Intermission for Method and Theory I: Review of Film as Religion

In Film as Religion: Myths, Morals, and Rituals, John C. Lyden argues that film can be analyzed using the methods of religious studies. 

Through this blog, I have been attempting to argue that we should critique religion like any other aspect of culture, i.e. film. Though written in 2003, this book gives me ample opportunity to reflect on my methods and theory. 

Five Bullet Point Summary:

• To understand how films function for audiences we can view them as analogous to religions.

• Like Geertz, Lyden argues that we should describe rather than explain cultural phenomena. 

• Films, like myths, create an alternate world with observable tensions resolved in time through narrative.

• Liminality, disorientation of in-betweenness, and vicarious sacrifice are two concepts from ritual studies that can be used in film studies.

• Audiences are exposed to different worldviews, values, and ritual participation depending on the genre of the movie.

Extended Summary and Analysis:

Method

It should not be a surprise that I am in virtually complete agreement with his method of studying film and religion. It is welcome to hear scholars talk about how we should understand how non-scholars understand cultural phenomena, while maintaining a critical attitude towards it. 

Some sentences I wish I had written. For instance: "...this is not to suggest an uncritical approach that celebrates every aspect of popular culture, but a balanced approach that can assess the power of popular culture...and both appreciate and critique the way it functions. We should be able to examine any religion... in this way, seeking to understand it first but also reserving the right to make value judgments on it." (pg. 249)

This is an elegant way of saying that we should neither automatically defend nor attack religion, but rather assess religion for its strengths and weaknesses. Also these sentences capture the idea that we should not critique until we understand. All of these are ideas that I have said or written in various venues. 

Theory

There are larger differences between Lyden and I on theory. Lyden takes his primary theorist as Clifford Geertz, the famous anthropologist; whereas I am more partial to Durkheim.

Lyden rightly points out that Durkheim is a sociological reductionist, at least in that Durkheim argues that religion is primarily about community. In pointing this out, Lyden does accurately describe Durkheim's idea that myth is "common sense" and a strategy for social maintenance.  

However, it is odd that Lyden leaves Durkheim out of his chapter on ritual. Durkheim has at least as much, and I think more, to say about ritual. 

One Durkheimian concept he oddly avoided is "collective effervescence," moments where, while in a group, we participate in the same thought and action accompanied by excitement or delirium experienced by all, (i.e. prayer, chanting, and even rock concerts). 

In such an experience, one transcends individuality and identifies solely with the group at least while the experience lasts. Granted as a sociological reductionist, Durkheim points to how these collective (and transcendent) experiences enhance group unity. (Though the transcendent is ultimately rooted in society).

Though, Geertz's conception of religion likely adds more dimensions to a possible analysis of film than does Durkheim's. Geertz, like Durkheim, does view religion primarily as cultural. According to Geertz, religion is:

"1) A set of symbols which acts to 2) establish powerful, pervasive and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by 3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and 4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that 5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic" (pg. 42)

Lyden stresses that in Geertz's conception of religion the everyday is connected to the ideal, and that his conception can be easily applied to the analysis of films. 

However, there is at least one common theme in film and television that this theoretical perspective cannot adequately analyze: the loss of personal identity through the collective.  

For instance, the struggle between the Borg and the Federation in Star Trek: The Next Generation (TNG) and Star Trek: Voyager would benefit from a Durkheimian perspective in addition to, or perhaps even instead of, Geertz's view. 

The Federation is a group of planets that includes Earth, Vulcan, Andoria, Betazed, and many others. That is Star Trek aliens are almost always social and collective, at least enough to form governments and invent warp drive.

However, they are all afraid of the Borg. In TNG, before the movie First Contact, the Borg had no queen. They were originally imagined as a collective with no leader or even spokesperson. Regardless they placed no value on the lives of individual Borg. 

They are terrifying because of this, and one could reasonably interpret them as being in a constant state of collective effervescence.

Borg in their regeneration alcoves

  

So much so that individual Borg when first separated from the hive mind suffer severe confusion and loneliness without the community of voices they are used to having inside their head. 

Their goal is to assimilate life forms and technology that they deem useful. Thus, it is not that you die, when you become a Borg, but rather you are now part of their collective and have no individuality or will of your own; they are zombie-like.

Star Trek does have a few species that have a more nuanced collectivity. The Binars are a species who must have their partner to work and communicate with and they are all dependent on the computer on their home planet for their brain activity. 

The head of the Foundation in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine are shape shifters who can (but are not forced to) completely merge together and entirely share their emotions and thoughts virtually instantaneously. This experience is described as a joyful unity beyond words.

Bottom Line:

This book was an excellent introduction to the possibility of studying film using the methods of religious studies. And it does give some weight to my idea that we should critique religion as you would other aspects of culture. I agree with all of his statements in this regard. 

However, I think he limits himself by functionally only using Geertz as a theorist, both in analyzing film and religion. I prefer using multiple theorists, but my primary theorist is Durkheim. Though, he has convinced me that I need to take a longer look at Geertz. 

    

Spotlight on Evangelical Christianity III: My two visits to Jubilee

   

          Jubilee is a historically black church in Mattapan, located outside of Boston. The aesthetic of Jubilee is contemporary and non-traditional. The exterior has the appearance of a converted car dealership or restaurant. Looking to your right as you enter, there is a small cafe/bookstore; looking straight is the sanctuary. The cafe serves Starbucks coffee and sells devotional materials, including videos of previous sermons. The sanctuary is contemporary with no crosses, images of Jesus, or other Christian paraphernalia. The sanctuary seating is spacious and can fit 400 or more people. Jubilee prides itself on being a 'church without walls,' but other than living a moral life outside of the church, most of the emphasis was on its own community.

          I attended two services at Jubilee and both services started with amazing praise and worship. The singers could have easily performed at The House of Blues and the lighting was equally professional. However, there was too much audience participation to consider it just a concert; the worship leaders excelled at encouraging the congregation to participate. The best way to describe the worship is the sociological term 'collective effervescence'. Collective effervescence, coined by the sociologist Émile Durkheim, describes a situation in which a group of people experience the same thing at the same time such that they lose themselves in the process. For Durkheim, the function of this collective effervescence is to promote unity, and unity was a major theme in both services.

          In the first service, after the worship, there was a brief pause, and the pastor asked us to listen to the church announcements. These announcements were prepared in a commercialized form complete with voice over and slide show advertising their various ministries and services. This was a jarring interruption of the collective effervescence experienced earlier.

          But the emphasis on community and unity resumed during the call for tithes and offerings. During the offertory, the majority of the congregation was able to recite the verse: "give and it shall be given unto you, pressed down, shaken together and running over," Luke 6:38. This verse was chosen by the Jubilee leadership and is quite popular among evangelicals when asking for tithes and offerings. Also, the congregation was encouraged to be cheerful givers, a reference to 2 Corinthians 9:7. Most of the congregants knew the proper (ritualized) words to say when making their offering. This unison likely encouraged the congregants to give more money than they would otherwise.

         The sermon further encouraged community by emphasizing responsibility, particularly being responsible about health issues that disproportionately affect black communities. Remedies included, not drinking too much soda, not eating too much junk food, and exercising. The details of the sermon seemed extemporaneous (made up on the spot) though there was a clear outline. He also encouraged the younger people to go out and protest the non-indictment decision in the Michael Brown case, but he wanted them to do so responsibly. For instance, if you have kids (i.e. more important responsibilities) don't go out and protest, but if not then by all means protest.

           After the sermon the pastor asked all the men ages 16-18 to come to the altar for prayer, then men aged 19-20, and then men in their 20s, and then 30s, etc... until all the men were at or near the altar. He then asked all the women, the sisters, wives, and daughters of these men, to outstretch their hands in support of these men. The men were supposed to receive power and influence over their life and their family's life. This emphasis on gender roles is a common theme Jubilee. For instance, the men's ministry is called Dominion, and Dominion encourages men to exercise "God given Dominion over himself, his family, his finances, and his sphere of influence." In contrast, the women's ministry is called Chosen where women are "selected by God, as instruments, to do his work and to speak out for him." Men have influence; women are instruments of influence. 

          The second sermon I attended was given by the first pastor's father, also a pastor. This undoubtedly extemporaneous sermon moralized from the pulpit and often bordered on the political. The preacher chastised anyone who was having sex out of wedlock, anyone who supported a woman's right to choose (which he called a 'myth'), and also chastised those who do not spank their children. This latter part was probably the bulk of the sermon and even included him taking his belt off and snapping it a few times in the middle of the sermon. There was also an anti-intellectual moment, where he stated that he didn't care whether a marriage counselor went to Harvard (in a condescending tone), but rather how he lives his life, stating "a man can't teach what he doesn't know." (I want to make it clear that I mostly agree with his opinion about the need for practical experience in a counseling career. It is only this opinion on which I agree. I also disagree with the mocking tone in which he conveyed this opinion).

         (Normally I conduct interviews as well, but after repeated attempts I was not able to obtain an interview with the leadership of Jubilee)

Bottom line: 

          There were definitely in-group/out-group barriers in this church. First, both racially and culturally I am a white male. Second, I am admittedly a liberal. And as a liberal I was generally appalled by a good portion of the sermons, particularly the second sermon. That being said I can only write from my perspective. Other than the music, I can recommend nothing about this church. In particular, I was taken aback by the political nature of the avowedly pro-life moment in the second sermon and how the congregation encouraged the pastor with amens and other forms of vocal support. Also, the emphasis on separate gender roles made me cringe. But any good critic should take a moment and think about their own reaction to what they have experienced.  

          I admittedly come from a particular perspective; a perspective that makes it difficult to engage with people who are this different from myself. A perspective which, admittedly values the individual over the community. For instance, it is hard for me to understand the moral code that expects men and women to fulfill different roles. I can only maintain that my position is the moral one, but I must acknowledge that when I enter Jubilee I leave the moral world that I am comfortable with and enter a different moral world, one that is necessary to engage with in 21st century America. Even after much thinking, I am still unsure of how best I can engage these people and their moral world.