BOOK REVIEW | White Soul by Tex Sample

Tex Sample's White Soul is a compelling piece that argues country music is the music that encompasses the life of working class people (mainly white working class people, hence the title). His argument is mostly solid and provides very thought-provoking ideas and questions in regards to working people and their place in society. He also briefly touches upon the place of women and people of color in country music, as well as the sexism, racism and classism that undertones much of the music.

Towards the end of the book, Sample takes a religious turn and discusses how country music can be applied to the church, arguing for a "trashy" church: one where people would be free of a culture that values achievement over moral character. He is trying to convince theologians, and parishioners, to stop using differentiated language and move to a more oral based church, one that would invite working people to attend. He is sure to place a disclaimer that his ideas probably can not be used at this time, and they can't, but they are interesting all the same. He encourages the church to look towards country music to understand the general state of working people and "get on their level", so to speak. His argument is not a new one, but it was the first time I'd ever heard a theologian argue for country music to be added to the listening list in Mass.

In my opinion, the first half of this book was much more interesting than the last half.

There were a few times the book contradicts itself, mostly towards the end. For example, the text mentions that there is nothing in country music to offer anything better, just some comfort to help get people through the night. However, Sample then contradicts this statement later on page 171 when he says that country music offers something "more."

I took issue with a lot of the bias this book presents. Sample's argument is against the elite upbringing and how white collar people (in general) view the arts as something objective, using Immanuel Kant's idea that "art is for the sake of art." While I do agree that working people are more oral than literate (a fact that can barely be argued anymore), it is unfair to suggest that working people have a superior view of the arts, which is what the subtext suggests. In many ways, his own argument can be used against him. While he claims white collar workers are looking down on how working people view music, literature and the arts, he is looking down on the white collar workers for the same thing. The hypocrisy was jarring enough that I missed his message many times and had to re-read for objectivity.

For the most part, this book was a quick and easy read. The words flowed nicely and I enjoyed the break ups of each chapter and part. There were, however, multiple instances when a paragraph or sentence were word so awkwardly that I am still groping to understand what he meant by them.

I also had an issue with the preachy tone the text takes at the end of the book. Throughout most of the text, Sample presents objective and empirical findings on a rather subjective subject - and it was really interesting! Towards the end, however, objectivity is thrown out the window and the last paragraph of this book was one of the most preachy, on-a-soap-box paragraphs I've ever read. This disappointed me because it didn't go with the overall tone of the rest of the text.

All in all, I would recommend White Soul if the reader has never read a book regarding this type of argument before. It was a very interesting case study of working class people and country music and presented information I had not considered before in a new light.

BOOK REVIEW | Native Religions of North America by Ake Hultkrantz

"All religions tend to be conservative, because their sacred authority lies in the sanctity of the past... At the same time most religions remain open to the personal experiences of the spiritual world. The balance between faithfulness to tradition and openness to new experience is what constitutes the religious life."

I am so happy I've read this book. This is exactly the kind of book I was looking for: one that is informative, well-paced and objective. Oftentimes when reading about religions, it is easy to feel preached at. Many religion books portray said religion to be either absolutely horrible or without flaw. Most books in this realm have an agenda and that agenda involves putting down other beliefs. This book, however, did no such thing. Hultkrantz's only agenda was to inform the reader of Native American religions. And inform me, he did.

This is a fascinating trace through general Native American religions with a focus on two in particular: the Shoshoni - a hunting religion - and the Zuni - a horticultural religion. The author did a magnificent job of showing how both descended from a circumpolar hunting mindset, but branched off to become their own entities. The reader gets an in-depth view into the fluid religion of the Shoshoni and the complex religion of the Zuni and it is really a remarkable journey. I especially loved reading about how certain ceremonies have changed since the introduction of Catholicism and how they're still changing today, including new religions like Peyotism.

Hultkrantz is aware of his reader and never once tries to overwhelm you with too much information. Although this is a book centered around the religion of Native Americans, he also throws out some information on their culture and linguistics. I found this quote to be particularly fascinating:

"Some Indian languages lack terms for the past and the future; everything is resting in the present."

Hultkrantz presents the readers with the mythology of the religions focused on in this overview and then their ceremonies that either conflict with the mythology (like the Shoshoni) or use the mythology as justification for their ceremonies (like the Zuni). I really loved that he decided to single out two very different religions to focus on in this book to show the reader that through all of their differences, there is a lot of similarities as well.

Highly recommended to anyone interested in religion or anthropology.

BOOK REVIEW | On Religion by John D. Caputo

This book had an interesting philosophical view. Caputo is attempting to destroy the concept of traditional religion - or rather, he is arguing that such a destruction has already occurred and we now need to learn what the word "religion" truly means. He has a lot of progressive views, but it also feels like a "let's-please-everyone" philosophy. Philosophy is radical and, oftentimes, offensive. This text felt convoluted, watered down and like I was barely scraping the surface of what he was trying to say.

Caputo is arguing that religion is not a set of structures. It is not a hierarchical structure as it touted by all major religions in the world today. It's imperative to understand that the God Caputo is referring to is not the Judeo-Christian God or anything else. In short, God is love. 

"By religion, therefore, let me stipulate, I mean something simple, open-ended, and old-fashioned, namely, the love of God" (Caputo, 1). [Emphasis is my own.]

"Religion, we must always recall, is our doing, not God's, and we should avoid confusing religion or ourselves with God" (Caputo, 93).

"God is a question, not an answer" (Caputo, 117).

(He is very clear that he does not believe that any religion is better than the other, and there is no "true" religion -- however, he also quotes the Bible multiple times, but only the quotes about love. Nevermind that Jesus spoke more about Hell than anyone else in the Bible. Caputo picked and chose his Bible verses from a book that touts itself as the end-all of religion while claiming there's no true religion. It was a contradiction that he either didn't notice or passed over.)

Therefore, religion is loving God, but it is also loving a question. So, religion is loving the unknown. I think what he meant was that religion is just love in general. No matter what you love, the act of loving is God. It is not that God is love, which is what he was saying. I think that the "God is love" argument is not where he was going and he missed his own point. God is the act of loving. Which means religion and God, according to Caputo, are the same thing. Once again, beautiful concept, just poorly presented. 

All in all, if this had been a bit more glossed over, a bit more edited and a bit more thought-out, I would have enjoyed it quite a bit more. As it stands, I feel as if his argument was all over the place and I just flat-out disagree with everything he said. It was not strong enough to make me even consider it for a moment. From what I've read, this was supposed to be an almost colloquial version of his philosophy, so I would be open to reading a more academic version. I think his point was interesting, just not well-defined.

However, I did come across this gem that I think can relate to all of us in terms of reviews and opinions:

"... we have the right to say what we think, to think what we want, to publish what we think, to think or publish or doubt or believe anything, without fear of censorship, excommunication, exile, or execution. The only limits on such rights are the rights of others to do the same and to enjoy the same freedoms" (Caputo, 62).