2013ecklunddavilaemersonkyechan

Sociology of Religion Advance Access published March 20, 2013 Sociology of Religion 2013, 0:0 1-22 doi:10.1093/socrel/srt012

Motivating Civic Engagement: In-Group versus Out-Group Service Orientations among Mexican Americans in Religious and Nonreligious Organizations

Rice University

Celina Davila Rice University

Michael O. Emerson Rice University

Samuel Kye Indiana University

Esther Chan Rice University

Here, we argue for the need to examine the particular contribution of religion to immigrant civic life by comparing a religious and a nonreligious ethnic organization. Specifically, we compare the justifications a Mexican Catholic Church (MCC) provides immigrants for civic service and the focal recipients of this service to those provided by a Mexican ethnic organization (MEO). Our findings show that each organization provides different rationales for service, while offering similar services. Drawing on Putnam’s ideas about bridging and bonding capital, we show that MCC has the ideological tools for bridging outside of one’s ethnic group, but ultimately experiences a disconnect between its broad mission statement and particular service recipients. Conversely, MEO is able to align its services with its stated mission to reach Mexicans, promoting bonding capital in

*Direct correspondence to Elaine Howard Ecklund, Associate Professor of Sociology, Director, Religion and Public Life Program, Rice University, 6100 Main St. MS-28, Houston, TX 77005, USA. E-mail: ehe@rice.edu. # The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Association for the Sociology of Religion. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

1

Downloaded from http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/ at Rice University on March 3, 2014

Elaine Howard Ecklund*

2

SOCIOLOGY OF RELIGION

both mission and practice. Results have implications for research on the approach to and consequences of religiously based appeals for immigrant civic engagement.

Key words: civic participation; immigration; Catholicism; Mexican Americans.

Manuel,1 a first-generation immigrant to the United States from Central Mexico, has been part of a predominantly Spanish-speaking Mexican Catholic congregation in a large metropolitan city for the past 14 years. He describes his church’s dedication to community outreach efforts as an extension of his Catholic faith. That is, he believes God asks Catholics to serve those who are in need as a religious obligation. According to Manuel,

Sara, a second-generation Mexican American and member of a Mexican ethnic organization (MEO) without a specific religious mission, recounts the efforts she and her coworkers undertake to reach out to those in the surrounding neighborhood. According to Sara, her organization is committed to addressing the main needs of its constituency. Her group offers Mexican Americans the resources they need to succeed both educationally and economically: We just need to first find what the needs are around this area and then see how we can help and how we can serve people . . . provide those resources for the people in this community.

Manuel and Sara illustrate the similar and different ways a Mexican Catholic Church (MCC) and an MEO in the same geographic community emphasize outreach efforts to Mexican Americans. While Sara does not employ Manuel’s religious framework to explain her motivation to serve others, both demonstrate their respective organization’s commitments to reach out to the Latino community. Although these two Mexican American individuals provide different justifications for civic engagement through a religious and nonreligious organization, they express the same end goal of helping their community. Sara and Manuel use their respective organization’s ideological and physical resources to serve members of their local community. In doing so, they exemplify some of the ways new Americans (both immigrants and their children) might transform American institutions, including American civic organizations.

1

Names used throughout the article are pseudonyms, changed from the original name to protect the privacy of all respondents.

Downloaded from http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/ at Rice University on March 3, 2014

In the Catholic [church], . . . one is serving the community, which is the most beautiful and is what God wants us to do—that we serve our brothers that need it the most.

MOTIVATING CIVIC ENGAGEMENT

3

BONDING/BRIDGING CAPITAL

Downloaded from http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/ at Rice University on March 3, 2014

Although they participate in two different types of organizations, both Manuel and Sara are members of organizations that embrace their Mexican ethnicity. While the Catholic church and the MEO differ in their overriding objectives, both organizations serve a constituency that is largely Mexican.

A central task for scholars who examine civic life and more specifically, the connections between religion and civic life, is determining which factors promote engagement with or apart from the larger community. Putnam (2000:22) distinguishes between “bonding” social capital, which “tend[s] to reinforce exclusive identities and homogenous groups,” and “bridging” social capital, based on a more inclusive perspective that seeks to be “outward looking and encompass people across diverse social cleavages.” Religious organizations can give rise to bonding or bridging capital, and it is important to understand the conditions under which each type of capital is produced and used. While traditional vehicles for civic engagement, such as religion, may provide opportunities to “bridge” with the greater community (e.g., participate in local politics), these same vehicles may promote isolation through the effects of bonding capital. Understanding these processes is important because of the relationship between ethnic and civic identities: under certain conditions, immigrants who identify more heavily with their country of origin may be less likely to develop robust civic identities and may develop bifurcated identities of an “immigrant” and “American” sense of self (Huntington 2004; Phinney and Devich-Navarro 1997). This may have implications for the ability of immigrants to “bridge” with their greater community.

Thus, while scholars have touched upon the connection between religion and civic engagement among the new immigrants, little is known about whether religious participation strengthens the ability of new immigrants—and Mexican Americans in particular—to adapt to American civic and political life or to create new forms of civic engagement. And we lack a literature that compares the efficacy of religious resources for immigrants with those provided by nonreligious groups. To fully understand the differences in civic engagement between religious and nonreligious groups, and to better understand the validity of claims by scholars of religion, it is advantageous to study whether religion provides unique kinds of ideological or other resources for immigrant civic engagement. Indeed, it would be useful to study how religious and ethnic organizations differ in how they impart the skills necessary for immigrants to become civically involved in the United States. According to Marquardt (2005:29), scholars have not yet explored “what makes a church or other local religious organization different from, for instance, a school parent –teacher association that organizes a rummage sale, plans a dance, or raises money for a new flagpole.”

Here, we take an initial step in this research agenda, examining the civic engagement of first- and second-generation Mexican immigrants to the United States in order to understand the possible differences in secular and religiously

4

SOCIOLOGY OF RELIGION

A COUNTRY IN CHANGE: CIVIC ENGAGEMENT AMONG NEW IMMIGRANTS Immigration patterns in the United States have changed significantly over the past 50 years. An influx of immigrants from Latin America, Asia, and the Caribbean Basin replaced the waves of twentieth-century European immigrants from the first few decades of the twentieth century. These new immigrants have transformed the United States, making their ethnic diversity pervasively felt across U.S. institutions (Alba and Nee 2003; Portes and Rumbaut 2001).

Immigrants from Latin America comprise the largest percentage of these new immigrant waves. Recent census data show that Hispanics constitute the largest minority group in the United States, reaching 47 million in 2008—an increase of 3.2 percent from the previous year.2 2

U.S. Census Bureau, May 14, 2009.

Downloaded from http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/ at Rice University on March 3, 2014

based approaches to community service. As cases of these two types of organizations, we study a MCC and a MEO. We define civic engagement as actions unmotivated by economic gain that involve “communal activities that have some purpose or benefit beyond a single individual or family’s self-interest” (Brettell and Reed 2008:197). Examples of civic engagement include volunteering through a YMCA, serving a soup kitchen, donating money to a charitable cause, or even taking a leadership role in an organization or initiative (Putnam 2000; Ramakrishnan and Bloemraad 2008:17). Furthermore, we focus on how organizations (religious and ethnic) facilitate this process of civic engagement among individuals by creating frameworks that motivate service (Ecklund 2006). For example, involvement in organizations, whether it be voluntary or nonprofit, provides important exposure for the learning of social cues and development of networks that might lead to political participation (Rochon 1998; Verba et al. 1995). Beyond political participation, organizations also stimulate a greater awareness that may promote further civic engagement through opportunities for local community service (LeRoux 2007; Musick and Wilson 2008).

And religious organizations in particular have supported civic engagement for their congregations by providing both tangible resources (e.g., meeting spaces and leaders) as well as cultural resources such as moral and ideological frameworks (Bekkers and Wiepking 2007; Musick and Wilson 2008). In this article, we specifically ask how a religious and a nonreligious organization in the same neighborhood understand and practice civic engagement. Although this type of data is not equipped to make causal arguments, our broader goal is to gain further insight into the relevance of religion for bridging and bonding capital through the civic engagement of Mexican American immigrants.

MOTIVATING CIVIC ENGAGEMENT

5

Downloaded from http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/ at Rice University on March 3, 2014

Despite their rapidly growing population, recent data find mixed results on how this new Latino immigrant population has been incorporated into American civic engagement. In certain respects, it appears that Latinos have found ways to become more civically engaged in U.S. society. According to an analysis of census data by the Pew Hispanic Center, Latinos made up a larger share of the 2010 midterm election voters than ever before, representing 6.9 percent of all voters. Up from 5.8 percent in 2006, 50.5 million Hispanics were counted as voters by the 2010 census, a considerable increase from the 35.3 million counted as voters in 2000 (Lopez 2011).

Yet despite these gains, other findings highlight that an incredible amount of progress could still be made for Latinos to become integrated civically in the United States, even in comparison to other immigrant groups. For example, Lopez et al. (2006) found that when ranked by measures of being “hyperengaged,” “engaged,” and “hyper-disengaged” for civic engagement, Latino youth were the most likely to be “hyper-disengaged” at 21.9 percent. Another study similarly finds that with only 16 percent of their sample considered regular voters, Latinos aged 20 –25 lagged behind the same demographic of Asian Americans (19.6 percent), Whites (27.7 percent), and considerably behind African Americans (36.7 percent). This may also help explain why the Pew Hispanic Center finds that despite improvements, Latino’s overall representation in elections still falls well below their representation in the general population (Lopez 2011). Not just limited to voting, Marcelo et al. (2007) find that though the rate of volunteering among young people in the United States was 36 percent, substantial differences emerged by race. Asian Americans reported the greatest rate of volunteering at 54.4 percent, while young Latinos reported the lowest rate at 29.5 percent.

Mexican Americans more specifically have also made strides to be represented in U.S. society. One sign of this has been the growth in hometown associations (HTAs) established in the United States. These are grassroots organizations formed by Mexican migrants based on social networks from same towns or villages in Mexico. From 1998 to 2003, the total number of HTAs registered in the United States, from places such as metropolitan Los Angeles and Chicago and even less visible places such as the rural Midwest and South, have grown from 441 to 623 (Rivera-Salgado et al. 2005). These organizations are particularly important for the social integration of Mexican immigrants, as one of their important functions is to raise money to fund public works and social projects (Bada et al. 2006). These organizations, however, have also grown to focus beyond exclusively serving Mexican migrants and have now developed programs for families and others in each of their respective greater communities. Mexicans in these organizations practice a type of “civic binationality” because “migrants who participate in these associations often claim membership simultaneously in both Mexican and U.S. societies . . . with their initial engagement with hometowns abroad aiding in their transition to active engagement with US society” (Bada et al. 2006:35). Yet like the Latino

6

SOCIOLOGY OF RELIGION

population more broadly, voter turnout for Mexicans also lags far behind their representation in the general population (Suro 2005). In sum, with a quickly growing population that continues to spread across the country, how Latinos and Mexicans might ultimately impact the landscape of civic engagement in the United States remains to be seen.

CIVIC ENGAGEMENT AND RELIGION IN THE UNITED STATES

CIVIC LIFE AND RELIGION FOR IMMIGRANTS As previously mentioned, recent changes in immigration have and continue to have a dramatic effect on U.S. society. But in particular, U.S. religious diversity is increasing as a result of recent immigration. The U.S.’s newest immigrants are radically changing the ethnic and racial makeup of established

Downloaded from http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/ at Rice University on March 3, 2014

Although the United States was built on principles of the separation between church and state, civic life is nonetheless deeply intertwined with religion and scholars often see religion as having a special influence. de Tocqueville (1850:350), the early-nineteenth-century French social observer, commented that “religion in America takes no direct part in the government of society, but [is] the foremost of political institutions of that country, for it does not impart a taste of freedom, it facilitates the use of free institutions.” Here de Tocqueville sees religion as itself a form of civic engagement. And because religion is the largest voluntary institution in the United States, religious congregations are also capable of reinforcing civil society by promoting individual citizens in acts of help (Lichterman and Potts 2009; Polson 2008). Religion provides Americans who participate in religious communities with motivations and resources for civic engagement outside their religious organizations (Djupe and Tobin 2001; Morris 1984; Putnam 2000; Wilson and Janoski 1995; Wilson and Musick 1997; Wuthnow 1999). For example, religious teachings often motivate congregation members to provide practical acts of help. In the Christian tradition, this might mean Jesus’s parable of “the good Samaritan” motivating individuals to help those outside of their social group. And Islam’s tradition of giving alms may motivate mosque attenders to give aid to those most in need. Resources can include less tangible forms of aid, such as community participation, education, networks of like-minded individuals, and an awareness of community needs (Curtis et al. 2001; Ecklund 2005; Wuthnow 1999). Resources can also be tangible, such as a building used for political meetings (Verba et al. 1995). Recent immigration scholars have noted that religious institutions serve “as crucial sites for the development of ‘civic skills,’ fostering public debate and participation for the individual” (Marquardt 2005:28; see also Verba et al. 1995). As such, religious institutions go beyond serving an evident religious purpose to a broader civic one.

MOTIVATING CIVIC ENGAGEMENT

7

Downloaded from http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/ at Rice University on March 3, 2014

American Christianity and increasing the size of non-Christian religions in the United States, particularly Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam (Eck 2001; Ecklund 2006; Jasso et al. 2003; Wuthnow and Hackett 2003; Yang and Ebaugh 2001). This new religious diversity may in turn affect the established connection between religion and civic engagement in the United States (Cavalcanti and Schleef 2005; Chen 2003; Ecklund 2006). Indeed, scholars see religion as a motivating factor in promoting civic engagement among individual citizens (Schmidt et al. 2008:1). Yet, the potential of the changes in the U.S. religious landscape to significantly alter the relationship between religion and American civic and political engagement has been largely unexplored.

In light of these trends, recent immigration research has begun underlining the similarity between religion and civic engagement for immigrants to the United States and nonimmigrants (Foley and Hodge 2007; Hondagneu-Sotelo 2007; Kniss and Numrich 2007). For example, religion plays a vital role in the civic adaptation of immigrants because “religion serves as a prominent vehicle for the migrant’s incorporation into American society” (Connor 2008:4). This connection points to the way personal resources from religious institutions provide venues for civic engagement among immigrants. Although the research is growing, only a small number of recent scholars have considered the less tangible ideological resources religious communities might provide for immigrants’ developing frameworks for civic life—that is, the extent to which immigrants view themselves as part of the United States and motivated to participate in forms of civic engagement.

Such frameworks may develop at the macro or micro level. Religion may provide immigrants with the tools they need to undertake macro-level civic influence through political mobilization (Cavalcanti and Schleef 2005; Knoll 2009; Lien 2004; Rosenstone and Hansen 1993). For example, research by Menjı´var (2003) shows how a Catholic church provided a place for Salvadoran immigrants to work collectively to implement initiatives against gang violence and support issues of social justice. As Hondagneu-Sotelo et al. (2004:155) note, religion can serve as a way to “draw diverse groups to collective actions.” Lien (2004) also shows that civic engagement in terms of voting is also more likely for religiously involved Asian Americans compared with their nonreligious peers. Religion may help further incorporate immigrants into mainstream society.

Religion also allows immigrants to become more involved in civic activities at the micro level, particularly through volunteering opportunities sponsored by religious organizations. Religious congregations that serve a largely immigrant constituency provide the “formal and informal social services that facilitate the material, social and psychological adjustment of their members to American society” (Chen 2008:6). As Wuthnow (1999) argues, religious organizations motivate individuals to volunteer and partake in community service, a form of civic engagement. Religious organizations not only provide immigrants with volunteer opportunities but also equip them with the theological motivation that views helping others as “godly” or “spiritual.” Religion could also serve as an

8

SOCIOLOGY OF RELIGION

explanation and moral narrative for immigrants to help others beyond their own religious or ethnic communities (Cadge and Ecklund 2007; Ecklund 2006).

LATINOS AND MEXICAN AMERICANS: RELIGION AND CIVIC LIFE

NOVEL STUDY: COMPARISON OF RELIGIOUS AND NONRELIGIOUS CIVIC LIFE In the first study of its kind, we compare how a religious and an ethnically based organization impart motivations to immigrants for civic engagement.

3 4

U.S. Census Bureau, July 15, 2009.

U.S. Census Bureau, July 15, 2009.

Downloaded from http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/ at Rice University on March 3, 2014

Latinos in the United States are an excellent case for assessing the connection between religion and civic engagement for new U.S. immigrants. The Latino population of the U.S. has grown at a substantial rate; census data project that Latinos will comprise 30 percent of the U.S. population by the year 2050.3 Such a large and growing population group has the potential to change American religious and civic life in the near future. It is important, then, to pay close attention to the dynamics of religion and civic engagement for Latinos.

Mexican Americans specifically are a particularly good case for analyzing the connection between religion and civic life among U.S. Latinos for a number of reasons. First, the Mexican American population in the United States has grown by 3.2 percent in the span of only one year, with 64 percent of Latinos in the United States claiming Mexican descent in 2007.4 Second, religion in general is important to Mexican Americans; Mexico sends the largest percentage of Catholic immigrants to the United States (27.6 percent), and Mexican Americans are the U.S. immigrant group with the largest Protestant population (12.4 percent) as well (Jasso et al. 2003). And recent scholars have argued that immigrants from South and Central America bring new forms of religious practices to existing Catholic and Protestant religious organizations (Yang and Ebaugh 2001). Further, although Mexican Americans account for a large proportion of immigrants who have low socioeconomic status, many Mexican Americans are also middle and upper class, especially those living in Mexican communities in the southwestern part of the United States. Such differences in class are important because scholars argue that class status is directly related to the meaning and degree of civic engagement (Cadge and Ecklund 2007). For example, studies have found that those with more resources may have the opportunity to give more in civic contexts (Wilson and Janoski 1995). Consequently, the study of Mexican immigrants provides an important opportunity to further understand how religion may function in the midst of class and generational differences.

MOTIVATING CIVIC ENGAGEMENT

9

METHODS The data presented here include interviews and participant observation of services and meetings in a MEO and a predominantly Mexican, Spanish-speaking Catholic parish located in a large metropolitan city.5 To learn more about both nonreligious and religious civic engagement, we studied the organizations over the span of a year (Summer 2008 –Summer 2009). The ethnic organization and the religious organization serve constituents that are majority Latino and mostly of Mexican descent.6 Although we call one organization “religious” and one “ethnic,” both organizations are Latino, primarily Mexican American and Spanish-speaking, meaning that each is centered around ethnicity (Garces-Foley 2008). Further, religious persons were also part of the MEO. The religious organization was chosen because it is one of the largest Hispanic and Spanish-speaking Catholic congregations in the city. The ethnic organization was chosen due to its location in a majority Latino neighborhood7 and its clear mission to serve the Latino (and primarily Mexican) community. Both organizations also were selected because they complemented each other in location, serving constituents in proximity to one another.

Because these organizations are essentially in the same local geographic community, we were able to examine how each organization served its constituents and the local community in different ways.

5

The names of all the organizations and individuals interviewed have been changed.

For example, 98 percent of students served at the ethnic organization’s charter school are of Hispanic descent (from organization’s web site).

7 The “East End” area of the city is home to two of the oldest Hispanic neighborhoods in the city, and continues to be a predominantly Hispanic neighborhood.

6

Downloaded from http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/ at Rice University on March 3, 2014

Both organizations are located in Houston, Texas, making the geographic location of these organizations useful for purposes of comparison. Hispanics make up 40.8 percent of the county population where the two organizations are located. The MCC we studied hosts a Spanish-speaking congregation with most members of Mexican or Mexican American descent. Attending a Spanish-speaking congregation with other members of Mexican or Mexican American descent is the typical experience of the nearly 78 percent of Catholic Mexican Americans (Jasso et al. 2003). The MEO we studied serves a population similar to that of the church. In addition, both organizations primarily serve first- and second-generation Mexicans. In assessing how civic skills are imparted at each respective organization—both with similar populations— we are able to evaluate whether there are differences in the understanding of civic engagement. We find that each organization provides unique moral narratives and justifications for social services, but do not largely differ in the types of services provided.

10

SOCIOLOGY OF RELIGION

(1) What do you see as the central vision of your organization, the central message you would like to see leaders communicate to organization members?

(2) Who makes up your particular organization? (What kind of people, in terms of social class and race come to your activities?) What do you think about the types of people who come to your activities?

Are you reaching the constituency that you want to be reaching?

(3) What do you see as some of the most pressing challenges for people in this neighborhood?

We had entre´e into each respective organization largely because one of the researchers is Mexican Americana and a native Spanish-speaker. Many respondents implicitly included the interviewer by referring to “our community” when providing information on who was served by the ethnic organization, revealing the level of acceptance the interviewer received because of her ethnicity and through intensive participation in the community. Both organizations are filled

Downloaded from http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/ at Rice University on March 3, 2014

Data on both organizations were collected in two main ways: through personal interviews with members and leaders in each, and through participant observations of each organization as a whole. The participant observations in the religious organization included observing religious services (masses), the Spanish young adult group, and the job assistance program, among other events. Observations in the ethnic organization included events such as adult literacy classes, a tour of the facilities, and a young adult conference hosted by the organization. The interviews complemented the participant observation data by offering firsthand accounts from organization leaders and members on how each association served the local community. We conducted eight formal interviews with key informant leaders as well as rank and file members at each organization, for a total of 16 interviews (N ¼ 16). In addition, we had numerous informal discussions and interviews with leaders and members of each organization while participating.

The formal interviews were semistructured and varied in length from 20 minutes to almost two hours. Eight of the interviews were conducted in Spanish and eight in English. Each interview was transcribed, translated where necessary, and coded by more than one author for themes related to civic engagement, with particular attention paid to justifications for involvement and/or noninvolvement within the community. We used a semistructured interview guide, asking the same questions of all respondents, but then allowing respondents to bring up issues that were important to them. All interviews were conducted in person at each respective organization (either in an office setting or within the church), with the exception of one interview that was conducted over the phone. The findings for this article are mainly based on data analysis from the following questions:

MOTIVATING CIVIC ENGAGEMENT

11

with a relatively young population of constituents, which is typical among Mexican populations in the United States. The age range of those who worked at MEO and the constituents served was between 20 and 50 years old. MCC, too, was populated mainly by a younger group of parishioners. After nearly a year of observing the congregation, it became clear that the average age of the parishioners was below 40 and that many of the parishioners were much younger with very young families. All interviews and participant observations were coded by each of the authors to achieve intercoder reliability.

When we compared the two organizations, we found that the leadership of the MEO stressed less of an outreach to those outside the Latino and Mexican community in their narratives ( public lectures and interviews with leaders) than did the MCC. Although both groups had bonding social capital that was motivated by their immigrant identities, the narratives of the MCC encouraged members of the organization to reach beyond their ethnic group (bridging capital) to a greater extent. Religious rhetoric was used here, which seemed to propel members (at least in belief ) to reach out to those beyond their specific ethnic group (Chaves 2010).

Organizational Mission Discussions with church leaders, publicity materials, and homilies all stressed that insularity was not an option at MCC; instead, its Catholic identity necessitated service to the local community. For example, although the congregation was primarily Latino, the MCC had a more general goal to serve the poor in the local urban community as well as the broader geographic area beyond where the church was located. For example, homilies by the priest emphasized the importance of church members buying bags of food to distribute to the metropolitan area’s homeless. The church also encouraged its members to think of their mission as global, reaching beyond their ethnic group and even beyond their local geographic area. During one homily, the priest encouraged members to ask themselves “what is one small thing we can do, individually, as families, as small groups, as a church community to respond to suffering in the world?”8 According to one respondent, part of the mission of the MCC is the “social aspects of community service.”9 Another member explained that being a member of a certain ethnic group should not play a role in community service efforts.10 According to this respondent, “[we must help] 8

Participant observation conducted September 29, 2008.

MX_27.

10 HON_1.

9

Downloaded from http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/ at Rice University on March 3, 2014

RESULTS

12

SOCIOLOGY OF RELIGION

Tons, because the activities are planned by the community. You know, I count on them bubbling up to the surface—not top-down but bottom-up. And so what comes up is heavily tilted towards the Hispanic. As a matter of fact, it’s funny, because lately, I catch myself having to do affirmative action for Anglos.

Even though the leadership and members of MCC stressed civic engagement through community services that served those who were different in immigrant status and those outside the Mexican ethnic community, it was clear from listening to homilies and talking with church leaders that immigrant status, civic engagement, and faith ultimately interacted in such a way that the Mexican immigrant experience was highlighted. During one homily we observed, the priest told the story of a woman who was crossing the border to come into the United States and was hiding in the trunk of a car.12 As she was crossing, the coyote that was smuggling her was suddenly stopped by border patrol. The priest explained that as the border patrol agents began to search her car, this woman hugged an image of the Virgin Mary close to her heart and prayed fervently. She later told the priest that “those men searched the car all over, and they did not find me.” This is just one example of a priest intentionally identifying with a particular immigrant experience with the assumption that parishioners will likewise sympathize with the plight of a fellow undocumented immigrant. This example also shows the ways in which the congregation targets some of its symbolic presentations (like sermon anecdotes) at the Latino (and primarily Mexican) community, thus reinforcing ethnic bonding capital.

In contrast to the mixed emphasis at the MCC, narratives from members of the MEO stressed that their main purpose was to serve the Mexican 11 12

CU_1.

Participant observation conducted July 19, 2009.

Downloaded from http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/ at Rice University on March 3, 2014

the person who truly needs it—it doesn’t matter where they are from, where they are coming from, or their legal status . . . what’s important is that they come here, that they ask for help, so that they can be helped.” While immigrant identity is important, leaders at MCC still attempt to keep the mission of their church and the mission of their outreach on a global focus. For the members of the parish, many of whom came from difficult economic situations themselves, the MCC emphasizes giving generously to those in need, including those beyond their own ethnicity. Stemming from the tenets of their faith, the leaders of MCC consistently pointed its members not just to other-world rewards, but to interaction with the greater community as well.

Remaining open minded to the greater community, however, often became difficult given the growing Hispanic identity within the church. When asked about how the ethnic make-up affects church activities, the head priest, who is of Cuban ethnicity, states11

MOTIVATING CIVIC ENGAGEMENT

13

The Latinos. . . . That’s one of the reasons why I’m here—I mean, I’m helping my people.

I feel like I’m at home – like it’s—it’s my culture. I belong to it. The love for your people, in other words.

Notice that, unlike the priest at MCC quoted above, she makes no apologies for focusing specifically on the Mexican Americans through the efforts of the MEO. In contrast, although some leaders of MEO believed that doing community service for those outside the Latino community was important, they did not have much hope for such efforts. The executive director of MEO said that she would really like to see the organization’s younger members involved in their community, but “the reality is that our students come to use [the facilities] and for them this is like a sanctuary so we don’t take them from here out very often.” She did, in contrast to her colleague above, see this as a weakness of the organization, telling the interviewer that MEO was in the process of developing a volunteer program. Some of the other educators at the MEO school stressed that their mission was to reach out to all students in need, regardless of race. One educator mentioned that there had been an increase in the African American student population at the school.16 Yet, he also stressed the importance of continuing their mission of aiding a largely Mexican American populace. Most leaders and members of the MEO, however, were ambivalent about whether the organization ought to focus on serving non-Mexicans since they already sponsored so many social services for their own constituency.

Ultimately, whereas MCC tapped into deeper religious frameworks that called 13

NB_30.

MX_31.

15 MX_22.

16 SAL_1.

14

Downloaded from http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/ at Rice University on March 3, 2014

community with only ancillary services to other at-risk communities.

According to an MEO leader,13 the primary mission of the organization is to “advance the lives of at-risk Latinos through education.” Another leader at MEO, a 54-year-old 1.5-generation Mexican American who directs the education programming,14 said that “there are too many kids that were going through here [MEO] for social services—that are having a hard time staying in school—significantly, Hispanics mainly,” thus emphasizing that the organization already had enough on their hands by helping Mexican American youth.

The leaders of MEO not only acknowledge the heavy Mexican ethnicity of their organization, but also accept it with less hesitancy when compared with the MCC. This perspective is understood and even celebrated by those that move forward with the organization’s mission. When asked about the primary clientele of the school’s services, this 34-year-old female math teacher who is second-generation Mexican American15 passionately replied,

14

SOCIOLOGY OF RELIGION

for a broader perspective toward the community, leaders at MEO explained their organization, while open to all, was structured for the specific advancement of Hispanics.

17

Participant observation conducted May 29, 2009.

Participant observation conducted October 5, 2008.

19 Participant observation conducted June 22, 2009.

20 Guat 1.

18

Downloaded from http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/ at Rice University on March 3, 2014

Community Service Practices When we began this study, we assumed that the MCC and MEO might provide different kinds of community outreach programs because one organization had a religious mission, while the other was a secular ethnic organization.

Although each organization had different narratives for civic engagement, each organization surprisingly had similar practices. In two examples shown here, we find that each organization provided a job assistance program as well as English classes for the Spanish-speaking community.

During a visit to MEO, a leader told adult students that MEO would help them find summer jobs.17 Similar job assistance programs were found on other visits. Through our participation and observations, we also found job placement assistance at the MCC.18 Parishioners are encouraged to come to the parish office if they are seeking certain jobs, such as maids, nannies, and adult caregivers. The ministry assistant who oversees this program also asks parishioners to provide lists of available jobs for their fellow parishioners. During another visit to MCC, a leader explained that the church works in conjunction with another local ministry to sponsor a job assistance event every Monday in the parish hall.19 Further, our participant observations revealed that each of these organizations is primarily concerned with providing job assistance to the members of their own organization rather than assistance for the broader Mexican American community or even to immigrant communities more broadly. In addition, each organization primarily provides assistance with gaining lowincome jobs, such as doing domestic work. This finding links with broader work on ethnic churches, which shows that they often provide social services for the immigrants who are members, further promoting bonding social capital (Ebaugh and Pipes 2001; Min 1992). Our work extends these cases to show that religious and nonreligious organizations may provide functionally equivalent civic services to their constituencies.

In addition, both MEO and MCC think that they should provide English lessons to improve the educational capital of their Mexican American members (Bourdieu 1983). According to a Guatemalan woman20 in her mid-50s who is the director of a literacy program at the MEO, there is “the need for the community to learn English . . . there’s a need to work with that population that had slipped through the schools and who never finished their

MOTIVATING CIVIC ENGAGEMENT

15

You know, like I said, I think it’s just because [MEO] has—is known just to foster that safe environment. I think—eventually the word spreads around within the students, and they go home and tell their friends and their family members, and I think that’s how we get people from all different areas of the city to come here. And I anticipate—or we hope, that with the transition into the new building, that we’ll have more students, and I’m sure that they’ll come from all over the city.

At MEO, the Mexican American membership plays an important role in providing access to the organization’s services. Instead of advertisement to the broader community, spreading knowledge of MEO’s classes by word-of-mouth builds upon ethnic and familial ties already in place, thus reinforcing bonding capital.

In contrast, the MCC had more targeted efforts to reach out to the local community. Even though they were not always successful, as part of its mission, 21

MX_28.

Downloaded from http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/ at Rice University on March 3, 2014

high school education.” One of the teachers in the school, a second-generation man in his early 20s from El Salvador, explained that MEO is different from other organizations because they cater “to students who are . . . barely coming from Mexico, or students that are barely learning how to speak English.” The assistant to the executive director said that their organization is trying to educate its members, particularly through teaching them language skills. It is important to point out that the MCC emphasized preserving ethnicity and exploring the connection between religion and ethnicity. When members participated in the MCC’s economic programs, however, the emphasis shifted away from religious and ethnic identity to adapting to the U.S. environment through learning English and entering the labor market through low wage jobs.

Likewise, MEO focused on helping Mexican immigrants adapt, but did not straddle an added religious identity.

Despite similar practices, each organization differs in its emphasis on bringing outside members into the organization. While MEO makes some cursory efforts to advertise in the community, it primarily waits for people in the community to enter the organization on their own. The calculus of leaders at MEO is that the small number of social services for Mexican Americans in the area means that they should not be spending resources on recruitment for its activities. Organization leaders explained to us that outreach is not necessary since Mexican Americans seem highly motivated to use the MEO’s services. Many of its members travel several miles and endure inner city traffic to participate in English classes, for example. Interviews with leaders at MEO revealed that a consequence of this inaction was the consistent reinforcement of bonding social capital through the organization’s heavy Hispanic/Latino composition.

When asked about the composition of MEO, a branch manager of the English teaching program,21 who describes the English classes as “all Latino,” stated:

16

SOCIOLOGY OF RELIGION

22 23

MX_27.

MX_2.

Downloaded from http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/ at Rice University on March 3, 2014

the MCC tried to find ways to draw in a more diverse constituency. The MCC parishioners seemed to go to great lengths to reach out to the local community and provide social services. According to one respondent, a 48-year-old firstgeneration Mexican American immigrant, the members of the church recruited volunteers to help with filling out income tax reports for members of the local community.22 The respondent explained that their church has been one of the “biggest sites that the IRS has had do that” and that it was all done with eighty church “volunteers—nobody is paid.” Again, it is important to note that the leaders of the program placed a big emphasis on serving the local community as a central goal rather than just Mexican Americans, although when we attended the program in reality the people served were primarily Mexican Americans who attended the church. The MCC’s goal of bringing in a broader range of individuals to the congregation meant that they had some social service programs that were not primarily geared toward Mexican Americans in the local community. For example, the MCC was part of an interfaith ministry group that sponsored social services in the broader urban area where the church was located. Such efforts show that the MCC used religion as a conduit while attempting to bridge ethnic and social barriers.

Both groups served mainly Mexican Americans in practice, even though one of the MCC’s stated goals is to serve a broader constituency. For example, MCC’s job assistance program was advertised in both English and Spanish in the church bulletin. When we observed the program, however, there was not a single Anglo, Asian, or African American person present among the job seekers. And, perhaps most importantly, it would have been difficult for most members of these groups to attend the job assistance program since the event was conducted almost exclusively in Spanish. In sum, as much as a disconnect seemed to emerge in MCC’s moral narratives for broader community engagement, a similar tension was present in the physical outreach programs which served mainly Mexican Americans despite its intentions to appeal to a broader constituency. For one community-service program, the members of the youth group collected jackets during the winter to, according to this church member,23 “take to the people who are on the corners asking for work, those who have recently arrived and need a jacket.” Another youth group activity was bringing food to day laborers once a month. In both events, those in need were of Hispanic and Mexican descent. The youth from the MCC reached out to them as both a way of helping the less fortunate and a way of helping their “brothers” in ethnicity and faith. Such examples show how the MCC provides social services to those outside their ethnic group while simultaneously drawing on a Mexican ethnic identity as a form of social solidarity.

MOTIVATING CIVIC ENGAGEMENT

17

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

24

Participant observation conducted August 31, 2008.

Downloaded from http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/ at Rice University on March 3, 2014

We found that a MCC and a MEO, both in the same geographic area of Houston, Texas, sought to provide outreach and services broadly to the local community. Whereas the Catholic Church—through both its religious mission and in shared sentiment by leaders and congregants—sought to reach and include non-Mexican members in their programs, the ethnic organization had a clear focus that sought to primarily assist fellow Mexican immigrants. The Mexican Catholic organization provides a unique moral narrative to motivate such processes, emphasizing a global perspective to help others, regardless of ethnicity or immigrant status. In sum, though both organizations seemed to support the notion of looking beyond ethnicity in providing services, the MCC more fervently stressed this in sermons, handouts, and in sentiments from religious leaders; all resources the organization provided congregants for civic engagement. As Chaves (2010) has recently argued, the narratives of social services—particularly for the MCC—are different than the practices of social services, a finding that is supported by the results of this study. In contrast, the MEO more readily acknowledged that its main clientele would be fellow Mexicans, a reality that the organization seemed to embrace and accept.

Ultimately, we argue here that these narratives are still important because they control how members feel about their organizations’ efforts and the kinds of resources leaders and members put into particular activities. Furthermore, they raise important questions about the relationship between organizations and individuals for civic engagement. An important question that should be raised in further research should explore what effect, if any, possible disconnects between organizational narratives and actual civic engagement practices might have for individuals. For example, at MCC, even though the organization was not particularly effective at reaching out to non-Mexican Americans and to a lesser extent Latinos outside the Mexican community, its Catholic identity essentially required resources to contribute toward these ideals. In the words of a parish priest during one homily,24 “Christians cannot live in their own bubble, separate from the rest, we must care for our brother and remember that our ultimate goal is heaven.” In reality, however, many of MCC’s outreach activities connected primarily with other Mexicans, a tension observed both through participant observation and in interviews with congregants and leaders.

In contrast, it was ethnicity and the ideal of helping others of the same ethnicity that motivated the MEO. The lack of a central ethos for reaching beyond immigrant and ethnic borders meant few actual resources were contributed to this area. Without this, the MEO fell back on a central concern to assist fellow Mexicans. Conversely, the MCC may have more potential to bridge with non-Mexican organizations as seen through MCC’s partnership

18

SOCIOLOGY OF RELIGION

Downloaded from http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/ at Rice University on March 3, 2014

with interfaith ministry groups. While the MEO was more consistent in connecting narratives with practices, the MCC emphasized reaching out to those beyond their ethnic and religious border. In reality, however, the MCC was primarily able to provide those within its congregation with services such as job search support. The congregation supports the development of a religious and cultural identity within the safety of the organization but also strongly emphasizes involvement within the economic context of the broader society.

Although these results contribute an understanding of how ethnic and religious organizations allow their members opportunity for further civic involvement ( particularly through community engagement), it is important to note several limitations of the findings presented here. First, as a study of two Mexican institutions, our findings should be applied cautiously and not be generalized to other immigrant groups without further study. Second, it is important to note that the Mexican religious organization included in this study was a Catholic church, an inclusion we feel appropriate given that Catholicism is the dominant religion among Mexican immigrants. We do, however, acknowledge that were our religious organization of a different tradition (e.g., Protestant), our results may have varied. For example, the Catholic church is more explicitly pro-immigrant than their Protestant counterparts. Again, this underscores the need to use caution when applying our findings to groups not included in this study.

These initial findings have several larger implications. Results like these indicate that research on social capital ought to consider the possible disconnect and congruity between narratives and practices. In particular, it is evident that despite its stated intent, the MCC has difficulty reconciling its moral narrative of helping the larger community with practices that essentially focused primarily on fellow Mexican Americans. These results suggest that further studies need to explore the possible consequences of this tension. What effect, if any, might such incongruities between organizational mission and actual practice have for individuals and civic life? Finally, considering the outreach activities that were heavily oriented to others of Mexican ethnicity, scholars might ask: Under what conditions do religious or ethnic identities supersede the other in civic contexts?

This should matter to both scholars and policy makers alike as further integration of Latinos and Mexicans into U.S. society could have a substantial impact on American civic life. Researchers should replicate this study in a broader set of cases so that we can begin building a theory about the kinds of unique and similar resources for civic engagement that immigrant religious organizations provide by comparing them to nonreligious ethnic organizations. A further extension of this study would be to ask how religion is manifested in apparently secular organizations. These questions lay the foundation for a stronger theory within the sociology of religion that does not assume religious organizations are unique but instead empirically examines their specific contribution within a broader social and organizational landscape.

MOTIVATING CIVIC ENGAGEMENT

19

ACKNOWLEDGMENT We wish to thank Brad Smith for helpful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.

FUNDING

REFERENCES Alba, Richard, and Victor Nee. 2003. Remaking the American Mainstream: Assimilation and Contemporary Immigration. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Bada, Xo´chitl, Jonathon Fox, and Andrew Selee. 2006. “Invisible No More: Mexican Migrant Civic Participation in the United States.” Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Invisible%20No% 20More_0.pdf (retrieved March 15, 2012).

Bekkers, Rene, and Pamala Wiepking. 2007. “Generosity and Philanthropy: A Literature Review.” Social Sciences Research Network.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1983. “Forms of Capital.” In Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, edited by John G. Richardson, 241– 58. New York: Greenwood Press.

Brettell, Caroline B., and Deborah Reed-Danahy. 2008. “‘Communities of Practice’ for Civic and Political Engagement: Asian Indian and Vietnamese Immigrant Organizations in a Southwest Metropolis.” In Civic Hopes and Political Realities: Immigrant, Community Organization, and Political Engagement, edited by S. Karthick, and I. Bloemraad, 195 – 221. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Cadge, Wendy, and Elaine Howard Ecklund. 2007. “Religion and Immigration: Current Research and Future Directions.” Annual Review of Sociology 33:359 – 79.

Cavalcanti, H. B., and D. Schleef. 2005. “The Case for Secular Assimilation? The Latino Experience in Richmond, Virginia.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 44:473 – 84.

Chaves, Mark. 2010. “SSSR Presidential Address: Rain Dances in the Dry Season: Overcoming the Religious Congruence Fallacy.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 49:1 –14.

Chen, Carolyn. 2003. “Cultivating Acceptance by Cultivating Merit: The Public Engagement of a Chinese Buddhist Temple in America.” In Revealing the Sacred in Asian and Pacific America, edited by J. N. Iwamura and P. Spickard, 67 –85. New York: Routledge.

———. 2008. Getting Saved in America: Taiwanese Immigration and Religious Experience.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Connor, Phillip. 2008. “International Migration and Religious Participation: The Mediating Impact of Individual and Contextual Effects.” Sociological Forum 24:779 – 803.

Downloaded from http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/ at Rice University on March 3, 2014

Russell Sage Foundation, Grant #44069, Elaine Howard Ecklund, principal investigator, and Michael O. Emerson, co– principal investigator.

20

SOCIOLOGY OF RELIGION

Downloaded from http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/ at Rice University on March 3, 2014

Curtis, James E., Douglas E. Baer, and Edward G. Grabb. 2001. “Nations of Joiners: Explaining Voluntary Association Membership in Democratic Societies.” American Sociological Review 66:783 – 805. de Tocqueville, Alexis. 1850. Democracy in America. New York: Edward Waller.

Djupe, Paul A., and J. Tobin. 2001. “Religious Institutions and Political Participation in America.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 40:303 – 14.

Ebaugh, Helen Rose, and Paula Pipes. 2001. “Immigrant Congregations as Social Service Providers: Are They Safety Nets for Welfare Reform?” In Religion and Social Policy for the 21st Century, edited by P. Nesbitt, 95– 110. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press.

Eck, Diana. 2001. A New Religious America: How a “Christian Country” Has Now Become the World’s Most Religiously Diverse Nation. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.

Ecklund, Elaine Howard. 2005. “Models of Civic Responsibility: Korean Americans in Congregations with Different Ethnic Compositions.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 44:15 – 28.

———. 2006. Korean American Evangelicals: New Models for Civic Life. New York: Oxford University Press.

Foley, Michael W., and Dean R. Hodge. 2007. Religion and the New Immigrants: How Faith Communities Form Our Newest Citizens. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Garces-Foley, Kathleen. 2008. “Comparing Catholic and Evangelical Integration Efforts.”

Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 47, no. 1:17 –22.

Hondagneu-Sotelo, Pierrette. 2007. Religion and Social Justice for Immigrants. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Hondagneu-Sotelo, Pierrette, Genelle Gaudinez, Hector Lara, and Billie C. Ortiz. 2004.

“There’s a Spirit That Transcends the Border: Faith, Ritual, and Postnational Protestant at the U.S. – Mexico Border.” Sociological Perspectives 47:133 – 59.

Huntington, Samuel. 2004. Who Are We?: The Challenges to America’s National Identity.

New York: Simon & Schuster Press.

Jasso, Guillermina, Douglas S. Massey, Mark R. Rosenzweig, and James P. Smith. 2003.

“Exploring the Religious Preferences of Recent Immigrants to the United States: Evidence from the New Immigrant Survey Pilot.” In Religion and Immigration: Christian, Jewish, and Muslim Experiences in the United States, edited by Y. Y. Haddad, J. I. Smith, and J. L. Esposito, 217 –53. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press.

Kniss, Fred Lamar, and Paul D. Numrich. 2007. Sacred Assemblies and Civic Engagement: How Religion Matters for America’s Newest Immigrants. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Knoll, Benjamin R. 2009. “‘And Who Is My Neighbor?’ Religion and Immigration Policy Attitudes.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 48:313 –31.

LeRoux, Kelly. 2007. “Nonprofits as Civic Intermediaries: The Role of Community-Based Organizations in Promoting Political Participation.” Urban Affairs Review 42:410 –22.

Lichterman, Paul, and C. Brady Potts. 2009. The Civic Life of American Religion. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Lien, Pei-te. 2004. “Religion and Political Adaptation among Asian Americans: An Empirical Assessment from the Pilot National Asian American Political Survey.” In Asian American Religions: The Making and Remaking of Borders and Boundaries, edited by T. Carnes and F. Yang, 263– 84. New York: New York University Press.

Lopez, Mark H. 2011. “The Latino Electorate in 2010: More Voters, More Non-Voters.”

Pew Hispanic Center Research Center. http://www.pewhispanic.org/2011/04/26/thelatino-electorate-in-2010-more-voters-more-non-voters/ (retrieved March 13, 2012).

Lopez, Mark H., Peter Levine, Deborah Both, Abby Kiesa, Emily Kirby, and Karlo Marcelo.

2006. “The 2006 Civic and Political Health of the Nation: A Detailed Look at How Youth Participate in Politics and Communities.” Center for Information and Research

MOTIVATING CIVIC ENGAGEMENT

21

Downloaded from http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/ at Rice University on March 3, 2014

on Civic Learning and Engagement. http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/2006_CPHS_ Report_update.pdf (retrieved March 15, 2012).

Marcelo, Karlo, Mark H. Lopez, and Emily Kirby. 2007. “Civic Engagement among Minority Youth.” Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement. http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/FactSheets/FS_Civic_Eng_Minority Youth.pdf (retrieved March 15, 2012).

Marquardt, Marie Friedmann. 2005. “From Shame to Confidence: Gender, Religious Conversion, and Civic Engagement of Mexicans in the U.S. South.” Latin American Perspectives 32:27 – 56.

Menjı´var, Cecilia. 2003. “Religion and Immigration in Comparative Perspective: Catholic and Evangelical Salvadorans in San Francisco, Washington D.C., and Phoenix.”

Sociology of Religion 64:21 –45.

Min, Pyong Gap. 1992. “The Structure and Social Functions of Korean Immigrant Churches in the United States.” International Migration Review 26:1370 – 94.

Morris, Aldon. 1984. The Origins of the Civil Rights Movement: Black Communities Organizing for Change. New York: Free Press.

Musick, Marc A., and John Wilson. 2008. Volunteers: A Social Profile. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Phinney, Jean S., and Mona Devich-Navarro. 1997. “Variations in Bicultural Identification among African American and Mexican American Adolescents.” Journal of Research on Adolescence 7:3 –32.

Polson, Edward C. 2008. “The Inter-Organizational Ties That Bind: Exploring Contributions of Agency – Congregation Relationships.” Sociology of Religion 69:45 – 65.

Portes, Alejandro, and Rube´n Rumbaut. 2001. Legacies: The Story of the Immigrant Second Generation. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Putnam, Robert. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community.

New York: Simon and Schuster.

Ramakrishnan, S. Karthick, and Irene Bloemraad. 2008. Civic Hopes and Political Realities: Immigrants, Community Organizations, and Political Engagement. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Rivera-Salgado, Gaspar, Xo´chitl Bada, and Luis Escala-Rabada´n. 2005. “Mexican Migrant Civic and Political Participation in the U.S.: The Case of Hometown Associations in Los Angeles and Chicago.” Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. http:// 208elmp02.blackmesh.com/sites/default/files/Rivera%20Bada%20Escala%20-%20Hometown %20Assn%20in%20LA%20%26%20Chicago.pdf (retrieved March 14, 2012).

Rochon, Thomas. 1998. Culture Moves: Ideas, Activism, and Changing Values. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Rosenstone, Steven, and John Mark Hansen. 1993. Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America. New York: Longman.

Schmidt, Corwin E., Kevin R. den Dulk, James M. Penning, Stephen M. Monsma, and Douglas L. Koopman. 2008. Pews, Prayers, and Participation: Religion and Civic Responsibility in America. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Suro, Roberto. 2005. “What Do Surveys Tell Us about Mexican Migrant Social and Civic Participation?” Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. http://www. wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Suro%20-%20What%20Do%20Surveys%20Tell% 20Us.pdf (retrieved March 14, 2012).

Verba, S., K. L. Schlozman, and H. E. Brady 1995. Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wilson, John, and Thomas Janoski. 1995. “The Contribution of Religion to Volunteer Work.” Sociology of Religion 56:137 – 52.

22

SOCIOLOGY OF RELIGION

Wilson, John, and Marc Musick. 1997. “Who Cares? Toward an Integrated Theory of Volunteer Work.” American Sociological Review 62:694 – 713.

Wuthnow, Robert. 1999. “Mobilizing Civic Engagement: The Changing Impact of Religious Involvement.” In Civic Engagement in American Democracy, edited by T. Skocpol and M. P. Fiorina, 331 –63. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute Press.

Wuthnow, Robert, and Conrad Hackett. 2003. “The Social Integration of Practitioners of Non-Western Religions in the United States.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 42:651 –67.

Yang, Fenggang, and Helen Rose Ebaugh. 2001. “Transformations in New Immigrant Religions and Their Global Implications.” American Sociological Review 66:269 – 88.

Downloaded from http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/ at Rice University on March 3, 2014