Some summary questions:

1. Why does the author choose "participant observation" to study Southside? Do you think this is a "good study"? Why or why not? In what ways is this a distinctively sociological study--how is this study different because it's done by a sociologist (rather than a theologian, psychologist, or journalist, for example)?
2. Given the fact that fundamentalists are often so critical of the world and worldly ways of living, why do you think they don't separate themselves from the world altogether, like the Amish? What are some of the reasons they might choose to remain in the world--and what are some of the dilemmas they face by remaining in the world which groups like the Amish do not?
3. Do you feel more, or less, sympathetic with fundamentalist believers after reading the book? What is cultural relativism, and do you feel that it applies as you assess your own feelings and judgments about fundamentalism? Do you find yourself more sympathetic to the Amish than to the people at Southside? Why? Aren't they pretty similar except for their degree of separation from the world?
4. Are the members of this church a "cult"? Why or why not?

Go back to Discussion Questions

If you have any questions or comments please email:

leming@stolaf.edu

Disclaimer