What Is The Faithful American?

Religion and social change are slowly becoming less exclusive in the United States.

This is the hunch I had when I saw this picture on Facebook. The Church of Latter-Day Saints is historically as socially progressive as Jehovah’s Witnesses and Catholics; quite conservative in fact. It took until 1978 for the LDS to allow black members of the church to attain priesthood and participate in any basic leadership roles. So the fact that there were Mormons, albeit from the San Francisco area which is renown for open-mindedness, were marching in the 2014 Pride Parade seemed out of place. Perhaps the liberal sides of religious communities does not receive as much media coverage because of the other extreme. For the most part religiousness still coincides with both levels of social progressiveness and party lines.

With 85.9% Americans self-identifying as religiously affiliated, The United States is still vastly religious. And although the group of unaffiliated people is growing, almost a quarter of those unaffiliated still consider themselves religious. But even though those that are more religious are also more likely to be socially conservative, the liberal religious still exist.

Even religions known for social conservatism have groups, whether small or large, influential or a small fry, engaged in liberal ideas and social change. In the case of Mormons at Pride parade, they may be the liberal outliers in a more conservative religion.

Our stereotype for the faithful does not hold space for the faithful to also be just as dynamic, or not, as the American population. For example, last week Pope Francis upheld the Catholic church’s view that evolution and the Big Bang were both accepted theories and concordant with G-d’s plan. Although the Pope continues to uphold other conservative church views towards sexuality, abortion and contraception, he is remarkably progressive in interfaith communication and acceptance. The media went wild last Sunday when he affirmed that the Catholic Church did in fact believe in evolution and the big bang—as G-d’s plan, of course. Most online articles one can find on this will ignore the fact that Pope Francis is not the first pope to reconcile evolution with Catholicism. The first pope to do so was Pope Pius XII in 1950. The media perpetuated the rigid idea that all religion hangs on to philosophies of the Renaissance.

As the Pew research shows, the modern United States is just as religious as it has ever been. Even though the religious fabric is fluid, a vast majority of Americans stay connected to a faith. Despite this, our society continues to evolve. It is only despite because in the past religious institutions have not been on the forefront of social change—on the contrary they often uphold tradition and a more static society. The more extreme a religion, the more strongly a religion holds fast to the past. Or so one would assume. But perhaps this idea of religion equals conservative views is too overarching. Yes, there are Mormons who are strongly conservative, and yes it is a socially conservative religion, but there are also socially liberal Mormons. In the united states we have a strange relationship with religion. We believe in the separation of church and state and yet swear people into public office with the bible. There may be the outward perception that religion is an “other”, but in reality the faithful are everywhere—even in pride parades.

What Did He Just Say?

"Hey, look it there! I just saw a thousand dollars..."

Recently, Hollaback, a non-profit organization fighting to end street harassment, uploaded a video that has circulated the web.

In this video, titled "Here's What It's Like to Walk Down the Street in New York City as a Woman", a female in her 20's, dressed in a casual outfit (jeans and a black T-shirt) spends 10 hours walking soundlessly down the streets of Manhattan. Although she keeps to herself and directs her attention ahead of her, she receives a remarkable amount of cat-calls, disrespectful come-ons and even several cases of stalking. A total of over 100 instances of verbal street harassment was recorded within this 10-hour experiment.

Unfortunately, this isn't a surprising scenario. Although shocking and shameful, situations like this are far from being uncommon in the patriarchal world that exists in "every quadrant of the globe."  According to David Newman, the patriarchy allows men to thrive as the dominant sex and legally "protects male interests and privileges." This means that women were at the expense, being left with less advantageous social opportunities in terms of the conflict perspective. In the experiment, the men on tape freely tossed lewd comments at the young woman in a way that solely nurtured their satisfaction and temporarily entertained them. They were clearly unaware of how discomforting and degrading their comments were to her as an individual. 

Furthermore, the video prompts a reaction from the audience that is equally threatening and even more shocking than the verbal street harassments directed towards the young woman. In response to the video, hundreds of comments were posted. A frighteningly amount sounded like this:

As written above, the men (and one woman) behind the comments express their opinions about how exaggerated the issue was. To them, the young woman was receiving flattering compliments rather than victimizing harassments that crippled her social value. A point was also made that she was supposed to defend herself, a responsibility pinned on females because of the normalized notion that men are allowed to let their sexual impulses roam free.

And now let's take a look at the last comment, provided by that_indian_guy: "She is ugly." Are you serious? This user looks like he totally disregarded the inappropriate behavior displayed on tape and the message expressed through the experiment. How the woman's level of attraction seems to be the most important factor that stands out to him exemplifies the objectification of girls and women. Reinforcing looks as a measurement of social value in society, the user basically concludes that if she's not pretty enough, she's deemed irrelevant. 

Below are the most-liked opinions (a.k.a. top comments) expressed by several Facebook users: 

Here, a woman, not only normalizes inappropriate street harassment, but she accepts the fact that "boys will be boys." She also says it's the woman's responsibility for picking the right neighborhood to walk in and doesn't mention anything men have to do to decrease street harassment. 

Another female commenter points out that the young woman isn't even that pretty. 

These users to the left all joke around with the incidences of verbal street harassment the young woman experienced as if the situation was completely unnecessary and exaggerated. What's even more infuriating is the amount of support these comments received.

The patriarchy and the entitled sense of dominance males have over females is a deeply rooted sociological structure that has a crippling effect on girls and women that often goes unnoticed. The sexual aggression expressed by men has been so normalized that it is hard to identify as wrong. As shown by the actions of the men in the taped experiment and the reactions of the top commenters, women are still forced to bear most of the responsibility of preventing sexual harassment, or else deal with the consequences. Or, in the eyes of the "the compliments." 

Video link: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2014/10/29/street-harassment-video-new-york-city/18104973/

Funny or Die's parody, "10 Hours of Walking in NYC as a Man": http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2014/10/30/white_man_walking_in_nyc_funny_or_die_parodies_hollaback_street_harassment.html

Sociological Comics

            Above is a comic that very nicely highlights an aspect of gender roles in our society. While there are many aspects of gender roles and how they effect our society, this comic is looking at the idea of there being things that only women should use and things that only men should use. Sociologists make a clear distinction between the terms sex and gender. Sex refers to one’s biological identity of being male or female while gender refers to the socially learned expectations and behaviors associated with being male or female. Sex is biologically assigned while gender is culturally learned. This comic shows some sort of duck creature coming up with the idea of making makeup for men. This shows how an outsider to our society, in this case an animal, would look at the gender roles we have in place. This creature thinks there isn't makeup for men because no one thought of it yet, when in fact it is because the gender roles in our society say that men can't where makeup because its for girls. Gender differences exist in nearly every social phenomena. From the moment of birth, gender expectations influence how boys and girls are treated. In fact, gender expectations may begin before birth as parents and grandparents pick out pink or blue clothes and toys and decorate the baby’s room with stereotyped gender colors. This evolves into things like men not being allowed to wear makeup because it will make them less of a man. 

         This comic is going off of the idea of an outside perspective on our society. Here it can be seen through a child who is new to the world and is going through socialization. The adult in the comic is well socialized and sees things like war and soldiers killing each other as a normal part of how the world works. However, when you step back and really look at it (child perspective) soldiers killing each other is and should be seen as something that must be removed from the way our society works. For reasons like this, socialization can be seen as a very bad thing in our world, but socialization only reflects the norms and rules put in place, so the only way that socialization can become a truly positive thing is by changing our norms for the better.

The Business of Charity

Think breast cancer. For most the initial association with the words breast cancer will be a pink ribbon. Due to the efforts of the Susan G. Komen foundation, the now famous pink ribbon has become unquestionably linked to breast cancer awareness and the search for a cure to a disease that is anticipated to kill 40,000 women in the U.S. in 2014.¹ In early October, Susan G. Komen announced their “Doing Our Bit for the Cure” partnership with the oilfield services company Baker Hughes. The mainstay of this campaign is the painting of a thousand drill bits pink to raise awareness for breast cancer. These drill bits will be used in Baker Hughes' hydraulic fracturing operations, a technique for retrieving natural gas that is known to produce countless carcinogenic chemicals.² For the past two years Baker Hughes has contributed $100,000 annually to the Susan G. Komen foundation. More on this partnership later.

This is not the first time that breast cancer nonprofits such as Susan G. Komen have been involved in questionable partnerships. Some highlights include pink KFC buckets, Mike's Hard Pink Lemonade, and Avon Beauty Products. This type of collaboration between corporations and nonprofits forms a mutually beneficial relationship, which has come to be known as “cause marketing”. Why is it that cause marketing is so successful and what does this success say about our culture and values?

To answer these question I will start with a discussion of pinkwashing, a term referring to the widespread use of pink breast cancer ribbons on a multitude of products most of which have nothing to do with breast cancer. It is this pinkwashing technique that has led the Susan G. Komen foundation to become one of the the most successful nonprofits in the country with a total revenue in 2013 of 339 million dollars.³ This success is in large part due to their widespread commercialization. Corporations operate with one inherent goal, to make a profit. In many ways the Susan G. Komen foundation operates in a manner similar to a corporation with the end desire being to make money. However, many non-profits align themselves with corporations. So why is it that Susan G. Komen stands out as being one of the most successful? Perhaps it is in their marketing of the disease. Breast cancer is not sexy, it is a horrible disease that ravages the body. However, this is not an image that will sell to the American public. Breast cancer has become a product; it is pink; it is delicate; it is feminine; it is a lace ribbon. This is an image that is palatable, one that consumers are willing to support and that corporations are able to market.

In many ways corporations just like people go through the process of image creation and identity formation. However, with corporations this image creation must be particularly deliberate. In a 2006 study of millennials,⁴ after learning that a company was socially responsible 79% were likely to purchase that company’s products. In addition 89% were likely to switch from one brand to another if the second supports a cause. Cause marketing is big business with the opportunity for companies to reap large economic benefits. Doing good makes us feel good, everyone likes to feel like they are helping others and that they are able to have a positive influence on other people's lives. Cause marketing is merely capitalizing on this desire. When a company aligns themselves with a nonprofit they have now added a new feature to their product. By purchasing a product that has been aligned with a nonprofit it makes it easy for the consumer to feel as if they are doing something good for others and in turn this makes them feel good about themselves. Companies have actually created a new kind of product, helping others is labor intensive, sometimes expensive, and often requires a dedication of ones time. Corporations are presenting consumers with an alternative. Buying a product such as pink Pepperidge Farm Milano Cookies now becomes an act of charity that can happen instantaneously and provides consumers with a quick and easy way to help others without actually sacrificing their time or any additional money. It is instant gratification, it is “the commercialization of giving”.⁵ This form of commercialized charity is not inherently bad and does in fact raise money and awareness for nonprofit organizations. However, the issue with this type of charitable giving arises when consumers no longer feel the need to donate to charities directly because they believe that they have already done their part by purchasing products from companies aligned with nonprofits.

Now returning to the example we started with. How is it that the Susan G. Komen foundation can possibly rationalize their decision to partner with Baker Hughes? It seems that as public awareness grows of this issue, Susan G. Komen may be forced to rethink their acceptance of this donation. However, in the eyes of the commercialized nonprofit, money is the ultimate goal and quarterly reports are the benchmark of success. This prioritizing of money can have unintended consequences, leading breast cancer nonprofits to partner with companies linked to carcinogenic chemicals. Such is the case when Yoplait sold yogurt to raise money for Susan G. Komen as part of their “save lids to save lives” promotion. This yogurt was made with dairy stimulated with rBGH hormone which has been linked to increased risk of breast cancer, obesity, and diabetes.⁶ In response to complaints Yoplait has now been rBGH free since 2009. In addition, in 2009 Mike's Hard introduced a Pink Lemonade flavor of their alcoholic lemonade sporting the iconic pink ribbon to raise awareness for breast cancer. According to Susan G. Komen's own website “Many studies show that drinking alcohol increases the risk of breast cancer”.⁷ While examples such as these are more common then one would expect, this method of running a nonprofit is working for the Susan G. Komen foundation. As long as they continue to raise millions of dollars each year, it is unlikely that they will stop anytime in the near future.

Notes

1. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts and Figures 2014. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society, 2014. <http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@research/documents/webcontent/acspc-042151.pdf>.
2. "Update on Hydrofracking." American Academy of Pediatrics. Web. <http://nysaap.org/update-on-hydrofracking/>.

3. "The 50 Largest U.S. Charities." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, Nov. 2013. Web. <http://www.forbes.com/top-charities/list/>.
4. "The Millennial Generation: Pro-Social and Empowered to Change the World." The 2006 Cone Millennial Cause Study (2006). Web. <http://www.centerforgiving.org/Portals/0/2006%20Cone%20Millennial%20Cause%20Study.pdf>.

5. Polonsky, M. J., and G. Wood. "Can the Overcommercialization of Cause-Related Marketing Harm Society?" Journal of Macromarketing 21.1 (2001): 8-22. Web. <http://jmk.sagepub.com/content/21/1/8.full.pdf+html>.

6. "Milking Cancer." Breast Cancer Action. Web. <http://bcaction.org/milking-cancer/>.

7. "Alcohol." Susan G. Komen. Susan G. Komen. Web. <http://ww5.komen.org/BreastCancer/DrinkingAlcohol.html>.

Welcome to Introduction to Sociology Class blog! 

Starting next week, students in SOAN 100 will be posting images, ideas, and commentary to help us see and make sense of the social forces (or "water") we are constantly swimming in.  Watch this space for creative, compelling, and critical reflections on the social world....