The other day, I found two very intriguing articles. The first was a livejournal article wherein the blogger teased out the sociological differences between social class and economic class (and the ways in which American understanding of social class is confused by its conflation with economic class.) The second was a hypothesized typology for splitting America into three broad social classes (with 4 sub-classes each, or a total of 12). I thought these articles were quite good (definitely worth a read), but I also noted that these articles seemed very lengthy, and also very theoretically dense, so I will summarize the key points of these articles that I’ve been chewing on recently:
- In America, social class is very rarely discussed. As a shortcut, we often conflate social class with economic class (e.g., how much money you earn/what type of job you have)
- The conflation of economic class hides differences in social classes, and as a result, disrupts our discourse. We generally understand that there is a difference between a well-paid plumber and a poorly paid grad student, but by focusing on income, we miss the differences of those social classes, and consequently misunderstand these two people’s focuses, desires, or preoccupations.
- For example, we often take economic class concepts like “earning more money” (which many people do desire) and conflate them with social class concepts like performing middle class-ness…say, “earning more money by getting an office desk job, learning how to speak proper business English, and dressing in a white shirt and tie” (which are not necessarily universally desired by are desired by certain classes.)
- We can begin to speak frankly about social class by recognizing it as cultures. Different social classes are acculturated to appreciate or value different things, and different social classes “perform” their class in different ways. As a result, movement between social classes doesn’t simply mean making more or less money, but in learning to appreciate or value the things that our targeted culture appreciates. In other words, we learn to perform the different culture.
- These points allow us to reconceptualize the value of certain other things. For example, we can reconceptualize education as being more than knowledge of facts or even a process of earning credentials on paper. Rather, choice of education represents the choice to be cast in a play in your aspired social class and culture. The cost of more elite schools is not justified solely for more knowledge or even necessarily better credentials on paper, but by whether someone can be properly exposed to higher social classes. In fact, to the extent we speak about “prestige” or “professional orientation” or “workplace readiness” or “leadership” or “character”, we are getting at the ability for a college to acculturate its members to perform a certain social class.
- Also, if you bristle at the idea of going into debt or paying more money primarily for the opportunity to be exposed to a different social class, then that probably says something about your current social class’s values. I know that for me, I majored in accounting, and I viewed my college experience as being more about learning facts than about networking. As will be discussed below, this fits my social class as a “gentry” rather than “elite” (although some of my peers may have been striving for an elite class, and so their focus was on developing the ability to network for exclusive connections.)
- As a working model, we can generally view of American social classes as revolving around three “infrastructures”:
- “Labor” classes have primarily physical infrastructure, and the relevant connection is learning how to use physical devices or spaces, and then getting other people to trust that they have that competence to properly use that physical infrastructure.
- “Gentry” classes have primarily “intellectual” infrastructure, where they navigate knowledge, education, and “interestingness”.
- “Elite” classes have an infrastructure of social connections (particular exclusive social connections) and the maintenance of those networks.
- Although that model might seem to fit along our existing economic class terms (like working class, blue-collar, white-collar, etc.,), there are differences and overlaps. For example, labor leadership may earn quite a high amount of salary, and may even have non-salary sources of income (such as passive income from franchise ownership), but ultimately they are still labor class socially because their outlook is based more on their relationship to physical infrastructure. That is, a small business owner or landlord will likely still be very active in the day-to-day operations, whereas a corporate manager will likely not have personal experience with manufacturing processes, because they are hired for their expertise in management, financial planning, etc., A grad student may be very low earning, but because they invest in knowledge, education, or “interestingness” and not in physical infrastructure, they maintain different social class.
If you’re still with me, thanks for keeping up so far.
What does this have to do with Mormonism, though?
To be honest, when I first read this, I didn’t relate it to Mormonism immediately. However, when fellow Wheat & Tares blogger Stephen Marsh shared one of the articles to a private Facebook group, I thought about what sort of connections could be made — and something very interesting happened: I realized that we can view differing focuses of faith in transition and crisis as representing different social classes in Mormonism.
Faith Stages as Social Classes
Mormon Faith as Physical Infrastructure
If we look at a basic model of faith in transition with Mormonism, we can view a certain segment of the Mormon population as being focused on “physical” concerns. Mormonism is about doing. It’s about following physical commandments regarding things like the Word of Wisdom and the Law of Chastity. It’s about physical acts of loyalty through obedience. Even a concept like mourning with those who mourn is viewed through a physical lens: helping others comes in the form of physical projects like providing dinner or assisting in moving.
In this model, whether past or present, faith has been assessed based on physical criteria. As Mormons moved to Utah, one’s faithfulness to Mormonism was not necessarily predicated in what one believed (and in fact, theological speculation was wild in those old days)…it was about one’s commitment to building Zion. Those willing to work were considered legitimate Mormons regardless of belief. Even today, this model can be assessed by evaluating worthiness via performance of physical tasks — does one follow the Word of Wisdom? Does one follow the Law of Chastity? Has one done his home teaching? Has one assisted with the ward cleanup?
Mormon Faith as Intellectual Infrastructure
A quick glance at many stories of faith crises will reveal that for many, crisis is about beliefs. It is about an incongruence with the narrative one has been told. The CES Letter is a perfect example — it is about claims we are expected to mentally assent to regarding history, etc., In this model of faith crisis, one rapidly researches issues searching for evidence through texts, data, and history.
To people in this mode of thinking, the idea that they left to sin (in terms of breaking Word of Wisdom or Law of Chastity) seems insulting or trivializing. Even if a disaffected Mormon might eventually reconsider the Word of Wisdom and determine to try certain things prohibited by it, per this mode of thinking, the proverbial “last straw” was intellectual. If they made any sin, it was in failing to believe what the church wants them to believe.
…but this analysis is not complete. It’s not correct to say that faithful Mormons believe under a physical model and disaffected Mormons disbelieve under an intellectual one. We must recognize that there is Mormon faithfulness as intellectual infrastructure as well. In Mormon Studies or in apologetics (whether you like these things or not), we see an expression of Mormon faith in terms of one’s ability to develop and sustain intellectual models that support the church, or we see an expression of Mormon faith in terms of one’s journey to commit their lives to researching Mormon topics thoughtfully. The very name of something like A Thoughtful Faith implies that a virtuous and well-considered faith is a faith consciously thought through and examined.
In this model, questions of belief are elevated — so one may not prioritize things like the Word of Wisdom, but rather questions about Joseph Smith being a prophet in terms of the historical record of what Joseph did, and so forth.
Mormon Faith as Cultivation of Relationship
If you pay attention to certain folks, such as Patrick Mason, Dan Wotherspoon, Terryl and Fiona Givens, Adam Miller, and so forth, then you will come to see a pronunciation of faith that does not merely discuss intellectual concerns (although they may trade in the “interestingness” of the Intellectual Infrastructure). (In fact, those folks who are undergoing faith trial or crisis from the perspective of intellectual infrastructure might often criticize these writers as not treating concerns regarding facts with the gravitas they perceive is due.) In this sort of “pastoral apologetics” approach, faith is contextualized in terms of one’s ability to “live into” Mormon community. As Dan Wotherspoon often describes, the fundamental transition that must occur over time is a move away from “head concerns” to an addressing of “heart concerns”.
In this mode, faith is seen in terms of preservation of relationships and interconnetedness. Belief in facts of the intellectual infrastructure are seen only as instrumental to maintaining valued relationships. Even physical infrastructure is seen as incidental or instrumental to building relationships — so physical ordinances are valued not because of their physical face value, but for their ability to bind us into relational communities.
In this mode, faithlessness is seen in terms of unwillingness to engage in that preservation of relationships and interconnectedness. (So, communities like StayLDS are about how one can stay engaged, regardless of what one’s beliefs or even physical activity ultimately looks like.) The disaffected member in a relational/interconnected mode would note that the way people treat others (e.g., gays, feminists, intellectuals) is stifling and relationships are difficult. (To a physical infrastructure member, this disaffection might be described as “leaving because one was offended.” Again, people undergoing transition due to intellectual infrastructure are insulted by this implication, because to them, whether they stay or leave does not depend on how they are accepted socially at all, but in whether the truth claims are accurate or not.)
Thoughts on Interaction between classes
In the original article linked above discussing the typology of labor, gentry, and elite classes, the author describes the interaction and relationship between classes. Different classes may have adversarial or distrustful or mixed relationships. This strikes me as true of these faith classes. Someone in a intellectual mode may see the physical mode as being thoughtless and may see the relational mode as being involved in the religion for the wrong reason. Someone in a physical mode may see the intellectual as unwilling to put his shoulder to the wheel, but may see the relational individual as misunderstanding the importance and value of the physical commandments. (I am reminded of a former coblogger here, Bonnie. At some point in a conversation, she discussed how she felt that so many of the conversations here and elsewhere in the bloggernacle seemed pointless when compared to digging down and doing the work of the Gospel. With the framing provided in this post, I can appreciate that this statement discusses Mormonism is a physical and lived religion. All of this intellectualizing can be nice, but it’s a distraction from the bread and butter of service and striving to our neighbors and family.) Finally, someone in a relational mode may see intellectuals as thinking with too much head and not enough heart, and may see physical individuals as not quite grasping the spirit of the law to go with the letter of the law.
In the article linked above to LiveJournal, what struck me was that the author struggled with classism (they felt fairly hostile to the values of the class in which they were raised, and viewed their middle class aspirations/achievements as being a “better way of living”) while at the same to time recognizing that theoretically, understanding of classes could allow us to move past our classism by being able to talk about it.
Similarly, it seems to me that when we discuss faith crisis, we miss that these are transitions between classes that do not necessarily imply that one is “better” or “worse” than the other (although from the vantage point of our class, we might think certain classes are worse or better than ours). When we say someone has “lost” their faith, we may instead be discussing that from a class perspective, they are migrating classes. They may no longer value the infrastructure of one class, and instead seek the infrastructure of another.
Does this seem reasonable to you? How do you see yourself in terms of these typologies? I imagine many readers of LDS blogs fit within the intellectual sphere (whether they believe or do not), but can you see how other ward members or even you may engage in a different way? Do you think it will help to build compassion for different people in different walks of faith by recognizing that they may have different cultural or class values?
Wheat & Tares 
A very good analysis Andrew. I think these three classes do exist in the church, but that there is more overlap between them than social classes in society at large. The values of all three classes are regularly championed and emphasised by General Authorities. It would be difficult for any TBM member in any one of the classes, to tolerate someone who minimised the importance of Intellectual Infrastructure, because the Intellectual Infrastructure is universally excepted to be extremely important for everyone, even those who might not personally be inclined to rigorous theological purity.
But recognising that differences exist is a great step forward in trying to help us see that we are not all members for the same reasons, nor do we need to have the same reasons to have respectful fellowship together. (The eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of thee.)
Nate,
I totally agree on the overlap. I think, in fact, that there are some interesting “social mobility” questions one might ask about involvement in the church, where at times, certain aspects are prioritized over others, but really, it’s just as you say: you can find General Conference talks both talking about the virtues of each of these, but also talks discussing the pitfalls therein.
The church is, in a sense, a good way of forcing people to have to deal with the other classes…so there are a LOT of blog posts, articles, and whatnot (see something like Eugene England’s “Why The Church Is As True As the Gospel”) where someone from, say, an intellectual perspective will discuss how they have been forced to get down into the “physical” aspects, but also to strive up to the “relational” aspects of dealing with different people.
At the same time, I perceive much of my youth and upbringing in the church as preparing me for networking, leadership, proper dress, elocution, and so on.
This was interesting. I definitely see the distinctions and agree there’s overlap. I would say I do occupy all three areas, but I’ve definitely shifted over time in my journey. Also a common response I get when I bring up any intellectual/historical question is “who cares, just do your visiting teaching” or “it doesn’t matter, you must not be reading your scriptures enough” so I would say that response comes from the physical performance crowd.
I enjoyed this post. I’m not so sure I agree that these are “classes” as much as lenses through which you view the world (maybe that’s close enough to classes). I think that most people would identify with more than one class.
This has given me a lot to think about in terms of how my husband and I relate to the Church and to each other. I am most definitely an intellectual class. It is hard for me to imagine being in a Church that I know is not true. I can live with uncertainty, but if I were certain it was not true, I’d be out. In an effort to stay, despite the difficulty I have intellectually, I have tried to reach into the relational category (the physical category is definitely not me, although I sometimes wish I had that personality). I keep telling myself that even if it is not true, I can become a better person and member of my community by staying.
My husband on the other hand is extremely relational. When he struggles with wanting to leave, it is often because he worries staying will damage his relationship with me and with our daughter as she grows up. The thing that keeps him in the boat is fear of damaging his relationship with some of his family members.
Interesting post. Thanks!
What is also interesting is the value put by different groups on respecting or challenging authority. It is no accident that labor unions cast themselves in terms of loyalty to each other and academic unions in terms of preserving privileges.
The other factor, which is not a class or strata issue is how concrete or abstract one is in approaching things.
Someone who is highly abstract sees a seer stone or a urim as the same thing in transmission of truth by the gift and power of God.
Someone who is very concrete seems them as completely different.
The other has to do with narratives.
Some people have a range of “facts” they deal with in forming their narratives and use anything consistent with.
Abstract approaches of evidence that is “consistent with” vs evidence that requires leads to all sorts of places.
Most of the evidence we deal with is second or third hand and well removed, so it all comes from constructed narratives.
Those create issues too.
Kristine,
Great thoughts. I do agree that the sort of responses one receives do say a lot about their primary mode of engagement. So maybe that can help us have a bit more charity…we can recognize certain comments as not necessarily being personal or dismissive, but just that they come from a different place that is more of a focus for that other person than it may be for us.
EBK,
I can see your point that we might refer to these as lenses through which we view the world…but I think that was one of the main takeaways I got from the original articles: as a culture, our social classes do define (or at the very least inform) the lenses through which we view the world.
But I LOVE your assessment of the different ways in which you and your husband struggle — I think it’s really spot on with the analysis.
Accepting the validity of the different class views would definitely increase compassion, but it is extremely difficult to accomplish. Not only do people look down on those in the other classes, they are downright suspicious of them. It’s hard to get good communication across class boundaries.
It’d be the third class viewpoint that’d have the hardest time accepting excommunications and exclusionary policies – and that definitely describes a lot of people in the bloggernacle. The second class viewpoint would struggle with doctrinal and historical discrepancies – again, lots of those on the bloggernacle. The first class types would struggle with high expectations and burnout. My experience on that angle would be the mommy blogs.
Complicating everything is that most people have some aspects of each class, just that some viewpoints dominate over others. This feels like a personality test.
re 5 and 6,
Stephen,
I agree with your comments here. I think there really is so much more analysis and investigations we could go into here. Like you said, I think the relative value between groups is different. Loyalty vs say, expertise and credibility.
And I also agree on your comment on narratives. Definitely think there could be a lot of ways to frame and explain differences.
Huh, the third class types would also be the ones *most* hurt by family members cutting ties (choosing church over family). That’d be the most offensive thing you could do. I think there’s a lot of merit to these general categories.
re 8,
Mary Ann,
That is definitely the challenge. Our understanding of social class often comes with the implicit idea that where we are at is best (unless we are consciously seeking to change our classes, in which we identify that the other class is “better” than where we currently sit.)
I think you really capture the difficulties that each group faces.
And I love your complication. As I commented earlier on in response to Nate, one strength of the church is that there are quotes that speak to the good of each of these classes (but also quotes that speak to the excesses or deficiencies in each of them too). So even if we have a dominant one, we are expected to grow in the other areas too. (E.g., expected to believe in certain truth claims *and* practice certain practices *and* engage in certain relationships)
re 10,
Mary Ann, just saw your additional comment.
I totally agree, by the way, and that points out how these categories reach out in so many ways (that’s why in the post, I tried to explain…what does this category look like to someone within the faith? What about someone outside? etc., etc.,)
Like, we can see the difference between the third class and the second class like this: as you note, the third class is most put off by the idea *that their friends and family might cut ties with them*. The second class is more put off that their friends and family *won’t come to the same intellectual conclusion that they have*. When i think about the first class, one thing that comes to mind is conversations I had with people who were *profoundly* offended by LDS baptisms by proxy. At the time, I thought, “Well, if you don’t *believe* in the LDS church, this action should not bother you because it is meaningless.” But to them, these are harmful or disrespectful gestures, regardless of the intellectual/truth value of the gesture.
And the first class is put off that you were not loyal to them and the church.
Fascinating. Certainly here, I’d say that the classes you propose seem from my experience to align quite well with the social classes of the members. Is this something that can be observed elsewhere?
So. “You don’t believe in the church” becomes “you don’t believe in me.”
Anglican High, Middle and Low church divisions come to mind Hedgehog.
14,
Hedgehog,
Well, interestingly enough, this basic structure was detailed in far more detail as a way for Americans to conceive of social classes in a non-religious context — since for many of us, we just don’t really see social class as a thing separate from economic class. That this happens to be a good fit for social class in a religious and Mormon context (not to mention internationally, if comments from you and Nate and others are correct) is just really very neat.
#15 Stephen – definitely. Part of the problem I was trying to highlight in the betrayal post.
A rose by any other name. This reminded me of the post I did years ago about the Kiersey Temperament Sorter and how it related to different types of people in the church: http://mormonmatters.org/2009/05/23/bloggernacle-personality-survey/
So the parallels to your groups would be:
Physical = SJ/SP (SPs like to do things for the joy of doing them; SJs like to do things out of a sense of duty).
Intellectual = NTs all the way
Relational = NF (plus some overlap with a subset of SFJs and SFPs)
I could probably re-post that one some time. I think it does a lot to explain what’s important to different people and what they get out of church, and it truly doesn’t mean the same things to different people, although I’m not sure I see those as “groups” in the sense of a culture in which people associate with people like them. On the contrary, I think all these types of individuals exist within the church, and then everyone talks past each other and makes assumptions about why people do and say what they do and say.
For example, your observation about the physical group (that I would associate most strongly with Kiersey SJs – the most common of the types). They tend to rise in leadership because their commitment is visible and tangible and they often are reliable due to their strong connection to duty. Thanks to their fealty to authority, they are also very comfortable being yes men, doing as they are told by hierarchy and conforming to the party line. Those who don’t get in line are viewed as shirkers and dead weight.
More to think about here. Still ruminating.
I recognise that test hawkgrrrl. Came out as on the border between INFJ/INTJ, assuming it’s the same test on that link in the post. May not be. Very little difference between F and T preferences, so that’s a balance between intellectual and relational I guess.
Andrew, yes. What I also see is that the church facilitates social mobility to a some degree, so that what was important to ones parents (converts), isn’t what is then important to the children, where that mobility takes place. This is seen in the hostility amongst some convert members (primarily working class) to university education, which they perceive results in the child falling away from the church due to intellectual questions. I’d also posit that the particular ‘class’ we see here of CES employees families, are a relational class, by virtue of their CES employment, and the training they receive and thus connections with higher echelons in the wider church, mostly moves them out of the class which would have difficulties with historicity etc. Of course, they are also the class which would have easier access to the more nuanced views (pre-internet), and control over the dissemination of that information more widely. I think Wilfried over at T&S may have commented about the CES class in Britain and Europe elsewhere. This appears to be a class encouraging education, and whose children marry each other. That’s my observation anyway.
Stephen, possibly. I don’t know that there are very clear boundaries between the middle and then low or high on either side though. Upper class much more likely to be high church, and far less likely to convert to another faith/ denomination however.
Very interesting, Andrew. It reminds me of Pres. Hinckley’s training that new converts need three things: a friend, a calling, and to be nurtured by the good word of God. Those seem to hit the three classes: cultivation of relationships, physical infrastructure, and intellectual infrastructure.
For myself, I am definitely in the intellectual infrastructure class. I just can’t get past, if it’s not true, what’s the point?
And of course, for people in a faith crisis, you experience a lot of pressure from people in the church trying to win you over to their particular class, whether it is the performance aspects (think of all the good the church does), the intellectual aspect (apologetics), or the relationship aspects (being part of a faith community in order to work on your relationship with God). Each class, you are told, is the “true” gospel, and your focus on problems with the other classes are missing the mark.
re 19
hawkgrrrl,
I love the applicability to Kiersey temperaments. However, the interesting thing here is that I have always viewed those sort of temperaments as being individual and somewhat innate. In contrast, a social class type analysis would tend to view that these sorts of things are social/communal, and that they are socialized/acculturated/learned.
While I agree with you that in LDS church settings especially, all these types exist, and people basically talk past each other…I do also still think that the groups kinda self-select. In other words, the sort of people who go to Sunstone or submit to Dialogue or go to MHA are in some sense self-selecting away from other sorts of things.
I think that to the extent all groups exist within the church, that speaks to its ability to appeal and gather multiple classes in one area.
I am thinking about Stephen’s comments for examples of other religious denominations where that may not be as true that “high church vs low church” distinction.
re 20
Hedgehog,
Totally agreed.
re 21,
Joel,
Great point on Pres. Hinckley’s comment…it does seem like that addresses all the aspects.
And I totally agree on the “attempts to switch class” aspects of addressing faith crises.
I see a lot of people saying things as you have said it. From their class (which, on the internet, that’s often going to be intellectual), it’s just as you say, “If it isn’t factual, what’s the point”)
Whereas for me, that hasn’t been my focus. Mine has been more of an analysis of social benefits and social costs — and to me, it looks like for several minority/marginalized groups, Mormonism doesn’t provide practically beneficial life advice.
Andrew,
Being a sociologist myself this may have been one of my favorite bloggernacle articles ever. I think the conceptualization here has a lot of usefulness in not only understanding faith transitions (it has given me an interesting way to articulate my own) but also just to being Mormon in general. It would be kind of cool to do a 3×3 grid and then maybe brainstorm the communications and relationship disconnects that can happen when different combinations are communicating.
I think the elaborations and discussions that people are having here are a testament to how good sociological analysis can be interesting and helpful.
Do the various groups also vote a particular way, and even drive particular cars.
I percieve the first group as obedience prefered, conservative voters, and likely to drive a japanese car(in Australia) perhaps an American car in US.
So it is not just how they view mormonism, but their whole outlook on life, which confirms hawkgirl’s tests I think, and Andrew’s too.
This was a great post and contains a lot of ideas I have been thinking about recently.
I was raised with the perspective of the first group – just do all the stuff and don’t think about it too much. As I grew older I allowed myself to explore/think about all the things I never understood. The internet was great – not because it led me to new information, but because I found out I wasn’t the only one thinking the things I had always thought. I was solidly in group two (probably always have been but was told to shut up too many times).
And now I don’t really see any reason to stay, except for the reasons in group 3. The trouble is, in all my life I have never found any social value in the church. I have never fit in, I have never enjoyed it, I have never had LDS friends. The only thing I have is an LDS spouse who refuses to move from group one. I suppose that makes me stay for relational reasons. I’d like to have more reasons to stay, but I have really come to see that the reasons in group three are probably the only reasons worth staying.
“for several minority/marginalized groups, Mormonism doesn’t provide practically beneficial life advice” That is my conclusion also. I’m not really sure how anyone can see otherwise, unless they willfully ignore the realities of those groups. There’s a lot of one size fits all mentality without any real listening or problem solving behind it.
re 23
rah,
I’m so glad to hear that this is being received well, especially from people who actually work in this field.
I think a 3×3 grid would be really interesting to see!
re 24:
Geoff-Aus,
I would definitely suppose that these sorts of categories would have impacts elsewhere (especially since they were originally framed outside of a religious context)
re 25
Elsie K,
One thing I have thought about is how we can still pick and choose between the groups. So for example, with respect to the first group, I’m not sure if I could “just do *all* the stuff”…but I could do SOME THINGS. When people talk about shifting missions from proselytizing to service missions, I think they are thinking about shifting the focus of the church from group 2 to group 1…but even within group 1, they may be OK with service, but they may not be OK with certain temple ordinances.
Or, if I look at just the 2nd group, i would say that a lot of my engagement with Mormonism these days is through things like Sunstone — where people are engaging with Mormonism intellectually, but also culturally. (And that’s why I like that the original author used the term “interestingness”…because a lot of the discussion is, “OK, let’s not worry about whether it’s true or not; let’s just discuss it because it is interesting.”)
re 26
Hawkgrrrl,
I think the challenge here is that for any minority group, someone could point to a really faithful, conservative member of said group who does find Mormonism to be really helpful to them. Even though to me, Mormonism is just really lacking in its message to LGBT people, I still have to accept that some people are apparently OK with being celibate and hoping that they will be made straight in the afterlife.
Straight is the gate and narrow the path, as they say. . .
Today a speaker said that you can measure the level of your faith by the level of your obedience. Couldn’t help but think of this post.