2/3/12
I tried to show clips from the blog about the Holy Ghost People, etc. but ran into technological issues. I finally was able to show the Aum Shinrikyo clip. I asked students what they thought of it. One grad student asked “Do you really want to know what I think, or what what I should say in class?” At that point, I discussed how all faith traditions have absurdities, if looked at from an outsider’s perspective (e.g. walking on water, resurrection, etc.).
We then saw a little of the Holy Ghost People clip. I told them about the Holy Ghost people and suggested a nice research topic–is there an African American equivalent to the Snake Handlers? I asked them about their observations of the Holy Ghost People by Peter Adair. What types of questions should social scientists ask about this or any group? Why do they do the things they do? How have they changed after experiencing something spiritual/mystical? We talked about the sincerity of this religious group. How they go to church several times a week and each meeting lasting several hours. I was really interested in this point and talked to them about class and religion–charismatics and lower SES versus routinized, more mainstream and higher SES. I suggested that faith was a refuge for people such as the Holy Ghost people, who have been disenfranchised in one way or another by society. Do the Holy Ghost people have a core set of beliefs? What are their sacred symbols? Sacred symbols for the Holy Ghost people are a bit complex because it involves not so much inanimate objects such as a cross, etc. but actions such as speaking in tongues. These actions are the manifestation of the Holy Ghost. So, a snake is not a sacred symbol, but taking up snakes, speaking in tongues, and similar behaviors convey a certain level of sacredness.
I related my own experiences as a teenager in Arkansas when I visited a church similar to the Holy Ghost church in Adair’s movie. From my upbringing as a fair-weather Catholic, visiting this type of church was an eye-opener. I had never seen people on the floor and in the pews shaking and so energetic. The speaking in tongues was totally alien as well as splashing holy water on each other. Although shocked, I kept my composure and sat and observed. In the class, I suggested students needed to do the same, go to a church totally alien to their own experiences.
I asked students if they ever felt the energy of some group activity such as a revival, a concert–anything where the group created an atmosphere in which the individuals got “swept up” in the experience. I introduced Durkheim’s concept of collective effervescense. This seems to be the power behind what much of the Holy Ghost people do. Most of the students did not respond. I said that there was something powerful in the group which is so interesting to me. It also points out that we are not just biological or economic puppets. Social reality is a complex interplay of many things.
I talked about the emic and etic perspectives and how we need to keep in check our biases as we study different groups in society. We need to take an outsider mentality. Such a stance will allow the observer to see things that members of the group wont see. Furthermore, I asked students to consider the fact that although they may be a devoted member of a particular faith, if they were born and socialized in another culture, it is most likely they would be a devoted Buddhist, Muslim, etc. This is hard for some to accept.
Next, I discussed how all faiths start as cults, or using a better term, a new religious movement. I mentioned Rodney Stark’s work on the rise of Christianity and how its success can be attributed to its ability to synthesize popular bits of ideology from competing faiths such as virgin birth, resurrection, etc. Another reason why Christianity was successful was that it offered leadership and salvation for women, something a number of other competing faiths did not. Once women were Christianized, their husbands and others followed suit. When the faith became established and powerful, however, women’s roles in the church were minimized. All this discussion was put forward to inform students, that to answer sociological questions, one must actually go out and do empirical research. Again, I related the tenets of science (empirical, replicable, generalizable, and tentative). Moreover, I reiterated the commonalities between the positive aspects of science and faith which are trying to understand reality and improving human condition.
The discussion ended on the social functions of a group (reproduction/recruitment, allocation of resources, socialization, etc.). I talked about the optimal group size (Rule of 120) and the Rule of 80/20 where 80 percent of the work is done by 20 percent of the people. I suggested the numbers might be even more skewed (90/10) and how this led to a small cadre of people doing much of the decision making in a group (see Michel’s Iron Law of Oligarchies).
I told students that I would give them an additional week to refine their understanding of this topic and resubmit their papers. I asked the graduate students to submit a one-page paper about their paper topic by the next meeting. I encouraged my students to read my Holy Ghost People notes as well as the excerpts provided from Salvation on Sand Mountain I provided.
