Mulder preface, 1

Latino is often used as a demographic category, but the authors question its utility in explaining the nature of religious diversity. Why is this? How would a focus on "the cultural turn" (as Davie put it in the previous book) allow us to understand this diversity?

This forum is open for credit until W 3/7.

As mentioned by the authors, the term "Latino" combines individuals from various ethnicites and origins under one name. The authors question its utility because"Latino" serves as a large umbrella, which focuses on the macro view of society. Yet, Latino culture, history and nationality is different. I believe that a focus on "the cultural turn" would allow researchers to examine cultures on a micro level, without making generalizations. "The cultural turn" would show researchers differences in religious practices. What one religious group from a country in Latin America finds meaningful may not be meaningful to people from a different country.

I agree with this response cause the term Latino is simply too broad to define so many smaller groups of people. It would make more sense to just call the people by the ethnicity to just tame the confusion. On the same subject, it would also be beneficial to the reader so they would be able to examine the culture of a specific person more precisely.

I like how you say call the people by the ethnicity to just tame the confusion. Personally, I can not tell the difference between Hispanic, Latino and Spanish. However, I think that it is important for us to know the dynamics of race and ethnicity. First of all, it is important for us to show respect to other people. Secondly, ethnicity is playing an important role in our everyday life, because I believe that it is impacting our freedoms or opportunities in today's world.

Latino, "Latin", is a term to identify individuals whom have cultural ties to Latin America. Latinos are put into one category, which is inaccurate considering the diverse groups. (Dominican, Puerto Rican, Cuban etc.) Focusing on a micro level would help educate those that believe Latinos are categorized as one. Both of my parents come from different Spanish backgrounds and have two completely diverse traditions/practices.

good point, people don't really understand the differences between cultural groups and different ethnic backgrounds. for example people my ease up and stay subjectively quiet while discussing racial backgrounds because of their lack of knowledge of who came from where and when and so on; as you pointed out some people have difficulty determining the difference between multiple Latino groups or heritages so when asked to describe they simply just say "Spanish"

I agree with your explanation to the term "Latino," this term does focus on the macro level of this large group of people but it does not do it justice in the micro level to explain the difference in religion between Latinos. It does not do it justice to explain this strong majority of latino who vary in religious traditions from protestant to evangelicals, to penticostals.

I agree that it is definitely problematic to try and group such a large and diverse group by one kind of specific criteria (ex origin country or language) but I'm not sure focusing on "the cultural turn" was the perfect solution to this problem. I feel like it could be more of a "i guess we have no choice to use this" than a "Wow this solves all our problems" kind of thing. I think there's a difference between discovering a uniquely fitting solution to a problem and turning to something as a patchwork kind of solution that is used because it works.

I find it interesting that you would view it as "i guess we have no choice to use this" than a "Wow this solves all our problems" kind of thing" because, you are right it is problematic to define this extremely large and diverse group, whether it is based off common language, origin country, shared history, and/or even racial identification, for the people in this group it is hard to to make those fine distinctions, let alone for people who aren't in the group. so, I would argue that focusing on the cultural turn can be (somewhat, not entirely) a relief because it is defining a fine distinction they will go off on. That would definitely solve the main demographic focus issues that can arise. To view Latinxs sociologically, there needs to be those cultural turns, what other solution can there be? because no matter the attribute to focus on, with this demographic it will be a cultural turn.

Agree. Latinos is a umbrealla term for various cultures and enthnicities. Grouping people can be detrimental to understanding Latino Protestant if you hold stereotype and judgments and grouping allows you to have those views. The cultural turn allows us to move away from grouping and view Latino Protestant form culture to culture, congregation to congregations instead of just experiencing one and defining that one as the standard as the only type of "Latino Protestant."

The term "Latino" is putting a lot of profiles of people under one large category. This is an injustice because we cannot get a full understanding of how we can percieve people under this name. It would be much better to figure out what country the person is from then just saying from Latin America. That is basically calling every country in North America, "North Americans", which would not do justice for the people living in these countries.

I like how you say "That is basically calling every country in North America, 'North American', which would not to justice for the people living in these countries." Our identity is shaped by the country we live in and the country we immigrated from. Since Latinos are from different countries in Latin America, their identities stem from their individual countries.

Latino refers to a category of people that is simply to diverse to account for with this one term. It's important to note this because it could impact the research results. Different countries have different ways of practicing their religious beliefs, even within the Protestant denomination, so being continuously aware of this when reading and researching is crucial. This very much reminds me of the way in which some people refer to Africa as a country, instead of a continent containing many diverse countries. It's simply unfair to the subjects of the research and makes all of the research less generalizable.

Why is this? How would a focus on "the cultural turn" (as Davie put it in the previous book) allow us to understand this diversity?
Latino is used as a demographic category to categorize a strong majority who speak Spanish. It is used to identify a majority in a macro level by taking one 'shared' characteristics about them, language. But when trying to explain the nature of religious diversity this macro group of latino's does not help. Within Latino's their religion differ, they are Protestants, Evangelicals, and Pentecostals that exist all under the 'latino category.' Focusing on the cultural turn, allows you to understand Latino's in a micro level, because you shift your focus from structure to culture. Looking at latino's cultural turn, means focusing on their social practice, what do they give meaning to in their everyday life? What are their meaning making practices? Is it baptism at birth, marriage through church. What set of theories do these group of people share, that explain society for them? it shifts your focus from a macro level, all latinos follow this religion to a more micro level latinos vary in religion based on the way they do certain things in a meaningful level. They vary with some of their theological beliefs. If you looked at it in a macro level then you will see that latino catholics are shrinking, when in reality this is not the case they are just shifting their religion. They are not becoming less religious. That is the relevance of looking at it from the cultural turn perspective.

I disagree with the fact that Latino is used as a demographic category to categorize a strong majority who speak Spanish since Latino relies more of those who have ties to Latin America and not all countries in Latin America speak Spanish. A great example is Brazil since it is consider part of Latin America but their main language is Portuguese. I feel that the right term when categorizing a strong majority who speak Spanish is Hispanic because it refers to language and if the individuals ancestry come from a country where they speak Spanish. However, I do agree with the rest of the stuff you stated in terms of the cultural turn and how Latinos are not becoming less religious because they are just shifting.

From what I understood from the previous book, a focus on "the cultural turn" would mean focusing on certain specific details that define or create meaning. Like the example Davie gave (if i understand correctly) of a sociologist considering religion with the cultural turn of gender, how there are specific things that different religions do and they can be categorized by those practices, but by paying attention to how gender is perceived or affected during daily life can make one religious group different from another even if most of their main practices are the same.
With the term Latinx, as a general demographic in comparison to another demographic it's fine, but if they are only looking at this one demographic then a cultural turn needs to be outlined, so everyone can understand that what exact groups are being examined within this larger umbrella of Latinx

Perhaps the Latino community could have originally be explained and studied using a demographic category, however because the category has gotten so diverse, no one marker can possibly fit the whole group inside of it. there are many americanized/ Latino identifying americans born on this soil that have not much or even anything to do with their origin countries. There are many in the Latino communities that don't speak fluent spanish, and trying to identify them by personality markers is just plain racist. It seems turning to a "cultural turn" to understand diversity is a necessary step. However, that is not to say it is the only other options. I think it would be premature or even problematic to assume that culture is the only or correct way to understand this community, and i think that using only cultural markers can be fraught with dangers of its own. It may potentially minimize a history that many in the community still share. And there is the issue of how to compare older information gathered from the demographic markers from the new information gathered from the cultural markers.

I totally agree with you on the fact that if you try to identify Latino communities, or any minority community, by their personality characteristics, that would be racist. I think that there are indeed other ways to understand the Latino community, or any other community with a predominant minority. I feel that using cultural markers to define any religious group, whether major, or minor, projects various levels of stereotypes, as a response to your claim about dangers of cultural markers. I also agree with you 100% on the comparison between demographic and cultural markers.

I like that you noted "using only cultural markers can be fraught with dangers of its own". In any ethnic or racial group, there will be people who don't have many markers that link them to their cultural community other than origin (especially for 3rd and 4th generations). Understanding any community is indeed very complex and needs to be explored in a thoughtful way that doesn't exclude anyone, making the research conducted a lot more useful and generalizable. Ethnic communities do share a history and that needs to be kept in mind.

What are other examples besides culture that we can look into when looking at latinos on a smaller more specific scale ?

Latino is a term often used in the United States to refer to people with cultural ties to Latin America. However, In Latin America, the term “Latino” is not a commonly used. So I believe that is was used for Americans that would learn for this the research that would be gathered about Latin American cultures and their relationship to religious practices. I also believe that the use of "Latino" as a significant umbrella term encourages generalization and stereotyping of large Latin groups. While the cultural turn has contributed to revising approaches to the relationships between identity and race and class, ideology and representation, it has done so primarily at a visual level. I do not believe that’s enough and where their needs to be also a level of understanding of cultural sociology when understanding how religion plays in each's Latin group.

I agree with you idea about how Latino was portrait in the United States. Many individuals here usually have no idea about the different Hispanic and Latinos. For example: Hispanic refer to people who speak Spanish in general and Latino refer to people who originate from Latin America and not necessary to speak Spanish. The term Latino really is too generalize as you pointed out and only used in Research or survey purpose.

People often define Latino as someone with culture ties to Latin America. It also defined for English language learners in United States. Immigrant Latinos came to United States, they tended to go to Catholic churches. I think they believe that they are part of the families. They are helping each other out and working together. Immigrant Latinos are English language learners in United States. They are working hard for the group and will work hard for the needs of the community. However, many individual raised in the U.S. speak English and have assimilated American culture. Therefore, people should understand the culture differences.

I agree with you Kristin. I think when people think about Latino's, they categorize them into one category. They are often looked the same as English language speakers. However, as they are categorized by there similarities and only their similarities, one completely ignores how different ethnicities can be. One needs to look at these cultures one by one, and not all as one.

The word "Latino/Latina" is defined as an male/female of Latin American origin or descent. It can also refer to those who came to the United States. Those whom were of Latin American origin would be considered to be indigenous, or native, to a specific area in the Latin American region. Those who came to the United States from Latin American countries are referred to as immigrant Latinos, and often attended Catholic churches. The "cultural turn" as noted in the Davie book helps us understand religious diversity through the sociological shift from structure to culture. Structure would look at religious diversity in a big scale lens, whereas culture would look at religious diversity in a small scale lens. When Latino is used as a demographic category, it is difficult to explain religious diversity. Within the Latino population, there are various subgroups, including Protestants, Evangelicals, and Pentecostals, as Jennifer mentioned.

Latino is often used as a demographic category, but the authors question its utility in explaining the nature of religious diversity because Latino refers to individuals whose origins are geographically connected in Latin America an refers specifically to people living in the United States or to their U.S born descendants. Latino is very board including the different cultures, religions, traditions and languages of individuals connected to Latin America. In my opinion, the cultural turn mention by Davie helps us understand religious diversity through the point of view of sociologist of religion by paying more attention to the practice and the ways in which structure and culture are brought together in the everyday lives of people. (Davie, 251). Therefore, it important to look at religious diversity base on the roles/idea of people , cultural life, and other factors that contribute to structure and culture to understand religious diversity better.

When the author uses the word Latino, he combines many races and ethnicities as if they are all the same. This is to say that the word Latino is a category. This is problematic as there is much diversity among each race and ethnicity. We see this as an example further in Chapter 1. There are great differences among Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Cubans etc. These ethnicities do not all come from the same region, further creating differences among one another. Regional differences account for different experiences with the Protestant religion as well. A cultural turn would allow the researcher to look at these cultures one at a time also allowing the researcher to truly understand them.

In my perspective, the word Latinos often refers to people who has cultures ties to Latin America and what people don't understand is not every Latino is English Language Learners and lots of them actually born in the United States. I hate to see people taking trash about how they don't know English and therefore they shouldn't be here. I think this idea is disgusting bogus. Also people often mistaking the term, Latinos and Hispanic, which in my opinion is silly.

The term Latino consists of various ethnicities,under a large category(not specific):The cultural turn might allow individuals to look at the smaller more specific level of Latino ethnicity,instead of grouping all latinos together.Within latinos there are different religions such as Protestants,evangecalism,and Pentecostals.Shifitng the focus to the cultural aspect of Latino and the different social practices,religious customs,and theological beliefs is important.There is in fact religious diversity on a smaller more specific scale.

The term Latino, is a term that emphasizes a person who has ties to Latin America. A cultural turn might allow individuals to percieve at latinos from a different sociological perspective, rather than looking at latinos in one particular way. A cultural turn would allow us to look at the different cultures and analyze them individually essentially allowing us to comprehend them in addition it wold also allow us to see the different religious practices of the groups and their different traditions from a sociological standpoint.