I still haven’t quite forgiven sociology for consuming my mind. That being said, let’s explore it more. Logic, right? It’s like a song that’s stuck in your head. If you play it enough times, it’ll get unstuck. I’m not quite sure that’s how it’s going to work with sociology, but it’s either keeping these thoughts spinning in my noggin or putting them somewhere. For my own sanity, they’re going here.
Yesterday’s post was about one of the essays I wrote for my sociology final exam. This post will be about the other one. Oddly enough, I actually wrote the essay in this post first, but my brain worked a little backwards in the order I made my thoughts public. Anyways, today we’re going to be returning to the idea of religion in society. Refer to my post “I Had my Mind Blown by A Rabbi” for more insight into my recent theological endeavors. Before we talk about my opinion on the topic, we’ll again turn to Matthew Desmond’s Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City. Instead of applying sociological theory to Jori and Jafaris, this essay and post will apply the perspectives of the three major theorists (Marx, Durkheim, and Weber) to a woman by the name of Crystal. She is a low-income, black Christian whose story overlaps with Jori and Jafaris’. Here is the quote I was given as part of the prompt:
“Crystal didn’t want members of her church to reduce her, to see her as an object of pity, a member of “the poor and orphaned.” She wanted to be seen as Sister Crystal, part of the Body, the Beloved. Crystal received a bag of food once in a while; and congregants had opened their homes to her for a night or two. But her church was in no way equipped to meet Crystal’s high-piled needs. What her church could offer was the peace.”
Page 248 of Evicted
With consideration for this quote, I was to propose what each theorist would define “the peace” as, and then include my own thoughts. Just as with the last post, anything bolded/underlined is class vocabulary, and my post-submission notes are scattered throughout. Here we go!
The complexities of religion and society are very powerfully explored through the lens of Crystal in Matthew Desmond’s Evicted. In many ways, Crystal’s identity as a Christian shapes some of her actions and influence life events for other characters, however this same element of her identity also speaks to many sociological subjects. In addition to the role of religion in society, the key elements of intersectionality and solidarity, among others, are directly tied to Crystal’s religious affiliation and this idea of “the peace”.
When understanding this element of Crystal’s identity, it must be emphasized how she didn’t want members of her community to reduce, objectify, or inappropriately categorize her based on factors outside of her religion. Namely, this would include factors like her race, living situation, and financial status. She didn’t want to be identified by anything other than her identity as a sister in Christ. The understanding of this complexity will begin there. One could argue that Crystal sought complacency, or she sought to “fit in” within that one culture in society. This would fall directly in line with Marx’s ideologies surrounding religion. As was discussed in class, Marx thought of religion as an “opiate for the masses”. What is essential in this analogy of religion being a drug, is the emphasis on what exactly this drug produces. In this case, Marx would argue that it would produce complacency, or forced satisfaction with the cards one was dealt. Marx would argue that this is where the idea of “fitting in” would be problematic. Crystal’s desire to be seen as part of “the Body” or “the Beloved” is a sizeable and alarming indicator of her complacency in religion. In the terms of a conflict theorist like Marx, this would be a significant indicator of contributing to inequality.
Within this realm of inequality, there is also consideration for intersectionality. In a society where intersectionality is highly prevalent, Marx would argue that it contributes to inequality. In this example of religion, Crystal’s ideal relationship with her church omits her intersectionality as a black, financially disadvantaged woman. The reduction, objectification, and classification Desmond writes of in relation to Crystal and the church is a prime example of intersectionality. Following this idea, the reality that her church “was in no way equipped to meet [her] high-piled needs” (248) further fills Marx’s ideology. They could offer her peace in the form of complacency. They could offer her a place where she was made to feel lucky to have what little she had. Under Marxist thinking, this would be a tremendous problem that overshadows the realities of the racial and socioeconomic injustices Crystal faces outside of the walls of her church and religious community.
I’ll elaborate a little more here. I always get a little nervous talking about intersectionality because Conflict Theory takes a unique stance on it. They see it as a cause for furthered inequality, but they also see it as a valid part of identity. It’s complicated. What I’m trying to get at in this part of my essays is the reality that the complacency sparked by religion, as Marx would argue, only furthers the inequality sparked by intersectionality. That’s why Crystal’s church can’t meet her needs. The emphasis I’d like to add is in relation to Desmond’s diction. When describing her needs, he calls them “high-piled”. I have two questions that stem from this. One, are they high-piled or are they alarmingly real? Two, is it Christian to call someone’s needs high-piled? Is it an indirect belittlement of Crystal? Ok so maybe three questions… Back to the theorists.
Differing quite significantly from Marx, Durkheim would take a rather different approach to Crystal’s relationship with religion, and subsequently society. Considered the original functionalist, Durkheim believed that religion gave people structure and roles to fill, making society function better. What is particularly fascinating about this part of Durkheim’s teachings is the key component of solidarity. Durkheim taught that there were two types of solidarity: organic and mechanical, and the type of solidarity found within a group would determine the function of society. In the case of Crystal and her religious community, Durkheim would build a case for mechanical solidarity. This would mean the communing of a group of people based on shared values or beliefs, as opposed to organic solidarity, which relates to the interdependence of people based on the roles they fill in society. Organic solidarity is widely associated with labor and professional fields. If this were a case of organic solidarity, Crystal’s community would rely on their interdependence of one another, and the multiple societal roles they fill, to find a way to meet all of Crystal’s needs. However, considering this is not the case, her relationship with religion and a religious community would fall under the mechanical classification. The “peace” offered by her community would be that solidarity. A differentiation between pre-industrial and industrial societies, this would reflect a pre-industrial society, which historically would mean a more religiously based society. It is in Durkheim’s “Anomy and Modern Life” that this idea is further explored. The failure to meet the needs of humankind is what he calls anomy (anomie in native spelling). The resolution of this is solidarity, whether organic or mechanical. Durkheim would call anomy a cog in the machine that is society. But he would also argue that through solidarity, we can regain some level of satisfactory function.
I always get nervous when I differentiate between organic and mechanical solidarity, and when I bring up anomie. I have a lot more to learn about these three things, but that’s just anxiety. I don’t have much to add here, y’all lucked out.
This is exemplified not only through the “peace” offered by Crystal’s church to the struggling young woman, but also through the occasional food bags and nights of shelter. However, this is also seen by Crystal herself as she extends the invitation for Arleen and her boys to stay in the apartment when Crystal moves in. By offering this temporary roof over their heads, she is extending a form of solidarity. The women do not rely on each other’s jobs or areas of expertise, they connect on the Christian morale of charity, despite their later friction. There is much more that could be explored within this idea of functionalism and Crystal’s religious connections, but the ultimate reinforcer for Durkheim’s ideology surrounding religion is that it provides set roles and functions for each community, and each individual member of that community. In Durkheim’s argument, religion helps society run better, highly contradicting Marx’s thoughts.
When discussing the correlations between religion and society, Max Weber cannot be left out of the conversation. Famously known for his text, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Weber is significantly associated with the roles of religion in society. For the sake of Crystal’s example, let’s first remove capitalism from Weber’s ideologies. Simply put: Weber believed that religious theology could serve as a spark for social change. In a way, religion could improve society. Weber primarily associates this with the rise of capitalism in American society, but his overarching message is drastically different from Marx’s, and also bears some difference from Durkheim’s. Where Marx argued that religion initiates complacency, Weber argues that it sparks positive change. Where Durkheim argues that it provides social roles, Weber argues that it develops and changes social roles. So, how does this connect to Crystal?
This is where the idea of “peace” comes into play. Offered by Marx, this peace would be complacency. Offered by Durkheim, this peace would be solidarity. Offered by Weber, this peace, one could argue, would be the opportunity to develop and maybe climb on the social ladder. However, what staunchly contradicts this idea is the blatantly stated fact that Crystal’s church couldn’t meet all of her “high-demanding” needs. This is where there is separation between church and doctrine. Weber argues that it isn’t necessarily through an ecclesiae, or established religious institution, but rather a denominational theology that this social change can be sparked. Granted, the two are very commonly interconnected, but it is the basis of ethics, and their prevalence in society, that Weber builds his argument. Weber in some ways took on the larger ecclesiae when discussing this, referring to the Protestant Reformation and the flaws of the Catholic Church. This is a very big grey area when applying Weber to Crystal that, in all honesty, will require more thought and study. The one undeniable element that Weber’s peace can offer Crystal is the idea of a calling. A very large component to his “ideal type” when it comes to religiosity, Weber believes that a major factor in someone’s life is their calling, a form of a “divine purpose”. Though not explicitly defined in Desmond’s book, Crystal’s church can offer her the “oneness” of being Sister Crystal, perhaps making her religious identity the crux of her calling.
Pause. Let’s talk about this idea of a calling and how it relates to society. I think I fell a bit short in my initial attempt. Weber has a lot of ideal types. Actually, his multi-volume book Economy and Society is on my list of books to read before I die, and it’s full of ideal types. When it comes to an ideal type in this sense, we could of course build the argument for professional religious people. Priests, Imams, Rabbis, nuns, etc. It’s their “calling”. But I think applying this idea of peace adds another layer. What if we were to associate finding one’s calling with finding one’s peace? Then Crystal would find her calling and fit Weber’s ideal type. So how would society change? Well, we’d see a lot more religious affiliation, and maybe even a few functionalist ideals? Keep in mind that Crystal is part of a Christian congregation. This is again where I said I need to study more, and I’ll leave it at that.
So what do I think? Who do I agree with? The answer to that is a very simple “yes”. I don’t necessarily believe that all religions make people complacent, at least I’d like to think there are a few that stray from that ideology. However, I have both experienced and witnessed that complacency. Marx has weight to his argument. There are correlations today, even as recent as the Supreme Court opinion that was leaked. The mass inclusion of religion in the macro-structure of our federal government has allowed for political leaders to comfortably exist solely within their religious sphere. In that sense, I’m with Marx. However, and that is a very sizeable however, I do see the elements of religion that benefit the chaotic existence called life. Where I make the differentiation between Marx and Durkheim is scale. On a larger scale, I believe religion can prompt a lot of “comfort with an educational cap”. People are comfortable with what they know and believe, and that’s all they need. But on an individual basis, the need for religion can be quite significant. While social issues may not always be addressed by the undeniably popular presence of (namely) Christianity, its application to personal troubles is essential. If a priest, rabbi, or imam can fulfill their social role by aiding in the resolution of a personal trouble, then religion is doing exactly what Durkheim argues it does. It provides structure and solidarity, but for individual people, that can feel like a whole lot of peace.
I’d like to agree with Weber on the idea that religion can spark social change. It is the basis of religious evolution that allowed America to turn from Puritan to Yankee, or from Christian to Constitution. I’d also like to agree with this idea of finding one’s calling. However, Weber associates this to capitalism, which has very dangerously linked religion with a money-based society. In theory, it is contenting to associate one’s profession with one’s calling, but there is again the root of money. If religion is the spark for social change, why did our society change into something so driven by money? This is all to say that I believe religion can do what the religious want it to. It can provide the peace, in an ideal world, that we choose. Whether that be complacency, solidarity, or change, it is up to society’s members. Crystal did her best, though to what effect is arguable, to choose her church’s role in her life. That is what I agree with. Choice.
Let’s backtrack a bit and revisit this idea about religion, society, and money. It makes me sad that Weber was able to tie theology to money. He essentially calls ecclesia capitalist institutions. Are our places of worship businesses? To an extent, yes, but not entirely. I think Weber disagreed with this idea of structure (hence is issues with the Catholic Church), but it still disheartens me nonetheless. I think each theorist brings good arguments to the table when it comes to religion and society, especially when it comes to the idea of peace. Crystal’s ideal peace may be this “Sister Crystal” identity, and readers can do with that what they want. My ideal peace, well that’s something I’m still working on, both in belief and attainment.
So do you think I like talking about religion and society? Maybe just a little… too much. Believe it or not, there’s still more I want to talk about in relation to religion, both tied to sociology and simply personal, so stay tuned. Well, dare I say sociology and I have made amends, at least for now. As I wrestle with many things, sociology being one of them, I am continually thankful for the gift of knowledge, and the professor who has given me the chance to further gain it.
And now off to bed, before another day of full-time work begins. G’night!
Humble Chutzpah 