Faraway, I've very much enjoyed this thread.
America is "far away" from being a classless society. This idea is one of America's most cherished myths but it is a myth for sure. The "aristocracy" of the southern planters was obliterated by the same war that gave rise to a new industrial-based aristocracy of the super wealthy in the North. It also gave rise to an intellectual elite in New England which continues to set the tone for American culture to this day...... And I'll stop here because there's no way to go further without stepping into politics!
Ah. Yes but in the American mind it's perceived
by these people perhaps- the rest don't necessarily acknowledge the whole set-up. Nor does anyone
have to. I find it annoying, no politics there.
It's wonderful to have our intellectuals, I suppose someone must lead industry but please do not ask me ( in general, not aimed at anyone ) to venerate anyone or in any way regard someone a cut or so above ( or below ) me. Catch anyone in 1860 or 2015 dubbing themselves ' the aristocracy ', see how quickly they vanish from public life.
What Faraway said is vastly interesting, the European perspective maybe containing some of what we seemed to have been clinging to in 1861. ( swear it's not off-thread ) There was a huge influence here by Europeans, the British and French but only in some sectors. Was it a hold-over from our genesis or a do-over, the wealthy classes feeling this to be a pretty fait set-up, all things considered? For them I mean.
Religious doctrine may not have stated in the books, as it were, a Who's Who according to God- there are undoubted roles played by earlier churches a little handy sociologically. Dad was a Lutheran Minister, masters, theology; doc religious education- neither of which means I know a thing but he did ensure once in awhile we listened instead of pinching the little sister.
' Fortune theodicies ', I think can be processed under the heading of predestination, no?
"
Research on stratification and religion is guided by contradictory theoretical perspectives, but studies consistently highlight the degree to which religion influences and is influenced by social inequality. The consensus is that social factors play an important role in perpetuating America’s religious mosaic. "
" Religious theodicies: Weber suggested that members of different social classes adopt different belief systems, or theodicies, to explain their social situation. The affluent embrace of good fortune theodicies, which emphasize that prosperity is a blessing of God. Good fortune theodicies allow the successful to believe that their success is deserved and that the less fortunate also experience their due. Theodicies of misfortune, on the other hand, appeal to the poor and present a less sanguine picture of worldly success. Theodicies of misfortune emphasize that affluence is a sign of evil and that suffering in this world will be rewarded in the next. Weber suggested that this type of transvaluational orientation has been a characteristic feature of lower class worship. "
" Social class and religious practice: Rich and poor express their religion in different ways. The lower classes are more likely than affluent groups to pray in private, believe in the doctrines of their faith, and have intense religious experiences (Demerath 1965, Davidson 1977); the middle and upper classes are more likely to attend worship services and take part in church organizations and activities. Stark (1972) suggests that the poor show greater religiousness in those aspects of faith that serve as a relief for suffering; the middle and upper classes participate in religious activities that help confirm the legitimacy of their claim to high status. "
The article goes on to say this has changed somewhat post WW1- to keep it relevant am using portions of the study encompassing America's religious genesis through Jackson's time- mostly. It's tough to separate completely because there are cross-overs.
http://hirr.hartsem.edu/ency/Stratification.htm
REFERENCES
M. Adriance, Opting for the Poor (Kansas City, MO.: Sheed & Ward, 1986);
P. L. Berger, “The Class Struggle in American Religion,” Christian Century 98 (1981): 194-199;
D. B. Billings, “Religion as Opposition,” American Journal of Sociology 96 (1990): 1-31;
G. Burns, The Frontiers of Catholicism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992);
H. Cantril, “Educational and Economic Composition of Religious Groups,” American Journal of Sociology 47 (1943): 574-579;
J. D. Davidson, “Socio-Economic Status and Ten Dimensions of Religious Commitment,” Sociology and Social Research 61 (1977): 462-485;
J. D. Davidson, Mobilizing Social Movement Organizations (Storrs, Conn.: Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, 1985);
J. D. Davidson, “Religion Among America’s Elite,” Sociology of Religion 55 (1994): 419-440;
J. D. Davidson et. Al., “Persistence and Change in the Protestant Establishment,” Social Forces 74 (1995): 157-175;
N. J. Demereth III, Social Class in American Protestantism (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1965);
N. J. Demerath III and P. E. Hammond, Religion in Social Context (New York: Random House, 1969);
J. R. Feagin, Subordinating the Poor (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1975);
R. Finke and R. Stark, The Churching of America (New Brunswick, N. J.: Rutgers University Press, 1992);
N. D. Glenn and R. Hyland, “Religious Preference and Worldly Success,” American Sociological Review 32 (1967): 73-85;
A. M. Greeley, “Catholics and the Upper Middle Class,” Social Forces 59 (1981): 824-830;
B. W. Hargrove, The Emerging New Class (New York: Pilgrim, 1986);
G. N. Howe, “The Political Economy of American Religion,” in Political Economy, ed. S. McNall (Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman, 1981): 110-137;
B. Johnson, “Do Holiness Sects Socialize in Dominant Values?” Social Forces 39 (1961): 309-316;
A. K. Korman, The Outsiders (Lexington, Mass.: Lexington, 1988);
G. T. Marx, “Religion,” American Sociological Review 32 (1967): 64-72;
A. K. Mock, Social Differentiation and Individual Belief, Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, 1988;
A. D. Morris, The Origins of the Civil Rights Movement (New York: Free Press, 1984);
M. A. Neal, The Just Demands of the Poor (New York: Paulist Press, 1987);
L. Pope, “Religion and the Class Structure,” Annals 256 (1948): 84-91;
R. E. Pyle, “Faith and Commitment to the Poor,” Sociology of Religion 54 (1993): 385-401;
R. E. Pyle, Persistence and Change in the Protestant Establishment (Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1996);
M. Rokeach, “Religious Values and Social Compassion,” Review of Religious Research 11 (1969): 24-39;
W. C. Roof, “Socioeconomic Differentials Among White Socioreligious Groups in the United States,” Social Forces 58 (1979): 280-289;
W. C. Roof and W. McKinney, American Mainline Religion (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1987);
R. Stark, “The Economics of Piety,” in Issues in Social Inequality, ed. G. Thielbar and S. Feldman (Boston: Little Brown, 1972): 483-503;
J. E. Tropman, “The ‘Catholic Ethic’ versus the ‘Protestant Ethic’” Social Thought 12 (1986): 13-22;
M. Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (New York: Scribner, 1958 [1904-1905]).