Social surveys have noted a disconcerting sameness in Friends’ social and economic predisposition. Quakers are better educated, politically more liberal, and wealthier than the broader population. Quakers historically see themselves as oblivious to social class. Our testimony is one of gender, ethnic, and social equality. Yet how accurately does this work out in practice?
In my experience, among Friends in the Northeast, the description above is accurate. There is social homogeneity among us. What do to about it? Need anything be done about it? Does it reflect intentionality or is it the result of historical and geographical factors? What is our role?
Homogeneity in religious communities is not a result of conscious intentionality, at least at the outset, but of historical and geographical factors. Southern Baptist, Lutheran, Ashkenazi, and Sephardic formation were all strongly affected by geography and historical events. Similar dynamics affected the early development and spread of Quakerism.
Once they are established, groups will attract those similar in belief. The dynamics of culture and history, however, are not static, and groups change and adapt to changes from the surrounding culture, continuing to evolve.
Quaker methods of doing business, including trustworthiness and the setting of fair prices, are some of the explanations for their becoming relatively wealthy. Friends were not likely to engage in highly speculative or unsavory financial dealings. The Friends I’ve known appear to act in the same way. Most Friends are thoughtful about materialism and try to maintain a simpler lifestyle. Wealth need not be a bad thing, but if it is gained at the expense and oppression of others, we need to rethink it. When our wealth is used to relieve suffering or to affect change in our profit-motivated economic system, it has positive benefits. Friends are usually engaged in trying to use their resources in positive ways.
More of the Friends I’ve known are involved in arts and professions than in manual labor or low-paying jobs. This is likely due to our being relatively more educated. (Quakers run a disproportionately large number of private schools, for our size in the population. What does that say about us?) We value education. It helps us understand better and hopefully to behave more wisely. Our being educated also allows us to escape the more arduous occupations. What are we doing then to bring about a more egalitarian division of labor? Might our level of education be a discouragement to those of more humble occupations? Can we be too well educated?
I don’t think that we are oblivious to class differences. Since we tend toward the middle or even upper-middle class in both our wealth and our education, there’s no way that we can pretend to be.
While calls for diversity often suggest a need for more of a racial blend, I don’t think that’s as relevant in New Paltz. Our racial makeup probably approximates that of the surrounding community. There are more women among us, and we’re wealthier and more liberal. Diversity for us would be having more Republicans, NRA members, and right-to-lifers. Socioeconomically we’d have more folk from the many trailer homes in the area, more school dropouts, and more of those working in low-wage jobs. I have not seen Quakers shun these people, but neither do I see those “others” knocking down our doors. I believe that most of us would be, or try to be, accepting of those who are different. But our liberalness, color, education, and affluence say something about us that may turn off newcomers of different circumstances.
We can be too proud, even self-righteous, about our progressiveness and liberality, and this contradicts what we may profess regarding equality.
Where does our Faith enter? Does it? Is it at our core? Do we value Faith over education, liberality, and wealth? Is it our “liberal-mindedness” and “education” that bind us? Does this form more of who we are than does worship, and the seeking of the light within us and in others? May we be led more by P.C. than by J.C.? What do you think?
Several large maximum-security prisons are in our immediate area. The population within is growing at a rate as never before. Most of the prison population I’ve worshiped with have been from the underclass. They are the undereducated, underemployed, and underempowered. That’s almost the opposite of us! They undergo oppression and deprivation beyond what any of us have experienced; their burdens are constant and longstanding. The meetings within prison struggle mightily to come to Faith. They are entirely dependent upon us for encouragement toward a life of faith and hope. How seriously do we take them? Yet Friends’ participation in ministering to the prison population is not what it could be. Our “progressiveness” sometimes involves distant causes, important as they are, rather than those closer to home. Liberals are said to love humanity; it’s people they can’t stand! Does that sometimes describe us? Perhaps.
I’ve always felt a part of whatever Friends I’ve been among. This is not true about me in all situations. I attribute this to the element in Friends that allows us to see that of God in the other. I’ve experienced this. I’m learning to do the same. I believe that we really are seekers. We are a gentle people. Our corporate worship, our humble searching for the light, our recognition of the light within others, and our acceptance of and active support for one another in our search and struggles, makes me feel blessed.