“While assimilation is sometimes accomplished in part by increasing tolerance and other changes within the host society, it usually requires much more change on the part of the deviant movement itself.” (pg 24)
As evidenced by the previous readings, the American sentiment towards Mormonism was plagued by negative feelings regarding the follower’s practice of polygamy. The Mormons tried assimilation, at both the corporate and grassroots level, as the nest step towards acceptance by the American population. In doing so, however, they were forced to abandon some of their religious beliefs.
It seems that Mormon leaders went to every extent to adapt to the mainstream and secure their place in the American culture. They revised hymnbooks, taking cues from Protestantism, adopted the Boy Scout Program and worked to improve Brigham Young University in hopes that it would be seen as a legitimate institution. Mauss states that these changes “must have been mind-boggling for some of the states.” At the same time Mormonism became less mysterious to the American public, it became less steadfast in its values. Testimonies, specifically, were once of high importance in the religion became of lesser importance as they switched focus from accounts of personal witness to feelings of gratitude.
The article states that the Mormon people became extremely successful in material terms, and realized that in order for them to become even more so, they would have to compromise some aspects of their faith, including serving alcoholic beverages in their hotels and advertising adult programs on their radio stations. This situation makes it appear as though Mormons were forgoing their traditions in exchange for money. Mormons wanted to assimilate into the American way of life, however I think that Mormon leaders were sending the wrong message by abandoning the values the so vehemently defended to the American public essentially in exchange for monetary means.
To what extent should the Mormons, and present day subcultures, forget their traditional values and change their ways in order to fit into the general population? What are some positives and negatives that could come from assimilating on either those who are assimilating and the general culture? For example, my great-grandmother prohibited my grandfather and his brothers from speaking Albanian, their first language, once they started middle school so that they would become more “American.” Consequently, my grandfather cannot speak a word of Albanian today. A somewhat similar phenomenon is happening in where I am from in southern California with the Mexican immigrant population.
I completely agree that while assimilation may promote status quo social stability, it has the detrimental effect of decreasing cultural diversity in the long run. From Darwinism we see that individual variations in survival success contribute to a better gene pool. If Mormonism promotes positive values that are beneficial to America as a whole, then having the public accept and adopt these new values will lead to change and progress. In terms of forsaking traditional values for assimilation, it is an equation that the Mormons must balance themselves. Mormonism would have shifted standards through time regardless of social and political pressures. A religion cannot persevere by stay static in the turbulent courses of history. However, different incentives for change will still cast different lights on Mormonism as people question the integrity of church leadership.
ReplyDeleteI think that Sally is right regarding how Saints should adopt “mainstream” America. Their religion needs to change in order to survive the passage of time; all faiths do. However, there is a fine line between assimilation and hypocrisy. To an outsider, the crossing-over to make competitive business ventures can be seen as not only a positive action but also an unfaithfully greedy one. It is necessary to balance the magnitude of change with the time-span it’s done in so that conformity does not backfire into an opening for derision.
ReplyDeleteContinuing on the effects of assimilation, I think it should be noted that once a cultural change occurs, there isn’t much chance for going back. For example, the Mormons gave up polygamy for the time being, and it is unlikely that they could go back to it anytime soon.
I think that if the measures taken towards assimilation do not directly go against the group's beliefs they are acceptable changes that do not harm the group too much. It is when the group compromises itself in order to fit in that the changes become detrimental. An example of that, that Ellie pointed out, was when the Mormons began serving alcohol in their restaurants or keeping their businesses open on the Sabbath. Those two concessions go directly against the Mormon creed and by doing so undermine it.
ReplyDeleteAnother way of defining the balance between acceptable and detrimental changes is seeing if the benefit outweighs the loss. For instance, in Ellie's grandfathter's case, the benefit of learning English, to me, seems less valuable because he had to deny his native language. He lost more, his native culture, than he gained. That being said, it seems that perhaps the great grandmother could have compromised and allowed some Albanian in the home. To apply this balance to the Mormons it seems that what they gave up, total isolation, was less important that what they gained, acceptance by the American culture at large. In the end assimilation is all about compromise and striking a balance in which the group does not undermine its core beliefs too much.
The shift in the focus of Mormon testimonies is a fascinating expression of the self-directed assimilation by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints into the American mainstream. From the early twentieth century onward, the typical testimony has evolved from a description of a personal encounter with the Holy Spirit to an expression of general gratitude for their Faith. These testimonies, given by individual Mormons, reflect the success of the Church’s agenda to temper uniquely Mormon concepts with ubiquitous religious premises. Beyond abandoning obvious dissention from the norm such as polygamy and a collectivist economy, the Church has systematically moderated their working theology to more closely resemble contemporary Christianity. This change in Mormonism, as directed by the Church’s administration, is tangibly expressed in its followers by their nondescript testimonies.
ReplyDelete