Assignment #1_ Utah's Political Culture
.pdf
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of Utah *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
5245
Subject
Political Science
Date
Apr 3, 2024
Type
Pages
6
Uploaded by Lincolnmendenhall on coursehero.com
Lincoln Mendenhall
Assignment #1
Dr. Buhler
POLS5245
Utah’s Political Culture
Throughout Elazar’s and Leiske’s findings, they both made great breakthroughs in regard
to political cultures everywhere in the US. In this paper specifically, I will highlight Utah’s
political culture, and use Elazar and Leiskes findings and labelings to analyze whether Utah still
fits into these respective categories, as well as noting what has changed in Utah’s political culture
and subcultures geographically and demographically up to present day.
Throughout Elazar’s discoveries, the three main political subcultures he used to identify
states with were; Individualistic–which is a society or area that is most tolerant of political
corruption but also provides for the integration of diverse groups into the mainstream,
Moralistic–which is the primary source of quest for good society, but also a “tendency toward
fanaticism and narrowmindedness…”(P.96) Moralistic is what Elazar deemed Utah to be, but we
will get into that going forward… and lastly Traditionalistic–which is the search for continuity
but also denies civil rights to blacks and hispanics. After looking at only three political
subcultures, It would seem obscure to only be able to characterize an entire state based off of one
of these subcultures. Nowadays, more than ever, states are becoming more and more diverse,
with many people moving to different states based on extenuating circumstances. Now, at the
time that this study was written in 1972, maybe states had less diversity and you could more or
less group a whole state into one of these subcultures.
With the definitions that Elazar gives for these three subcultures, there is no way that
everyone in a single state could agree because while a state might be searching for the quest of a
“good society,” the state could also be traditionalistic in a sense where they follow in the
footsteps of the past. However, in Elazar's analysis, he delves deep into what it means to be in
one of these three subcultures. Since this is a paper on Utah, I will note that in his analysis of the
“moralistic” subculture, Elazar mentions that “To the extent that American society is built on the
principles of "commerce" in the broadest sense of the term and that the marketplace provides the
model for public relationships in this country, all Americans share some of the attitudes that are
of first importance in the individualistic political culture.” This is important to note because he
makes connections between multiple subcultures and states and recognizes that there are multiple
subcultures that can be associated with a particular state.
Elazar also draws a comparison between the moralistic subculture as the “commonwealth
conception as the basis for democratic government,” which in turn would emphasize the need for
a moralistic subculture in a state. Since the US is a democracy, every state within the democracy
would have to possess some sort of moralistic component from within. Back in the 70’s when
this analysis by Elazar was done, Utah was a seemingly different place than it is now. Even
though the state is still mostly controlled by the LDS church, going from a strictly right-leaning
Republican state then and to now, still a state dominated by conservatives but there are more
people here now that are starting to shift a directional movement to more of a left-sided society,
(in Salt Lake County.) Now the question arises… Does a republican-dominated state that has
more or less shown more signs of a liberal shift, change the demographic of the “moralistic”
subculture that Elazar has deemed us? We know that our government is looking out for the best
interests/commonwealth of its people, and that is something that any ‘moralistic’ government
would do at the state or federal level.
In the Joel Leiske reading titled “The Changing Regional Subcultures of the American
States and the Utility of a New Cultural Measure,” Leiske does a deeper dive into subcultures
and uses 2000 census data, as well as religious survey data to analyze subcultures at a deeper
level than the previous study done by Elazar.
Leiske’s study infers that the people who settled in the US had distinct culture, ethnic
backgrounds, religious beliefs, and differences in social ways of life. Groups were formed in
clusters of people, rather than being randomly dispersed throughout the country. There is a kind
of pattern that emanates itself throughout the country regarding regional subcultures. Different
labels have been put on these groups that settled here, and the same patterns show as more and
more people show up.
Leiske and his analysis show that Utah is of the ‘Mormon’ subculture. He mentions that
the southern states are referred to as the “bible belt” because of how religious they are. The south
is mostly composed of those of the Catholic, Protestant, and Baptist faiths, while Mormons
reside more in the western states. This is and has been particularly true for a long time. Mormons
came from the eastern side of the US looking for a settlement to deem theirs in the Salt Lake
Valley.
It would be considered ideal by most Utahns to deem Utah as a Mormon subculture. This
is true because most of the citizens in the state of Utah are in fact, practicing Mormons of the
LDS faith. In terms of state politics, The Mormon aspect plays a big part in the state. Many of
the people in the Utah legislature are of the LDS faith, and use faith as a driving factor for
pushing their agendas. The differences between Leiske and Elazar’s studies are that in Elazar’s
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help