StayLDS Ideas inspired by Armand Mauss

I read Armand Mauss’ book recently regarding his memoirs as an independent scholar of Mormon History — not tied to BYU, and also as a sociology professor. What I found was an interesting blend of religious and sociological theory that describes how he coped with the many things he saw in the church that he didn’t like, yet remained able to, presumably, be in full fellowship.

Essentially, he relied on a theory called the social construction of reality to guide him in what he believed. This theory says that reality is unknown (God knows if he exists, let’s say, but man doesn’t know for sure). Reality cannot be known. So, reality comes from our social experiences and institutions.

For example, in some native tribes, murder is acceptable. People who murder are not necessarily sanctioned, receive no punishment, and have full status in the society, So, the reality is that they are regular citizens. In American society, the reality is different — murder is heinous — such a murdered is not a full citizen of society, tends to be shunned and loses their rights. This reality develops as the reality defined by people with power in the society embed this reality in their institutions. I am still grasping a full understanding of this theory (for example, are reality, and cultural values the same thing?), but that is my understanding.

Influential Mormons have constructed theory own reality about life after death, requirements for salvation, the nature of God — JS, BY, subsequent prophets. The institution has assimilated these realities in their policies (TR’s, sustaining prophets, even reverence and near-deification of leaders, etcetera).

Mauss doesn’t look at ANY system of “reality” as ultimate truth, because it cannot be known. This allows him to walk in and out of various realities, using that reality’s lens in conversation, and accepting multiple realities as constructed by the social systems in which they developed. He CHOOSES to accept the Mormon version of reality, but recognizes it is not an absolute truth, because such absolute truth cannot be known. I like how he acknowledges spirituality, the HOly Ghost, but does not consider it to ultimately be the litmus test of which reality exists.

What does this mean for the person in a faith crisis? (The rest if my interpretation based on Mauss’s ideas)

It means you are observer of individuals in a specific reality when you are at church. They are free to say “The Church is perfect but the people aren’t”, and you don’t have to accept that as reality. You see it as an expression of that societies definition of reality. You are an observer, much like the people in the Hunger Games who watched the characters in the artificial world their society created in which the various fighters from each District fought for their lives. You don’t have to believe in that reality as the absolute form of reality that exists, and you can simply observe it as one that has been manufactured and accepted, sometimes without people even knowing that is what happened. Reality becomes an assumption of people, based on society’s constant reinforcement of its assumptions about reality.

In a way, I find Mauss’ adaptation of the social construction of reality liberating, because it means I am also free to construct my own reality based on my own social experiences. So, based on my own social experiences, it seems VERY real to me that church leaders are primarily motivated by preserving their own status and position in the church, tend to favor organizational interests over individual ones when those interests are in conflict, are generally well-meaning and well-intentioned, and vary widely on variables such as their responsiveness, tolerance for doubt and divergent thinking, and judgmentalism. That reality has been reinforced by the society of online members who are disenthralled with their church experience. We are a small society, but we have small institutions such as the moderators who manage these sites etcetera. There are validating organizations for some people like Ordain Women, and to some extent, the church has recronstructed its own reality toward blacks and women in the church based on society’s construction of reality on racial tolerance and higher status for women. (I realize the church has a way to go on the latter issue).

Anyway, that is my take on it. I hope I have the facts straight about the meaning of the social construction of reality.