Was Mormonism basically the thing the American West had to define itself against?

[The Before]

I’ve been thinking about the way Mormonism appears in older Western writing, and it seems like Mormons often function less as actual people than as a kind of symbolic “other” against which the supposedly normal American West defines itself.

You get polygamy, secrecy, theocracy, sexual deviance, strange religious authority, etc., while the surrounding culture gets to present itself as individualistic (ruggedly so), democratic, masculine, and properly American.

So I’m wondering whether the “Mormon problem” in Western literature was ever really about Mormonism at all. Maybe Mormonism was just a convenient boundary marker: this is what the West is not.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

I’ve been thinking about the way Mormonism appears in older Western writing, and it seems like Mormons often function less as actual people than as a kind of symbolic “other” against which the supposedly normal American West defines itself.

You get polygamy, secrecy, theocracy, sexual deviance, strange religious authority, etc., while the surrounding culture gets to present itself as individualistic (ruggedly so), democratic, masculine, and properly American.

So I’m wondering whether the “Mormon problem” in Western literature was ever really about Mormonism at all. Maybe Mormonism was just a convenient boundary marker: this is what the West is not.

Good grief, Nolan....

[Kishkumen]

So polygamy and theocracy are mere literary tropes? Not real historical aspects of 19th-century Mormonism?

[The Before]

So polygamy and theocracy are mere literary tropes? Not real historical aspects of 19th-century Mormonism?

No, not mere tropes. They were real historical features. My point is that literature and popular culture can take real features like polygamy and theocratic governance and make them do extra symbolic work. They become shorthand for “Mormon difference” or “un-American-ness,” often in ways that flatten complexity. So I’m less interested in whether polygamy existed than in what writers made polygamy mean.

[Gadianton]

I’ve been thinking about the way Mormonism appears in older Western writing, and it seems like Mormons often function less as actual people than as a kind of symbolic “other” against which the supposedly normal American West defines itself.

You get polygamy, secrecy, theocracy, sexual deviance, strange religious authority, etc., while the surrounding culture gets to present itself as individualistic (ruggedly so), democratic, masculine, and properly American.

So I’m wondering whether the “Mormon problem” in Western literature was ever really about Mormonism at all. Maybe Mormonism was just a convenient boundary marker: this is what the West is not.

What is the point you are trying to make?

[The Before]

I’ve been thinking about the way Mormonism appears in older Western writing, and it seems like Mormons often function less as actual people than as a kind of symbolic “other” against which the supposedly normal American West defines itself.

You get polygamy, secrecy, theocracy, sexual deviance, strange religious authority, etc., while the surrounding culture gets to present itself as individualistic (ruggedly so), democratic, masculine, and properly American.

So I’m wondering whether the “Mormon problem” in Western literature was ever really about Mormonism at all. Maybe Mormonism was just a convenient boundary marker: this is what the West is not.

What is the point you are trying to make?

The point is that Mormonism was not only historically different from mainstream America; those differences also became symbols through which Americans defined what counted as “normal,” “American,” or socially acceptable. Polygamy, theocracy, communalism, etc. were real historical features, but they also did cultural work far beyond the facts themselves. I’m interested in that second layer, and I thought that since this board is a discussion of Mormonism, it would be an interesting topic.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

The point is that Mormonism was not only historically different from mainstream America; those differences also became symbols through which Americans defined what counted as “normal,” “American,” or socially acceptable. Polygamy, theocracy, communalism, etc. were real historical features, but they also did cultural work far beyond the facts themselves. I’m interested in that second layer, and I thought that since this board is a discussion of Mormonism, it would be an interesting topic.

Huh?

[Limnor]

What is the point you are trying to make?

The point is that Mormonism was not only historically different from mainstream America; those differences also became symbols through which Americans defined what counted as “normal,” “American,” or socially acceptable. Polygamy, theocracy, communalism, etc. were real historical features, but they also did cultural work far beyond the facts themselves. I’m interested in that second layer, and I thought that since this board is a discussion of Mormonism, it would be an interesting topic.

It’s impressive that you got “did cultural work” and “that second layer” into one paragraph, but I’m missing the evidence that Mormonism did more to define American “normalcy” than any number of other outsider groups, like Catholicism or German immigration. You could probably point to the “twin relics of barbarism” language around polygamy and slavery, but beyond that I’m not seeing much strength in this secondary layer that lends outsize influence of Mormonism on normalcy.

[The Before]

The point is that Mormonism was not only historically different from mainstream America; those differences also became symbols through which Americans defined what counted as “normal,” “American,” or socially acceptable. Polygamy, theocracy, communalism, etc. were real historical features, but they also did cultural work far beyond the facts themselves. I’m interested in that second layer, and I thought that since this board is a discussion of Mormonism, it would be an interesting topic.

It’s impressive that you got “did cultural work” and “that second layer” into one paragraph, but I’m missing the evidence that Mormonism did more to define American “normalcy” than any number of other outsider groups, like Catholicism or German immigration. You could probably point to the “twin relics of barbarism” language around polygamy and slavery, but beyond that I’m not seeing much strength in this secondary layer that lends outsize influence of Mormonism on normalcy.

I’m not actually arguing that Mormonism did more to define American normalcy than Catholicism, immigration, race, etc. That would require a much bigger comparative argument than I’m making.

I’m saying Mormonism is a particularly clear case of the process. The “twin relics of barbarism” language is one example, but so are the federal anti-polygamy campaigns, Reynolds v. United States, the Edmunds and Edmunds-Tucker Acts, the political struggle over Utah statehood, and the eventual constitutional prohibition of plural marriage. Those controversies forced Americans to articulate boundaries around marriage, religious liberty, citizenship, sexuality, and legitimate political authority.

Catholicism would actually make a useful comparison rather than a counterexample. Both were treated at various times as threats to American republicanism, but for somewhat different reasons. My point isn’t that Mormonism uniquely created American normalcy. It’s that the “Mormon problem” became one arena in which Americans argued over what counted as normal and properly American.

[Limnor]

Sure. Another fringe group that had to be absorbed.