. Interestingly, almost one third of the individuals the author interviewed are Mormons. The author is clear in explaining that right-wing Mormons who belong to the Christian Patriot movement are not typical of Mormons in general, but does note that Mormon dogma, like fundamentalist Protestant dogma, can predispose individuals to participation in the movement (p. 47). However, and this is the truly interesting part of this finding, another element of Mormon thought, the affinity and alleged kinship with the House of Israel (or Jews), works as a sort of ‘immunity’ “from directing their enmity onto Jews” (p. 176). Mormons are Constitutionalists and conspiratorialists, but seldom are they anti-Semites (though they may hold prejudicial attitudes toward other racial minorities). As a scholar of Mormonism, I think Aho’s depiction of radical Mormons involved in the Christian Patriotism movement is accurate, noteworthy, and informative.

There are a couple of ideas discussed in the book that I either didn’t find convincing or questioned. For instance, on page 68, Aho argues, “Media images of right-wing extremists as neo-Nazi haters, perhaps even crazy, do not entirely jibe with the data I have assembled. This does not mean that the media have consciously distorted the facts. Rather, there appears to have been an error of omission, an error fraught with potentially tragic policy implications” (p. 68). While I can understand Aho is trying to point out that not all Christian Patriots are neo-Nazi’s and anti-Semites, which, given his findings, is undoubtedly true, there is a reason why people have a negative impression of Christian Patriots. In fact, Aho gives a good reason just 11 pages before this quote, “After serving another prison term, this time for welfare fraud, Gilbert gained local notoriety for his swastika-inscribed, camouflaged Volkswagen, Storm Trooper uniform, and a dog who, it is reported, was trained to lift his paw whenever his master uttered “Seig Heil”" (p. 57). I think Aho’s approach is far more balanced than the treatment Christian Patriots usually receive in the media, but, even so, it is a bit disingenuous to claim that members of the movement are just ‘normal’ people. Obviously they are not just ‘normal’ people or Aho would not have chosen to study them (see quote from p. 209). They may not be THAT different, but they are different and the difference is what makes them noteworthy.

While I am critiquing Aho, I should also point out that his discussion of American Israelism is pretty superficial and, while I’m hesitant to say this, I don’t think very accurate (see pp. 51-52). A much more detailed and what I believe to be more accurate discussion of American Israelism can be found in Armand Mauss’s book ‘All Abraham’s Children’ (2003). Aho situates the origins of American and British Israelism in the 1840s. Mauss clearly illustrates that these ideas pre-date the 1840s, though not by much. Even though I don’t think Aho’s treatment here is very good, it is not an integral part of the overall discussion or findings and therefore can be downplayed in rating the book.

I should also note that Aho, while definitely objective, takes a naturalistic approach to understanding Christian Patriotism (as most serious social scientists do). One good example of this approach is his analysis of a classic religious technique for illustrating a god’s favor, “This kind of tautological reasoning – How do we know we are chosen? Because we are favored. How do we know we are favored? Because we are chosen – is the sort of analysis used by inhabitants of any self-constructed world to demonstrate its veracity” ( p. 113). Aho is clearly pointing out here that Christian Patriotism is a socially constructed worldview. Members of this worldview use post hoc reasoning to find god’s favor regardless of the event. If something bad happens to the movement, they are either being punished or the forces of evil are working against them. If something good happens, god is favoring them. There is virtually no way to break individuals out of the cycle and attribute events to naturalistic causes. It’s a wily technique, but powerful and convincing. That Aho frames this type of logic as he does illustrates his naturalistic approach.

Overall, I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in understanding right-wing Christian extremists in the U.S. today. The book is insightful, but careful not to over-extend its findings. It provides a clear explanation of why people join movements like this one and objectively presents the evidence gathered. It would certainly be going to far to say Christian Patriots are like everyone else, but James Aho presents a convincing case as to why it is erroneous to think Christian Patriots are just a bunch of crazy mountain men. Social conditions seem to coalesce around these individuals to provide an optimum scenario for conversion. Joining one of these groups may not even be probable for the majority of United Statesians, but after reading this book you will understand why it not only is possible for some, but is happening.