Religion and the Class System
In our last discussion, I introduced the concept of theodicy. Theodicies are religious justifications for some aspect of social reality. Anthropologist Clifford Geertz (1966:4) wrote:
Religion tunes human actions to an envisaged cosmic order and projects images of cosmic order onto the plane of human experience.
As a young boy, I remember reading Dante. I was intrigued by the Catholic (orig. Aristotelian) notion that there was a place for everyone and every deed in the universe. Below is a diagram duplicated from a 1954 edition of The Divine Comedy I possess. As a note, if you found Dante interesting and like science fiction please read Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle’s Inferno.
Figure 1. Dante’s Conceptualization of Reality
In Medieval Europe, the Estate System was composed of three major players or “estates.” They were the clergy, the nobility, and peasants. The illustration below shows each. Following Aristotelian logic, people were not expected to rise above their station. Being “good” meant to be the best at what God decided you would be. In many places actual laws prevented any upward social mobility.
Figure 2. The Estate System
Rhetorics in Reaction to Change
One example of conservative rhetoric of change is the Catholic model. In the traditional Catholic view of the world, everybody has a station in life as well as in the afterlife. Change is suspect and the status quo is to be maintained. Liberation theology (discussed earlier in the course), championed by many Catholics in the 60s and 70s, challenged this view. Generally, this stance assumes that there is one tradition that we should all follow and maintain. Recall my warning about the dangerous, but well-trodden path of embarking on a nostalgia trip.
Reform rhetoric of change accepts the notion that we can work within the system to bring about change to it. Moreover, there is a greater acceptance of ordination and/or power given to formerly marginalized people.
Revolutionary rhetoric posits that idea that we must work outside the system to change the system. The efforts of Mary Daly are typical of this approach. The Nation of Islam is another. A number of intentional communities arose out of this stance.
Religious Explanations of Stratification
In addressing religious explanations of stratification, Johnstone (2007:222-229) reacquaints the reader to the work of both Marx and Weber. Karl Marx viewed religion as a tool used to subdue and pacify marginalized people. Religion redirects the attention of the people away from the system of exploitation towards to otherworldly paradise. It is a theodicy of despair or escape. The threat of conversion or violence exists for those who do not accept these religious rationalizations in addressing existential social problems.
Alternatively, a theodicy of good fortune (Johnstone 2007:223) has focuses religious rhetoric on our time while in this world. As an example, Weber points to Calvinism in Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Business success and hard workers were considered markers of blessedness to the Calvinists. This “Protestant Ethic” allowed a space to open for the emergence of American capitalism. As I noted in the last class, this Weberian view overlooks the thriving mercantilism of Venice and Florence under Catholic rule during the Middle Ages.
Weber does “thicken” Marx’s analysis by looking at more than modes of production and exploitation. He does this by acknowledging the role of socio-economic status (SES). For sociologists, this is the Holy Trinity (e.g., income, occupation, and education) because SES explains so much in terms of social life. This is true for religion as well. Charismatic and prophetic (Dionysian to use Nietzsche’s term) faith adherents tend to have low levels of SES. Ritualistic and priestly (Apolonian–Nietzsche again) faith adherents have higher SES. Figures 3 and 4 below demonstrate the above statements with General Social Survey data. Figure 5 is based on Table 10.3 in Johnstone (2007:228).
Figure 3. Total Family Income and Faith
Figure 4. Total Family Income and Denomination
Other factors that influence one’s faith/status trajectory are things such as self selection or what Weber calls elective affinity. That is I want to be with those I am like. Also, the religious rhetoric may be salient enough to allow me to re-evaluate my religious affiliation. Finally, one’s history and socialization are powerful factors in determining denominational affiliation. For many folks, the church they grew up in is the only church for them.
A Quick Comment on Table 10.3
Originally, I constructed a graph of Table 10.3 (Johnstone 2007:228) which was included in this blog. Discussing the graph with students, I found that I had some problems with the constructs used. For instance, I am not sure church attendence and organizational participation are measures of “cultic.” As for “cognitive” as a “measure of knowledge of religious doctrine and congregational affairs” seems to offer little in terms of other forms of religious knowledge except in the way the researcher has focused on. The issue I have with the concepts and how they are measured may also be that Yoshio Fukuyama’s article, the basis of Johnstone’s Table 10.3, is from 1960. Is there not more recent research that follows but updates Fukuyama’s work that Johnstone could have used?
The role of SES in other World Faiths
Johnstone (2007:229-231) devotes some time to the role of SES in Hindu and Buddhist faiths. To refresh our understanding of Hinduism, it is important to remember that Hindu stratification has a long history as a caste system built on a hierarchy of castes or varnas. At the top of the system are the Brahma and at the bottom the Chudras. Each of these castes correspond to respective parts of the anatomy of a ancient giant named Purusha (the Brahma are the mouth, and downward for the rest castes). See Figure 6.
Figure 5. Hindu Caste System
For Hinduism and Buddhism, high-SES adherents tend to be believe in one overall diety, low-SES adherents tend to be polytheistic. Higher SES focuses on theology, lower SES on a more personal and spiritual faith. Both faiths share another commonality: a shift from an early egalitarian history that included women in leadership to one of patriarchy and stratification. Incidentally, Stark (1997) argues the same shift occurred in Christianity.
Stratification within Religious Groups
As Johnstone (2007:231) makes clear, even when people share the same faith and perhaps the same house of worship, there still is a pecking order. The divisions can be many: priest vs. nun, minister vs. laity, frequent attenders vs. infrequent attenders, and long timers vs. new members. Remember Robert Michels from your theory class? He was the fellow who came up with the Iron Law of Oligarchies. The idea of this law is that much of the power and activity of any organization lies in the hands of smaller group within the organization. This is true for churches as well. You may not have realized it but a lot of the activities your church does arose out of the ideas and efforts of a small clique of folks. This may be another source of division, especially if there is a clique and a minister who are at odds with each other. A number theologically liberal churches in the South ran into this issue when their ministers wanted the church to make a stand regarding civil rights and church members were not so progressive.
The Rise of Religious Social Movements Dealing with Slavery
Originally, the Methodist and Presbyterian Church had some form of policies against slavery. However slavery became an issue when these and other churches accommodated members who violated prohibitions, which led to the emergence of religious social movements.
The life of a social movement involves a number phases (see Mauss 1975). The first phase is incipiency or some shared grievance. The early dim views that Methodist and Presbyterian Churches had about slavery came into conflict with the actual practices of the ministers and members of the denominations.
When groups form around leaders to promote policies and programs, the movement has reached coalescence. Oftentimes there is a precipitating event or crisis. Furthermore the group must have some level of hope that their vision or action will prevail. Following Johnstone (2007:235) a crisis arose in the Methodist Church in 1844, where the church had to decide to allow a minister to continue to have slaves. This, among other things, led to north/south split in many denominations.
If the religious social movement has reached a place where policies become settled firmly established then the movement is institutionalized. After the denominational north/south split, both sets of churches established themselves geographically and ideologically. Consider this quote from Suggestions on the Religious Instruction of the Negroes in the Southern States written by Charles C. Jones in 1842 (page 193) that Johnstone (2007) referred to on page 313.
we separate entirely their religious and their civil condition, and contend that the one may be attended to without interfering with the other. Our principle is that laid down by the holy and just One: “render unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s and unto God the things that are God’s.”
Fragmentation occurs when members of the movement find themselves differing in views about slavery. Finally, there was a decline and demise of churches that supported slavery.
Civil Rights and Religion
The link between education and denomination are quite strong. Furthermore, as education increases and support for civil rights (gender, racial, etc.) tends to as well. Yet, many social observers note that the most segregated time in American society is on Sunday morning. Using GSS data from 1972 to 2000, respondents were asked “Do you attend an integrated church.” Respondents who identified themselves as Episcopalians were the highest percentage who said “yes.” Baptist, Methodist, and Lutherans had the lowest percentages.
Figure 6. “Do You Attend an Integrated Church?”
EVENT
Annual Meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion . The meeting is in Baltimore and I present on Friday, October 29 at 1-2:30 in Session C-17. Religion and Civic Engagement. The meeting is full of interesting sessions–check out the program!
SOURCES
Alighieri, Dante. 1954. The Divine Comedy. New York: Rinehart & Co., Inc.
Geertz, Clifford. 1966. Person, Time, and Conduct in Bali: An Essay in Cultural Analysis. New Haven: Southeast Asia Studies, Yale University.
Johnstone, Ronald L. 2007. Religion in Society: A Sociology of Religion. 8th ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Jones, Charles Colcock. 1842. The Religious Instruction of the Negroes. In the United States: 21st ed. Savannah: Thomas Purse http://docsouth.unc.edu/church/jones/jones.html.
Mauss, Armand L. 1975. Social Problems as Social Movements. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Co.
Stark, Rodney. 1997. The Rise of Christianity: How the Obscure, Marginal Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religious Force in the Western World in a Few Centuries. 1st ed. San Francisco, Calif.: HarperSanFrancisco.
The old cliche’ “Birds of a feather flock together” can be used to summarize the link between the religious system and the lack of mobility between classes. Just as the notes state that there is “some pecking order” associated with most religious power and decision making constituents, the population that is being serviced by these religious stakeholders will ultimately vary little. If somebody has the means by which to economically be able to move between social class groups, then perhaps they will ween themselves away from their current religious affiliation and begin to adapt to the one that is more germane to their new social class bracket. Interwoven in all of this minuiscia is the recognition of identity and a sense of belonging that binds individuals around religious affiliations and rehearses norms and rituals that affirm religious goals.