Hull-House and Religion

Though the formation of the Hull house may have not been specifically influenced by religion, the house bonds cultures together (social cohesion), and in that way, serves a purpose similar to that of most religions. This was especially clear after looking at the website about the urban experience in Chicago. Looking at the photographs on the website, it is apparent that the Hull house was a refuge for many different cultures.





The picture above depicts “Wares from the various art and manual training classes were sold at the annual Hull-House fiesta." The Hull house provided immigrants with the skills they needed to succeed in American (such as manual training skills), but did not deprive them of their traditions. The best way for a culture to acclimate to a new environment is to mix new tradition with old, rather than convert wholly to new. The Hull-house provided an atmosphere where maintaining certain non-American traditions was possible.

If compared to religion in general, the Hull-house would not be “staunch” or “conservative.” In fact, it would be considered quite the contrary-- “tolerant” and “liberal.” Religion, in my opinion, should not provide guidelines so strict that there is no room for innovation or change. The Hull-house was an interesting example, and perhaps one of the first true examples, of an institution that accepted other cultural ideals. It was a place where cultures could mold their own identity by mixing old tradition with new. If the ideals of the Hull house were to be expanded into a spiritual scenario, they would provide a good baseline for a religion—the liberalness would not mold the religion around specific rules but rather a mix of different ideologies.

Exceptions to the Frame

This blog is response to our class discussion yesterday. We determined that most people’s lives are regulated by some sort of religious frame (a frame that deals with social cohesion and explaining aspects of life etc.) Daniel commented that a low-level atheist would not be governed by this frame, and I was about to bring up another idea, but never got the chance to. How does a religious frame govern a person who is completely narcissistic? If someone sees themselves as the center of the world, and pursues every aspect of life in a hedonistic way, they would seemingly not need a framework for their life. They (themselves) serve as their lifes frame, and have no need for social cohesion, or the need to understand why things happen they way they do. The idea of a broad social frame (that follows the basic aspects of religion) to guide everyone’s lives is an interesting idea. I still think there are exceptions to the rule. I would argue that for most people who conform to their societies norms, their lives are regulated by a frame that contains all the aspects of religion.

Religion and the Hull-House

By way of illustration he showed me a beautiful little church which had been built by the last slave-trading merchant in Bristol, who had been much disapproved of by his fellow townsmen and had hoped by this transmutation of ill-gotten money into exquisite Gothic architecture to reconcile himself both to God and man. His impulse to build may have been born from his own scruples or from the quickened consciences of his neighbors who saw that the world-old iniquity of enslaving men must at length come to an end. The Abolitionists may have regarded this beautiful building [Page 140] as the fruit of a contrite heart, or they may have scorned it as an attempt to magnify the goodness of a slave trader and thus perplex the doubting citizens of Bristol in regard to the entire moral issue.

I think this quotation illustrates the two possible ways religion may connect to the formation of the Hull-house. On one hand, Jane Adams may have extended her childhood fears of “entering a fiery hell” into her later life. Like the slaveholder who builds the church, the Hull-house may have been an act of egoistic altruism (as ironic as that sounds). Adams may have empathized with others (empathy is when you place yourself in other people shoes) and formed the house in order to relieve her own pain (that she felt through the psychological connection with others). In psychology, this concept is called oneness. On the other hand, just as the abolitionists may have regarded the church as a beautiful building (or accepted the slave-owners benevolent intentions), Jane Adams may have started the Hull house with purely altruistic intent. Religion as a whole does not play a specific role in the development of the Hull-house, but the intentions Jane Adams had were most likely influenced by her religious background.

The Validity of Fell's Argument in Todays Society

The article on women’s speaking interested me. I think an important aspect to discuss is how valid the argument would be, depending on the period in history. Obviously this article was written some time ago when religion (as we discussed in class) was not passive, but rather a driving factor that affected everyday life. Whereas the article may have provided a convincing argument at the time, because of the use of direct evidence from the bible, I think it would be less valid in today’s society. I say this for a number of reasons. One, culture is not influenced by the bible as much as it once was. Two, interpretation of the bible has become increasingly liberal. What I mean by that is people have learned (perhaps for selfish reasons) that the scriptures of the bible can be manipulated in almost anyway. For example Fell notes that, “when Jesus was risen, the first Day of the Week, he appeared first unto Mary Magdalene” in an attempt to illustrate the importance of Jesus’ mother, and in turn, women in general. One could make multiple arguments to retort Fell’s point. Perhaps Jesus did not return to Mary, and Mary just happened to be around the tomb when Jesus was resurrected. That’s a poor example I admit, but the point is that the bible is used by people who (when making an argument that involves the bible) selectively expose information that seems to support their argument. I agree women should have the right to talk and give sermon in Church (obviously), but Fell’s argument would be somewhat obsolete in today’s society, mainly because it would look (to a critical and modern day citizen) that she used select scriptures from the bible to mold an argument about women’s speaking rights. Since our modern day culture is not driven by the bible, Fell would have better luck constructing an argument that is more applicable to our culture.

Does Religion retard or promote social growth?

I would argue that religion acts as a double edged sword in relation to social growth.

In one respect, religion contributes to the formation of social groups by providing common guidelines/norms the members can unite under. These norms, which in many cases have underlying moral premises, contribute to the formation of common ways of life. People who live similarly bond to form groups, and from an evolutionary perspective, acceptance (and in many cases survival) depends on how well an individual can adapt to the customs associated with the group. Since religion lays down set guidelines for certain customs, it is easy for people to form groups based on these clear and unambiguous customs. In turn, survivial (at least in a social respect) is made easier by the implmentation of religion.

On the other hand, religion also causes social separation. To put it coarsely, participating in the social aspects of religion is many times analogous to being in a cult (or exclusive society). The very customs that help form groups also exclude others from admittance. Even in Christianity, the customs of one denomination may cause a prejudiced view of an almost identical denomination. The degree of social separation has a direct relationship with the degree of difference of religious customs; social separation increases as the difference in religious customs increases. This was especially illustrated in the article about Portugal’s view on Ethiopia. Though both Christian nations, the difference in Ethiopian customs seemed to make Portugal almost unrelated to Ethiopia. Religion may serve as an important evolutionary tool (to unite people over common customs), but it also increases the social gap between societies.

Cross Cultural Smoking

One thing that strikes me as interesting is the marijuana use in Rastafarian religion-- especially how the idea of “the herb” is linked to specific scriptures in the bible. Most of the links between pot and the bible seem rather far fetched, and overly general. For example, in Genesis, marijuana is not the only “herb that yields seed,” and man can eat “many herbs of the field.” An herb serving as “the service of man” could mean many other things besides the pleasant affects of marijuana. Herbs can be used as medical remedies, food, etc. Though the link between marijuana and specific bible scriptures holds little validity, the important role the drug plays in the Rastafarian movement should not be overlooked.

In America, Marijuana is considered a drug, which is usually looked down upon for its immediate “high.” In contrast, the Rasta’s use the “high” as a means to charter religious energy. The different ways of using marijuana cross culturally have created stereotypes about the drug and its users. For example, America has the stigmatized image of a “stoner”—someone who smokes all the time, eats, remains lazy, does poorly in school, and talks in a certain dubbed-down lingo. In Jamaica, smoking is religious, and a rather common occurrence. The image of the Rastafarian differs sharply with that of a typical American “stoner.” The effects of marijuana are the same cross culturally, but the way people act in accordance to those effects determine how pot is portrayed. Perhaps it wouldn’t be illegal to smoke if America was smart enough to treat pot as a positive medium for expression. The American “stoner” image is so ingrained into our culture that it seems impossible to illustrate the positive effects of Marijuana.

The Hakluyt Society and the Heart of Darkness

I would argue that a strong parallel can be drawn between Richard Conrad’s Heart of Darkness and the article written about Portuguese opinion on Christianity—specifically, how the “superior culture” develops ethnography of the “primitive culture” using the comparison of societal norms (some associated with religion.)
When Marlowe is going about his journey, he notices a group of African natives and states, “It was unearthly, and the men were—No, they were not inhuman. Well, you know, that was the worst of it—the suspicion of their not being inhuman. It would come slowly to one. They howled and leaped, and spun, and made horrid faces; but what thrilled you was just the thought of their humanity—like yours—the thought of your remote kinship with this wild and passionate uproar. Ugly. Yes, it was ugly enough; but if you were man enough you would admit to yourself that there was in you just the faintest trace of a response to the terrible frankness of that noise, a dim suspicion of there being a meaning in it which you—you so remote from the night of first ages—could comprehend.” This quotation emphasizes how Marlowe stereotypes the Africans as an “inhuman” species. Only briefly does Marlowe accept the notion that the Africans might have some form of “humanity” or “kinship.” Marlowe develops the barbaric stigmatization about the natives because he compares them to the norms associated with colonialism. The “howling, leaping and horrid faces” of the natives is by no means acceptable in European culture. In many ways, Marlowe’s ethnographic technique is similar to the one used in the article The Hakluyt Society.
The author of The Hakluyt Society develops his view of Ethiopia by comparing their religious traditions to those of his own culture. His biased analysis categorizes certain customs as “strange, novel and peculiar,” and like Marlowe, he casts a negative opinion of any custom that are foreign or irreverent to Portugal. (57) In relation to the big picture, the author of The Hakluyt Society makes the purpose of religion clear. Religion holds the pieces of society together. If someone of a different culture cannot understand the religion of a particular society, they are unable to see how the pieces of society mesh, and many times revert to judging the society like Marlowe or the author of The Hakluyt Society. A true judgment of a society can only come when the observer understands (and more important does not judge) a societies religion or the norms associated with it.