Churches as organizational resources


Discussion and Conclusion



Yüklə 298 Kb.
səhifə4/6
tarix19.07.2018
ölçüsü298 Kb.
#56799
1   2   3   4   5   6

Discussion and Conclusion

Measuring the Democratic Party vote both as self-reported individual behavior obtained from a survey and as a set of aggregate election returns attributed to census tracts, we find that religious identification, concentrations of religious groups,35 and most importantly, the presence of churches and synagogues in the immediate neighborhood as well as in the surrounding area all shaped the 1952 presidential voting patterns in Detroit. Members of different denominations tended to vote more like their fellow congregants, and when certain denominations were dominant, neighborhood voting followed the political tendency of that group. Beyond what has already been established in prior studies, we demonstrate that the physical presence of churches and synagogues matters. We independently map the impact of denomination and church. These findings highlight the extent to which the various religions and their social patterns influenced voters’ political behaviors.

Although we suggest some possible mechanisms by which this influence is transmitted, we do not directly measure transmission. We propose that the presence of churches in neighborhoods provides a space where similarly situated congregants could meet, establish contacts, and discuss political issues. We suggest that congregants may use church space to conduct meetings and organize events. This explanation is consistent with our review of the weekly church news in the Detroit Free Press, which includes announcements of overtly political events at church locations.

The mainline Protestant religion and its churches have a fairly consistent negative impact on Democratic Party voting. Concentrations of mainline Protestants, as well as the presence of mainline Protestant churches detract from both Democratic and more left-wing voting. We find that as of the 1950s, the black Protestant church was supportive of the Democratic Party but not supportive of more radical political positions. Black churches in the area had a positive influence on extending further restrictions on radicals and immigrants. The latter may be explained by the black community’s competition with immigrant populations. Overall, in 1950, Protestant churches, irrespective of race or theology, were a potent source of opposition to left-wing political causes.

The impact of the Catholic Church was not as great as we had anticipated. This is likely due to the mixed messages from church and fellow congregants, which canceled each other out. Still, the presence of a Catholic Church was a positive factor in Democratic Party voting and in voting in opposition to Proposal 3. These findings are consistent with Greeley’s argument that Catholics stress community while (white) Protestants emphasize individualism. The Catholic influence was found to be much more supportive of progressive change, while the white Protestant influence was more supportive of the status quo. Overall, the working-class character of the Catholic population in Detroit, especially when Catholics dominated their neighborhoods, drove the direction of the neighborhood voting patterns; while the anti-communism of the Catholic Church had little impact. The Jewish presence overall (concentrations and synagogues) consistently contributed to left-wing voting.

We find that the presence of churches has an effect that is in line with the class interests of the denominational members rather than the general36 theology of the church. The presence of a black Protestant church enhanced the Democratic vote, whereas the presence of a mainline (and sometimes that of an evangelical) Protestant churches detracted from the Democratic vote. Therefore, the effect of churches in neighborhoods most likely reflects the fact that churches brought together members of similar class background and thereby reinforced their members’ class politics. It also points to the church building as a resource for the neighborhood, rather than the political influence of its theology on the people who use it.

The American religious experience, and therefore, its potential impact on neighborhood politics, has changed since the 1950s. The members of each of the religious groups have collectively experienced some movement in their political voting behaviors. In addition, denominationalism has declined, religious special purpose groups have proliferated, and the government has usurped many of the social services formerly provided by churches (hospitals, old-age homes, higher education) (Wuthnow 1988:12, 318-9). Most notably, a “deep cultural divide between conservative or evangelical Christians, on the one side, and religious liberals and secular humanists, on the other side” has “come to characterize American religion” (Wuthnow 1989:17). This divide is not mainly along denominational lines. Even more relevant for the findings of this paper, Wuthnow (1998) has argued that the nature of spirituality has changed since the 1950s. In the earlier period, organized religion dominated spirituality, which was characterized by inhabiting sacred places which are intricately intertwined with family, church and neighborhood. In the latter period, “Americans piece[d] together their faith like a patchwork quilt” (1998:2). He calls the 1950s “an exceptional decade, an ending as much as a beginning” (1998:13). Still, “dwelling-oriented spirituality” hasn’t disappeared and “is likely to remain an appealing alternative for many Americans” (1998:15).

This paper confirms through systematic analysis that dwelling-oriented spirituality manifested itself in neighborhood voting patterns in Detroit during the 1950s. If Wuthnow is right, we should expect a reduction in the influence of church structures on neighborhood voting over time, as the importance of the church dwelling has dwindled in importance. This test awaits further study.

Figure 1. Quintiles of Estimated Catholic Population and Catholic Churches. A Plus Sign (+) Indicates One or More Church Present. (Sources: Detroit Area Studies 1953-58; Directory of Churches 1951).

Figure 2. Quintiles of Estimated Jewish Population and Jewish Synagogues. A Plus Sign (+) Indicates One or More Synagogue Present. (Sources: Detroit Area Studies 1953-58; Directory of Churches 1951).



Figure 3. Quintiles of Estimated Mainline Protestant Population and Mainline Protestant Churches. A Plus Sign (+) Indicates One or More Church Present. (Sources: Detroit Area Studies 1953-58; Directory of Churches 1951).

Figure 4. Quintiles of Estimated Evangelical Protestant Population and Evangelical Protestant Churches. A Plus Sign (+) Indicates One or More Church Present. (Sources: Detroit Area Studies 1953-58; Directory of Churches 1951).



Figure 5. Quintiles of Estimated Black Protestant Population and Black Protestant Churches. A Plus Sign (+) Indicates One or More Church Present. (Sources: Detroit Area Studies 1953-58; Directory of Churches 1951).



Figure 6. Dominant religious group (80th percentile denominational population and one or more church present).



Figure 7. Dependent Variables: Shaded Quintiles of Percent Vote Total to Democratic Party, “3” Shows Top 10% of Votes Against Prop. 3, “” Shows Top 10% Percentage Progressive Party Votes.


Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations for Individual- and Tract-Level Variables, Detroit Area Study, 1953. Reported vote and occupation are for husbands of married women.




Variable

Mean

Standard Deviation

Minimum

Maximum

Voted Democrat (Stevenson) 1952

0.59

0.49

0.00

1.00

Respondent Catholic

0.40

0.49

0.00

1.00

Respondent Jewish

0.03

0.17

0.00

1.00

Respondent Mainline

0.29

0.45

0.00

1.00

Respondent Evangelical

0.04

0.19

0.00

1.00

Respondent Black Protestant

0.13

0.34

0.00

1.00

Working-Class Occupation

0.63

0.48

0.00

1.00

Family Income (10-point scale)

6.03

2.08

1.00

10.00

Catholic Church Present

0.36

0.48

0.00

1.00

Synagogue Present

0.05

0.21

0.00

1.00

Mainline Church Present

0.79

0.41

0.00

1.00

Evangelical Church Present

0.32

0.47

0.00

1.00

Black Protestant Church Present

0.10

0.31

0.00

1.00

Ave Adjacent Catholic Churches

0.33

0.20

0.06

0.88

Ave Adjacent Synagogues

0.03

0.10

0.00

0.50

Ave Adjacent Mainline

0.90

0.45

0.05

2.63

Ave Adjacent Evangelical

0.26

0.22

0.00

0.92

Ave Adjacent Black Protestant

0.44

0.73

0.00

2.50

n = 336, casewise deletion of missing data.



Table 2. Hierarchical Linear Models (Logistic Regression) of the Probability of Choosing Democratic Party Presidential Candidate, 1952. Dependent Variable is Vote for Stevenson=1. Coefficients are exponentiated.




Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Model 4

Model 5

Respondent Catholic

1.358

1.035













(0.531)

(0.428)










Respondent Jewish

1.227

2.357













(0.952)

(1.820)










Respondent Mainline

0.491*

0.332*







0.352*




(0.200)

(0.145)







(0.099)

Respondent Evangelical

1.078

0.438













(0.756)

(0.313)










Respondent Black Protestant

6.336*

3.233*







3.202*




(3.800)

(1.980)







(1.717)

Working Class Occupation




3.467*

3.143*

3.402*

3.013*







(0.931)

(0.796)

(0.873)

(0.800)

Family Income (Scale)




0.845*

0.874*

0.859*

0.859*







(0.054)

(0.053)

(0.053)

(0.055)

Catholic Church Present







1.469*




1.691*










(0.397)




(0.463)

Jewish Synagogue Present







0.599
















(0.354)







Mainline Church Present







0.587




0.587*










(0.203)




(0.188)

Evangelical Church Present







0.804
















(0.232)







Black Protestant Church Present







2.087*




0.760










(0.956)




(0.422)

Ave Adj Catholic Churches










0.614
















(0.511)




Ave Adj Synagogues










1.246
















(1.580)




Ave Adj Mainline Churches










1.118
















(0.380)




Ave Adj Evangelical Churches










1.483
















(1.078)




Ave Adj Black Protestant Churches










2.018*

1.590*













(0.459)

(0.347)

Observations

336

336

336

336

336

Number of tract

53

53

53

53

53

Log Likelihood

-208.03

-190.67

-201.13

-200.13

-185.93

Yüklə 298 Kb.

Dostları ilə paylaş:
1   2   3   4   5   6




Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©genderi.org 2024
rəhbərliyinə müraciət

    Ana səhifə