Consider the following (and somewhat lengthy) sociological analysis of those tendencies toward dogmatism which we associate with correlation:<\/p>\n
\u201cThe dogmatism which subsequently mushrooms among Mormons is thus already half-prepared by the stasis of critical thought inherent in doctrinal form; but this is only a potential for dogmatism which Mormonism shares even with conventional normal science.\u00a0 If Mormon dogmatism is not a development alien to science itself but a potential it shares with it, why does this potentiality blossom so fully in Mormonism?…\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cPrecisely because it is an effort to unite theology and practice to change the world, there is great pressure to present \u201ctheology\u201d as a secured basis for action, rather than as problematic and in need of further development.\u00a0 One cannot ask people to undertake great risks on behalf of uncertain theology.\u00a0 Mormon theology tends to be taken as given rather than problematic, all the more because its efforts to change the world proceed uniquely through dangerous conflict against powerful forces, and this induces anxiety in those undertaking the struggle.\u00a0 These anxieties heighten rigidities and increase the need for theological certainty to justify the costs suffered.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe theology, moreover, tends to become a doctrinal source of group solidarity \u2013 i.e., a set of shared beliefs which hold the group together against external threat and internal anxiety, because they are held in common; but insofar as diversity in belief appears, their capacity to fortify group solidarity is impaired.\u00a0 The combat setting, then, exerts great pressure to suspend critical evaluation of Mormonism, thus freezing it; it fosters a view of the theology as already secured and needing only to be applied, rather than as requiring new researches.\u00a0 If \u2018normal\u2019 academic social science is paralyzed by its need for certainty, never acting because it never knows enough, so that each research ends with a plea for a new one, Mormonism satisfies action\u2019s need for certainty by declaring itself an already proven product and by canonizing its theology, thereby leading to the gloss of anomalies and thus crippling the theology\u2019s capacity for further development.\u00a0 Most members of Mormon combat groups will, moreover, be rewarded for their \u2026 steadfastness, loyalty, and ability to control their anxieties \u2026 rather than for their theological sophistication\u2026<\/p>\n
\u201cTheologians are thus alienated from their theological property; they can no longer speak the theology independently of church leaders even though the latter may have little or no theological competence\u2026<\/p>\n
\u201cChurch control over the doctrine heightens theology\u2019s vulnerability to dogmatism, subjecting it to an icy immobilism.\u00a0 Church control narrows Mormonism down to an instrumental technology for mobilizing power, intensifying the doctrine\u2019s native impulse to resist critical examination of basic issues.\u00a0 Insofar as the church leadership grounds its authority in its theological competence, any critique of theology must imply a critique of its authority and decisions.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
I suspect that most intellectuals versed in the social sciences would more or less agree with the basic thrust of this argument: that what Mormons call \u201ccorrelation\u201d is more or less a byproduct of the religion\u2019s organized efforts to engage and gain influence in the world.\u00a0 Both Mormonism and Science share a potential for dogmatism, but it is the focus on ideas which lead to practice (regardless of whether these ideas are faith-based or supernatural in nature) that lends itself toward dogmatism within the former tradition. In this post, I do not wish to critique or justify this passage (I mostly agree with it), nor do I wish to discuss whether this passage amounts to a criticism or justification of correlation (I think it\u2019s probably a bit of both).<\/p>\n
Rather, what I wish to do in this post is present a dilemma which the intellectual must confront.\u00a0 You see, I have altered the passage above by replacing the words \u201cMarxism\u201d, \u201cparty\u201d, \u201cparadigm\u201d and \u201ctheory\u201d with \u201cMormonism\u201d, \u201cchurch\u201d, \u201cdoctrine\u201d and \u201ctheology\u201d, respectively.\u00a0 In other words, this passage was not originally about correlation within the church, but what we might call correlation within intellectual movements which attempt to engage and gain influence in the world through a combination of theory and practice as described in Alvin Gouldner\u2019s\u00a0The Two Marxisms<\/i>.\u00a0In other words, any ideological movement which attempts to gain influence in the world by way of votes, organized protests or public support necessarily lends itself to theoretical corruption and dogmatism.<\/p>\n
The dilemma which the intellectual must confront, then, is this:\u00a0 those who would embrace any such analysis which undermines church practices so as to further their own agendas (be they Marxist, Feminist, etc.) must themselves confront the fact that this same analysis undermines the practices of their own movement.\u00a0 Put another way, those intellectuals who would use the theoretical spears of sociology in order to poke at church practices according to their Marxist, Feminist, etc. ideologies are themselves impaled upon the same sociological skewers.\u00a0 Thus, the intellectual is left to decide how much weight such analyses of church correlation is to carry:\u00a0 on the one hand, to the extent that they are impotent they should not be used at all, but on the other hand, to the extent that they are potent they likewise delegitimize any intellectual movement that would use them.