Soc 260: CLASS TUESDAY FEB. 16th

www.gillegends.blogspot.com

CLASS TUESDAY FEB. 16th

Hey!

I plan to have class today. If you can't make it, try to contact me by email or phone

before class...Gil

SOC 260 Class and Assignment Feb, 2nd: John Schwartz Visit

SOC 260 Class and Assignment Feb, 2nd

I have read your submissions on the Serpent Handling case study. I see two themes in these. One is the question of where and how to approach the subject and the other is the desire to draw concrete conclusions from a case study. Both of these are to be expected. Toward the first, I will provide more direction for the next paper. Toward the second, I warn that questions more than conclusions are the result of case study exploration. And the best exploration will come from each other as we study the same cases.

For the paper on “The Palladium Murder Case” I want you to focus on a big part of the case study process. This is the framing and reframing of your question to be studied as data is collected. I want you to use my RADAR scheme as the framework for this paper.

Start with the RECOGNIZED case study at the time that two (apparently) wrongly convicted murders were incarcerated for over a decade. Follow the RADAR process that occurred at the time and then use that analysis to RECOGNIZE the new situation that arose from the previous REANALYSIS of the situation. Take this second situation through the RADAR process to arrive at a third situation. Follow this third situation through the radar process and then present you final reanalysis to point to different focuses the study could go at that point.]

Sounds complicated? This is what the Bushmen did about the Recognized situation of the introduction of the Coke bottle. First RECOGNITION (first bonk) resulted in the DECISION to throw the bottle in the air. The first REANALYSIS led to the second RECOGNITION that the throwing method did not get rid of the bottle and a new method needed to be tried. The second REANALYSIS of the DECISION to throw the bottle higher resulted in the new Recognition of the situation that throwing only had been eliminated (with an added bad side effect).

The third DECISION of burying led to the third Reanalysis that burying also failed with another bad side effect.

At this point I ask you to examine where the study could go following the same direction. Of course in the movie the Fourth RECOGNITION was that there was no local solution. But after the third Reanalysis I want you to look at several reframings. In the case of the Bushmen you may have thought to explore more types of local solutions (i.e. make the bottle an “untouchable” Shrine reminding them of the ills of possessiveness.).

My focus is on process! This involves recognizing the constraints to your study as they develop and your choice of pursuit of information. In this paper I am asking to take the detectives point of view. Steve’s article from the New York Times provides a good outline of the case, but the detectives give another view of the layers of process that are involved. Since we have Detective Schwartz to question let’s focus on that layer of the case.

With that in mind (an example for the paper) when the Detectives were removed from the case was a constraint and forced them to REANALYZE the case and RECOGNIZE a new problem in terms of pursuing it.

You should be familiar with the case through the Dateline video

(Website: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20091700). And our other discussion and articles about the case along with your own investigation (which means having questions ready Tuesday!!)

Keep your assigned partner informed of what is going on and develop ideas together. Two heads are better than one….

We will discuss the case again on the 9^th and the paper will be due the 11^th via email. Further discussion of paper in class this Tuesday.

I will try to bring pizza Tuesday… Gil

SERPENT HANDLING ORIGINS (STEVE'S QUESTION)

FROM JACKIE (Answers.com)

In the early twentieth century, among members of the Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee), one of the early Pentecostal churches to emerge in the Appalachian Mountains of the American Southeast, the handling of poisonous snakes took on a new life and importance. These practices arose from a quite literal application of the "signs" of Jesus' disciples mentioned in the biblical gospel of Mark (16:17-18): "And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."

While Pentecostals had practiced speaking in tongues and healing—both also mentioned as gifts of the Holy Spirit in the writings of the apostle Paul—no one had paid attention to the signs in the passage in Mark until 1909. That year George W. Hensley of Tennessee captured a rattlesnake and brought it to a church service for snake handling as a test of religious faith. In 1914, Hensley was invited to an annual meeting of the Church of God, whose leader Ambrose Tomlinson gave the practice tacit approval. In 1928, the leadership of the church realized their mistake and distanced themselves from the practice, but by that time it had spread among church members throughout the Appalachian Mountains and as far south as central Florida.

Hensley, Raymond Hays, and Thomas Harden eventually founded the Dolley Pond Church of God with Signs Following, in Pine Mountain, Tennessee; it became the mother church of Southern snake handling. Pushed out of the Church of God, the "signs" people founded similar churches in a loose fellowship that became in effect a new denomination. Snake handling became clandestine after World War II, when Tennessee led other states in passing laws to forbid the practice, following the publicity given to the death of a member of the Dolly Pond church. Less known is the associated practice of drinking poison, usually a solution of strychnine, at church services, also forbidden by law.

The astonishing fact is that scores of sincere devotees of snake handling have survived the bites of deadly snakes and the effects of drinking poisons at church ceremonies. Less than 75 deaths have been recorded as of the mid-1990s. The deaths that occurred were ascribed to lack of faith. Interestingly enough, Hensley, after surviving numerous snake bites, died after being bitten during a church service in Florida in 1965. Snake handling adds a dramatic element to religious faith, and has much in common with the earlier practice of the fire ordeal in non-Christian religions.

Present-day members of the Holiness Church of God in Jesus' Name in the Southeast are more concerned about the dangers of persecution through punitive laws against snake handling than from the practice itself. They regard such laws as a breach of their freedom to exercise their religious convictions sincerely in accordance with Holy Scripture.

Estimates place the number of snake-handling church members at about 3000, living chiefly in Ohio, Indiana, and Appalachia.

Sources:

Carden, Karen W., and Robert W. Pelton. The Persecuted Prophets: The Story of the Frenzied Snake Handlers. New York: A. S. Barnes; London: Thomas Yoseloff, 1976.

Covington, Dennis. Salvation on Sand Mountain: Snake Handline and Redemption in Southern Appalachia. New York: Penguin, 1996.

Kimbrough, David L. Taking Up Serpents: Snake Handlers of Eastern Kentucky. Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina, 1995.

La Barre, Weston. They Shall Take up Serpents. New York: Schocken Books, 1969.

Sewell, Dan. "Snake Handlers Put Bite into Religion." Santa Barbara News-Press (May 1,1995).

Stekert, Ellen. "The Snake Handling Sect of Harlan County, Kentucky: Its Influences on Folk Tradition." Southern Folklore Quarterly 27 (December 1963).

Serpent Handling

On your writing assignment:

Question one: How does Serpent Handling "fit" into our "Modern" American culture?

One idea to brainstorm on: We seem to protect these people and reject them at the same time. How is this done? Who else do we do this for?

Undocumented workers. The Amish. Slaves during the times of slavery. Women entering men's jobs.

What are the unspoken terms we make in these situations. Does Gender, Race, or Class figure into these terms?

Question Two: How do you incorporate this data presented to you into your viewpoint of how the world works?

Brainstorm idea: How do you validate what is true? How would knowing a friend or close relative of yours "handles Serpents" in church influence your opinion of them and your

relationship?

Don't sweat this assignment. I just want to get you started writing about a case study presented to you. I expect as many questions raised in your discussions not necessarily any firm conclusions. The data is not extensive and the subject is distant to your daily life experience and concern.

Remember that when Keith and I were there we were seen as more of a possible threat than the serpents....

But..

Slow down Steve. Don't make this case the exception. Yes, there are falsifications, but they may have been done as "business as usual. After John quit the force, none of his former co-workers would talk to him. He was the "bad guy" in the situation as the business was (is?) run.

Hey Gil! This is Jacqueline.