Caring Men Are Strong Men?

Women have long been subjected to unreasonable standards of beauty, parenting, and overall performance throughout life. Daily, young girls and women have to look at their fellow females being put on display as an object of desire. Whether it be a photo-shopped magazine cover or a perfect mother in a television commercial, it is hard to find a woman used in visual communication that is not supposed to be lusted after. But what about the other half of the population? Are men completely free to live without the bondage of social expectations and gender norms? 

​At the 2015 Super Bowl, the first airing of this Dove Men+Care commercial was seen on millions of television screens; the thirty-second ad showing clips of athletes, fathers, husbands, sons, friends, and other roles which men traditionally fill. Between a few of the clips – each filled with more smiles, hugs, or kisses than the last – the words: “The strongest men are those who care” fade into view. What is Dove selling alongside all these ideals of caring men? Body wash, aftershave, antiperspirant, shampoo, and facial cleanser. 

“The famous Dove campaign for real beauty has crossed the gender divide. As women around the world recognized their dimpled bums and curvy figures on billboards and bus shelters, now men will be able to catch a glimpse of their own bounty of imperfections – a billowy beer belly perhaps, or concave chest and spindly legs… According to Unilever research, 80 per cent of men in Canada believe they are falsely portrayed in the media – that the washboard abs, bulging pecs and ripped biceps so often featured in television and print ads do not reflect their pale, doughy reality. This imagery makes men feel stereotyped, the research concludes.” (David n.d.)

Essentially, Dove is telling its new male customers that they are beautiful and strong. But how do they present this idea of the strong and caring “real man”? Is each man in the advertisement still representing the hegemonic ideals of a man or is this truly revolutionary?

With vague platitudes like, “The strongest men are those who care” and “Care makes a man stronger,” it is hard to decipher the meaning of the commercial. Care for what? Or who? Do they mean emotionally strong or physically?

Meaning comes from five places: the image itself, its producer, the codes and conventions that structure the image, how viewers interpret or experience the image, and the context of the image. By analyzing these five areas, the real intentions and message in this advertisement may be discovered.

First, the image itself will be analyzed. The first thing the audience sees is a team of cyclists, biking up a hill, with a scenic view of what is presumably the ocean. Already we are witness to men in action – a very stereotypical male role. Interestingly, there is a quick cut to one cyclist stretching out his arm to a fellow cyclist’s back, as if to encourage him. This is our first sign, as the audience, that this is not about competition or rivalry between men, but comradery.

This type of respect and support for their fellow man is also exemplified in the scenes of the men pushing the jeep out of the mud together, the opposing football players helping each other up, and the older man and a child arm-wrestling. With the truck we are shown how “caring men” make sacrifices for their friend. We see this in the first close up of their nice shoes and white socks being muddied as they push the jeep out of the mud. Most portrayals of men in mass media are of them in action or completing a task, but it is usually done alone. Here, we see men working together to help another. Next we see two football players from opposing teams on the field. One of them has fallen to the ground. Instead of letting his opponent get up himself, the athlete helps him. Is the love of the game and friends more important than competition to a “real caring man”? The man arm-wrestling with his (assumed) son is another example of this type of comradery. Obviously letting the boy win, and cheering him on when he beats his father, teaches the child that it is better to cheer each other on than to win. All the other scenes in this commercial are of men in usual male roles: clips of fathers showcase them as caregivers, play mates, and protectors with portrayals of fathers holding their children and soldiers coming home.

​Secondly, the producer of the commercial is examined. In 2007, Unilever’s Dove was the world’s number one “cleansing” brand in the health and beauty sector in more than 80 countries. It competed in categories that included cleansing bars, body washes, hand washes, face care, hair care, deodorants, anti-perspirants and body lotions (Deighton 2007). With such a large and thriving market, why did they feel the need to first expand to target men?

Dove’s research revealed that while protecting and caring for others has always been important to men, what that means to his masculinity has changed. The study revealed key insights such as 86% of men say that the idea of masculinity has changed versus their father’s generation. Nine out of ten men today see their caring side as a sign of strength. Only 7% of men around the world can relate to the way the media depicts masculinity. (Unilever and PRNewswire 2015)

With such a large portion of men feeling unrepresented in the mainstream media, Dove jumped on the chance to include them in their umbrella of self-care products. Dove’s intentions in this commercial may seem to be clearly for the empowerment of their new customers, but the driving force was definitely the largely unclaimed “normal guy” market. 

​The third area of meaning to look at are is the codes and conventions that structure this commercial. A common convention in advertising is to create the idea that you can express yourself through their products, thus creating a pseudo-individuality. Advertisers like Dove achieve this by not speaking to the audience as a consumer but selling it off as an art. This commercial is an example of this art in how it is selling the ideology that masculinity is now more than just being physically strong or tough. It is about being a thoughtful, kind, and caring individual. Additionally, since this advertisement is so heavily stylized and artful it is received differently than, perhaps, a simple advertisement just stating that men need to be clean and Dove products can accomplish that task.

​The fourth way in which we may discover this commercial’s meaning is in how viewers interpreted or experienced the advertisement. The initial reception for this particular advertisement was astoundingly positive. An advertiser’s research company, Spot Trender, studied their audiences’ reactions to the Dove Super Bowl Commercial. “Spot Trender tracks ads’ reception by asking a panel of consumers to press keys on their computers as they watch. Each video had a sample size of 300 complete responses” (AdvertisingAge 2015).  After receiving all data, this advertisement “scored one of the ‘most consistent positive reaction graphs’ Spot Trender had seen. The audiences seemed to really enjoy this new take on masculinity in lieu of the usual, stereotypical, testosterone-soaked, and hyper-masculine approach other companies have used to sell their products to men. 

​Interestingly enough, Rick Nguyen, co-founder of Spot Trender, reported, “While the product is for men, women like the spot significantly more than men, … When asked if they liked the ad, a whopping 94% of female participants said they ‘very much liked’ or ‘somewhat liked’ the ad, compared to 83% of male participants” (2015). Could it be that women enjoyed seeing men’s softer side more than men enjoyed having their soft side shown? Theorized gender roles have been shifting in recent years. It used to be that women were always the object of desire for the spectator, but “man candy” like Ryan Gosling, David Beckham, and Chris Hemsworth have all become objects for spectators to gaze upon. Women also find caring, well-rounded males more suitable for marriage than a hyper-masculine or aggressive type. So, yes, while Dove may have had the intention to be reaching out to those males who felt like they didn’t see themselves in the media, they also caught the attention of females. These women who received the ad with open arms would most likely hope that they would meet men like those portrayed in the ad. Or even that maybe their current partners could exhibit such characteristics as those on the screen if they started to take care of themselves with Dove Men+Care products.

​The final and fifth way we look at meaning is through the context of the advertisement. This ad campaign for Dove Men+Care launched at the Super Bowl XLIX on February 1, 2015. With an estimated 114.4 million television viewers, it was the most-watched Super Bowl in history (Pallota 2015). 

This sort of context was a superb juxtaposition between the emotionally driven, soft, newly defined masculinity of the Dove commercial and the praised violence and competition between fellow men in football. In the context of one of America’s biggest and most violent competitions, the advertisement stood out and thrived. In our world, “to be perceived as masculine and thus to achieve the higher social status and power afforded to ‘real’ men, men are pressured to and rewarded for adopting certain traits (eg. being aggressive, … unemotional, in control, adventurous, risk taking, dominant) that result in vulnerability to negative physical and mental health consequences” (Fleming 2014). While other advertisements – GoDaddy.com with scantily clad women or action-filled commercials for Doritos – only cater to the man that the mass media assumes all men to be, Dove spoke to the men who were feeling ignored. The incredible contrast between the stereotypical, violent, and competitive Super Bowl and the soft, caring-driven Dove commercial was the perfect frame to make this ad campaign a success.

In conclusion, Dove has made a compelling piece of visual communication. In looking for the advertisement’s meanings, one should analyze the image itself, its producer, codes and conventions that structure the image, viewers’ interpretation or experience of the image, and the context of the image. Dove’s images of men working for each other instead of against each other, in the context of the competition-driven Super Bowl, and portraying them as great fathers and friends for women to desire, made this advertisement successful. Jaques Lacan theorized that advertising’s purpose is to make us want what can never have, but the ideology Dove is selling is not one of toned biceps and rippling abs. Dove is selling the idea that caring and thoughtfulness is what makes a man manly. It should be mentioned, however, that one of the few problems with this model is that they are still appealing to the thought that men need to be strong. “Strength” is a buzzword in the conversation of masculinity. So, instead of trying to show men that caring for yourself with their products is important, they made caring seem strong and therefore, more masculine.

​ Dove’s approach to selling this new masculinity was well thought out: from the context it was first delivered in to how they portrayed each of their male characters in action. It was a refreshing change from the well-built “lone ranger”, roughing it in the wilderness with only his wit, muscles, and skills to survive.  Seeing images of men in relationship, cheering one another on and helping a friend a need, we’re reminded of the vulnerability of men – that they have needs and desires that go beyond women, money and fame.  Regrettably, in this attempt to re-brand what a real man is, they’ve only succeeded in changing the means, not the end.  According to the commercial, strength continues to be the definition of manhood.  Dove has succeeded in offering a new way of achieving it, but what’s being sold as the prize is nothing new.  It’s a valiant – and lucrative – effort, Dove, but if a real man is still a strong man, then it’s nothing we haven’t heard before

 

Bibliography

dovemencareus. 2015. ‘Care Makes A Man Stronger.’ YouTube. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJDIDKQIMNI.

AdvertisingAge. 2015. ‘Dove Men Super Bowl Ad Scoring Incredibly “Consistent Positive Reaction” In Research’, January 30(accessed December 3, 2015

Boudreau, Abbie. 2014. “DAD’S CHALLENGE TO DOVE.” Good Morning America (ABC) 1. Canadian Reference Centre, EBSCOhost (accessed December 2, 2015).

David, Graham. n.d. “Dove’s idea of real beauty to include average Joes.” Toronto Star (Canada), n.d. Canadian Reference Centre, EBSCOhost (accessed December 2, 2015)

Deighton, John. Dove: Evolution of A Brand. Boston, Massacheusetts, 2007.

Malin, Seth. “Good Morning America.” Dad’s Challenge to Dove. ABC. 2014.

Robinson, Mark, and Steve Robertson. 2010. “THE APPLICATION OF SOCIAL MARKETING TO PROMOTING MEN’S HEALTH: A BRIEF CRITIQUE.” International Journal of Men’s Health 9, no. 1: 50-61. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed December 2, 2015)

Fleming, Paul J., Joseph G. L. Lee, and Shari L. Dworkin. 2014. “Real Men Don’t”: Constructions of Masculinity and Inadvertent Harm in Public Health Interventions.” American Journal Of Public Health 104, no. 6: 1029-1035. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost(accessed December 2, 2015).

Furnham, Adrian, and STEPHANIE PALTZER. 2010. “The portrayal of men and women in television advertisements: An updated review of 30 studies published since 2000.” Scandinavian Journal Of Psychology 51, no. 3: 216-236. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed December 2, 2015)

Pallotta, Frank. 2015. ‘Super Bowl XLIX Posts the Largest Audience in TV History.’ CNN, February 2. (accessed December 7, 2015)

 Rubie-Davies, Christine M., Sabrina Liu, and Kai-Chi Katie Lee. 2013. “Watching Each Other: Portrayals of Gender and Ethnicity in Television Advertisements.” Journal Of Social Psychology153, no. 2: 175-195. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed December 2, 2015).

 Unilever, and PR Newswire. 2015. ‘Dove Men+Care Launches “Real Strength” Campaign on Sports’ Biggest Stage to Celebrate the Caring Side of Modern Men’, January 20 (accessed December 3, 2015)

In Conversation

In the fourth grade I began to learn French.  Of course, it was very elementary to begin with and did not really affect me in any significant way.  In the beginning it was just a new thing I could share at parties to impress my parents’ friends.  Want to hear me count to one hundred in French? Did you know the French word for “pineapple” is “l’anana”? I was a bubbling brook of silly French language factoids.  But as I began to take the language more seriously – a growing appreciation for its structure, different literature, and the culture surrounding it – I could see how it was shaping and benefitting my life.  My mind was completely open to this entirely new world and I could never go back.

But I failed to realize the environment I was learning and practicing it in: comfortable, familiar, and unchallenging.  It was not until I went on my first exchange to Amqui, Quebec that I realized how little I really knew.  There, I found myself in an incredibly unfamiliar home with a kind-but-intimidating Francophone family and a seemingly insufficient knowledge of the French language.  There were times where I had no idea what was going on, but had to make peace with the fact that I would just have to fake it and make it up as I went along.  At the end of the week I was able to understand and speak with my family, near fluently, and I was so thankful for that opportunity to practice my knowledge.

This journey of accidental affection, overwhelming realization, and eventual appreciation is how I would describe my brief – but incredibly meaningful and significant – encounter with the social sciences, but especially sociology.

When I came to Providence, I was ready to have my beliefs and all previous understandings of the world affirmed.  I considered myself to be a “hip Christian”.  I didn’t think that I was too rigid on any matters, but was still sure of what I believed.  This feeling of self-assuredness did not last long.

In the first semester of my Freshmen year I enrolled in the Introduction to Sociology course because it sounded like the most intelligent and interesting course I could take.  I had never even heard the word sociology before, but after a few weeks of lectures I thought that I was getting a pretty good grip on what it was.  Initially, as classes went by, I felt as if sociology was pretty straight forward: observe the society or culture around you and report back on your findings.  I didn’t feel any sort of mind-blowing event for some time.  I was very much just going through the motions and letting the information roll off my back.  Looking back, I do not think that I actually understood what I was learning, and what was actually going on in that classroom, until our lecture on gender or sexuality and we were taught the definition of the word hegemony.  This relatively simple word, and that lecture, completely opened my eyes to the world I had been living in.  After this, I couldn’t help but just gobble up everything in the following lectures and share this knowledge with friends.  Everything is a social construction! I had gone from complete indifference and had fallen into an accidental affection for sociology.

Of course, I had to take the second half of the class the next semester.  This initial and introductory meeting with sociology was changing my worldview one class at a time.  With every lecture, my black and white worldview melded into an opaque gray.  I could see it everywhere – from media and communications to biblical studies – and I couldn’t escape it.  The thrill of seeing my world in this new light was intoxicating as every social justice issue left another wound on my heart and mind, but seemed to have an obvious solution.  How could we have not solved this problem by now? Does no one else see this stuff? I finished my first year of university, went home to my small farming community, and found myself needing to teach or show others what they had all seemed to be missing.

I came back to school, after that summer, defeated.  After a fast-paced happenstance with sociology, I had to confront reality.  Everything was much less simple and clear in the real world – and especially in my faith.  For twelve weeks of the summer, I worked at my bible camp alongside people who had not learned the same things I did.  In the exact same place where I had learned about and grown to love God so deeply, I found myself butting heads with leadership on theology and practice.  My post-secondary education had informed and reformed my faith, without me even noticing it.  I didn’t know what to do with all this knowledge inside of me.  I had never taken it for a test drive outside of the classroom! I came to the overwhelming realization that there was this incredible disconnect between my education and faith.  I also felt that my relationships were suffering because of this apparent battle between the two.

Since taking three more sociology courses, and bouncing back from this second year slump, I matured and have come to realize a few things.  First of all, I do not know what I am talking about.  In other words, I have realized the importance of humility in education.  Yes, academic excellence, perseverance, and all the rest of it is important, but no one is willing to listen to you or what you have learned if you cannot speak with humility and humanity.  If I cannot approach someone with my ideas and be able to genuinely listen to their ideas and opinions, then my education is a near waste.

Secondly, I should not and cannot be afraid of unanswered questions.  I began my university career with the naïve intent of leaving here with firm beliefs and and a complete understanding of all the things I would ever need to know.  As cliché as it may be, I am leaving this place with more questions than answers.  As I began to have these brief moments with sociology in this Christian context, I would start off by thinking that I was so close to being able to easily explain both, their roles in my life, and be able to give some remarkably wonderful response to anyone’s questions to me about what I believe.  I can’t.

Some students of sociology may have been so steeped in this conversation for three or four years, that they may now be able to form a few answers to their questions or state several concrete beliefs.  I am still in the midst of this conversation and am caught between my politically, economically, religiously conservative upbringing and the new ideas given to me here from well-meaning professors.  Initially, this position could be seen and felt as overwhelming, but I have come to realize that, that may not be the case.  Here, in this time of “the middle”, I am open to so much.  As I am not, and have not been, a full-time student of sociology I am able to hear from many different disciplines and allow it to still shape me and my life.  I am an unfinished work, but that just makes the end result all the more an exciting surprise.

Thirdly, sociology and my post-secondary education are not an enemy of my Christianity.  For a very long time I felt that these two aspects of my life – school and faith – were always working against one another.  As I would make progress in one, the other would take an inevitable hit.  One step forward, two steps back.  But through this course on Social Science and Christianity I have found them working together more easily, but not perfectly.  To understand this new relationship between faith and my education, I have chosen to describe it differently than working “against” one another.

In French, the word for against is contre.  According to the Harper Collins French-English dictionary, there are four definitions for the word and preposition contre.  The first three all use the word against in their definition, but the fourth and final definition is what interests me most and best serves my purposes.  It defines contre as “in exchange for” or “to swap for”.  This is how I view my current situation: my faith is not against my education, but instead, my faith is contre my education and vice versa.

As I have learned and grown in both areas, I now see that they are not taking away from one another or destroying each other.  They inform one another just as much as they may seem to critique one another.  Just as Christian Smith points out in The Sacred project of American Sociology: “It would not be wrong to say that sociology’s project represents essentially a secularized version of the Christian gospel and worldview” (18).  My faith and education are advising on another – exchanging and swapping ideas as I work towards a better understanding of my God, my world, and myself.

In closing, I know that I am nowhere the end of this prayerful and spirit-filled education even though I may be leaving a formal academic setting.  This conversation I find myself in between my faith and learning – started by a seemingly harmless introductory course – is going to be life-long.  I am far from finished or perfect – just like social science and Christianity! Just because these two may claim to have all the answers, and may originally appear to contradict and work against the other, I have begun to see them as supplementary – contre – to one another.  While I may not yet have become fluent in the language of sociology, or even Christianity, I do think I am going to carry on this conversation for as long as I can.

Co-Existing in [Christian] Community

Processed with VSCO with c1 preset

Processed with VSCO with c1 preset

As a student of Media Studies, I like to think of myself as a guest to the realm of social sciences. After taking introductory courses, and a few sociology classes that gave focus to my field of study, I like to think that I know how things work in this world of social science. I know the basics, I have seen how this area of academia has even influenced the study of media and communication, and I have seen how my own personal study has been affected by my encounters with sociology. But has my relationship with Christ been influenced in the same way?

When it comes to my academic life, I am able to see how and purposefully integrate all the areas of study I have partaken in. I can easily integrate my knowledge of the sociological study of gender, apply it a piece of visual media, and discuss how society has shaped that visual art and how or why we interpret it the way we do. My love affair with sociology benefits my committed relationship to communication studies and media literacy.

My attempt to integrate my faith and study of sociology pales in comparison. Why haven’t I been able to marry these two elements of my life as easily? What has been the roadblock between this union of faith and science? I would argue that I have just not known how to join the two harmoniously. I could not see any common ground or, maybe even, any need to unite them. This was – most definitely – a naïve assumption to make. Until recently, I saw no need or felt any compulsion to work at incorporating my faith and social science.

Now, as I have begun to evaluate the merit of both and how they can inform each other and my life, I find myself left with several questions. Why do I believe, think, and act the way I do? It cannot all just be explained away by my DNA or social constructs. There has to be a deeper, stronger explanation. Then, once those questions are answered, how do I create a strong and steady relationship between social science and Christianity in my own life? Is it even possible, or will they eternally be at odds? I would argue that they can and, apparently, so would Kevin Miller. In his article, Reframing the Faith-Learning Relationship: Bonhoeffer and an Incarnational Alternative to the Integration Model, he states, “Scholarship should not be seen as foreign to faith but as a natural part of faith”. As they both – usually – strive for truth and justice, I see the potential for a strong partnership between them, but of course, not without some difficulty.

First of all, we must ask ourselves why this even matters. Are we not just animals? Do we not just merely live, breathe, work, eat and sleep for the sake of it? Why should we view ourselves as anything different or exceptional? Although we may share commonalities with other creatures of the Earth, we are quite obviously set apart. This separation can be explained in one word: self-awareness. Our ability to examine not only our surroundings and the other beings we interact with, but also ourselves and our own motivations is the defining feature of humanity. It is one thing to have a conscience – to know right from wrong – and be, arguably, moral.  Every other animal can exhibit the evidence of a conscience, philanthropy, or sacrificial love. But the human ability to ask why do I want to that and desire to desire something is what makes us human. This capacity for self-transcendence is the ultimate form of humanity. As it was explained in Integrative Approaches to Psychology and Christianity, we have this knowledge that some things “…ought to elicit awe… [and] desire” (Entiwistle:122). This awareness that we should feel a certain way is an incredibly powerful ability. To want to feel a certain way or to want to be thankful to something, or someone, is a defining feature of our humanity.

So then, how do we express that humanity? As we live our lives we create, learn, and follow morals, beliefs, and narratives. But where do they come from? How are they made? I have heard it argued, in several places and ways, that it is just “hard-wired into our DNA”. That the idea of morality and beliefs is just a part of our biological makeup – that we are biologically-determined to believe something and be moral animals. This hypothesis has never satisfied me and it doesn’t seem to satisfy Entwistle either, as he explains, “an understanding of nature that reduces everything to a material level fails to account for the phenomena of reason and morality. If thinking is nothing more than a biologically determined phenomenon, then our belief in the accuracy of our thinking is biologically determined, and being determined, it offers no room for evaluating the merits of reason.” By viewing ourselves as biologically-determined robots, we strip ourselves of our very humanity. Where is the beauty of creation in that? Do you explain away immoral and amoral people with the excuse of a genetic defect? While the temptation to be a reductionist on this issue is great, one should not succumb to it when faced with issues as important as these.

Smith argues, and I agree, that our beliefs are foundational to how we act our our lives. Most of us believe in temporal continuity of experience. In other words, we believe that life, when we wake up tomorrow, will function just as it did today, yesterday, and everyday before that. A belief like this is so foundational to our very being, and yet it does not usually cross our minds. It is a nearly unconscious belief that we hold. “These we believe in so ‘deeply’ that we do not even think about them. We simply assume them and build up the living of our lives on them.” But even such a basic – but still incredibly authoritative – belief is not universal. This is where it becomes complicated. According to Christian Smith, nothing is universal: “There is no secular, universal, indubitable foundation of knowledge available to us humans.”

No matter what we may believe, there will always be at least one individual who disagrees with it. Honestly, this is what frustrates me most. Again, Christian Smith dashes away my dreams of an easy and clean-cut world: “Most of these starting-point assumptions and beliefs are not universal…They are thus neither intellectually self-evident to nor actually shared by the rest of the human race.” As humans, we are incapable of all agreeing upon one thing, and that is – quite possibly – one of the most truly human things: disagreement. And yet, even though we all disagree: “We are all necessarily trusting, believing animals, creatures who must and do place our faith in beliefs that cannot themselves be verified except by means established by the presumed beliefs themselves.” We can only verify our own beliefs. To paraphrase Smith: all our beliefs, which are already subjective, are dependent on other beliefs and assumptions that are also non-universal and incapable of being independently and objectively verified.

Then, we begin to apply these beliefs to our lives. This application is the creation of the narratives we live by. Just as our beliefs may seem or appear to be universal, but they’re not. Even though they may all follow the same storyline – human depravity is unstoppable, a saviour comes, and utopia is realized – they are cannot be considered universal. Even though as we live in this “postmodern condition” where we have been told to question the grand narrative all around us, we all still dictate our lives by them – whether we realize it or not. Christian Smith explains that, “we not only continue to be animals who make stories but also animals who are made by our stories.” Our narratives inform not only what we do, but who we are in the grand scheme of things. So then, who are we? Why do we depend on these narratives? I argue that these narratives develop the need for and also giving us a purpose, meaning, or worth. For example, imagine an American sociologist who follows the narrative of exposing the truth within a corporation’s unethical dealings and restoring justice. That individual finds their worth and meaning within that action and narrative. Their beliefs, which inform their narrative, determines their worth and humanly or scholarly expression. Smith reinforces this idea when he says, “No one, not even the statistics-laden sociologist, escapes the moral, believing, narrative-constituted condition of the human animal.” In realizing our humanity – our fallibility – we become so overwhelmed that we need to create a narrative and a purpose for ourselves. “Seeing ourselves as finite in the face of vast beauty seems to lead to a sense of anxiety because so much is beyond our personal control, and this anxiety is reduced by belief in divine agency.”

All of our beliefs and narratives – what we created to give us purpose, meaning, and combat the overwhelming feeling of finiteness – culminate into what we call religion. “Religion is not simply about providing humans with information or knowledge but also, viewed sociologically about the proper organization and right guidance of life” (Smith:99) Now with the understanding of what our beliefs are, how they shape the narratives we live by, and how it all comes together to aid in the creation of religion: where do we go from here? What is the benefit bringing social science into the mix? Is integration even possible between social science and my Christianity?

Moroney argues that academia and Christianity should be found together and inform one another, but not in the way that it is traditionally approached. I agree with Moroney when he explains, “scholarship has the potential to reach a much larger audience and greatly increase the impact that you can make for the kingdom.” By using the different platforms we are given, the world of academia being our example, we are called to live out God’s mission. But what does that look like? Moroney explains that we should not attempt or encourage Christian scholarship. Too often when we attempt to integrate Christianity and scholarship what is actually meant is that “faith has the right, and indeed the duty, to critique learning but that learning has no authority to critique faith.” I agree with Moroney when he states that this is problematic. This stance completely ignores the fallibility of Christians and their understanding of the faith. It no longer allows for correction in a safe community where people can learn from one another.

In life, but academia especially, we are expected to be lifelong learners. But if you are never challenged because of your faith then you have been unsuccessful in your scholarly endeavors. In other words: “a comfortable community is likely not a learning community at all, and if it poses as one, it may in fact be dangerous community.” The communities – academic or otherwise – that you and I live in need allies and prophets. They need someone who can speak to the situation and by using their knowledge from an outside source, like social science, be an ally to the members of their community. It may be uncomfortable to have someone speak a truth that you are uncomfortable with, but wouldn’t it be better to learn from them and work it out together, than to be their enemy and never learn anything new again?

As Miller encourages us to “reject thinking Christianly in our scholarship and…instead to aim to think humanly in our scholarship” we need to realize what it means to interact with each other humanly. Honestly, humans are prone to mistakes and making a mess of things. Why should we expect anything less when we attempt to integrate our faith and scholarship? “Interactions between faith and learning are at best complex, convoluted, and unpredictable.”

In conclusion I ask myself, “What does it look like to live out my integrated knowledge of faith and social science?” The answer: messy, but in community. As I view social science – especially sociology – and Christianity I see the pursuit for truth. According to Dennis Hiebert: “sociology [is] unavoidably moral” How could a strongly moral discipline not have a relationship with my faith that informs my morality. Looking at these two elements of my life, I see a messy combination of knowledge and faith, but I understand that they must inform each other but never overtake one another.  Just as I must live in community with my spiritual and scholarly brothers and sisters, so too must Christianity and social science live together.