funny how it's a-okay to use weberian social theoretical models of status to study social life--as long as your initials are Yoshie.
eric writes:
>I remember this awful article. It purported that Christians were
>increasingly and drastically isolating themselves from the larger culture.
>Unfortunately, the writer stated only one (rather vague and unsourced)
>demographic stat in support of this "trend," and her interview sample was 1
>family (the mother of which she met in a chatroom--how's that for
>detachment from contemp culture!). She also didn't bother to define
>"evangelical" or where she got the numbers for her nifty little divisions
>(evangelical, liberal Protestants, Catholics, nonreligious). And those are
>just her objective sins: The tone of the piece was that of the enlightened
>liberal who's shocked at the withdrawal--imagine, kids that don't know what
>a Pokemon is!--and a little afraid that her way of life is being invaded by
>the home-schooling heathens. Though she tried to show some empathy with the
>family, it was a purely pro forma attempt.
good critique. in terms of other issues, the author ignores the very premise of most status discontent theories -- that status is relative. D'OH!! not only might they feel downwardly mobile compared to what they perceive their milieu to be, relatively speaking (we're talking go go 80s, yes?) they also may well have seen themselves as downwardly mobile compared to their parents. that is, we work harder for that money. we often have two wage earners to attain that money. what it takes to "feel" like we've made it seems to entail so much more in terms of markers (badges) of ability. it's a thesis that is all over the place and hard to miss. the author is a ninny for not considering it. it may well be wrong, but she was remiss for failing to address it at all since it is a thesis that animates so many other commentaries on cultural phenomenon in the US.
>I know what you are trying to do here, Yoshie: show that it's not the
>heroic poor and working class but the benighted middle and upper-middle
>classes who are entranced by religion. Which is fine, of course--if it's
>true. And it might be, but I wouldn't go around quoting hack reporters and
>phoned-in articles in support of your belief.
hey, if it's good enough to do in order to argue that we ought to do away with the fight to make sure that dead beat parents pay child support then it ought to do here. quote articles about impoverished fathers thrown in jail for failure to pay! whatever!
>I also know that, as you might put it, LBO-talkers wouldn't know what to do
>if religion wasn't around; Othering Christians allows them to show their
>enlightenment and provides an omnipresent boogeyman for what's wrong with
>this, er, God-forsaken society. Undifferentiating attacks on religion are
>also an assault on people like Ken, Kelley, me, etc., who are trying to
>understand belief and religion. [rest of performance deleted]
>
>Eric