There is a political
identity associated with members of the church. While not all members vote
conservative the political identity of the church is overwhelmingly conservative.
The state of Utah’s population is about 62% Mormon (Salt Lake Tribune). Utah was
also found recently by Gallup to be the second most conservative state in the
country, with 50% describing themselves as conservative, and only 14%
describing themselves as liberal (Gallup). It is unlikely this high correlation
is a coincidence. Statistics aside, all a student at the predominantly Mormon university
BYU has to do to realize church member’s political identity is to wear an Obama
pin and notice that they suddenly get stared at like they are form a different
planet. A political identity among church members is present and its cause is
explained by the primordialist approach to political identity.
The
primordialist approach to explaining political identity argues that political
identity is something you are born with or gain at a young age, is largely
unchanging, and is based on shared historical experience, as well as aspects of
people’s culture (Samuels, 153). The largely unified political identity of
members of the church is explained quite well by many of these characteristics.
Members of the church have a shared identity because of their common culture.
Members of the church, especially in Utah, where there are less converts, all
share a common history and culture. Members of the church are encouraged to
learn about their pioneer ancestors that many have in common. They play in
basketball leagues together, share the same recipes, listen to the same music,
and most importantly adhere to the same standards and beliefs. All of these
things are clear examples of kinship bonds that have formed between members of
the church. They truly have “deep emotional and psychological attachment
individuals feel towards the greater community” (Samuels, 153). All it takes for
this collective identity to become politicized is for something to threaten it.
Primordialists predict that members of these groups will collectively
mobilize when they feel threats to their collective identity (Samuel, 154).
Part of church member’s collective identity is their belief that marriage
should be between a man and a women. In 2008 the California state supreme court
invalidated the rule in the state that defined marriage as being between a man
and a woman (California Courts). This was a clear threat to the practice of
church member’s collective identity and they reacted as expected based on the
primordialists approach. Members of the church campaigned aggressively to pass proposition
8 that redefined marriage in a way that no longer threatened their beliefs.
In contrast to primordialists, constructivists argue that
people are mobilized not because of a deeply rooted identity, but because of
tangible interests (Samuels, 168). This is a poor explanation for the action of
members of the church with regard to proposition 8 in California. The
constructionist view would suggest that members of the church mobilized
politically because they held some tangible interest in proposition 8 going
through. In general this was not the case. The church got a significant amount
of bad public relations do to member’s involvement in the issue which is
against their tangible interests. A much better explanation for their action
was the primordialist view. Their identity became politicized because their way
of life was threatened and they rose to defend themselves from that threat.
There definitely is a political identity within the
church. This identity and the politicization of it is well described by the
primordialist approach. The church community collectively mobilizes when some
aspect of their culture comes under threat which is clearly seen in member’s fierce
support of proposition 8 in California.
Works Cited
Samuels, David J. Comparative Politics. Upper
Saddle River: Pearson Education, 2012. Print.
Gallup, http://www.gallup.com/poll/152459,
viewed 10/11/12
Salt Lake Tribune, http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home3/53909710-200/population-lds-county-utah.html.csp,
viewed 10/11/12
California Courts, http://www.courts.ca.gov/2964.htm,
viewed 10/11/12
Great argument for the Primordialist approach, though I can't help but feel like the constructivist agruement can explain some past examples. In the past members of the LDS church mostly aligned with the democrats. So the primordialist approach answers many of the issues but it cannot answer for the shift in the general LDS populus at this time. But the Primordiaist approach answers many issues of the political identity in the church.
ReplyDeleteThe vast majority of members of the church are converts, so they weren't born in the Church, nor were they in the identity from a young age. so the Primordialist approach doesn't make sense.
ReplyDeleteGreat job. I like how you used the real life example of Prop 8 in your paper to give your argument validity. Like Chase, I think that there is some room for the constructivist argument in explaining the unique LDS political identity. I think that you used the book well and explained your point of veiw very clearly.
ReplyDeleteInteresting post. I feel like many think of a constructivist approach, but I like how you argued for primordialist.
ReplyDeleteI like the post. I feel like it is hard to define it to just Primordialist or Constructivist...its more like a combination of the two.
ReplyDelete