Was Mormonism basically the thing the American West had to define itself against?

[The Before]

I’ve been thinking about the way Mormonism appears in older Western writing, and it seems like Mormons often function less as actual people than as a kind of symbolic “other” against which the supposedly normal American West defines itself.

You get polygamy, secrecy, theocracy, sexual deviance, strange religious authority, etc., while the surrounding culture gets to present itself as individualistic (ruggedly so), democratic, masculine, and properly American.

So I’m wondering whether the “Mormon problem” in Western literature was ever really about Mormonism at all. Maybe Mormonism was just a convenient boundary marker: this is what the West is not.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

I’ve been thinking about the way Mormonism appears in older Western writing, and it seems like Mormons often function less as actual people than as a kind of symbolic “other” against which the supposedly normal American West defines itself.

You get polygamy, secrecy, theocracy, sexual deviance, strange religious authority, etc., while the surrounding culture gets to present itself as individualistic (ruggedly so), democratic, masculine, and properly American.

So I’m wondering whether the “Mormon problem” in Western literature was ever really about Mormonism at all. Maybe Mormonism was just a convenient boundary marker: this is what the West is not.

Good grief, Nolan....

[Kishkumen]

So polygamy and theocracy are mere literary tropes? Not real historical aspects of 19th-century Mormonism?

[The Before]

So polygamy and theocracy are mere literary tropes? Not real historical aspects of 19th-century Mormonism?

No, not mere tropes. They were real historical features. My point is that literature and popular culture can take real features like polygamy and theocratic governance and make them do extra symbolic work. They become shorthand for “Mormon difference” or “un-American-ness,” often in ways that flatten complexity. So I’m less interested in whether polygamy existed than in what writers made polygamy mean.

[Gadianton]

I’ve been thinking about the way Mormonism appears in older Western writing, and it seems like Mormons often function less as actual people than as a kind of symbolic “other” against which the supposedly normal American West defines itself.

You get polygamy, secrecy, theocracy, sexual deviance, strange religious authority, etc., while the surrounding culture gets to present itself as individualistic (ruggedly so), democratic, masculine, and properly American.

So I’m wondering whether the “Mormon problem” in Western literature was ever really about Mormonism at all. Maybe Mormonism was just a convenient boundary marker: this is what the West is not.

What is the point you are trying to make?

[The Before]

I’ve been thinking about the way Mormonism appears in older Western writing, and it seems like Mormons often function less as actual people than as a kind of symbolic “other” against which the supposedly normal American West defines itself.

You get polygamy, secrecy, theocracy, sexual deviance, strange religious authority, etc., while the surrounding culture gets to present itself as individualistic (ruggedly so), democratic, masculine, and properly American.

So I’m wondering whether the “Mormon problem” in Western literature was ever really about Mormonism at all. Maybe Mormonism was just a convenient boundary marker: this is what the West is not.

What is the point you are trying to make?

The point is that Mormonism was not only historically different from mainstream America; those differences also became symbols through which Americans defined what counted as “normal,” “American,” or socially acceptable. Polygamy, theocracy, communalism, etc. were real historical features, but they also did cultural work far beyond the facts themselves. I’m interested in that second layer, and I thought that since this board is a discussion of Mormonism, it would be an interesting topic.