Televangelism and the mediated charismatic relationship

Televangelism and the Mediated Charismatic Relationship

DAVID A. DIEKEMA* The University

of Iowa

This article formulates a generic analytical-conceptual framework for understanding the relational form that underlies televangelism. A distinction is made between pure charisma, routinized charisma, and pseudo-charisma. Pseudo-charisma underlies televangelism. Three characteristics of televangelism alter the nature of the charismatic relationship: (1) the absence of physical presence, (2) the nonreflexive nature of the television medium, and (3) the decontextualized nature of the relationship. These three medium-related characteristics transform a pure or routinized charismatic relationship into a pseudo-charismatic relationship. The analysis revolves around a comparison of televangelism with its historical predecessor, urban revivalism. Televangelism serves as an exemplar of the more general transformation of the charismatic relationship when mediated by television. The recent falls of two successful televangelists-Jimmy Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart -have raised important questions about the electronic church. As well, with estimated audiences of up to twenty million households, with an estimated fifty to eighty million evangelicals’ in the United States, and with televangelists more frequently entering the political sphere, speculation abounds about the potential social and political impact of televangelism.2 What seems certain is that televangelism manifests more than a mere medium switch by evangelists. The form of the minister/congregant relationship observed in televangelism is quite different than that offered in most mainline churches and even than that offered by its urban revivalist predecessors. But a specification of this form has remained elusive. Much of the current research on televangelism is composed of historical surveys, interpretive analyses, demographic breakdowns of viewers and contributors, content analyses of programs, and combinations thereof.3 In contrast, this paper attempts to formulate a generic analytic-conceptual framework by which to understand the relational form of televangelism. To understand any social relationship requires a comparative analysis of the relationship in question with a similar relationship in a different *Direct all correspondence to: David A. Diekema, Department of Sociology, Seashore Hall, Iowa City, Iowa 52242. Telephone: (319) 335-2502. The Social Science Journal, Volume 28, Number 2, pages 143-162. Copyright 0 1991 by JAI Press Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN: 0362-3319.

The University

of Iowa, W140

144

THE

SOCIAL

SCIENCE

JOURNAL

Vol. 2WNo.

211991

context.4 It also requires that one focus on the relationship per se. Accordingly, a comparison will be made of the evangelisticongregant relationship as seen in urban revivalism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries and as seen in televangelism in an attempt to isolate the generic social forms underlying each. This article also offers a preliminary analysis of the relationship between the televangelist, the viewer, and the medium through which this relationship is established. It is argued that an understanding of televangelism requires an understanding of how a charismatic relationship is transformed when mediated by television. Televangelism, then, serves as an exemplar of the more general transformation of the charismatic relationship when mediated. But first an examination of urban revivalism, the formal predecessor of televangelism, will provide a comparative framework from which to begin.

URBAN REVIVALISM ORGANIZATIONAL REQUISITES

AND THE OF TELEVANGELISM5

Televangelism has its roots in urban revivalism which arose in the U.S. between 1820 and 1920.6 The early revivalists provide a look at a pre-electronic form of evangelism. Some of the most prevalent televangelists in recent years-Billy Graham, Oral Roberts, Rex Humbard, and Jimmy Swaggart-were itinerant revivalists prior to their move to television, Televangelism involves a formal extension of the techniques and organizational strategies used by the historically earlier urban revivalists. The revivalist crusades of Charles Finney (1792-1875), Dwight Moody (18371899), and Billy Sunday (1862-1935) demonstrate an evolution from the more spontaneous, mystical, and divinely inspired revivals of Jonathon Edwards (1703-1758) in colonial America, to the more pragmatic, routinized, and consciously calculated crusades of the modern arena. In effect, it is a move from what Max Weber refers to as “genuine charisma” to “routinized charisma.“7 This analysis specifies the convergences and divergences of these early urban revivalists and the televangelists of today. Such a specification will ultimately provide a foundation for formally delineating pure charisma, routinized charisma, and pseudo-charisma. Unlike earlier revivalists who saw conversion and the conditions thereof as spontaneous gifts of God, Finney developed and taught a “scientific” method of how to conduct revivals and win souls. The divergence of thought between the urban revivalists and the revivalists of colonial America is captured sharply in the following quotes from Edwards and Finney. Edwards writes: This seems to have been a very extraordinary dispensation of providence; God has in many respects gone out of, and much beyond, his usual and ordinary way.

The work in this town, and others about us, has been extraordinary on account of the universality of it. . God’s work has also appeared very extraordinary in the degrees of his influences; in the degrees both of awakening and conviction, and also of saving light, love, and joy, that many have experienced. It has also been extraordinary in the extent of it, and its being so swiftly propagated from town to town (pp. 19 & 21).*

Televangelism and the Mediated

Charismatic Relationship

145

Contrast this with the following from Finney: A miracle has been generally defined to be, a Divine interference, setting aside or suspending the laws of nature. It [a revival] is not a miracle in this sense. All the laws of matter and mind remain in force. They are neither suspended nor set aside in a revival. . it is not a miracle, or dependent on a miracle, in any sense. It is a purely philosophical result of the right use of the constituted means-as much so as any other effect produced by the application of means.9

The task of the minister, argued Finney, is to use any means to stir up excitement and generate the conditions necessary for the conversion of SOUIS.‘~ The minister is merely the facilitator of this process. Along with this call for a science of preaching, Finney encouraged the use of plain talk, fostered a spirit of anti-intellectualism, and eschewed the traditional signs of ministerial success (i.e., formal position within the larger organized church) .‘I Dwight Moody furthered the routinization and rationalization of revivalism and moved it into the business enterprise of urban revivalism. Moody came to the ministry via the shoe sales business and was a self-taught evangelist outside of any mainline church denomination. Often with the backing of the local business community, Moody’s revivals were well organized and financed enterprises. The physical setting and program arrangement were carefully planned to establish unity and solidarity among the congregation.‘2 In fact, Moody was probably the first to systematically utilize music for eliciting a vibrant responsiveness and a heightened emotionality from the audience. Moody employed a hymn singer, Ira Sankey, who became an integral part of his revivals. But William McLaughlin importantly notes that the responsiveness engendered was solidary; the audience responded as a unit, not as individuals. As well, the emotions engendered were kept within bounds. Shouting, handclapping, or gyrating in the aisles was not allowed. There was little spontaneity to Moody’s carefully controlled revivals.13 Billy Sunday moved revivalism to the edge of televangelism. Sunday disassociated himself totally from the institutional church and turned the revival meeting into a well coordinated dramatic show. Sunday’s style was at times histrionic, including pounding on the pulpit, standing on chairs, sliding, jumping, whirling, and even doing handsprings. Unlike the highly controlled environment of Moody’s crusades, cheering, applauding, and bursts of laughter were common responses from the audience. As well, while Finney and Moody were hesitant about tying Christianity to a particular political ideology, Sunday clearly wedded Christianity with a xenophobic patriotism. But Sunday’s revivals contained all the elements of urban revivalism: 1) the conscious and calculated goal-oriented activity of saving souls, 2) placing the revivalist or minister center stage as the articulator and definer of the situation, 3) a large institutional and bureaucratic structure under the control of the revivalist and dissociated from larger mainline church organizations.14 These elements were transferred to modem-day revivalists who eventually turned to television as a means of proclaiming their message. The rationalization of revivalism provided the foundation for the electronic church. The highly bureaucratic, routinized, and rationalized nature of urban revivalism cor-

146

THE

SOCIAL

SCIENCE

JOURNAL

Vol. 2WNo.

2/1991

responded nicely with the organizational requisites of television production. And while the styles and formats of current televangelists range from the traditional revivalist tent meeting of Billy Graham’s occasional specials’* to the talk show format of the PTL Club and Pat Robertson’s 700 Club, many remain pulpit oriented with a single focal actor and retain a revivalist quality. There is, however, a significant difference between urban revivalism and televangelism.r6 In televangelism, the relationship between the audience and revivalist is fundamentally altered. For one, with weekly broadcasts, the ministry reaches the same audience every week. The televangelist has an extended relationship with his audience wherein his integrity and credibility must be maintained over time, and the interest of his audience must be captured repeatedly.” But more importantly, the relationship between revivalist and audience is now mediated; it traverses time and space. Because physical presence is no longer requisite, reciprocal responsiveness is denied. The revivalist cannot alter his performance in response to his reading of the audience, and the audience cannot directly respond to the evangelist. The context is not mutually structured; television requires a prepackaged and carefully staged production. The mediated nature of this relationship has less obvious effects to be explored below. But first a clarification of the charismatic relationship will provide a clearer picture of the relationship between the televangelist and his audience.

THE

CHARISMATIC

RELATIONSHIP

Max Weber makes a distinction between pure or genuine charisma and routinized charisma. A pure charismatic relationship arises in moments of distress wherein a leader with extraordinary or supernatural gifts of body and mind arises and, on the basis of his extraordinary character, commands the surrender and enthusiasm of the followers. Weber further specifies that charisma in its pure form is dissociated from any formal structure, institutions, rules, economic concerns, and routine administration; is revolutionary in character; and is dependent on the continued display by the focal actor of extraordinary qualities. Because of this, the pure charismatic relationship is inherently unstable. Thus, while charisma is a specifically creative and revolutionary force in history, it exists only briefly. If it is to be more than simply a transitory phenomenon, it must ultimately be routinized into traditional or rational-legal authority. The routinization process arises as a result of problems of succession upon the death or disappearance of the charismatic leader and the necessity of dealing with the material interests of the group. Routinization, suggests Weber, changes the very structure of the charismatic relationship. Unfortunately, Weber does not give us a clear picture of how the structure is transformed other than to suggest that its revolutionary character is lost as it serves to legitimate (with a transcendent quality) the nascent economic and social power holders.18 The concept of charisma has been reconceptualized numerous times since Weber’s formulation, yet much obscurity remains. This is due to the fact that the focus has often not been the charismatic relationshipper se but rather the qualities of charismatic individuals or offices, the needs of the followers, or the structural conditions necessary

Televangelism and the Mediated

Charismatic Relationship

147

for charismatic leaders to arise .I9 While lip service is often paid to the relational character of charisma, few studies have taken the relationship per se as the unit of analysis. This is perhaps not surprising given that while Weber recognized the relational aspect of charisma, his emphasis was clearly on the qualities of the charismatic individual. Several symbolic interactionists, however, have taken seriously an analysis of the charismatic relationship as a mutual and interactive process;*Oand recently Carl Couch has provided a formal analysis of the charismatic relationship.z’ An analysis of the relational form underlying charisma is the key to understanding the televangelist/ viewer relationship. The analysis offered by Couch takes as the unit of analysis both social acts-two or more people aligning their actions with one another and mutually acting toward the environment-and social relationships-the taken-for-granted modes of relating which structure encounters. Moreover, the temporal or diachronic nature of human social activity is acknowledged. According to Couch, robust charismatic relationships emerge during times of discontent when: (1) an individual acquires a reputation for articulating consensually achieved negative characterizations of extant social conditions; (2) there is a shared past infused with solidary responsiveness which is usually the result of a series of charismatic encounters where the leader expresses dissatisfactions and elicits a vibrant responsiveness between himself and the audience and parallel responses from the audience (this is the basis for altruism and unreflective thought); (3) new consensual definitions of reality emerge, usually eliciting a sense of superior righteousness or piety and a clear definition of the opposition; (4) a utopian future is projected, usually involving some sort of mythic past and a sense of transcendence.22 Under this formulation, the personal characteristics usually attributed to charismatic leaders, such as extraordinary or divine powers, are postulated to be a result, not a cause of the actions and relationships that underlie the charismatic relationship.23 This conceptualization also recognizes the extended shared past and the distal shared future (with a utopian goal) that underlie a robust charismatic relationship and confer it constancy across situations. Additionally, the instability of the charismatic relationship is implicitly recognized in the assertion that the focal point of the relationship is not an authority or director but is rather a catalyst or definer. While the general framework presented by Couch will be accepted in this analysis, it presents a case for pure charisma and neglects Weber’s extension of the concept to routinized, rational-legal contexts. Such an extension is essential for understanding the mediated charismatic relationship as exemplified in televangelism. This entails taking into account the larger social system, relations, and institutions within which charismatic relationships may lie. Such an extension also raises both temporal and spatial issues, especially in the case of tele-mediated charismatic relationships. If Couch’s formulation is taken to represent the charismatic relationship in its pure form, the groundwork is laid for specifying the transformation that takes place when these relationships are routinized and mediated. An understanding of the mediated charismatic relationship requires a bipartite extension of Couch’s analysis. These two alternative evolved forms are labeled “routinized charisma” (remaining true to Weber’s formulation) and “pseudo-charisma.” Pseudo-charisma will refer to the mediated charismatic relationship.24

148

THE

SOCIAL

SCIENCE

JOURNAL

Vol. 28/No.

2/1991

Routinized charisma refers to relationships that conform to the Couch formulation of pure charisma while deviating in one important respect-the relationship is rooted in a larger institutional or bureaucratic structure that is not made directly relevant to the interactional situation. Consequently, on the interactional level it looks much like pure charisma, but the individual is relationally tied to a larger stable structure through the focal charismatic actor. The urban revivalists discussed earlier exemplify routinized charisma. Urban revivalism involves the conscious, deliberate, rational creation of the charismatic relationship, an important element being the organizational structure behind it. But important elements of pure charisma remain, including the transcendent and mystical elements. Urban revivalism is centered around a focal actor who acquires a reputation for his ability to articulate common beliefs and concerns, usually having to do with ultimate concerns. A shared or common past is established or called on, and solidary responsiveness is produced through singing, engendering shared emotions, mutually constructed moments of participation (such as short interruptions between sentences wherein an “amen” or two can be thrown in), and the familiar rhetorical style used by the focal actor. The rhetorical style is one of give and take, with the audience an active unit. Likewise, new or previously constructed definitions of reality are established or reaffirmed. This usually involves a clear delineation of “sinner” and “saved” and a delineation of “worldly” affairs and “sacred” affairs. And finally, a clear utopian future is present in the projection of the Kingdom of God toward which “we” (the saved) are all moving, and away from which “they” (the reprobate) are moving.25 All the elements of pure charisma are present here. But while these elements are evident on the immediate interactional level, there is a larger social and relational context involved in the routinized charismatic relationship of urban revivalism. The revivalist is tied to the larger social and economic system (e.g. financial ties to the business community) and is rooted in an immediate bureaucracy which is concerned with putting on a show and setting up the situation so the charismatic relationship can be carried off. The revolutionary and spontaneous character of the charismatic relationship is clearly absent in routinized charisma. At times this may involve some rather paradoxical beliefs which both reject (in word) and accept (in practice) the established social structure.26 In pure charisma the relevant past and future are rooted in the immediate relationship between the charismatic actor and believer. In routinized charisma a relevant past and future tie the charismatic actor to a larger structure not immediately acknowledged in the charismatic actor/believer relationship. There is a backstage area not available to the followers that is directly relevant to the establishment of the charismatic relationship (few followers have access to the bureaucratic structures behind the charismatic leader). There are, then, important relational and contextual elements directly relevant to the charismatic leader/believer relationship, but these are concealed in the construction and maintenance of that relationship.27 It is important to emphasize here that while Weber saw pure charisma as always tending toward routinization, the institutional change from pure charisma to routinized charisma represents more than merely a temporal process. Most importantly, routinized charismatic movements lose their genuinely revolutionary character. Even those who

Televangelism

and the Mediated

Charismatic

Relationship

149

recognize that charismatic leaders can arise from legitimated offices argue that in some significant way these leaders must repudiate the existing order of things. They must offer a new way out of the mundane or an alternative to existing tensions and crises.28 But once charisma is institutionalized it risks falling into the very traps and snares of the mundanity that it stands against. This is clearly seen in the criticisms often leveled at the urban revivalists. McLaughlin argues that the force of the urban revivalists’ message was lost due to their need to shape the message to appeal to all social classes, the mainline church leaders, business leaders, community leaders, etc.2y Furthermore, the mechanics of the relationship are changed just because charisma is now manufactured; the concern becomes maintaining charisma over time. When routinized, the charismatic relationship is less direct; charisma is embedded in an office or an organization. As Joseph Bensman and Michael Givant suggest, more and more the concern becomes maintaining one’s constituency.30 According to Thomas Dow, charisma must now be embedded within an elaborate set of social rituals or orchestrated techniques which are designed to elicit in the followers the sense that the leader has received the “gift of grace.“” The relationship between congregant and evangelist becomes increasingly mediated by an organizational structure of assistants and parapersonal forms of communication.

TELEVANCELISM PSEUDO-CHARISMATIC

AND THE RELATIONSHIP

The pseudo-charismatic relationship fundamentally differs from the routinized charismatic relationship because of the mediated nature of the relationship. But this does not preclude the establishment of important elements of pure charisma. While the lack of physical presence in the pseudo-charismatic relationship may raise questions about whether a real collectivity exists and whether the elements necessary for social activity are present,32 it can be demonstrated that they are present in a pseudo sense. First, televangelism (our exemplar of pseudo-charisma) is centered around a focal actor who articulates the personal needs, concerns, and discontents of the audience. Included are messages that address the moral, political, and personal problems facing the Christian in a secular age.33 Extraordinary qualities may be emphasized through references to previous miracles performed or superhuman tasks accomplished. Even the acquisition of land and the construction of buildings are accorded a divine mandate, and the completion of large projects is deemed a mini-miracle of sort~.~~ Second, a shared past is called upon and responsiveness is encouraged through a range of participatory activities, many involving contributions to the televangelist and his work. This is perhaps the most critical task of televangelism as it attempts to establish solidarity, a collective identity, and altruistic attitudes without physical presence and the immediate reciprocity of a pure charismatic relationship. Appeals to altruism are frequent and cover a wide range of activities from helping the poor and needy to supporting the moral and political goals of the New Christian Right. These appeals assume a symmetrical relationship between audience and televangelist. The televangelist is presented as depending on the good faith and commitment of the

150

THE SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL

Vol. 28/No. 2/1991

audience to achieve his divinely mandated goals. Important to all of these appeals is the establishment of responsiveness between televangelist and audience.35 Third, alternative consensual definitions of reality are established or called upon. The message presented by the televangelist, although certainly varied, is generally simple and dichotomous. It is a message that makes complex issues black and white and facilitates a “we the righteous” and “they the sinful” mentality. And when complex social issues are raised, simple solutions are usually suggested.36 Moreover, these new definitions of reality are often infused with a mythic past which is made relevant to present and projected future action. 37 For example, America’s religious past is often idealized, and a future is projected which restores this mythical past.38 This mythical past is used as a tool to sharply define that which is antithetical to their Kingdom vision: abortion, communism, divorce, sexual immorality, the equal rights amendment, pornography, etc. As well, this past is used to define the group as revolutionary; they are out to change America’s course and align it with their vision of God’s Kingdom. But this message is paradoxical in the sense that these ministries are firmly rooted in the American economic and social system they preach against.39 Closely tied to the construction of new consensual definitions of reality is the projection of a utopian future. This future is consistent with the future of America.“O In fact, the “American Dream” is often presented as a part of the divine plan. As mentioned above, this utopian vision is one that does not accept the way things are. It is a vision that presents the present age as preparatory for the next dispensation, or the Second Coming.41 It is the followers responsibility to prepare America such that it is spared the judgment of other sinful nations. It is not surprising, then, that the mythos surrounding electronic media is often exploited by televangelists. The confluence of evangelical theology and the mythos of the electronic revolution serves to infuse both the message of the televangelists and their means of delivering that message a transcendent and divine flavor.42 Television offers the means and hope to spread the gospel instantly to the farthest reaches of the world. Ben Armstrong refers to the technology of broadcasting as one of the “major miracles of modem times”.43 Both the means and the message are infused with divine power. This no doubt contributes to the transcendent qualities ascribed to the charismatic leader, the televangelist. As this analysis indicates, the pseudo-charismatic relationship has all the elements of pure charisma and routinized charisma. There is a unique blend of pure charismatic elements, the adoption of modem business and marketing techniques, and the use of rational, calculated techniques to elicit the responsiveness underlying the charismatic relationship. But there are important divergences from both routinized and pure charisma that are tied directly to the medium of television. These divergences include the following: (1) pseudo-charismatic relationships are mediated, and hence simultaneous and reciprocal responsiveness between the focal actor and larger collectivity is absent; (2) the medium of television is inherently nonreflexive and, consequently, there is a deep backstage element involved in the pseudo-charismatic relationship which is unavailable to the viewer; (3) the pseudo-charismatic relationship transcends time/space; it is a decontextualized relationship. The nature of the medium, then,

Televangelism and the Mediated

Charismatic Relationship

151

profoundly contributes to the transformation of pure charisma and routinized charisma. Each of these medium-linked divergences contributes to the unique form of the pseudo-charismatic relationship.

Lack of Co-presence Because the pseudo-charismatic relationship is mediated, the physical co-presence of the focal actor and the larger collectivity present in urban revivalism is lacking. This alters the relationship between the focal actor and audience in two important ways. First, the lack of particularistic monitoring in a mediated relationship may increase the likelihood of participation in the relationship and the commitments (financial and behavioral) requested. 44 The individual may be more likely to succumb to emotional and personal appeals when others are not present, especially if these others are likely to pass negative judgment on such behaviors or offer alternative definitions of the situation. But at the same time, the lack of co-presence makes these relationships easy to leave, reaffirming the fragile character of charisma. Second, the mediated nature of pseudo-charisma changes the nature of the responsiveness involved in the relationship. At best, solidary responsiveness is delayed. The charismatic relationship requires that each individual feel a special personal relationship with the leader, even if they have never met.45 Consequently, the televangelist relies on a variety of parapersonal communication techniques to create a sense of intimacy and closeness with the audience. 46Supporting media, such as the computer, mailings, personal letters, magazines, and the telephone, become vital mediating links between the televangelist and the viewer. Many televangelists offer opportunities for their audience to “buy into” the ministry by offering gifts and trinkets, by including contributors names on the walls of newly constructed buildings, or by including one’s name in the televangelist’s “personal” prayer list.47 And many of the appeals for support or offers of counseling are expressed in a style that assumes a close personal, almost intimate relationship with the audience member, and the responsibility of the viewer in keeping the ministry alive is emphasized. 48Furthermore, a sense of parallel responsiveness is established with the larger collectivity by identifying other contributors and showing ringing phones in the background. Similarly, the establishment of rapport with the studio audience is important for vicariously providing the television audience with a sense of intimacy and a sense of shared experience with a larger community. Each of these techniques elicits a sense of belonging and commitment. In this way the one-way, noninteractive medium of television is transformed by turning the audience into active and effective communicants.49 The lack of physical presence also contributes to the illusory quality of the mediated charismatic relationship. This is not to suggest that the relationship is not real in its effects on the lives of those involved in the relationship. It is effectual, but because it exists outside of time/space contexts and is maintained through an inherently nonreflexive medium, the tele-mediated charismatic relationship is decontextualized and, hence, pseudo or illusory.

THE

152

Television

SOCIAL

SCIENCE

JOURNAL

Vol. 2WNo.

2/1991

as Nonreflexive

The nonreflexiveness of television gives it a Janus-like nature; it has both the power to mystify and demystify, the power to hide and the power to expose. This ambivalence is nicely captured by Joshua Meyrowitz who argues that electronic media are radically altering our sense of time and space and our sense of what is frontstage and what is backstage.50 This dual character of television contributes to the fragility of the pseudocharismatic relationship. Authority, power, and mystification all rely on social distance and a clear separation of what is public and what is private. Greatness is manifested in onstage performance and in the isolation of backstage behaviors.s’ Television can both hide and expose these backstage regions. But here is the paradox. Even though television can both mystify and demystify, even in demystification a backstage remains that is unavailable to the audience. For example, the film Broadcast News ostensibly provides a backstage look at television journalists. Yet Broadcast News is a film with a production crew, a budget, and an extensive institutional structure behind it; yet all of this remains invisible to the audience. Any exposure made by the medium of television (or film) necessarily rests on other backstage arrangements. Television is able to expose the private domain of human relations in a way not possible by other media, but at the same time it is able to create a private sphere inaccessible to all but itself. A large part of David Letterman’s success, for example, is his ability to construct a meta-humor that plays this paradox. His exposure of the “charade” of television talk shows is truly meta-humor; the backstage is brought onstage as a prop, but a backstage necessarily remains. It is a false sense of exposure. His show is as rationally and consciously constructed as any other. As Meyrowitz argues, whatever aspects of the backstage or rehearsal become visible must be integrated into the onstage performance, but whatever remains hidden can still be used to perfect the performance. 52 While television has the ability to expose backstage behavior, an extensive backstage necessarily remains. It is this backstage that the televangelists use to their advantage. A degree of social-informational distance is essential to the pseudo-charismatic relationship. Televangelists, by controlling the medium, are able to present the illusion of intimacy and are able to construct the elements of pure charismatic relationships while keeping the rational, consciously constructed, and calculated elements behind the scenes. Televangelists are able to construct an apparently pure charismatic relationship while being rooted in a larger network or social structure which includes significant pasts and extended relationships unavailable to the viewer. Paradoxically, then, “manufactured charisma” becomes synonymous with conformity to a larger social order.53 As Frank1 insightfully notes, televangelism is embedded in the very social is hidden by the structure the evangelists preach against, 54 but this embeddedness camera’s blind spots. Consequently, an important relational past is unavailable to the audience in the pseudo-charismatic relationship; a closed awareness context exists which provides the foundation for exploitation.55 The dual character of television also contributes to the instability of the pseudocharismatic relationship. While the televangelist controls the medium to project the image he wants, he has little control over the power of the medium to expose when it is in the hands of others.56 In authoritative relationships intimacy becomes tyrannical;

Televangelism and the Mediated

Charismatic Relationship

153

the more backstage behaviors are exposed, the more ordinary one appears?’ Because televangelists are available to the same audience at frequent and regular intervals, there is greater opportunity for exposure and the merging of backstage with frontstage performances. This is exacerbated by the fact that television transcends time/space boundaries. The recent falls of Swaggart and Bakker were created by the television medium. In the earlier times of the itinerant revivalists, details of evangelists offstage behaviors may not have traveled very far and may have been filtered out altogether. The easy and regular access to televangelists via the medium of television by a potentially larger and more diverse audience makes them potentially more accountable and, hence, more mechanical than the revivalists of old. And because the agendas of the diverse groups who have access to the evangelists via television are more difficult to control, accountability may come from sources previously of little concern to the evangelist and his agenda.

Television

as Decontextualizing

Perhaps the most significant characteristic of television in terms of altering the charismatic relationship is its ability to transcend time and space. Because electronic media traverse time and space, they decontextualize. Meyrowitz argues that the electronic media have no “respect for time and place.” Electronic media destroy the specialness of place and time. Television, radio, and telephone turn once private places into more public ones by making them more accessible to the outside world. And car stereos, wristwatch televisions, and personal sound systems such as the Sony “Walkman” make public spaces private. Through such media, what is happening almost anywhere can be happening wherever we are. Yet when we are everywhere, we are also no place in particular.5x

Time and space are inherent constituents of social action and committed solidary relationships.59 Meaningful human activity is always contextualized by a setting and settings necessarily intersect with time. The question is: what is the context of the pseudo-charismatic relationship? The pseudo-charismatic relationship is neither interactional nor relational, and to that extent it exists neither in space nor time.60 True committed solidary relationships and any degree of intimacy must occur and gain meaning in interactive settings, in time and space contexts. The immediate relationship in pseudo-charisma is between the viewer and the medium (and the supporting media), not the focal actor. As Peter Horsfield points out, should the viewer actually reach out to the preacher created by the demands of television, the response will most likely come from a computer programmed to respond in a mechanized fashion to a wide variety of requests, along with offers of jewelry and appeals for financial support6’ The individual in the pseudocharismatic relationship has a relationship with a cultural artifact. There are no mutually constructed shared pasts and futures with the focal actor or the “community” because there is no mutually established context. There is no co-presence, only presence. Electronic media gives us an immediate sense of solidarity-one shares the experiences and feelings of millions of others. But the solidarity is necessarily fleeting.

154

THE

SOCIAL

SCIENCE

JOURNAL

Vol. ~&%/NO.2/1991

Because there is no temporal extension, no mutually acknowledged shared past or mutually constructed shared future, one has the illusion of intimacy. William Swatos considers this illusion to involve: . . liminality, anti-structure, and communitas. All three of these aspects of the religious experience are cultivated and managed in pseudocharisma. The pseudocharismatic leader gives a sense of crossing the threshold from everyday life to something beyond-though-unclear. There is the rhetoric of new interpretations of social relations and new interactional patterns, and there is the pseudoGemeinschaft of thinking that one belongs to a distinct community of followers. All of this, of course, is manufactured. . . .62

At best a symbolic relationship is substituted for an actual relationship.‘j” The real relationship is between the televangelist and a larger institutional order. These television programs are driven by the rational-legal demands of the television industry and the larger social-economic order. 64But it is just this “real” relationship that is obscured in the pseudo-charismatic relationship. Virginia Stem Owens suggests that culture is only maintained locally.65 The same is true of relationships. Social relationships, institutions, and culture have their form and maintain their existence only insofar as they are reproduced in the settings of day to day life. And the continuity of day to day life is maintained by our participation in relationships, institutions, and cultural practices .66 But such activity is time and space bound; it is contextualized and meaning is established within those contexts. Decontextualized relationships are necessarily “pseudo” or “para-social” relationships because they have no space-time 10~~s.~’ There is not the mutual situatedness necessary for true committed solidary relationships. This is what makes the mediated charismatic relationship a pseudo-relationship. The ability of television to recontextualize exists only to the extent that the meanings ascribed to events are successfully imposed on its audience. Producers of television programs superimpose meaning on cultural objects or events, but this superimposed meaning is not simply transferred to the consumer. The meaning, pragmatically speaking, of these objects is ultimately determined by the webs of meaning and networks of interaction within which the consumer finds herself.68 It is the decontextualization of artifacts, after all, that pose hermeneutical problems. The power of television is limited by the immediate context of consumption. The parapersonal techniques discussed above are important because of the limited availability of commitment building acts and practices so important for social movements.‘j9 But if these ministries are to have any long-term effects they must successfully nurture commitment at the local level. As Stewart Hoover argues, the success of these ministries depends on local involvement in Bible studies, church activities, and like-minded coffee clutches that root the ideas and beliefs of the individual in the pragmatic activity of a local group. Commitment and meaning are solidified at the local level.‘O There is, after all, a major difference between sending five dollars to Pat Robertson from the comfort of one’s living room and actually bumping up against the neighbors. It is in the latter situation that meanings are established and challenged.

Televangelism and the Mediated

Charismatic Relationship

155

All of these medium-related elements-the lack of physical presence, the nonreflexive nature of the medium, and the transcendence of time and space-contribute to the transformation of the charismatic relationship in televangelism from its pure form to its pseudo form. While all the elements of pure charisma are present, the mediated context gives it a pseudo character. CONCLUSION This article provides a framework for understanding pure charismatic, routinized charismatic, and pseudo-charismatic relationships. Televangelism is used as an exemplar of pseudo-charisma. The key to understanding pseudo-charismatic relationships is an understanding of their mediated character. This involves both a focus on the relationship between focal actor and viewer as well as the technological form that mediates this relationship. Pure charisma is based on an interactive relationship between charismatic leader and followers. This relationship is disembedded from any institutions or bureaucracies in the larger social order. In fact, pure charisma is anathema to such rational-legal structures. Routinized charisma, in contrast, is an institutionally encased form of charisma. It contains all the elements of pure charisma, but those elements are enmeshed in and controlled by a routinized set of social relationships. It uses rational, consciously calculated procedures to achieve the charismatic relationship. Routinized charisma does not contain the free-floating revolutionary character of pure charisma. Pseudocharisma, in contrast, possesses all the important elements of pure charisma, is rooted in a larger rational-legal bureaucratic organization, and is mediated. It is this latter characteristic that fundamentally alters the nature of the charismatic relationship. Three characteristics of television serve to alter the nature of the charismatic relationship when it is mediated: (1) absence of physical presence, (2) the nonreflexive nature of the television medium, and (3) the transcendence of time and space, or the decontextualizing nature of the medium. These three medium-related characteristics transform a pure or routinized charismatic relationship into a pseudo-charismatic relationship. Pseudo-charismatic relationships, like pure charismatic relationships, are socially established and constructed. But the sociation involved is fundamentally altered by the medium and is perhaps best viewed as “parasocial” interaction. It is the establishment of a relationship with a cultural artifact, not a real, living, co-present individual. In fact, it is argued that the real relationship involved, that between televangelist and the larger social order, is not directly available to the viewer. Acknowledgments: An earlier version of this article was presented at the 1989 Midwest American Academy of Religion Meetings in Bloomington, IN. Thanks to James Mathisen and three anonymous SSJ reviewers for comments and suggestions on an earlier draft. Special thanks to Carl J. Couch for insightful comments and direction on earlier drafts.

NOTES 1.

According to George Rapids, MI: William

Marsden (ed.), Evangelicalism and Modern America, (Grand B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1984), pp. ix-x, the term

156

2.

3.

4.

5.

6. 7.

8. 9. 10.

THE

SOCIAL

SCIENCE

JOURNAL

Vol. 28/No.

2/1991

evangelical applies to those Christians, regardless of denomination or religious background, who emphasize: I) the Reformation doctrine of the final authority of Scripture (the Bible); 2) the real historical character of God’s saving work recorded in Scripture; 3) eternal salvation only through personal trust in Christ; 4) the importance of evangelism and missions; 5) the importance of a spiritually transformed life. Of course, evangelicals of different stripes will disagree about the specifics of these emphases. As well, the term “evangelical” should not be used as a substitute for mainline protestant denominations, Reformed. While individuals and local e.g., Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, churches within these denominations may very well be evangelical, many individuals within these mainline protestant churches do not consider themselves evangelical. J.K. Hadden and C.E. Swann, Prime Time Preachers: The Rising Power of Televangelism, (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1981); J.K. Hadden and A. Shupe, “Televangelism in America,” Social Compass, 34( 1987): 61-75. See for example G. Gerbner, L. Gross, S. Hoover, M. Morgan, N. Signorielli, H. Cotugno, and R. Wuthnow, Religion and Television (The Annenberg School of Communications, University of Pennsylvania, 1984); S.M. Hoover, Mass Media Religion: The Social Sources of the Electronic Church (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1988); B. Armstrong, The Electronic Church (New York: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1979); P.G. Horsfield, Religious Television: The American Experience (New York: Longman, 1984); J.K. Hadden and A. Shupe, Televangelism: Power and Politics on Gods Frontier, (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1988); and Hadden and Swann, op. cit. C.J. Couch, Researching Social Processes in the Laboratory (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1987); C.J. Couch, “Symbolic Interaction andGeneric Sociological Principles,” Symbolic Interaction 7(1984): 1-13; G. Simmel, On Individuality and Social Forms, edited by D.N. Levine, (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1971). Since the specific concern of this article is with the relational form of the evangelist and follower, and how this relationship is transformed when mediated, I will not be concerned with the larger social and historical requisites of revivalism or with the isomorphism of revivalism and larger cultural practices and movements. For a recent look at some of these broader issues see G.M. Thomas, Revivalism and Cultural Change: Christianity, Nation Building, and the Market in the Nineteenth-Century United States (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1989). See R. Frank], Televangelism: The Marketing of Popular Religion (Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1987). See M. Weber, From Max Weber, translated and edited by H.H. Gerth and C.W. Mills, Oxford University Press, New York, 1946; M. Weber, Economy and Society, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978). Jonathon Edwards, A Narrative of Surprising Conversations, (PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1984[1736]), pp. 19 & 21. C.G. Finney, Lectures on Revivals ofReligion, edited by W.G. McLaughlin (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1960[1835]), pp. 12-13. Frankl, op. cit., p. 37; Finney, op. cit., p. 156 & 220; McLaughlin, Modern Revivalism, (New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1959), pp. 65-121; and G. Thomas, op. cit., p. 71. McLaughlin, in his Introduction to Finney’s Lectures on Revivals, notes that Finney later regretted the overly mechanical and rationalized character of revivals and feared that the means were becoming overly emphasized. It is also interesting to note that C.C. Goen, in his introduction to The Works of Jonathon Edwards, Volume 4: The Great Awakening (Yale University Press, 1972), p. 27, suggests that Edwards may have inadvertently encouraged the rationalization of revivals by essentially laying out the

Televangelism

11.

12. 13. 14.

15.

16.

17. 18.

and the Mediated

Charismatic Relationship

157

morphology of the conversion process. As Goen suggests, once this morphology was laid out, “the simple fact is that no revival could ever be a surprise again.” This is rather interesting given that Finney himself was fairly well educated, although most of his training was informal. Finney was a theology professor and president of Oberlin College while at the same time conducting revival meetings. As well, this de-emphasis on intellectual pursuits is in contrast to the importance education held for mainline protestant denominations. See N. Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business (New York: Penguin Books, 1985), pp. 54-56. This anti-intellectualism was pushed even further by Dwight Moody and Billy Sunday. Moody had the equivalent of a fifth grade education and had absolutely no use for higher criticism. Interestingly, however, he started several schools to offer Christian education and training in evangelism: the Northfield School for Girls, the Mount Hermon School for Boys, and the Bible Institute of Chicago (now the Moody Bible Institute). See J.F. Findlay, Dwight L. Moody: American Evangelist, 1837-1899 (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1969), for an excellent biography of Moody. Billy Sunday was very outspoken against intellectuals and by 1920 had repudiated intellectualism entirely, railing against evolution and science (see McLaughlin, op. cit., 1959, p. 411). For possible explanations of the anti-intellectualism of revivalists like Billy Sunday and the fundamentalists of the early 1900’s, see George Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture (Oxford University Press, 1980), pp. 7, 212-221. Frankl, op. cit., pp. 43-50. McLaughlin, op. cit., 1959, pp. 178, 238-240; Findlay, op. cit., pp. 214-216. Frankl, op. cit., pp. 51-61; McLaughlin, op. cit., 1959, pp. 426-444. Winthrop Hudson in Religion in America (New York: MacMillan Publishing Company, 1987), p. 338, suggests that Sunday’s antics, and the antics of his imitators, were largely responsible for discrediting revivalism. Billy Graham provides an interesting link between the early urban revivalists and the televangelists of today. While Graham’s revivals are often televised or made into films, he has apparently never been comfortable within the format of a television show. In any case, Graham has perfected the organizational techniques of revivalism and televangelism. McLaughlin notes that along with a central headquarters in Minneapolis and several regional offices, Graham utilizes several supporting media such as the newspaper (he has had a syndicated newspaper column), the radio (his Hour of Decision broadcasts), mechanized responses to letters and personal problems of followers, professional advertisers, films, etc. See W. McLaughlin, Billy Graham: Revivalist in a Secular Age (New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1960), for a detailed look at Graham’s revival techniques. The focus on televangelism in this paper should not cloud the important fact that organized religion has been involved in the use of other media such as the radio and publishing. In fact, by 1921 organized religion was already well-established on radio. For a look at the church’s involvement in radio broadcasting and eventually television, see Q. Schultze, “The Mythos of the Electronic Church,” Critical Studies in Mass Communication 4( 1987): 245-261, and Armstrong, op. cit. I focus on television because I think it firmly establishes the pseudo-charismatic relationship. Frankl, op. cit., p. 57. Weber, op. cit., 1978, pp. 1111-l 117, 1121 & 1122. On routinized charisma, see also, R.A. Jones and R.M. Anservitz, “Saint-Simon and Saint-Simonism: A Weberian View,” American Journal of Sociology, 80( 1975): 1095-l 123; P. Berger, “Charisma and Religious Innovation: The Social Location of Israelite Prophecy,” American Sociological Re-

158

19.

20.

21. 22.

23. 24.

THE

SOCIAL

SCIENCE

JOURNAL

Vol. 28/No.

211991

view, 28( 1963): 940-950; E. Shils, “Charisma, Order, and Status, American Sociological Review, 30(1965): 199-213. This dual character of charisma is not without its critics. Some want to avoid bringing charisma into any secular or rational-legal arena, e.g., C. J. Friedrich, “Political Leadership and the Problem of Charismatic Power,” The Journal of Politics, 23(1961): 3-24, and others suggest that this dual characterization conflates two quite different processes and thereby renders the term meaningless, e.g., R.C. Leadership,” Tucker, “The Theory of Charismatic Daedalus, 97( 1968): 73 l-756; J. Bensman and M. Givant, “Charisma and Modernity: The Use and Abuse of a Concept,” Social Research 42( 1975): 570-614; and C. Ake, “Charismatic Legitimation and Political Integration,” Comparative Studies in Society and History, 9(1966): 1-13. But at the same time, there are those who argue for its cogency, e.g., see R. Glassman, “Legitimacy and Manufactured Charisma,” Social Research, 42(1975): 615-636; T.E. Dow, “The Theory of Charisma,” Sociological Quarterly, lO( 1969): 306-318. In any case, little effort has been made to indicate how charisma in its pure form, as described by Weber, is transformed as it becomes embedded in traditional or rational-legal structures. Just such a specification is necessary for an understanding of televangelism. On the qualities of charismatic individuals or offices, see Shils, op. cit.; Dow, op. cit., 1969; T.E. Dow, “The Role of Charisma in Modem African Development,” Social Forces, 46(1968): 328-338; J.T. Marcus, “Transcendence and Charisma,” Western Political Quarterly, 14( 1961); 236-241. For the needs of the followers, see D. McIntosh, “Weber and Freud: On the Nature and Sources of Authority,” American Sociological Review, 34(1969): 901-911; R. Hummel, “Psychology of Charismatic Followers,” Psychological Reports, 37(1975): 759-770; and C. Camic, “Charisma: Its Varieties, Preconditions, and Consequences,” Sociological Inquiry, 50( 1980): 5-23. For a discussion of the structural conditions underlying charisma, see T.K. Oommen, “Charisma, Structure, and Social Change,” Comparative Studies in Society and History, lO( 1967): 85-99; Tucker, op. cit. See for example, R.J. Bord, “Toward a Social-Psychological Theory of Charismatic Social Influence Processes,” Social Forces, 53( 1975): 485-496; R.S. Perinbanayagam, “The Dialectics of Charisma,” Sociological Quarterly, 12( 1971): pp. 387-402; and P. Wasielewski, “The Emotional Basis of Charisma,” Symbolic Interaction, 8(1985): 207222. C.J. Couch, “From Hell to Utopia and Back to Hell: The Charismatic Relationship,” Symbolic Interaction, 13(1989): 265-279. Ibid., pp. 265 & 266. Consistent with Couch, T.V. Lewis, “Charisma and Media Evangelists: An Explication and Model of Communication Influence,” Southern Communication Journal, 54(Fall 1988): 93-l 11, argues that charismatic leaders arise primarily during times of discontent and crisis. This is also consistent with Weber’s conceptualization of pure charisma. Recently, however, Thomas, op. cit., pp. 12-14, 49-50, argues that revival movements are “routine aspects of social life” organized around the emerging cultural order and everyday experience. Couch, op. cit., 1989, p. 274. I borrow the term “pseudo-charisma” from Bensman and Givant, op. cit. For them, pseudo-charisma refers to any calculated and rational construction of charismatic signals which are used to support everyday forms or institutions. While their usage applies to all forms of manufactured charisma, my use of the term is closely tied to the construction of charismatic relationships through the medium of television and involves more than just the rational construction of charismatic signals. This allows for a distinction between routinized charisma and pseudo-charisma.

Televangelism and the Mediated

25. 26.

21.

28. 29.

30. 31. 32.

33.

34. 35.

36.

Charismatic Relationship

159

As well, the use of the term “pseudo-charisma” in no way suggests that the consequences of these relationships are any less real than in pure charisma or routinized charisma. This term is used in a similar manner to Rothenbuhler’s “symbolic crowd.” See E. “Live Broadcasting, Media Events, Telecommunication, and Social Rothenbuhler, Form,” in D.R. Maines and C.J. Couch (eds.), Communication and Social Structure 1988). While there are important differences (Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, between on-scene events and mediated events, both are equally real for the participants. At the same time, the lack of co-presence radically alters the relationship. McLaughlin, op. cit., 1959, pp. 107-l 14, 409-411, 481-483; Findlay, op. cit., pp. 227-261. R.G. Clouse, “The New Christian Right, America, and the Kingdom of God,” Christian Scholar’s Review, 12(1983): 3-16. This is particularly evident in the revivalists’ reliance on the financial support of those in the business world, while at the same time criticizing materialism and warning of the evils of the world. See for example, Findlay, op. cit., pp. 275-281; McLaughlin, op. cit., 1959, pp. 11 l-l 15, 434-439. Now surely this is an idealized picture of pure charisma. There is always some backstage and frontstage manipulation even in pure charisma. What differentiates relationships, however, are the extent of the backstage that exists and the extent to which the frontstage belies the true nature of the backstage. For example, while revivals for Jonathon Edwards truly were responses to spontaneous and surprising events, for the later urban revivalists they were rationally constructed to appear spontaneous and surprising. This is even more true for televangelists where very little is left to chance and spontaneity is entirely absent. It is also important to keep in mind that these concepts are analytical in Weber’s sense and, hence, there are slippery slopes. But the issue of concern here is the form of the charismatic relationship. See for example, P. Berger, op. cit. and M. Toth, The Theory of Two Charismas, (University Press of America, 1981). Mcoughlin, op. cit., 1959, p. 524. Toth, op. cit., represents Jesus as the prototype of the pure charismatic. Important for our discussion here is Jesus’ apparent concern with avoiding a routinization of his ministry, perhaps because he didn’t want the message lost in the process of institutionalization. See for example his attacks on the institutional church in Matthew 9: 14-17, Matthew 12: 1-13, Matthew 15: 1-7, Mark 7: l-23, Mark 11: 27-33, Luke 6, l-l 1, and John 2: 12-25. Bensman and Givant, op. cit., p. 606. Dow, op. tit, 1969, p. 317. C.J. Couch, “Dimensions of Association in Collective Behavior Episodes,” Sociometry, 33(1970): 457-471; C.J. Couch, “Elementary Forms of Social Activity,” in Studies in Symbolic Interaction: The Iowa School, edited by C.J. Couch, S.L. Saxton, M.A. Katovich, (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1986). See Frankl, op. cit., p. 120; R. Abelman and K. Neuendorf, “How Religious is Religious Television Programming?’ Journal ofCommunication, 35(Winter, 1985); and Hoover, op. cit., pp. 234-235. Frankl, op. cit., p. 119; Hadden and Shupe, op. cit., 1988, pp. 130-l 32. For a fuller discussion and presentation of the wide range of techniques used by televangelists I refer the reader to Frankl, op. cit.; Hadden and Swann, op. cit.; Hoover, op. cit.; and Horsfield, op. cit. G. Goethals, “Religious Communication and Popular Piety,” Journal ofCommunication (Winter 1985): 149-156; Hadden and Swann, op. cit.; and Horsfield, op. cit.; Lewis, op. cit.

160

37. 38. 39. 40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45. 46.

47. 48. 49.

THE

SOCIAL

SCIENCE

JOURNAL

Vol. 28/No.

2/1991

D.R. Maines, N.M. Sugrue, and M.A. Katovich, “The Sociological Import of G.H. Mead’s Theory of the Past,” American Sociological Review, 48(1983): 161-173. Hadden and Swann, op. cit., p. 97. Frankl, op. cit., p. 151. Clouse, op. cit.; Schultze, op. cit.; M. Solomon, “Robert Schuller: The American Dream in a Crystal Cathedral,” Central States Speech Journal, 34(1983): 172-186; J.W. Carey and J.J. Quirk, “The Mythos of the Electronic Revolution,” The American Scholar, 39(1970): 219-241; 395-424. Such views offer relatively few problems for postmillennialists who believe Christ’s second coming is an extension and the finale of the historical Christianization of the world which takes place through preaching and human action. For premillennialists (such as Falwell), however, such views represent inconsistencies in their millennial beliefs. Premillennialists hold that Christ’s second coming is not preceded by the historical Christianization of the world through man’s efforts. Rather Christ’s coming is in the wake of the appearance of the anti-Christ and other nastiness quite apart from God’s Kingdom. Incidentally, Finney was a postmillennialist, whereas Moody, Sunday, and Graham are all premillennialists. It is in this latter group that we find the tension of both supporting business and the American way and denouncing the evils of the world. For the diversity in premillennialist views of politics and worldly activity, see Marsden, op. cit., 1980. Revolution and the Christian See, for example, G.N. Patterson, “The Communications Gospel,” Christianity Today, November 22, 1968; Carey and Quirk, op. cit.; and Schultze, op. cit. Armstrong, op. cit., p. 7. Of course the actual influence of televangelism is not at all clear and has been widely exaggerated. This is especially evident in the disputes about audience size and characteristics. As Hoover, op. cit., pp. 63-70, suggests, televangelists tend to be reaching primarily older, female, uneducated, church-goers. And the size of the audience tends to be somewhere between 10 and 20 million as opposed to the 130 million claimed by Ben Armstrong, op. cit., p. 7, of the National Religious Broadcasters. McLaughlin, op. cit., 1959, and Findlay, op. cit., point out that the urban revivalists were also inclined to exaggerate the effect they were having on the general public, both in terms of conversions and in terms of the number of unchurched who were hearing the message. See also Gerbner et. al., op. cit. See Couch, op. cit., 1970. See also Bord, op. cit., p. 487, and Lewis, op. cit., pp. 96-97, on fostering “uncritical information receptivity.” As Hoover, op. cit., p. 103, suggests, these programs may provide liminal spaces within the lives of the audience; spaces where the routines of everyday life are held in abeyance and new ones considered. Classman, op. cit.; Lewis, op. cit.; Wasielewski, op. cit. Hadden and Swan, op. cit., p. 67. Important here is the fact that the response received by the viewer is impersonal. We see these techniques used already in the 1950’s by Billy Graham. As McLaughlin, op. cit., 1960, pp. 151-152, notes, Graham’s assistants sort letters into pre-established categories, e.g., financial worries, chronic drinking by spouse, wayward children, etc. For each of forty categories a form letter is sent with Graham’s signature mechanically duplicated at the end. Those that don’t fall into the pre-established categories are sent to a ministerial staff that responds with a personal reply. Important here is the illusion of personal contact with Graham. Horsfield, op. cit., pp. 31-32; Hadden and Swann, op. cit., p. 103. P.G. Horsfield, “Evangelism by Mail: Letters from the Broadcasters,” Journal of Communication 35(Winter 1985): 89-97. Hadden and Swann, op. cit., p. 67; Hoover, op. cit., p. 75-96.

Televangelism

50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56.

57. 58.

59. 60.

61. 62.

and the Mediated

Charismatic Relationship

161

J. Meyrowitz, No Sense of Place, Oxford University Press, New York, 1985. Ibid., p. 167. Ibid., p. 47. A. Berger, “Hasidism and Moonism: Charisma in the Counterculture,” SociologicaZ Analysis, 41(1981): 375-390. Frankl, op. cit., p. 151. B.G. Glaser and A.L. Strauss, “Awareness Contexts and Social Interaction,” American Sociological Review, 29(1964): 669-679. Even here the Janus-like nature of television rears its head. For even while television has been used to demystify televangelism, it maintains a mystification. It is no incidental fact that television journalists are often perceived to be more credible than our political candidates or leaders, e.g., S. Worchel, V. Andreoli, and J. Eason, “Is the Medium the Message? A Study of the Effects of Media, Communicator, and Message Characteristics on Attitude Change,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 5(1975): 157-172. This mystification is rooted in television journalists’ abilities to maintain controlled access to themselves and their performances. After all, why should we believe that Ted Koppel is any more credible or upstanding than Jimmy Swaggart, Judge Ginsberg, or Gary Hart? The key is that the television journalists have a built-in safeguard; they are the exposers of others and, hence, their backstage remains unexposed. The “ambush” of George Bush by Dan Rather during the 1988 presidential campaign is an interesting counterexample of this. Suddenly the newsmaker became the news. However, the event was reported in cool, carefully scripted style by other newscasters. R. Sennett, The Fall of Public Man: On the Social Psychology of Capitalism, (New York: Random House, 1976). Meyrowitz, op. cit., p. 125; also see H. Innis, The Bias of Communication, University of Toronto Press, 195 1. Innis argues that the mechanization of the printing industry and the advent of electronic media, such as the radio and television, have destroyed time. A focus on the ephemeral and superficial and an obsession with present-mindedness are the result of these changes in media. Meyrowitz goes further and argues that electronic media have also destroyed a sense of place or locale. The television medium, it would seem, has control over both time and space and, hence, the power to obliterate them. C.J. Couch, Constructing Civilizations (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1984); A. Giddens, Social Theory andModern Sociology (Stanford, CT: Stanford University Press, 1987). The term “space” does not necessarily refer to particular physical locations. When used sociologically, the term denotes mutually established contexts or settings. In this sense my use is consistent with Meyrowitz, op. cit., pp. 115-125, and Giddens, op. cit., p. 144. For example, two people talking on a phone are not in a single physical location, but they are situated and essentially create the context of their interaction. Horsfield, op. cit., 1984, p. 44. W .H. Swatos, “The Disenchantment of Charisma: A Weberian Assessment of Revolution in a Rationalized World,” Sociological Analysis, 42 (1981): 127. See also Hoover’s, op. cit., p. 218, discussion of “translocation.” The translocal quality of these programs refers to their ability to put people in touch with others from different walks of life and different faiths while providing them with a set of shared symbols and beliefs, affirming a communitas. But significant here is that this sense of communitas is unauthentic. As Hoover, p. 232, argues, these television ministries are not themselves communities; they rely on local groups or congregations to root their message in a context of meaning. The sense of communitus fostered by these broadcasts must ultimately be authenticated at the local level.

162

63. 64. 65. 66. 67.

68. 69. 70.

THE SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL

Vol. 2WNo. 2/1991

Bensman and Givant, op. cit., p. 603. Frankl, op. cit., p. 146. Owens, Virginia Stem, The Total Image, or Selling Jesus in the Modern Age, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1980. Giddens, op. cit., p. 145. For an insightful discussion of the nature of “para-social” interaction, see D. Horton and R. Wohl, “Mass Communication and Para-social Interaction,” Psychiatry, 19(1956): 215-229. See M. Gottdiener, “Hegemony and Mass Culture: A Semiotic Approach,” American Journal ofSociology, 90(1985): 979-1001. See R. Kanter, “Commitment and the Internal Organization of Millennial Movements,” American Behavioral Scientist, 16(1972): 219-224. Hoover, op. cit., pp. 206-220.