For this weeks reflection post, I would like to go back in time a tad and ask a question that has been pressing on my mind as we categorize religious groups. I found, both through personal experience and theological study, that many groups may be identified into a category that they themselves may not agree with. For example, in Professor Spickard’s assessment of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, he illustrated a journey of the modern day Church from a sectarian identity to a more denominational identity. I as a Latter-day Saint, however, would not categorize the Church in the same way and believe that the Church maintains a more sectarian perspective. Another example from my theological studies would be with Catholicism. One theological belief of many members of the Catholic Church is that Catholicism is the only true religion on the face of the Earth, and that all non-Catholics are condemned to an eternity in hell. This sense of Catholic exceptionalism seems far more sectarian to me than denominational. My question then, is where does theology come into a sociological discussion? Does it ever?

Personally, I believe that one cannot properly categorize a religious group without first having an understanding of it’s theology. I also believe that the theological stance of a particular religion must influence the beliefs and practices of its members, does it not? If a church preaches that it is the only true church on the face of the Earth, then that church and its members automatically fall of the sectarian side of the spectrum, correct? Perhaps my perspective is incorrect, and I am approaching this subject from a far too theological standpoint and not enough of a sociological standpoint, but I do not believe that the two are inherently separate. I believe that the two influence each other, at least to some degree.

Upon my reading of Chapter Two of McGuire’s Religion: The Social Context, I was struck by her analysis of the Individual. She comes to the conclusion that individuals do not, “construct a personal meaning system from nothing,” and that every personal meaning system is derived from those around them. This begs the question, however, does the individual even exist if McGuire’s conclusions are correct? If no individual has an entirely personal meaning system, and if meaning systems help make, “sense of one’s identity and social being,” then how can the individual exist? It seems to me that McGuire’s analysis of the individual when coupled with her concept of meaning systems concludes that the entirety of society feeds off of each other to  develop their personal identities. When I first began to seriously ponder these questions, I began to doubt the validity of McGuire’s claim. I could not understand how an individual could truly be an individual if their very meaning system was something taken from those around them, rather than personally developed within them.

As I continued to question, however, I began to understand more fully what McGuire was truly saying. She does not say that the individual’s meaning system was taken from those around them, but rather, she claims that the individual’s meaning system is influenced by those around them. The distinction is crucial. The individual uses the figures that are present around them to assess their personal identities. They compare and contrast their beliefs with the beliefs of the individuals they encounter, essentially placing their meaning system with theirs and scrutinizing them both intently. By exposing themselves to their family, friends, society, etc., they are able to learn from the meaning systems of others, as well as solidify aspects of their own meaning systems.