Effects of Religion on Social Structure

Near the end of class today we started to talk about the possible functions of the Indian mounds found in Wisconsin. Although we discussed many potential uses and purposes of these mounds, the only solid conclusion we came to was that the function of the mounds changed over time. Similarly, Birmingham and Eisenberg do not give a singular answer, but instead suggest that the mounds held different purposes and meaning for different people (141). The societal function of the mounds changed over time, and eventually the ceremonial building of mounds stopped when culture no longer required it. One of these purposes that we briefly mentioned in class is the clear definition of social groups and the potential establishment of hierarchical social systems.

In the Paleo-Indian and Archaic time periods most of the mounds were conical and burials were done with many individuals (77). As time progressed and effigy mounds became more frequent, the function of the mounds as burial sites decreased significantly, and many mounds contained no bodies at all (127). Finally, as culture changed and social patterns shifted, the emergence of Mississippian temple mounds and more extravagant burials like the “princess” mound became more prevalent (147, 159). This progression makes sense; the change from disorganized nomadic living to more established social centers was accompanied by an increase in social stratification and the symbolic representation of this newly-created system. Also, as population centers increased in size, the creation of larger and more elaborate mounds was possible. Birmingham and Eisenberg state that “the effigy mound ceremonial helped bind people together...forming a new horticulturally based social confederation with distinct clan structures organized into upper and lower divisions” (141). The mounds, although probably not originally meant as a social indicator (for individuals or communities), became a representation the Native American’s early social structure. However, these mounds influenced societies as much as they represented them; the immense earthenworks brought together large groups of people and provided a strong physical reaffirmation of the “order of existence” that was generally accepted at the time.

Similar interplay between religion and social structure can be seen today. At first glance, the United States does not seem to have social segregation based on religious affiliation. However, a brief look at the political world shows major disparities in religious representation (1.7% of the USA is Episcopalian, but 15.4% of all presidents have been Episcopalian). Similarly, the current religious composition of the United States Congress is non-representative of the general population- there is not a single individual who openly claims to be an atheist! If nothing else, religion seems to play a large part in how we view our social leaders. The caste system of India is an even better example of the religious influences on the creation and mediation of social structures; people are born into, work in, live in, marry in, and die in religiously affiliated groups (see diagram below for visual representation). Overall, I feel like the connection between culture and religion is strong, but it is interesting that religion can affect cultural and social patterns as much as be an expression of them.