tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post7908943681380465298..comments2024-03-26T11:33:59.219-06:00Comments on Religion in American History: Feasting at the AARPaul Harveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13881964303772343114noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-4000535864290634342012-11-21T08:37:12.511-07:002012-11-21T08:37:12.511-07:00Karen,
thanks for this nice write-up. It was good ...Karen,<br />thanks for this nice write-up. It was good to meet you and talk at length after my panel. I'm not quite comfortable with the language that these various organizations were trying to "reign in the masses." What I'm trying to do with my work on the FCC is point out that historians have to historicize in concrete social and cultural contexts who the masses or "folk" were rather than romanticize them as intrinsic carriers of rich traditions and cultural practices that resist the attempts of elites to discipline them and, in a different vein than my work, the homogenizing forces of a mass culture. I suppose it could be said that the FCC was trying to "reign in" those who supported or sanctioned lynchings, but what in reality was happening was a long-term and tedious effort to work with local churches and leaders. Lots of conversations were being had about how to get more people in churches involved, so as to empower lay people and locals to be responsible for their own communities. To be sure, yes, the FCC was trying to change attitudes, alter practices, and in fact institute and organize different liturgies and race relations so as to produce different kinds of persons than those who would justify or engage in lynching and/or burning alive another human being. But I'm trying to pay close attention to how complex the notion of "local cultures" can be when thinking about how fiercely various churches and communities themselves resisted efforts to change entrenched racial practices and tended themselves to create "others" by labeling them as outsiders or meddlers when they suggested different ways of organizing human relations. Finally, the expression "reigning in" reminds me of a reflexively "social control" argument, which all too often tends to demonize elite efforts at social change as disciplining mechanisms, and it also carries an implicit valorization of the "folk." I hope more detailed historical works can challenge these overly general explanatory models.Curtis J Evansnoreply@blogger.com