Postsecularism

I went to the keynote address for the Beauty and Belief conference on Thursday, given by Professor Lori Branch. It was about the rise of postsecular (or religious) studies and how postsecularism is finding a place among the many secular "isms" in literary criticism. One thing she talked about specifically was the need for those with secular views to be more accepting of those with religious views. She also talked about how faith and religion are key to understanding literature because faith is necessary in the construction of meaning and understanding why we study literature in the first place. I thought her ideas were really interesting, because I'd never really thought about how religious views have a place in literary criticism. It does make sense, though, since religion is a key part of how religious people understand the world around them.

Beauty and Belief Symposium

I attended the same session of Beauty and Belief as Sarai did-- the 12:30 panel on Friday. The third speaker, John Bennion, addressed a topic that fascinated me: the Mormon view that literary aesthetics of beauty cannot exist with faith. To clarify, he explained that in the larger world of literature, Mormonism isn't a subject that publishers are interested in reading about. However, in the Mormon community, realist writing that doesn't fit with a small, faith-promoting window isn't accepted, either. Our Mormon culture balks at realism, at Mormonism-related writing that doesn't have redemptive endings or that expresses some doubts (even if there is a tidy resolution). He explained that good literature makes you think-- it has an edge of danger that allows you to challenge what you know and grow from that challenging. While that aspect of literature is prized in other genres, it is not welcome in Mormon literature. He explained that non-LDS writers with LDS backgrounds were accepted in Mormon communities until they published complex analyses of that culture, analyses that weren't written antagonistically but didn't peer through rose colored glasses either.

I've noticed this attitude, both in writing about Mormonism as well as in the LDS community's discourse, and it frustrates me SO much. Wallace Stegner, a brilliant Utahn who wrote one of the most accurate portrayals of the Mormon migration, treated the subject of the pioneers with respect and never mocked their beliefs after stating in the introduction of The Gathering of Zion that he didn't believe in their revelations. Because he doesn't feel the need to gloss over the earthier moments of the Mormon migration as many LDS writers do in an effort to shield the early Church from additional criticism, Stegner is able to provide a kind, accurate portrayal of an incredible society without pretending that they didn't have human faults of their own. My family and I appreciate that. However, some students in my Utah history class were offended that Stegner mentioned that Brigham Young swore, or that he brought up tensions between the Mormon community's beliefs and practices. It bothered me to see that they could be so close-minded and unwilling to confront the humanity of early Church members (who we too often whitewash and deify).

The Mormon community is also not very accepting of doubt, whether it's expressed in literature or in other forums. However, I love the concept that a few General Authorities have brought up in the most recent conferences-- that it's normal to have doubts and that thinking through these doubts while clinging to one's faith is okay. As Bennion suggested in his presentation, we need to be comfortable with the realism of doubt and struggles, with the understanding that while those are very real things we will confront in life, our faith does not have to be weakened by them, but can be made stronger.