On the Power of Explanation
From the Department of Interesting Dovetails:
-Survey data shows that the number of Americans identifying themselves as “Christian” has dropped from 86% to 76% since 1990, with the rise in self-identified evangelicals unable to compensate for the decline in “mainline” Protestantism. Meanwhile, those identifying with “no religion” have climbed from 8% to 15% over that time (h/t Michelle Cottle). Researcher Mark Silk’s explanation:
“In the 1990s, it really sunk in on the American public generally that there was a long-lasting ‘religious right’ connected to a political party, and that turned a lot of people the other way…In an earlier time, people who would have been content to say, ‘Well, I’m some kind of a Protestant,’ now say ‘Hell no, I won’t go.’”
-Meanwhile, Tad McIlwraith notices that students in his Introduction to Religion class are having difficulty understanding syncretism, and hypothesizes:
I wonder if the difficulty in conceiving of these possibilities is the result of media coverage of religious extremism or fundamentalism which says something like ‘You are a Christian and THEY are not’. In essence, the questions suggest, being Christian (or whatever) is only possible in the absence of other beliefs.
Unfortunately, it’s difficult to establish what evidence Silk and McIlwraith have for their claims, though it’s intriguing enough that they reached similar conclusions from such disparate phenomena. Assuming they’re (even partially) correct, though, this concept of an “absolutist” Christianity needs to be more fully teased out, in particular the difference between belief and practice.
I’m not sure that media coverage of fundamentalist Christianity would be enough per se to persuade mainline Protestants that they’re not religious, or students that religion is naturally exclusive; after all, there will always be people in a given congregation who are “more religious than” everyone around them. Instead, perhaps it’s a qualitative difference: because media coverage of evangelical Christianity so closely hews to particular political controversies, evangelism is presented not as religious practice but as a set of explanations and justifications for positions on the issues of the day. In other words, it’s seen as a totalizing worldview. Mainliners who suspect their beliefs deviate from the accepted line could be declining to call themselves “Christian” because they don’t see Christianity as an explanation for everything, and therefore suspect they don’t “deserve” the label. They may continue to go to church, or they may not; the distinction is one of belief.
Such people are, of course, probably more likely to stop attending church. That’s because contemporary Western culture tends to stigmatize participation in a religious community that’s not accompanied by a profession of (roughly proportional) faith, calling it hypocrisy. Part of this is likely due to the destigmatization of “those of no faith,” a phenomenon Silk notes. But it’s a shame nonetheless, as it ignores the very real benefits religious practice provides even to syncretists, skeptics and those who are merely insufficiently dogmatic.
Focusing on explanatory power also provides insight into another of McIlwraith’s observations about his students:
More than usual, some of my students are interested in grand theories that explain everything (most things?). Evolution (ie adaptation to specific environments) is popular as an explanation for cultural difference…Is this the ‘Jared Diamond Effect’ where people gravitate to seemingly tidy explanations that cover every possibility? Why are big explanations more appealing than presentations of local nuance?
I think Diamond, who uses Darwinian evolution mostly as a metaphor, has been successful because of the enduring interest in evolution “as an explanation;” Steven Pinker might be a better avatar. The students McIlwraith is teaching have come from a high-school science education that simultaneously preached evolutionary theory as dogma (in most cases) and expressed excitement at its unexplored frontiers, which promise to link the full range of human tendencies and behaviors to textbook evolutionary principles. In fact, this is one of the few parts of the standard high-school curriculum that doesn’t have to fight to assert its “relevance” to prove it’s more than mindless memorization: evolution is with us every minute of every day! It’s the comprehensive explanatory power of evolutionary theory that’s elevated it to such a reverent position among secularists, even those not otherwise of a deterministic bent. (Of course, current research indicates that understanding “local nuance” is necessary to make evolutionary explanations mean anything—a point Pinker articulated quite well here —but I haven’t seen that percolate into the popular narrative yet.)
So is it any wonder that McIlwraith’s students, armed with only one theory that has comparable explanatory power to religion, should expect him to present them with another one in its place if his class challenges their assumptions? And that, if it fails to do so, they will see no reason to abandon the theory they have, which equips them with more “relevant” understanding without having to memorize all the seemingly trivial facts?
Here’s another possibility: Secularism is gaining ground in America because America is finally catching up with Europe in cultural modernity. The United States is the only Western country where religion still has considerable social and political power. Maybe American culture is finally stopping being the lone outlier in Western civilization and is submitting to the logic of a rational, scientific worldview.
But why is secularism so attractive in modern cultures? Because it makes sense. Religion in America, especially when it’s tied to politics, is committed to positions that fly in the face of reality: creationism, abstinence-only sex education, refusing funding for effective AIDS prevention, denying global warming, and so on. The more religion is determined to defying common sense, the less meaningful it is in helping people make sense of their lives.
Dara Lind makes two misleading comments in the article. First, the Mcllwraith post linked in the article doesn’t say anything about Mcillwraith’s students’ actually personal commitment to religion. Mcillwraith observes that his students seem more interested in universal theories than in local explanations. He also notes that his students see Christianity as an exclusive commitment incompatible with other beliefs. Mcillwraith nowhere says his students are less religious because they are committed to evolutionary theory.
Second, it’s tendentious for Lind to write that high schools “preached evolutionary theory as dogma.” The schools teach evolution as the dominant theory underpinning all modern biological knowledge. That’s just how it is. Asking the schools to teach otherwise is asking them to lie to their students.
— Jerry · Mar 10, 06:02 PM · #
My mother, a preacher’s wife, refuses to call herself a Christian now, she thinks the term has been co-opted. Originally we were non-denominational. They built churches and knew a lot of big preachers (Olsten mode) when they were just starting out. We all grew up in the buckle of the Bible belt. I can’t say anymore on that bc people will know who I am.
Non- denominational became co-opted. Then we called ourselves Evangelical, well they took that too. Christianity, ha they are trying to take the term, I say let them have it.
Who you might ask? The Southern Baptist. Come not Farwell et al. were always Southern Baptist the MSM just let them cloak in a new name. They became over-exposed in the 70’s early 80’s. Other’s like Parsley were Pentecostals, until the SB’s realized they needed a non segregated church to have as their front.
Her last straw was seeing the pic of Parsely and others, praying to the golden Bull (calf?) on wall street. I like the term Christianist (thanks Sullivan) until I see those people act Christlike that’s what I’ll call them.
— eh · Mar 10, 07:52 PM · #
“Here’s another possibility: Secularism is gaining ground in America because America is finally catching up with Europe in cultural modernity. The United States is the only Western country where religion still has considerable social and political power. Maybe American culture is finally stopping being the lone outlier in Western civilization and is submitting to the logic of a rational, scientific worldview.”
If you really believe that Europeans are more committed to rationality and science than Americans, then it means you’ve never been to Europe.
— Ozzie · Mar 10, 10:23 PM · #
Here’s another explanation. Women have traditionally been more religiously observant than men (from the pews not from the pulpit, of course — God forbid!!) As American Christianity becomes increasingly obsessed with keeping women restricted to Kinder Küche Kirche, religion become increasingly unattractive to modern women.
But I’m probably biased, being one of those husband-murdering, witchcraft-practicing, child-deserting feminists the Religious Right hates so much. I’m actually even worse than that: a recusant Republican voter.
— mandy cat · Mar 11, 01:48 PM · #
Thank you Dara for picking up on my questions — I raised them with the hope that they would promote discussion and, selfishly, help me improve my teaching. (I posted the same comments on the list serv of the American Anthropological Association’s Society for Anthropology in Community Colleges. The discussion has also continued on my blog and on savageminds.org.)
By way of background, my observations came up on a day when I got several reactions to lecture material which surprised me. The evidence for my claims is narrow — the claims are based simply on observing my students in two different college classes on two different days. Nothing more. But, the questions are informed by five years of teaching during which time I have tried to pay attention to what my students are asking. I’m interested when the questions students ask change. Indeed, I posted the observations in large part to find out if other instructors found the same things in their classes. Turns out that they have, they do, and these student questions and dilemmas are old (not surprisingly).
I think, Dara, your concluding paragraph is basically right. If I have learned anything by asking these questions, it is that students, like many of us, are interested in the answers to big questions. This is certainly a product of their intellectual training (limited as it may or may not be). Further, I also realize more directly now that anthropology should be asking and trying to answer some of the big questions. We have left that up to the Pinkers and the Dawkins and the Diamonds of the world for too long. Going forward, I intend to blend much more of the local particularities (that I prefer to discuss and teach) with larger theories into which the particularities might fit.
To Jerry — you are right. I am not trying to judge my students’ own commitments to religion. Those commitments are largely irrelevant in my class. My students are religious, typically. Many are not Christian. The class is a place to discuss the importance and significance of religion in human cultures regardless of any one specific religion.
— Tad McIlwraith · Mar 11, 02:59 PM · #