Last week’s Economist published an interesting article about a new book, American Grace, written by Professors Robert Putnam and David Campbell. According to the Economist, the book discusses religious unity in the United States and why religion does not tend to be a serious point of conflict within the United States despite the fact that we are a very religious nation. Based on social science research Professors Putnam and Campbell suggest the Aunt Susan theory which is that because most Americans are “intimately acquainted” with people from other religions we have more positive feelings towards other religions and are less likely to engage in acts of religious intolerance. The theory is that we all have an Aunt Susan in our extended families who is from another religion and/or have “Aunt Susans” in our lives who are not related to us but are friends or co-workers.
Supporting the Aunt Susan theory, the Economist suggests that one apparent reason for growing anti-Muslim views in the USA is that Muslims are still a relatively small group in this country and many Americans do not have anyone in their family, work, or social circles who are Muslim.
The book sounds like an interesting read. However, I am left with a question of how applicable the Aunt Susan theory is outside the United States. It may be part of why we have greater religious tolerance in this country, but it doesn’t fully explain why things have gone wrong in other countries. The example I am thinking of is the Former Yugoslavia. The often-stated view of that conflict is that under communism the various ethnic groups and religions lived in harmony and had regular interaction as colleagues, friends, neighbors, and family members. Inter-marriage rates between communities were significant. Yet, somehow knowing all these Aunt Susan’s didn’t prevent the ugly conflicts, violence, and acts of genocide.
In fairness, American Grace is clearly focused on the experience in the USA, and doesn’t seem to be trying to extend its theories beyond the specific circumstances in this country. However, whether or not the research in this book can be applied to religious conflicts in other countries, it seems an interesting read.
The Economist article can be seen at: http://www.economist.com/node/17577087?story_id=17577087
I would actually argue the exact opposite conclusion of the Aunt Susan theory. I believe that “intimately acquainted” status in America is very rare in the context of religion. I believe that religious intolerance is very infrequent in the United States because of the amount of people who do not share their faith. America has a political correctness written into the foundation of the country that creates a presumption of letting people be who they want to be, believe what they want to believe, and so on. This is untrue of other countries where acts of religious intolerance are very frequent. I do think that the Aunt Susan theory could play a part in the issue for some people, but I doubt it is the full answer for America as a whole. Contrary beliefs are in and of themselves, offensive. Without making them known and talking about the details of their faith, America chooses apathy instead of intimacy in the context of religion. Of course, this is just my opinion and there are obviously many exceptions. But I believe that the lack of acts of religious intolerance in America have much more to do with not sharing one’s personal beliefs with others than knowing individuals from other religions intimately.
I had never heard of this theory, nor have thought of religion in the US in this way, but I would have to say that I completely agree with it. Looking back through my years of schooling, my realization of different religions came by means of meeting people of that faith. Whether PC or not, the one Jehovah’s Witness friend I had or the one Mormon person I knew, symbolized what I thought of all persons of that faith and what they acted like, looked like, and believed in. Fortunately for me, these people were good, honest people, thus I have never had negative stereotypes towards those faiths. Outside of the US, this same is true. While members of different religions may have once lived together in peace, something happened to change this and the sides aligned and that trickled down through the generations. It only takes one powerful person to suggest that only his faith is right and all others are wrong (i.e., Osama bin Laden) to start a religious crusade. People become brain washed to think the people they are fighting are different from them and thus, bad and evil. There is no other way to justify religious persecution. If people were taught that those they are fighting are the same as them, with the same morals, same love for their children, would they be as quick to plant bombs in villages? This theory reminds me of Obama’s coined phrase; “empathy deficit.” In the Audacity of Hope, Obama writes that “we wouldn’t tolerate schools that don’t teach, are chronically underfunded and understaffed and underinspired, if we thought the children in them were like our children.” The Aunt Susan theory only goes so far however, it is up to the people to educate themselves to learn the truths of different religions, to learn that the Koran does not teach violence, but acceptance, even if they never know, meet, or see a Muslim. Just as it can take one powerful person to start a war it could take one powerful person to oppose the war and start a peace crusade (i.e., Martin Luther King Jr.).