Ryan, Debi, and Toren Cragun's Blog

Hofstadter, Richard. 1962. Anti-Intellectualism in American Life. New York,: Vintage Books.

Rating:
8

Summary:
detailed history of anti-intellectualism, mostly history

The author begins the book by illustrating some of the anti-intellectual trends and events taking place while he was writing it (1950s and 1960s). Some of the trends are particularly shocking, some are rooted in McCarthy’s intellectual witchhunts (disguised as ‘rooting out communism’; see p. 3), and some are relatively commonplace. The author then proceeds to explore the roots of American anti-intellectualism, situating it in several things: (1) religious revivals and the move toward religious evangelicalism and fundamentalism in the U.S. beginning in the 18th century; (2) changes in the leadership of the country favoring businessmen and western colonizers who were non-intellectuals (p. 48; p. 233); and (3) the self-ostracization of intellectuals due to the above pressures and their desire not to be associated with such types. This is, of necessity, a very rough summary of the primary points made in this 400+ page, dense book.

After explaining the origins of anti-intellectualism, the author then analyzes some specific components of society (business and education) and examines the anti-intellectual trends that run through them.

The author concludes by illustrating that, despite a continued pervasive anti-intellectualism in American life, intellectuals have made something of a resurgence due to their professionalization (they control the universities and some other professions) and due to the ever increasing complexity of society. Because society is so complex, intellectuals are now necessary to both understand it and do what they can to control and contribute to it. Of course, the fact that intellectuals are now necessary has also worked against them inasmuch as the non-intellectual sees them as a threat to their livelihood (p. 34), but societal complexity has nevertheless functioned to reinvigorate the roles of intellectuals.

Review:
First, let me just say that I have only very minor criticisms of this book. It is well-written, well-researched, and very informative. Many of the criticisms I have stem from the fact that I am a sociologist and not a historian.

The first criticism is rooted in this distinction – as a sociologist, I kept wanting survey data illustrating the anti-intellectualism of U.S. society or some other social-scientific data. Unfortunately, that data never surfaced, even though the author quite regularly quoted sociologists. Perhaps some sociological research has followed up on the conclusions and assertions of this book and examined some of these issues, but I am not familiar with it.

Also as a sociologist, at times I felt the book went into too much historical detail. This also occasionally resulted in a sense that the history was presented just because the author had researched it and not because it strengthened the author’s arguments. This seemed particularly true in the chapters examining anti-intellectualism in specific areas (business and education) as well as the histories of specific denominations.

My final criticism is that the author is an intellectual (he’s a history PhD employed primarily at academic institutions) writing about anti-intellectualism; undoubtedly he is going to have a bias. Admittedly, the author does a pretty good job being objective, but as an intellectual myself (a rather elitist assertion, I know), I probably overlooked any subtle pro-intellectual bias.

Other than these minor critiques, I have only praise for this book. The author points out part of the reason why our public school system is as poor as it is – lots of anti-intellectualism that has resulted in the lowering of academic standards. The author phrases it thus, “Formerly, it had been held that a liberal academic education was good for all pupils. Now it was argued that all pupils should in large measure get the kind of training originally conceived for the slow learner” (pp. 352-353). What makes assertions like this one particular disturbing is the fact that it still holds true 40+ years after this book was written.

The book also makes an interesting assertion about the importance of military service (or athletic participation) for political candidates, “It was assumed that a major part of civic character resides in military virtue; even today an intellectual in politics can sometimes counteract the handicap of intellect by pointing to a record of military service” (p. 148). For those wondering why John Kerry’s military service is being played up as much as it is, this should help explain it; Kerry is an intellectual and emphasizing his military service increases his appeal among the non-intellectuals.

Overall, though the book is now over 40 years old and somewhat dated, I would still recommend it for anyone interested in intellectuals and anti-intellectualism in America. You’ll need quite a bit of time to wade through the rather dense writing, but at times the writing is so brilliant that it more than makes up for the periodic lapses into rote history. The author is also particularly insightful given the lack of social scientific data on this topic. This is a very informative and enlightening book.

McLoughlin, Emmett. 1962. Crime & Immorality in the Catholic Church. New York: Lyle Stuart, Inc. 1962.

Rating:
0

Introduction:
I picked this book up years ago when I was a faithful Mormon. I think I found it in a used bookstore in Morgan, UT. I had the impression that it would be a well-documented book detailing some of the crimes and atrocities committed in the name of Catholicism over the centuries. I was wrong.

Review:
This is a hate book, written by a former priest who converted to Protestantism. And rather than document atrocities in history, the focus of this book is to claim that Roman Catholicism does not inspire morality in its members, “[Religion's] most important product—its reason for existence—is morality, the molding of lives that are not only good, but better than others, with a greater assurance than that of other religions that its members will be far less sinful, much better emotionally adjusted throughout life and thus more certain of eternal happiness in heaven. The purpose of this book is to show that the Roman Catholic Church in its most important work is a failure. Among its members crime and immorality are greater than among the unchurched or the members of other churches” (p. 17). Not only does the author not have any good, authoritative sources to indicate crime rates are higher among Catholics, but his very premise is a logical fallacy – a strawman. He is setting up an argument that is not true and not claimed by Catholicism. The purpose Catholicism claims is to spread its believed truth about the fallen nature of man and Jesus Christ’s atonement. Morality may play a role in that, but it is not the sole reason of existence of religion. Anyone who thinks that religion exists solely to maintain morality is missing the much bigger picture. Yes, from a functionalist perspective in sociology some scholars have made the argument that religion codifies and reinforces morality in society. But that is really not why religion exists. Claiming that is the purpose of religion then showing that one has fallen short in achieving that end is a strawman argument – it is not a logically defensible position.

If you don’t accept Catholicisms manifest reason for existence (which you probably should not accept) – to spread the message of Christ – the latent (and real) reason is still not morality maintenance, but rather its continued existence. As Dawkins argues in his discussions of religion (pick any of his books as a reference), religion is a meme, and the purpose of a meme is self-replication, not societal betterment. Ergo, if a side effect of that meme is that it increases morality in such a fashion that it improves the spread of the meme, than the meme will be more successful than other memes, but that is not the purpose of the meme. The purpose of the meme is self-replication, nothing more.

So, having illustrated that the primary purpose of the book is, in fact, a logical fallacy, now let me turn to the approach. The author loves to say things like, “In the rich soil of freedom of thought and worship prepared and preserved by Protestantism and Freemasonry…” (p. 14). I may not be a genius, but I don’t think it takes one to see where this book is going. The author is a Protestant and a Freemason and is claiming those groups do inspire good morals but Catholics don’t. Not a strong basis for his argument. If he derives his morals from the Bible, one of the most immoral books still in publication, he is at best a hypocrite and at worst just naive. Here’s another example of his biased, indefensible, and hypocritical position, “Because I believe in spiritual and religious liberty I have become a Protestant” (p. 25). As though those two must go together…

Perhaps in recognition of the shaky ground he is on arguing from a Protestant perspective, the author goes so far as to insinuate that Catholicism may not even be a religion, “He might become rather cynical and wonder if Roman Catholicism be really a religion at all, or whether it is perhaps some less noble enterprise cleverly disguised under the masquerade of religion” (pp. 17-18). You can’t very well consider Catholicism a religion if you are claiming religion is all about morality and you are still religious. It kind of taints the whole boat of religions. So, rather than taint his religious position by allowing Catholicism to remain a member of the group he implies that Catholicism is something other than a religion.

The author does claim that Roman Catholics are disproportionately represented among prison convicts, but the source of his data is sketchy. He also says things like, “Illiterates are generally criminally inclined” (p. 35), which just left me with a sour taste in my mouth. Come page 40 and I put the book down. I have better things to do with my time.

So, maybe if you’re a dyed-in-the-wool, Catholic hating Protestant and Freemason you’ll like this book. That would be especially true if you don’t care about logical fallacies or other poor arguments or lack of data. But if you are looking for a historical book on the atrocities in Catholic history, this isn’t the book for you… Look elsewhere.

Goffman, Erving. 1961. Asylums. New York: Anchor Books.

Rating:
10

Summary:
The definitive sociological treatise of total institutions

The contents of this book are really far too complex to summarize, but I will do my best. There are two major points made in this text. The first is the development of the concept of the total institution. Goffman gives the following characteristics of total institutions: (1) all aspects of life are conducted in the same place under the same authority; (2) the individual is a member of a large cohort, all treated alike; (3) all daily activities (over a 24-hour period) are tightly scheduled; (4) there is a sharp split between supervisors and lower participants; (5) information about the member’s fate is withheld. (p. 6) The basic examples of total institutions are mental hospitals, prisons, and military boot camps, though there are numerous other institutions that could be considered total institutions as well. Goffman doesn’t leave his discussion of total institutions at a simple definition, he also describes nearly every aspect of total institutions, focusing primarily on the life of the inmates of the institutions (he also discusses the roles of the staff, but that isn’t really the focus) and the effects of the institutional environment on the selves and identities of the inmates.

The second major point in the text is Goffman’s criticism of total institutions, which is really limited to the very last section in the book (though you could easily see an underlying criticism throughout). Goffman’s basic argument is that the total institution does several things to inmates (I should note that he is speaking specifically of mental hospitals here, though some of this could likely be applied to other institutions): First it stigmatizes the inmate, preventing them from being able to ever completely reintegrate into society afterwards. Second, it forces a ‘sick’ identity on the inmate. For some inmates, any problems or disorders they may (or may not) have are actually encouraged and/or emphasized in mental hospitals because of the culture and environment inside. In a sense Goffman is actually arguing that total institutions create more problems then they solve by turning relatively normal people into mentally unhealthy people (a good fictitious example of this would be One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest).

Goffman’s basis for his discussion and analysis is a period of time he spent in a mental hospital. As an academic work, the book is also filled with references to previous literature and explanatory notes.

Review:
I was actually introduced to Goffman in an advanced social theory course but it wasn’t until I thought about applying the concept of total institutions to one of the institutions with which I am familiar that I actually read the book. In researching the topic it appears that very little work has actually been done on total institutions (labeled as such) since Goffman’s treatise (a lot of work has been done on prisons but it is in the criminology literature and does not generally refer to prisons as total institutions). I did find several examples of papers applying this Weberian ‘ideal type’ to different institutions, including: Indian Reservations, Graduate School, and others.

I think the reason why there is so little work following Goffman’s treatise is because he is generally right, very clear, and remarkably insightful. If he has pushed the concept to its limits then there really isn’t any point in trying to push it any further. In this sense, this book is comprehensive and very, very insightful.

But one of my reviews would not be complete without a criticism or two. The only real criticisms I have are the length of the book and the organization. The book is very long and, despite using a surprisingly large font, it takes quite a while to dig through the entire thing. There is quite of bit of information that could potentially have been left out, but if he had, perhaps this wouldn’t be the masterpiece it generally is considered to be. Also, and Goffman recognizes this and apologizes for it in the beginning, the organization is kind of strange. Rather than organizing the book as a book with distinct chapters it is actually just a compilation of 4 papers that he had previously published. Some of the papers are massive (over 100 pages), but the problem is that there isn’t a perfectly clear logic to the organization and there is absolutely no transition from one chapter/paper to the next. This really is forgivable as an academic work, but it does make things a bit awkward for the reader.

Overall this book is superb. Not only is it well-written (though perhaps at a rather advanced level) but it is incredibly insightful. Obviously Goffman caught the essence of the concept because no one has really challenged his understandings since. If you are looking for the sociological Symbolic Interactionist perspective on total institutions (mental hospitals specifically) or are just interested in what mental hospitals are really like (though this book is likely a bit dated), then look no further than Asylums. I highly recommend this for anyone interested in these topics.

Hinckley, Bryant S. 1958. That ye might have joy. Bookcraft.

Rating:
4

Summary:
Companion volume to “…not by Bread Alone”; pretty much the same thing

The book is made up of about 120 one-page thoughts on subjects ranging from education to success to politics to religion.

Review:
Having read the companion volume not to long ago, I’m going to use many of the same comments for this volume. First, once again the thoughts don’t seem to be in any particular order. Some are inspired by quotes from others or are almost entirely a quote from other authors. And, once again, some of the ‘profound’ thoughts aren’t actually contributed by Mr. Hinckley.

Also, similar to the earlier book, there are a lot of quotes about how superior the United States is to other countries (very ethnocentric); perhaps I should be a bit lenient considering the time period in which these thoughts were written (just after World War II). Nevertheless, he really does seem to have some deep fixation with U.S. superiority. I’m all for thinking the U.S. is a great country, but it is far from superior to other countries in most ways (the exception being militarily, which I’m not sure is something to be proud of).

I was also less forgiving of some of the religion-oriented thoughts this time. For instance, Hinckley writes, “No man will rise high who jeers at sacred things… Wherever or whenever there is a lack of reverence, there is a reversion to the baser instincts of man, which is followed by a loss of self-respect, remorse and disappointment” (p. 40). I laughed out loud when I read this. I guess this could be rephrased, ‘if you aren’t religious or at least don’t think religious things should be respected, you suck.’ Well, I think many religious things are silly (e.g., Why revere the tool used to kill your God? The cross. I’ve never understood this idea, but I don’t claim to know everything.), so I guess I suck. Damn!

There was also the incredibly wrong assertion made about the speed of a fast pitch in baseball, “The batter stands at the plate with the ball speeding toward him at the rate of 150 miles per hour” (p. 89). Once again, some leeway should be given considering they didn’t have radar guns to clock pitches back in the 1950s, but I couldn’t help but wonder who was pitching back then :) Wow, what an arm!

There are at least two more things worth mentioning. First, the author, whether he realizes it or not, is in many ways a Marxist. For instance, this quote appears to be lifted straight out of a Karly Marx essay, “The creative instinct is deep in the human soul and its reward is satisfaction and joy” (p. 30). Of course Marx would have left out the ‘soul’ part, but he definitely saw the creative instinct as being the most important part of being human. There was an additional thought that really resembled Marx’s ideas, “One hundred years ago four out of five persons were self-employed. Today four out of five people work for others. As a result, the significance of the individual is submerged” (p. 104). Once again, I’m not sure the author realized it, but with thoughts like these, he is nothing short of a Marxist. Woohoo! (I’m a Marxist too, so I can cheer.)

Finally, there was one good thought that I found worthy of writing down, “A part of the creed of the Optimist’s Club reads: “To make all of your friends feel that there is something in them”” (p. 43). I don’t claim to fully understand what Hinckley (or the Optimist’s Club) means here, but the way I interpreted it, I thought it was good advice.

Overall, the book is really kind of laborious to read, despite only taking me about 1 hour from start to finish, because there is no logical connection from thought to thought. Also, the overt ethnocentricity started to get on my nerves. I wouldn’t recommend the book for, well, pretty much anyone, except right wing, god-fearing extremists, but they probably wouldn’t even like it because it doesn’t talk about violence enough. Oh well, it’s out of print anyone, so what does it matter.

O’Dea, Thomas F. 1957. The Mormons. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Rating:
10

Summary:
Amazing how much he fits into one book

The book is a sociological analysis of Mormonism, written, obviously, in the 1950s. The book covers the origins of the religion, a brief account of the history of the Mormons, the beliefs, and some of the more unique elements of Mormon life. Each of these components is contextualized to facilitate an understanding of how it came about and what factors led to its development. While the treatment of Mormonism in this book is not exhaustive, it is close; as close as one may have come in the 1950s.

Review:
It’s no wonder this is still considered the definitive sociological analysis of Mormonism nearly 50 years after it was published. Not only does the author illustrate a remarkable familiarity with the religion, which is amazing in its own right considering he was a Catholic who grew up in the eastern U.S., but the author is also remarkably insightful and many of his insights are still accurate, despite the veritable flood of research on the Mormons conducted since this book was published.

It’s possible that one of the reasons this book remains an authoritative source 50 years after its publication is because it takes a naturalistic tone – as opposed to the faith-promoting perspective common among Mormon scholars (though some are better at muting their pro-Mormon perspective than others). For instance, O’Dea presents his analysis with comments like the following, “There is one instance when one suspects that the tension and excitement of the revivalistic present tense [early 1800s] actually got away from the author [Joseph Smith] and that he hurried to regain himself and to keep from exposing himself before his scribe [probably Oliver Cowdery]. When Abinadi is preaching in a prophetic passage, he declares: “And now if Christ had not come into the world, speaking of things to come as though they had already come, there could have been no redemption” (Mosiah 16:6)”(p. 40; see also the quote below from p. 43) The implication, without a forthright admittance, is that Joseph Smith was simply making up The Book of Mormon as he went along (if he were truly translating, he would not have needed to ‘correct’ himself). Few authors have attempted to compend the social scientific research on Mormons into one volume. Of those attempts, this is likely the most naturalistic. This characteristic, in my opinion, also makes this book one of the better attempts.

O’Dea should also be commended for developing a compelling sociological explanation of the origins of Mormonism. O’Dea’s description of the environment of upstate New York and the ‘burned over district’ logically leads to the conclusion that Mormonism resulted not from divine intervention but from the surrounding socio-cultural milieu.

Another important though seldom mentioned idea of O’Dea’s is his discussion of the importance of Mormon temple worship, “It has the effect of increasing the loyalty of the church member by initiating him into secrets and thereby making him a privileged sharer in holy mysteries and by his promising in impressive ceremonial circumstances to be loyal to the church and obedient to its priesthood” (p. 59). While this idea is no doubt worthy of additional research and verification through empirical analysis, having been part of the ‘elite’ membership of the religion and having studied it, I am convinced that Mormon temple worship certainly fulfills this function. It may fill additional organizational roles for the religion, e.g., in-group solidarity, but the additional functions likely derive from the participation in the secret society of the temple and membership among the elite temple goers who are seen as Mormonism’s ‘worthy’.

Having pointed out some of the ways this book excels, let me point out some of the problems. First, there is no substantive discussion of race or sex issues in the Mormon religion. I am speculating here, but I believe his glossing over sex/gender issues in Mormonism likely has something to do with the predominantly conservative worldview at the time (see quote from p. 250). Keep in mind this book was written in the 1950s, at least a decade before the second wave of the women’s movement gathered a lot of steam. It was more common then than it is today to advocate Victorian ideals. O’Dea was likely influenced by the times in which he lived. As a result, he basically concludes that, while Mormon women cannot participate in the actual leadership of the church, they do have lots of stuff to keep them busy. It therefore could be argued that Mormon women are not treated poorly and actually have a degree of equality (the differences in roles and responsibilities aren’t overlooked). Despite the leeway I am willing to give O’Dea on this issue, the missing discussion of gender issues in the Mormon religion is a major short-coming of this book.

But perhaps an even bigger oversight than failing to see gender issues within Mormonism as worthy of discussion is the complete failure to discuss Mormonism’s race issues. Where context could arguably account for the missing discussion of gender roles within Mormonism, O’Dea’s oversight of the looming confrontation of the LDS Church with race issues is surprising given the events taking place while he was writing this book. The 1950s is typically seen as one of if not the the most racially active decades in the twentieth century. That O’Dea failed to mention the Mormon position on race is nothing less than shocking. In discussing the issues facing the Mormon Church, race was by far the biggest one when this book was being written. That should have been followed by gender (as it was, chronologically followed by it in the form of the Equal Rights Amendment confrontation of the late 1970s and early 1980s), and only then should intellectuals have been highlighted as the threat to the religion looming on the horizon they legitimately are. I don’t want to give the impression that O’Dea’s work is somehow flawed or weakened by not including a discussion of race, but it is a significant oversight on his part.

Less an oversight than a topic that could have been covered in greater detail is O’Dea’s point that the primary theme of The Book of Mormon is the apostasy/repentance cycle (p. 28). While I agree that this is the primary theme of the book, what is lacking from O’Dea’s discussion is an exploration of how or whether this has played out in modern Mormonism. It could potentially be argued that this cycle did play out a few times during the early days of the religion, or at least allegations of this cycle occurring were used by Joseph Smith and, arguably, Brigham Young, to control their followers. But since the end of Brigham Young’s tenure as president of the religion, there do not appear to have been any clear instances of such a cycle. O’Dea doesn’t mention the use of this theme by Brigham Young or Joseph Smith, nor does he explain how this them is relevant for the religion of the 1950s. Picking up the idea where O’Dea left off, I believe the theme is now repackaged by the religion at a strictly individual level. No longer does the entire body of the religion pass through these cycles but rather individuals do. As a result, The Book of Mormon’s predominant theme becomes a powerful teaching tool for individual worthiness and to discourage pride and apostasy. Additional study of this topic is likely in order.

There are also a number of issues and topics covered in this book that are either outdated or have had more information brought to bear on them. For instance, O’Dea discusses some of the auxiliaries of the LDS Church and their roles in the religion (see p. 182). While these auxiliaries still exist in a certain form today, the creation of the correlation committee during the 1960s has basically done away with their autonomy. It would now be much more accurate to describe the LDS church as having a centralized authority in virtually all matters, including The Relief Society, Primary, and its various publications. All of these are overseen by the priesthood leadership of the religion, making a discussion of the role of auxiliaries in the religion virtually a moot point.

Another outdated topic covered in great detail by O’Dea is the control of water in the Intermountain West. O’Dea ties the use of irrigation to the Mormon leadership in an insightful way, but the Mormon religion no longer exercises significant control over water rights in Utah. As is likely the case with most parts of the nation that rely on irrigation, water rights are either privately controlled or governmentally managed. In short, while the discussion is an interesting analysis of Mormon fraternity and cooperation, it is no longer relevant to the Mormonism of today.

Another topic briefly discussed by O’Dea is the Pearl of Great Price, which O’Dea notes was alleged to have been translated from ancient Egyptian papyri (see p. 124). Later developments have made his discussion of these books less informative on some levels. The original papyri were discovered during the 1960s and found to contain Egyptian breathing texts, not the book of Abraham as was claimed by Joseph Smith. Ergo, to continue giving credence to the idea that Joseph Smith actually translated a book written by Abraham is to ignore the significant evidence to the contrary. That this phony book has and continues to play a role in defining Mormon theology should not be doubted, but any honest history of Mormonism should note the actual contents of the papyri.

If one were to attempt a comprehensive sociological treatment of Mormonism today, additional topics that should be discussed that either where not issues during O’Dea’s time or were glossed over by O’Dea might include: church and state relations (specifically in Utah), the changing church hierarchy and structure, the global church, church welfare, Mormon women and sexuality, Mormon growth, Mormonism’s retrenchment toward religious fundamentalism, the new Mormon intellectual groups (e.g., Sunstone, Dialogue, The Mormon History Association, etc.), splinter groups, changing Mormon demographics, Mormons and race, Mormons and gender, and the changing conception of the Book of Mormon (i.e., a discussion of the new ‘limited geography theory’ vs. the ‘hemispheric model’).

A few additional points are in order. One important point relevant for today’s revisionist Mormon apologists is to note that O’Dea, in discussing The Book of Mormon and Mormon theology draws the firm conclusion that The Book of Mormon presents and the leadership of the religion espouses the hemispheric model – i.e. the events recounted in The book of Mormon took place in the entire Western Hemisphere, including North, South, and Central America. The following quotes is illustrative of O’Dea’s understanding of this position during the 1950s, “The rebellion of Laman and Lemuel and their people is punished by their being cursed with a dark skin, and from these Lamanites the American Indians are believed to have descended” (p. 22). The hemispheric understanding of The Book of Mormon events was the understanding of the religion and its leaders up until the 1970s, when John Sorenson proposed his limited geography model. There is, of course, ample evidence to illustrate the prevalence of this understanding prior to Sorenson’s revisionism. It would serve Mormon apologists well to admit what they are trying to do, namely, develop a completely new understanding of The Book of Mormon that includes re-writing all historical references to the hemispheric model. Of course, they feel they have to re-write and re-interpret historical references to the hemispheric model because they are striving for a coherent and consistent worldview. Unfortunately, this includes a little ‘lying for the Lord’ to make past prophetic utterances to the contrary work in their favor. O’Dea became aware of and reported the hemispheric model for a reason – because that is what the membership and leadership believed during that time period.

While critical, this review has attempted to point out the insights of O’Dea’s work while simultaneously laying the groundwork for understandings of Mormonism that should be supplemented by reference to the still growing body of social scientific literature on the Mormons. O’Dea’s analysis should serve as a launching point for any serious student of Mormonism. Of course, in the 50 years that have passed since O’Dea wrote this book, a considerable body of literature has made significant headway in addressing many of the lacunae outlined in this review. I highly recommend this book for a number of reasons, but particularly because of O’Dea’s naturalistic tone, critical eye, and, his occasional wit, as is illustrated by this final quote, “As Brigham Young said later in Utah, making use of a hardly appropriate metaphor, “We must gird up our loins and fulfill this, just as we would any other duty [polygamy]” (p. 61).